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.

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 nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—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; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

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.

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}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  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).
  • 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.
  • 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. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • 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] Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


This GA has gone through a Peer Review with Brianboulton (talk · contribs)... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment.

  • Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.
  • I could not decipher the Statistical note section; is there some clearer way to format that? Without understanding what's going on I have a vague suspicion that this bit is WP:OR.
    • I think YM was driven to this formulation by the demands of unbending peer reviewers (no names mentioned), who objected to the elongated reference strings that disfigured the text in earlier versions of this article. The precedent is Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, recently promoted FA, in which this format is used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem with that, but if YM could just explain here the function of it, it would aid the comprehension of us FA reviewers. SGGH ping! 09:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the first pic as it won't get past Jappalang anyway. Secondly, does the second one need an alt, because the layout of graph is already in the caption anyway as the caption is needed to explain what the data is already. The last part is not OR. Ring batted at No 9/10/11 most of the time and this can be seen by looking at the data sheet for each match and seeing that he is one of the last three names in most of them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Described the graph YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, the images have alt text, but the alt text needs work. The currently alt text is just a copy of the captions. But alt text has a different function from the caption, and typically the alt text and caption should overlap little, if at all. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then give it another go. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I've improved them properly now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are the damages and deaths repeated twice in the lead, in the first sentence of each paragraph? Also, for the images in the Impact section, can you find a way (might involve playing around with the template itself), to use {{Double image stack}} as used in Raymore Drive? The way those two small images are positioned looks awkward. I'll probably add more comments, as I'm combing the article over to use it as a model for writing an effects article myself. Maxim(talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the double image link, I didn't know that existed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the prose needs more work. The year of the hurricane needs to be specfied at the beginning of the article (not just in the infobox); in the Preparations section third paragraph there are multiple repetitions of evacuate/evacuated/evacuation – nine in all; "Record-breaking" needs a hyphen; "declared disaster declarations" is not good prose. These are examples of points needing attention; in addition there are numerous no-break space omissions throughout the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Bartered Bride

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


The Bartered Bride is one of the sunniest operas, composed by one of the saddest of men. Please listen to the soundfile; you may want to hear more. The article has been a labour of love, which I hope does the work justice. Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: I participated in the peer review of this article, which was already very fine. If anything, it has become even finer. The quality of writing and research is extremely high, and the writer's enthusiasm for his subject makes this an enjoyable read. It fully deserves to be promoted to FA status. Jonyungk (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this article in a recent peer review and I think it passes the FA criteria. It is very well researched, balanced in content and neutrality, it contains suitable images, the prose is excellent. These aspects make the article fantastic to read. I believe it can be promoted for a FA. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Wow. I wish I could write prose like that. Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Indeed, sometimes I don't even run through Brian's articles because he is such a brilliant writer, and when he receives constructive criticism, he takes it and does more. ceranthor 00:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. This article is delightful to read and rich in well-documented detail. It offers the general reader an excellent introduction to this opera and pulls together its musical and cultural importance in a few tightly written paragraphs. Deserves to be promoted to FA so it may be more widely read. A fine achievement. Markhh (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Huntington's disease

Nominator(s): Garrondo (talk) and L∴V (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a great medical article covering all the main topics of this important disease. The article has been greatly improved in the last year and I believe it deserves to be considered a FA. Its strongest point is possibly the high quality of the sources used, but prose has also been extensively reviewed by several editors. Garrondo (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Materialscientist

  • Figure captions: neuron pictures need length scales or length indication in the caption (image width ...). File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg: "shown in pink" is misleading because there is also purple and those two are hard to distinguish. Meanwhile, the figure description page mentions purple and orange. I would unify the description and also change the pink color on the picture itself into some other. File:Aspiration-pneumonia-002.jpg: caption should start something like "A tomography image of xxx showing aspiration pneumonia, a common cause of death in HD" where xxx is lung or whatever (too many abbreviations, and you can't show an illness pneumonea on a picture). Should it be "from HD" instead of "in HD" ? That caption needs expansion explaining what is actually shown. Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand what do you mean with length scales.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You are completely right on your point of the putamen image. However I do not know how to modify svg images. For the moment I have changed caption to "shown in purple and orange".--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Lung image: caption changed. I have left "in HD", since it is not directly produced by the disease: the disease produces swallowing problems that may or may not lead to pneumonia.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Length scale is a calibrated bar on the image with a tag, such as "0.5 mm". If its too much work to add it, just say (image width 2 mm) in caption, or so. I can edit File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg and change color as you wish, but can not save the result in SVG. Can save in PNG (or other formats), which as I understand is similar to SVG. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The scale comment will be hard to address but I'll try to contact the authors of the image. Regarding the image change I suppose there will be no problem to change the pink part to the same color of the brain and leave only coloured the striatum, and then save it in png; nevertheless right now I believe it is clear which part is the striatum.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've emailed Dr FinkBeiner, he has been very helpful and prompt with the image, but may take a few days ... L∴V 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, colors are fine now, and I would keep them for consistency with the original figure file explanation. Pneumonia is not explained in the caption (non-specialist like me would never guess where to look at that image). Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What kind of explanation are you thinking of? I am no expert either so we could maybe ask in the medicine project for a better explanation of the image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Where and what is "pneumonia" (like "fine gray grains in the center indicate ..") BTW, the image is proposed for deletion, which needs to be addressed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Since it is proposed for deletion, in the GA proccess reviewer said it did not add much, and it is hard to address your comments I have decided to eliminate it as the simpler solution.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • References: Some author names start with initials, some with last names, some with 1st names. Please unify. Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to change them.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I have given all author names the same format.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the comma, separating the first and last name, varies. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is fixed now. Give me specific examples if otherwise please.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Style: Hungtintin is either capitalized or not.
It was decided in talk page of the article to capitalize the gene but not the protein.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Then this should be unified with Huntingtin article. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • While only briefing checking the article to make sure the significance of the Venezuelan work was included (it was!), I found multiple instances of strange use of semicolons, and a copyedit problem, suggesting a copyedit needed (a foundation cannot have a daughter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    WP:ALT says "useful", doesn't say "need". Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    WP:ALT says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." The 9 images specified in the source of Huntington's disease are all functional, as they all link to their image pages, so they are not present only for visual formatting or decoration and they all need alt text. The motivation for this is accessibility to the visually-impaired; please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added alt text, phew that's a tricky one ! L∴V 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quick! You missed the image in History, though. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops missed adding the alt= tag! L∴V 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Nominating this article on another Australian Flying Corps veteran and senior officer in the RAAF - in the mold of Richard Williams, Henry Cobby, Frank McNamara, and so on. Currently GA-Class, as well as A-Class on the Military History, Aviation, and Australia wikiprojects. Since passing those milestones, have added some further detail here and there and sorted out a niggling question on his victory claims in World War I (even added alt text to the pictures after finding out about that requirement!) so believe ready for FA-Class... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments This is in good shape and certainly very close to FA quality.

  • He seems to have transferred to the RAAF and then become one of its original officers when it was formed. How did he transfer to it if it didn't yet exist?
  • "Though he later recorded that it involved "twenty months' hard work, without pay ... with loads of scurrilous and other criticism", provision of the RAAF's radio facilities and technicians was considered a boon for contestants." I can't quite figure out what this sentence is trying to say.
  • Reworded these two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "In the event, he had to make do..." This reads as quite colloquial to me, but I wouldn't mind hearing other opinions.
  • For me it does the job, but more than happy to listen to suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • First I've heard of Who's Who being a questionable source, and I've used it in most of my recent A/FA-Class noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • References look okay otherwise.
  • Images not reviewed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review, Steve, and the copyedits - while I tweaked a couple, I think they've certainly improved the prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ashton-under-Lyne

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article on one of Greater Manchester's mill towns complies with the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and – having recently undergone a copyedit – hopefully well written. Thanks in advance to those who take the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Images need all have good alt text as per WP:ALT. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
All of the images have alt text, except the one in the infobox, which needs an update to be made to {{Infobox UK place}}.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • All images have alt text. The only one which might not work is the image in the infobox. The infobox is currently being upgraded to alt text and should be working soon; I've tried to add a workaround, but I'm not sure if it will work. Nev1 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)This is being worked on. It's in a queue for other upgrades to be made to the template, so I would hope reviewers can temporarily WP:IAR whilst it is implimented over the next few weeks. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry, I looked at the first one, saw it lacked it, and assumed the rest lacked it. Thanks for doing all that alt text: it's really good. My sincere apologies for the false alarm; I must try to be more careful. I'll mark off this part of the discussion with hat/hab to avoid distraction.
  • That workaround works just fine.
Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Query - Sorry if this is an odd question, but are you the author of Nevell works used to write the article? --Laser brain (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not an odd question at all, and no I am not. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Club (film)

Nominator(s): —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the most comprehensive source of information about David Fincher's 1999 film, based on Chuck Palahniuk's novel, to be found anywhere. The article details the making of the film, the filmmakers' themes, the marketing, the film's release in theaters and on DVD, and its cultural impact since. Please note that the film received extensive academic coverage, which is in development at Interpretations of Fight Club. I consider this sub-article a topic in its own right; extrapolation of the academic resources would overwhelm the rest of the main article.

I addressed disambiguation links and checked links to fix URLs or replace citations entirely. The only problematic URL is to the Academy Awards database since it is dynamic and expires in time. If anyone has a suggestion on how to better present the citation, since it's the most ideal for checking on the film's nomination for sound editing, let me know! Most references are from periodicals, and I used {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} templates for them. The more comprehensive references are in "Bibliography". References that may be challenged are two from MrShowbiz.com; they were published by ABC News Internet Ventures but the website is no longer in existence. (URLs were recovered from the Internet Archive.)

As a film, Fight Club is copyrighted in nature, so there were limited free images available. Per WP:NFC, The poster image qualifies as "cover art" in identifying the film in context of critical commentary. The free image of Helena Bonham Carter helps add illustration (since Pitt and Norton are already portrayed in the poster image). The bathtub image illustrates an example of the film's homoerotic overtones as part of the director's intent to distract audiences. The title sequence image illustrates a major thematic opening and the heavily technical achievement involved. The image of the DVD packaging is backed by commentary about the purpose of its design, which is relevant to its success as a highly acclaimed DVD.

Lastly, I introduced a "See also" section to introduce readers to similar films (impartially listed using an Allmovie reference). It helps improve navigation through topics that may otherwise not get attention. If reviewers are unsure or disagree, we can discuss the benefit of this section. I hope this introduction covers upfront any observations or questions that reviewers may have. I also hope that reviewers can provide constructive criticism to help shape this article to establish it as one of Wikipedia's best. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) [Note: The first FAC took place before the article ever saw any true work done, and the second FAC was closed early since a visitor nominated the article before it was ready. So please consider this its first true candidacy! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

  • Oppose for now on criterion 1a. The research appears solid, and the structure is great—but enough attention has not been paid to the quality of the prose. This could have used a thorough peer review for prose quality or independent copyedit before being listed here. I'd love to see this pass! Let's work on getting a copyedit and I'll list out more issues soon. In the mean time, these are just from the lead and first section:
    • "feels trapped with his ... position" In or within, surely?
    • "The narrator gets involved in a fight club with soap salesman Tyler Durden" doesn't seem entirely accurate. "The narrator forms a fight club with soap salesman Tyler Durden" perhaps.
    • "Several directors were sought" sounds as if they were looking to hire multiple directors.
    • "... as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." "Feeling" as a noun here is quite awkward; normally people use the plural form, but another word altogether might be better.
    • Avoid the repetition in "The director carried homoerotic overtones over" by moving "over" next to "carried".
    • "for its visual style in cinema and presaging a new mood" Needs parallel structure.
    • "They have new fights outside the bar, which attracts" The fights attracts?
    • "The fighting moves to the bar's basement with the men forming a fight club." The noun +ing construction (men forming) and "with" connector don't work here. Why not "The fighting moves to the bar's basement where the men form a fight club"?

--Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed these examples, and I will try to address any similarly weird language in the rest of the article body. Let me see what I can do on my own and get back to you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support

After reading this article I'm truly impressed with how well it reads and the in-depth and relevant use of information. The only objection i would have is that the 'plot summary' section is weak in relation to the rest of the article and would question the necessity of the links to other films. Other than this, very well written and covered film. --Flappychappy 02:18, 16 July 2009 (GMT)

Comment I don't think the See also section helps much. Readers are left to wonder why the films mentioned are similar to Fight club. Is it the themes, the directing, etc. I would vote to remove that section. Remember (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is a source, albeit not a good one. Does allmovies have regular editors and vetted content? I'd like for there to be some way to include a list like this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
First, to respond to Flappychappy, I've tried to improve the plot summary a little bit more, but I was trying to keep it fairly condensed and to avoid getting into the whole anti-consumerist message. It's the kind of film where a lot could be mentioned to continue improving a reader's understanding of the film, but at some point, it's too much. For the "See also" section, it is an admittedly new kind of addition, partially because a side goal of mine is to phase out Allmovie as an external link, and the stand-out benefit of that website were the "similar works" sections. I could not find how the website lists similar works, but my theory is that they cross-reference the details from the left column of a film's page (keywords, themes, tones, etc). Allmovie is also "powered by" AMG Data Solutions and published by Macrovision Corporation, which seems fairly credible. No end user involvement like IMDb might have. When I compared similar works to Fight Club, I could recognize how they relate. Since Allmovie doesn't explicitly explain why they're similar, it would be original research to deduce a conclusion. Laserbrain, a better use of the "See also" section may be stemmed in academic sources, like how I listed "Nazi Next Door films" at Apt Pupil (film)#See also using one. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crayola

Nominator(s): Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it's a quite comprehensive article about a very well known subject. If there are any suggestions to improve it before becoming a featured article, I'd be all too happy to try to comply. Thank you. Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: This seems very sparse to me for a featured article on such a major company and recognizable brand. Are there really no sources available to expand it to something more closely resembling, for example, BAE Systems? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm all for expanding it with relevant information, but this company makes crayons and pencils and stuff, not supersonic jets or nuclear weapons, so I don't think that comparison is really fair. I am trying to read as much as I can and add things that are notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose I agree with Steve. The (only?) manufacturing plant is barely mentioned in passing, and surely even for a private company there must be some information - how many employees? any indication of profitability - Wall Street Journal perhaps?. The brand is claimed to be global, but I don't see anything much that's not US-based. Some of the web refs have no publisher or retrieval date, or are of dubious reliability - Amazon for instance. Prose needs some work too - did I see isn't? Images lack alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There are three manufacturing plants listed in the infobox. There's not much else to say about them other than they exist, but if they should be in the main text, I can add them. I'll take a look at the refs and try to put in as much info as possible. Is the word "isn't" banned?
  • As a regular FAC contributor, I dislike opposing nominations because I know how hard it is to get articles through. However, Crayola does not appear to meet criteria 1b and 1c, and the nominator's reply gives little reason to assume that it will do so in the limited time available. I therefore reluctantly oppose the nominationn now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The number of employees is listed in the infobox, should all the information in the infobox be repeated in the prose section? -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another Comment/Question -- Regarding links to stores such as Amazon, they are being used solely to show that a product exists and is currently being sold. Since Crayola doesn't have any retail catalog, how else could such information be reliably sourced if such stores are not considered reliable sources for this limited purpose? -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding some alt text, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. For example the alt text for the lead image is "Crayola's corporate logo" but this conveys little useful information to a visually-impaired reader. It should be something like "Wide orange oval logo with green "Crayola" above a rainbow smile". Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then rewrite the alt text in the light of that discussion. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1b and 1c. You've got a great start! However, this is a long way off—it is neither comprehensive nor well-researched. For a start, hit the library and search major services such as EBSCOHost for major articles on this historically important company (ask a research librarian to help). This is perhaps a solid B-class article, but not further. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question -- Living in New York City, I have access to great libraries, but what is it to look for, can you be more specific? There's plenty of information I've read on the web, but I guess it's a bit difficult to separate the crufty stuff from some valuable thing to be noted in a good article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • General comment -- please don't interpret my responses and questions as hostile, this is the first time I've done something like this. I've tried to put this particular article up for peer review and good article status before, but without much feedback. Although this might (actually probably) won't pass FA muster now, I'm getting more feedback here in less than a day than I have ever before after weeks. Thank you all! -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another general comment -- OK, now I'm being criticized for making too many edits to the page here Talk:Crayola#Too_many_edits.3F, as I try to edit it to make it conform to the standards and ideas stated here about improving the page... Am I doing something wrong? Should I just abandon work on this article? -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The comment you reference is baseless and rather ludicrous, in my opinion. You are doing fine! Your responses here have been courteous and reasonable. I hope you don't abandon the article—it needs the careful attention you seem willing to give it. I would, however, recommend withdrawing this nomination to work on the article. In answer to your question above, you should definitely seek the help of a research librarian. They can help find the right places to look for articles and books about companies. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, it's an interesting article but not of FA standard yet. I agree with Laser Brain, please do not give up, this is exactly the kind of subject that Wikipedia excels at. Graham Colm Talk 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I wouldn't have a problem closing this early if my questions are answered, most importantly does every fact noted in the infobox need to reiterated in the text? So many people here criticized the article for not providing information that was provided in the infobox. -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Volcano (South Park)

Nominator(s): Music26/11 and Hunter Kahn (contribs)


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all of the criteria. Hunter Kahn and I have been working on this article the past few weeks/months, and now feel that it is ready for FAC.--Music26/11 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Music26/11 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Images both need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I did this but please check it; I don't normally do alt texts so I want to make sure I did it right. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for looking into it. The alt text still needs work, I'm afraid, as it is mostly not about appearance. It needs to be reworded to talk only about appearance and to discuss only material that can easily be verified by someone who can see the image but does not know the area. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (particularly the 3rd and 4th examples). Eubulides (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the alt-text, please check if it's ok now. Orichalcon (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just a few quick ref and format fixes before I can support this. Amazing work, but:
  1. The profile caption should be sourced.
  2. As I understand this is common knowledge to any South Park episode, but could you find a source for the TV-M rating?
    • Done, added to Reception section. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. First paragraph in production seems clumped.
    • I broke it apart. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than those, fantastic work! I can tell you're attempting to get Season 1 all Featured, likely to make a Featured topic, so good luck with it. The Flash {talk} 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Everything checks out, nice work. Support. The Flash {talk} 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inauguration of Barack Obama

Nominator(s): Lwalt, Aaron charles, TonyTheTiger


I am nominating this for featured article because I would find it hard to believe that with all the improvements to this article that there would not be consensus that it is among the finest on wikipedia. Although I started the article and undertook the GAC nomination myself, the article is hardly my work anymore. Before GAC the other two main editors listed here did heroic work while it was one of the highest trafficked articles on wikipedia in January. More recently they have done incredible work responding to concerns in prior FACs and PRs. I think this is ready now.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment.
  • Fixed; thanks. The infobox has a caption but no image? Surely an image is intended there.
  • The alt text needs work. For example, for File:ObamaInaugurationCapitolPreparation.jpg the alt text "Inauguration preparations at the United States Capitol" is weak because (1) it nearly duplicates the caption, and (2) it says little about the appearance of the image. Better would be "U.S. Capitol at dusk, mostly darkened but with dome floodlit from within. Just below it is a lit area with several dark figures.". Please see WP:ALT #What to specify and WP:ALT #What not to specify.
  • Pretty much all of the alt text has a problem. Much of it simply duplicates the captions, which isn't helpful to the visually impaired. Also, the newly-added image lacks alt text. Eubulides (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have done what I can. My co-authors are better copyeditors than I. If you have further concerns I will attempt to address them if they don't do so first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's much better, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. Too often, the alt text explains the image rather than describes it. If there's repetition between the alt text and the caption, that's a sign that there's something amiss: the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, whereas the caption should assume that you can see the image (or the alt text) and should not repeat what is already obvious about visual appearance. Also, alt text should not presume expertise on the subject: it should be immediately verifiable by a reader new to the topic. (For more on this please see WP:ALT #What not to specify.) For example, the lead image's alt text is currently "Barack Obama holds his right hand in the air as he and Michelle Obama both smile toward Chief Justice Roberts whose back is to the camera during the oath of office of the President of the United States." (my italics). Only the italicized part is about appearance. The rest is interpretation or explanation or identification, which doesn't belong here. A reader new to the topic won't know that the bald-headed guy is Roberts, for example. We might make an exception for the two Obamas (most educated readers know already know what they look like) but not for anybody else pictured. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Minor comments
  • "People in the United States and from around the world paid unequaled attention to the inaugural event, with reactions ranging from celebration and praise to cautious optimism and indifference." Seems like a lot of peacockery and words to avoid crammed into a single sentence: Assert facts and substantiate

:* "the historic occasion of the 56th inauguration" every inauguration is historic, this claim seems a bit excessive

:* "Everyday American citizens", "41 "everyday" American citizens" are there biannual American citizens?

:* "extends from U.S. Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial" Wikify

:* "including big name donors" notable? wealthy? celebrities? surely something more formal

  • Group of citizens on train ride includes some tangential information, especially on Kuntz and Ledbetter that interested readers can click through to find out more
Overall a solid and excellently referenced article. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Linezolid

Nominator(s): Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Linezolid is a very expensive drug of last resort used to treat serious "superbug" infections—the subject matter of WP:PHARM articles may not be very exciting, but this one sure seemed exciting to me :) I first stumbled across this article a year ago, found it to be in pretty good shape for a stub, and decided to make a project out of it. Since only two other articles on drugs are featured—Bupropion and Sertraline—I didn't have much of a template to look at, and chose to follow WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS as closely as possible instead. For a drug with less than a decade of marketing experience, there is (thankfully) plenty of literature on linezolid, and I've tried to use the best and highest-quality sources available (thanks to II, Tim Vickers, and the kind folks at the Resource Exchange for helping out in this area).

The article passed WP:GA two months ago without a hitch, and I chose to forgo Peer review and ask for an independent copyedit instead (thank you, Outriggr!). I now believe the article meets all of the Featured article criteria. Here's hoping you'll agree with me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. An excellent effort at giving an interesting compound the most thorough treatment. I believe it is currently up to FA standards. I would, however, thoroughly welcome any attempt to make the introduction (and possibly some other sections) slightly more readable for the layperson. This may require short explanations and expansion on technical terms (e.g. Gram positive). JFW | T@lk 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added a brief explanation of what "Gram-positive" means in the "Spectrum of activity" section; "Resistance" may need some de-jargoning later. I'm wary of explaining more in the introduction because it is quite long already. Do you have any suggestions on which areas of the lead need to be more lay-friendly? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jfdwolff; it's an excellent and thorough summary, the sourcing is exemplary, and it's practically monograph-worthy. The only flaw I see is the one Jfdwolff identified: it's written in fairly technical language, and seems to assume the reader has a basic familiarity with medical and pharmacologic terminology. I think this is a minor issue and one we can readily fix, and otherwise it seems to exemplify some of Wikipedia's best work, as FA's ought to do. MastCell Talk 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm trying some generous application of WP:MTAA. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've explained some of the more esoteric concepts, such as post-antibiotic effect and what it means for a drug to have 100% oral bioavailability. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with JFW and MastCell that the prose could be a tad more lay-readable, even now, but wow! this article is first class all the way. Eubulides (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This is fantastic—beautifully written and relatively accessible considering the complexity of the topic. I made a couple changes but didn't really find anything to complain about. For some reason, the ALT text in the infobox images is not working. The alt text just displays the file name. A code problem with the infobox perhaps? --Laser brain (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A little help, Eubulides? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm asking mostly out of curiosity since I wouldn't know where to look to find the answer: would it be reasonably correct when discussing the similarity with rivaroxaban to say that the pharmacophore in rivaroxaban is the morpholinone-phenyl group whereas the morpholine group is accessory in linezolid? Circeus (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not likely; PMID 16161994 should have the answer. Rivaroxaban is probably devoid of antimicrobial activity because of the bulky chlorothiophene group "attached" to the acetamide. Even minor deviations from the 5-acetamidomethyl group (for instance, adding a single extra carbon atom) pretty much destroy antibiotic potential; reference 4 (Brickner, 1996) explains this in detail. Unfortunately, trying to explain this in the article would veer into WP:OR territory. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'll look into it when I next get on campus. I'm not clear whether mentioning the similarity without discussing the source of differences is all that useful, though. Circeus (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review with two one concerns:

  • File:Linezolid.svg: I do not think "2D structure of antibiotic drug linezolid" is accurate... what kind of structure (surely the drug's 2D physical appearance does not look like that, heh)? Sorry, I am not good with chemical terminologies (might mess the description up); otherwise I would have just done this myself.
    • Actually, that's accurate. See chemical structure and skeletal formula. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Umm, not quite. If I understand nothing of chemistry, "2D structure" would mean to me that the drawing is a physical representation of the subject (i.e. what it looks like to the naked eye). Your links above, however, allowed me to do this, which clarifies the description for anyone. Jappalang (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I have a terrible, terrible habit of presuming things of the reader. Yours is actually the wording I use in all the structural formulae I upload. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:CDC-10046-MRSA2.JPG: why is this used when the larger sized version (File:CDC-10046-MRSA.jpg) is available. This image is applicable for speedy deletion in commons under commons:Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates.
    • Hmm, that change was made by Materialscientist (talk · contribs) with an edit summary of "loading too slowly". I personally find it unadvisable to switch images for downsampled or lower-resolution equivalents because of file size concerns, but I'm on a good computer and a very fast broadband connection, so page loading times are rarely an issue for me; perhaps users with a dial-up connection, for instance, are having trouble loading the page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That is because the image was used in its full size, instead of as a thumbnail (which renders in the smaller size). I have been bold and used {{Multiple image}} with the larger image, tagging the smaller with Duplicate.

Just two concerns that should be very easily resolved. Images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Fossil-coming-back-from-the-dead support for this excellent article. I have a few very minor suggestions for you to accept, ignore, or tell me how my recommendations violate the WP:MOSOMGWTFBBQ policy adopted in my absence.
  • From the lead, the sentence "Although many antibiotics have similar mechanisms of action, that of linezolid appears to be unique." strikes me as slightly awkward, since we aren't told anything about how it differs until near the end of the article.
    • I thought it was important to mention mechanism of action in the lead, and it had to be in the second paragraph as that's when I introduce the oxazolidinones. The article body, however, follows WP:MEDMOS section ordering, with pharmacokinetics/dynamics all the way towards the bottom (not least because more technical content is usually left to the end of the article). Do you think it should be dropped from the lead? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm mostly nitpicking the prose, not the overall article structure. If you don't follow the mechanisms link and/or don't understand that there are multiple ways to inhibit protein synthesis, it reads like the unique feature is the protein synthesis inhibition. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In some areas you use "as of 2009", in another "as of June 2009".
    • Hmm, slip-up. I've changed all to "As of 2009" for consistency. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In the chemistry section, the acetamide is listed as a desirable structural characteristic, but it's colored blue in the image?
    • Ah, yes. The 5-acetamidomethyl group is the best substituent, and it is essential for good activity (as noted in the caption), but several bioisosteric groups retain activity (with much higher MICs, though). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm, maybe the caption wording needs adjusting? The text as written clearly groups "essential core" vs the acetamide, fluorine, and morpholine. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks like the quinupristin/dalfopristin article is the only 'comparable' antibiotic that lacks structural images... hint, hint :) Speaking of which, is there anything interesting to the fact that the molecule is so much smaller than most of the others in the 'comparable' list?
    • I've been meaning to add an image to that article for quite some time now, but I'd like it to be a nice PyMol picture of both streptogramins interacting in their conformation... and I can't find the article where I first saw that! I think it was J Biol Chem, but some laziness on my part has contributed as well. Most protein synthesis inhibitors are quite small molecules (the macrolides are a notable exception, of course), but linezolid probably has a very "concise" structure because it's fully synthetic, and you have to remember the discovery of oxazolidinones as antibiotics was serendipitous; like the quinolones, they're not even "antibiotics" in the Waksman sense of the word (but that's another story, for another article I have in the works... :).
      • Looking forward to it! Now what's that you were saying about concise structures? I was just reading about this guy... Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe add a picture of the linezolid/ribosome structure? (As a side note, that ribosome cartoon is very pretty, but why no E site?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Adding a picture of the linezolid–ribosome complex was one of my first considerations, but the linezolid molecule looks so tiny; I could add a sort of picture-in-picture close-up or I could just add an image of the binding site, but neither option seemed ideal so I just let it go. As for the translation picture, you'll have to take it up with the very talented Mariana Ruiz. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I like the picture/inset idea, but it's not crucial. I'd take a whack at it myself, but... part of the reason I'm killing time on Wikipedia again is that my good home computer is broken, I'm using my netbook, and therefore I can't get any real work done! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for supporting, but I'm most glad to see you come out of retirement—you've been missed! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This is spooky, I read this article for real-life reasons without noticing it was an FA candidate! I found all the answers to the questions that were on my mind, such as spectrum, mode of action, resistance and cost. I didn't know much about the problems with extended use, and in this regard, the article was particularly enlightening. It is beautifully written in a style that helps the reader—well this one—to remember the salient points without having to re-read sections. I fully support its promotion to FA and will recommend it to my students and colleagues, well done. Graham Colm Talk 07:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support with COI I did the GA review. In my view it is now fully worthy of FA status Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks pretty comprehensive to me. Meodipt (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Since I've read the article, I might as well. I fixed a rather obvious typo along the line, so it might be a good idea to ask a third if they wouldn't mind giving it a reading, but I nonetheless do think it ranks amongst our best stuff. Circeus (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ouch, thanks for catching that one. A spell checker is all but useless in an article with so many technical terms, so I guess I'll go over it manually once again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Along with a few minor questions on linking: (1) Does "Gram-positive bacteria" in the lead need two adjacent links? If I needed to look up 'bacteria', I'm pretty sure I'd need to look up 'Gram-positive' as well. Why not make it a single link to Gram-positive bacteria? (2) There's another link to Gram-positive bacteria in " Spectrum of activity". Although I think a duplicate link is useful when it's well-separated from the first, don't you think in this case it's too close? Possibly Indication (medicine), Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and resistant as well. (3) Does the article benefit from links to Skin, Headache and U.S. Dollar? You are sensibly using a lot of wikilinks to help explain technical terms, and links to commonly-understood terms rather dilute the value of the useful ones. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, most of your suggestions are in line with WP:LINK, so I've gone ahead and implemented them. Thanks :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Easily passed MILHIST A-class review. I believe all major points meet FA criteria. —Ed!(talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Except for the purely-decorative tiny icons, which should have "|link=" instead of alt text (see WP:ALT #When to specify). Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, a very nice job on the images you did. But 3 images still need alt text: the Ingman portrait and the two maps. For the maps, I suggest briefly summarizing the gist of what the maps show rather than go into a lot of detail. (A general on the phone asks you to describe each map in 40 words or less: what do you say?) Eubulides (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Added. (for the maps, I forgot to put the "alt" in the caption) How does it look now? -—Ed!(talk) 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
          • It looks good. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ruffed lemur

Nominator(s): Visionholder (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the requirements for a FA. –Visionholder (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I can not understand how is it possible to have 20 to 75 references (in this article) per one single-page source. Does it mean those sources are entirely rewritten here (meaning no offense) ? Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The sources are very dense, stating most of the known facts about the species. To write the article, I accumulated quotations from each of these books pertaining to a particular topic, then wrote about that topic, citing the books that supported what I wrote. There may be a few quotes from these sources, but for the most part, I tried to just use books as sources. The method I used for writing this article was identical to what I used to write Ring-tailed Lemur, although there are far fewer sources discussing Ruffed lemurs vs. Ring-tailed Lemurs (the most well-known and studied species). –Visionholder (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. This includes the two images in the infobox. Eubulides (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - Yay! VH is back. I've been waiting for this article to pop up.
  • Monkeyland Primate Sanctuary - When you mention this, it's the only organization not linked, perhaps you could provide its location or something just to tell about it?
    • Temporarily provided the location, but seriously thinking about creating a Wiki page for it within the coming week.
  • No mammalian fossil record exists in Madagascar until recent times.' - in should either be for, or this sentence should be rewritten.
    • Fixed.
  • ...that had once spread throughout Laurasia and Africa during the Eocene epoch.[7] - been spread
    • Fixed.
  • down to anatomy: As with all lemurs, the ruffed lemur has special adaptations for grooming, including a toilet-claw on its second toe and a toothcomb. - cite?
    • Fixed.
  • Down to breeding: During the season when females practice infant stashing, males effectively lighten the reproductive burden of up to several mothers by guarding, huddling, grooming, travelling, playing and feeding with the young - playing with and feeding the young
    • Fixed.
  • Socially, they begin regularly exchanging contact calls with their mother at 3 weeks,[5] and select mother as their play partner 75–80% of the time during the first 3 months.[13] - rm "regularly"
    • Fixed.
  • I see contractions... might want to just separate them, for professionalism's sake. Ignore this nitpick if you choose. :)
    • Could you please elaborate? Maybe I'm missing it.
      • Nevermind... I read it as "contradictions", not "contractions". Anyway, it has been fixed. Two instances were found and the contractions were removed. –Visionholder (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So support from a quick, but detailed, read-over. Excellent work. ceranthor 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit! I greatly appreciate it. –Visionholder (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Memorial Church

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now fulfills all the criteria for an FA. With lots of help, including from MemChu's organist, I also believe that all the issues/concerns from this article's previous FAC have been addressed. The close paraphrasing problem is now solved, thanks to Awadewit, who has approved moving forward with this FAC. The images are much improved. The "gaps in content" (architecture, earthquakes, staff) are now closed, thanks to the research assistance of Erp. Even Scartol contributed, by creating the article's attractive tables. There's even a video of the above-mentioned Robert Huw Morgan playing one of the church's organs. The improvement of this article has been a real labor of love for all of us involved. I believe that the article is as pretty as the church is, and deserving of that silver star. --Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, as Scartol knows, I su--I'm really bad at tables and coding and such. Makes it looks much better, I think. Doncha love the collaborative nature of the project! --Christine (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The tables (formerly galleries) now have alt text, but this still needs work. For example, File:Memchu hopedetail.jpg's alt text is "hope detail", which says almost nothing about appearance: it should be something like "Pointed bottom of a colorful mosaic labeled "HOPE" whose margin has a head with flowering ivy. The mosaic is in a spandrel framed by stonework featuring the head of a woman." (or something like that: someone expert in architecture could no doubt do a better job). Also, the images that were not in galleries all need alt text. For example, the image in the lead infobox needs alt text; please see Template:Infobox religious building/testcases for a suggestion for that one. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Completed. Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant, since this is the only time I've seen something like this requested during an FAC. I don't understand, though, why you would request something that my browser doesn't even show. Ah, well, I obey. --Christine (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not for your browser; it's for the browsers of visually impaired readers who cannot see the images (see WP:ACCESSIBILITY). Please try to pretend that you're someone new to the topic who is briefly explaining what you see to someone over the telephone. Don't interpret the image or explain where it came from (that's for the caption, or the main text).
  • The current alt text still needs some work, I'm afraid. For example, for Image:Memorialchurch1903.jpg the alt text is currently "Stanford Memorial Church, as it appeared prior to the 1906 earthquake. Notice the clock tower, which was never replaced." Almost none of this alt text describes visual appearance: only "church" and "clock tower" do that. The alt text should be reworded to describe the visual appearance only. For example, "Facade of church, in front of a clock tower that is another story higher than the facade".
  • For more about this sort of thing, please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Please review and revise the other alt text examples in the light of those WP:ALT sections. Thanks.
Eubulides (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ooohh! Ding--the light bulb goes on. It's an accessibility thing. As we used to say in grad school, the ADA rules!! Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. Hope my improvements are adequate. If not, could someone else improve on my attempts? --Christine (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry my explanation was so bad. It's not an ADA thing, it's a W3C thing, but you've got the basic idea right. Thanks for working on it. I tweaked the alt text you added to try to conform a bit better to WP:ALT #What not to specify. However, two images (marked "alt=??") are still lacking alt text; could you please fill those in? (One of them has two captions but no alt text; I expect that one of the captions was intended to be the alt text, but can't tell which one, which is a sign that the alt text needs work.) Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There, now I've got it. Thanks for catching the ones I missed. Done, I think. --Christine (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. --Christine (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I copyedited this article several months ago, and I'm impressed by all the additional research and work that has been poured into it. I wish we could eliminate the horizontal scroll bar, but those images of the stained-glass windows are just too lovely to shrink. Assuming the alt-text specifics are worked out, I see no reason why this shouldn't be certified as an FA. Well-written, exhaustively researched, and lovingly polished. Kudos to all involved! Scartol • Tok 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford United F.C.

Nominator(s): Eddie6705 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone a large amount of work since the last nomination. However, as ever, there will probably be a few little things which need addressing and i will happily look at any pointers. Thanks in advance. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. This still seems a bit raw to me. What is this doing in the Supporters and rivals section, for instance (uncited)? "Oxford United's firm is called the SMHS (South Midland Hit Squad) but have smaller youth firm called The Oxford Youth Outfit." Other parts don't seem to have an encyclopedic tone:
  • "However, results didn't go their way ..."
  • "Maxwell also threatened to fold the club if the merger did not go through."
Some parts seem a little awkwardly written, for instance:
  • "After the match, manager Maurice Evans asked long-serving physiotherapist, 72-year-old Ken Fish, to collect a winner's medal instead of himself."

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Images File:BronzeOx_Kassam.JPG looks like a derived work from a 3d art work, please clarify the licence for this. I feel the images should be alternated left/right to balance the article (as far as possible). As for File:Oxford_United_FC.svg, it is unclear why this is used in preference to the older logos which are in the public domain Fasach Nua (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

that's fine, I've been dealing with too many North American articles Fasach Nua (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are flags used for all players? Have they all declared intention to play for that national side, or are they only eligiable to play for one particular nation? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
How do we know that this is the milk cup? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't guarantee that it isn't a replica, but it looks real. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if it's a replica, it's still representitive, there have been so many milk cups over the year Fasach Nua (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The Milk Cup which Oxford won was the sponsored guise of the Football League Cup for about four or five years, and that is definitely the trophy used. Here is a picture of the Oxford players celebrating with it after the match, and here is an image of Liverpool with it, in which the trophy itself can be seen slightly more clearly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – As Malleus said, the prose is rough at the moment, with many faults to sort out. In addition to his (unfixed) examples, here are a few of my own.

  • "Oxford United Football Club is an English association football team who play in the Conference National." A club is not a person; therefore "who" is incorrect, and should be "which" or "that". Also, "play" probably should be made plural.
  • "The club has been a non-league side since relegation from League Two in 2005–06." Add "its" or "their" before "relegation"? For the record, these are the first two sentences of the article. The fact that I'm finding problems this early doesn't fill me with confidence regarding the rest of the page.
  • The lead appears to be brief considering the size of the article, with a pair of stubby paragraphs. In addition, it fails to summarize the article as a whole, as it is missing any information from the Crest and colours and Supporters and rivals sections.
  • Move the relegation link to its first mention in the lead.
  • Headington United: "during the 1940s. in 1899". Check capitalization (hint, hint).
  • Is the club meant to be singular or plural? I'm seeing a lot of inconsistencies as I read. This is not the first time this issue has come up in FACs for football clubs.
  • There are a couple uses of "being" that lead to weak sentence structures, such as "Despite the plans being postponed".
  • Promotion and Robert Maxwell takeover: "Jim Smith would have managed the club with Reading boss Maurice Evans becoming his assistant." Many times, a with+-ing connection will lead to an awkward sentence, and this is one of them.
  • "The merger was called off as a result of both clubs protesting against the decision and the Reading chairman stepping down to be replaced by an opponent of the merger." Long, convoluted sentence. I sense an overuse of passive voice here and elsewhere.
  • Move Maurice Evans link up.
  • Printed reference publishers, such as Oxford Mail and The Guardian, should be presented in italics. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Soundgarden

Nominator(s): -5- (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria for a featured article. The article is well-written and comprehensive. Any objections will be quickly addressed.-5- (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are a couple unsourced paragraphs in the "Post-Soundgarden" section. Ref 1 needs a publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I addressed most of that I think, but I may need some help as far as what needs to be referenced specifically.-5- (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Support And I'll look around myself if -5- can't find anything for the "unsourced paragraphs". But I think -5- and the others have indeed adressed most of that and have done a really good job on this article and after a possible couple of fix-ups, if that, this article will be more than ready for FA status. Most of the article is well-sourced, the paragraphs go into good detail about their subjects and I do believe that most readers would be satisfied with the content here.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had another look through and if wanted, I could try to find another picture for the article, as the only one right now is at the top. Otherwise, I support this article reaching FA Status.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added another picture to the article.-5- (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Addressed as best I could. I've never done alt text before so it'll probably need a second look.-5- (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid it still needs work. Alt text should mention only visual aspects, and these visual aspects should be easily verifiable by a non-expert. Please see the 3rd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. The alt text should not say "Soundgarden" or list names of people in the picture, for example, because that doesn't convey any useful information to the visually impaired reader. Please give it another try. Eubulides (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I made another attempt. I think this one's a big improvement.-5- (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yes it is. I tweaked it a bit more. Eubulides (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've never been a fan of these "List of awards and nominations received by ______" pages. I see that the Soundgarden award list was delisted as an FL and merged here. However, that doesn't mean you have to preserve the format, or even give the awards their own section. Work the awards into the band history prose, keeping in mind that album and song awards/nominations can typically go in the respective articles instead of this one. Alss, double-check links. You shouldn't be citing awards/noms from fansites or site like Acclaimedmusic.net. All in all this will make the article look cleaner and make it more readable. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't merge the list, that was User:Reywas92. I just left it as it was because Nirvana (band) now has its article the same way. I believe all of the awards are already mentioned in the article anyway.-5- (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Memo to self: clean up Nirvana (band). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OverClocked ReMix

Nominator(s): Orichalcon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is clearly up to date on information, well referenced, and easy to read. I can't see anything further that's needed to make the article better at this moment. Orichalcon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm the primary editor of the article, so just noting that I'll keep an eye on any criticisms and suggestions regarding the nom. Thanks! - Liontamer (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

does File:OverClockedReMix.png significently increase the readers understanding of the subject? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd like to think so. For a website, it helps to illustrate what it looks like. Pretty standard to have it, and the caption provides additional information & context. - Liontamer (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Illustration is not grounds for taking private property in our articles, and neither is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, oppose failure to meet criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
4chan, a recent FA, also has an infobox image of the website, because it is useful to the reader to be able to visually tell what the article is talking about when it refers to "posting" songs or "publishing" albums. Also, dismissively citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a really rude, please refrain in the future. --PresN 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what "taking private property" implies. After reading Criteria 3, the image appears to meet no qualms. Please elaborate further on what exactly needs fixing. Orichalcon (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Image's alt text does not describe the image's appearance. Please see WP:ALT for advice on good alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, I got you. I made an edit that I believe should work. Comments welcome, thanks. - Liontamer (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: is it necessary to have the album list hidden? It's not exactly long. Sceptre (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any sort of standard on that? I've seen it done both ways. - Liontamer (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fails criterion #3. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please be more specific. Where exactly has the article failed? 203.59.135.16 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
At times, some ppl like Stifle doesn't know how to read: "To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed."
It does not fail #3. It does not need images.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remark - not knowing anything about music or sounds, and being tone-deaf, i can't support or object. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hepatorenal syndrome

Nominator(s): Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Meets all criteria in my opinion. The article recently went through WP:GAR where many additions were made. I invited many of our medical types and non-medical types to look over the text over the past month. All images are free; it was a challenge for me to find the TIPS image. I look forward to everyone's comments -- Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images all need alt text as per WP:ALT. Also, I suggest moving one of the images up into the lead infobox, as this will be more likely to cause a naive reader to look at the article. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Alt text added to all images. -- Samir 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Also image added to lead infobox -- Samir 09:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead infobox's image also needs alt text. The Pathophysiology diagrams' alt text doesn't sufficiently explain appearance to a visually impaired reader; see the diagrams near the bottom of WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. A nit: alt text typically shouldn't begin with phrases like "Image of". Eubulides (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok. I have placed ALT text on the schematics as: "Diagram: portal hypertension leads to splanchnic vasoconstriction, which decreases effective cirulatory volume. This leads to ascites due to renal sodium avidity and HRS due to renal vasoconstriction" and "Diagram: ascites, diuretic-resistant ascites and HRS are a spectrum. All occur in portal hypertension. Diuretic-resistance occurs with splanchnic vasodilation. When it progresses to renal vasoconstriction, HRS occurs." It is a little lengthy but explains the two images well. I have added the text: "Two part stained slide of altered cells of the liver on top labelled as alcoholic cirrhosis and cells of the kidney on the bottom labelled as being normal". Thoughts? Should the schematic ALT texts be shortened? -- Samir 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, if anything lengthened a bit. I adjusted them and the lead-box alt text. Thanks for the help. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Eubulides, appreciate it -- Samir 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks dealt with -- Samir 03:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Needs some work There's a basic test that medical articles should pass, which I call the "Johnny test". Mom: "The doctor says that your uncle has something called hepatorenal syndrome." Johnny: What's that? Let me look it up on Wikipedia." Can Johnny get a useful answer? To some degree yes, but there's too much jargon. The first paragraph of the lead, at least, should give Johnny an overview he can understand, without jargon. How about something like this:
“ Hepatorenal syndrome (often abbreviated HRS) is a life-threatening but treatable medical condition, in which the kidneys fail to function properly as a result of cirrhosis of the liver, which may be caused by alcoholism, injury, or infection. Patients with HRS are very ill, and if untreated the condition is usually fatal. Even with treatment, less than 50% of patients survive. The only long term solution is transplantation of a new liver. The aim of treatment is to keep the patient alive until transplantation is possible, using medications, and sometimes the surgical insertion of shunt to relieve pressure on the portal vein. In some cases periodic dialysis is necessary. ”
I'm not an expert and probably got some things wrong here: I'm mainly trying to illustrate the level I believe the intro to a medical FA should aim for. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, needs some tweaking. Working on it, need a little but not much time. Thanks -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, how does the lead read now? I think it is very good personally -- Samir 06:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment this is an excellent and comprehensive article, but I agree with the above that the prose needs simplifying. For example, the phrase 'in the setting of' appears 8 times by my count, and sounds like doctor-speak in a way that may be off-putting to laypeople. As a minor aside, the two diagrams have jpeg jaggies; convert to SVG? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Working on it. Thanks Opabinia. A pleasure to see you back around. -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll take care of those diagrams tomorrow, if Samir won't mind. I'm surprised he didn't ask ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You are the best, man! Thanks dude -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

Nominator(s): ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote this article from scratch a couple of months ago to resolve some outstanding issues and get it up to featured article standard. It's been through two reviews, first under the auspices of WP:MILHIST, the Wikiproject with which it is associated [2], and latterly a good article candidacy which it has passed with flying colours [3]. It meets the Good Article criteria and I believe it's of a sufficiently high standard now to be considered for Featured Article status. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick review
  • Currently 4 dab links, see dab checker tool.
  • Missing a number of access dates, see checklinks tool.
  • Sisterlinks to relevant content like wikiquotes/commons?--Otterathome (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
All now resolved. The checklinks tool shows a handful of false positives (essentially places where references include hyperlinks, but the hyperlinks are not themselves references). I've added a sisterlink to Commons; there doesn't seem to be anything relevant on the other sister projects. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)

  • Comment WP:DASH: Instances of space-hyphen-space should be replaced with space-ndash-space. (The n-dash can be typed using Alt-0150 on a PC.)
  • Comment Two paragraphs lack citations: the paragraph starting "In the early hours of May 19 ...", and the one following that starting "Hubbard stated ..." Some other non-trivial sentences lack citations too. This being a contentious topic, I would prefer seeing every sentence unambiguously cited.
I've resolved the two paragraphs. If there are other sentences which you feel need additional references, please list them and I'll sort it out. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I note that according to Atack, Hubbard "does not seem to have recounted" the submarine story to his followers (p. 77). It seems Atack was not aware of the tape we cite when he wrote his book. JN466 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a WP:OR concern surrounding the I-76 submarine. We are putting together
    (1) an obscure talk from Hubbard himself, chatting informally about a submarine he believes he sank in May 1943, which he refers to as the "I-76" in that primary source;
    (2) a source which does not comment on Hubbard but says (on p. 258) that the Japanese "I-176" submarine (not "I-76", as it says in the sentence cited to it) was sunk at a particular date and location in 1944, i.e. one year later;
    (3) a source not commenting on Hubbard (cited in the caption for the submarine image on the right-hand side of the page), which says that the Japanese submarine "I-176" was named "I-76" while being built, but renamed "I-176" when it was commissioned in August 1942.
    The juxtaposition of these three sources – with the third one needed to establish the logical connection between the second and the first – implies that the "I-76" submarine Hubbard referred to and believed to have sunk in 1943 was in factthe "I-176" sunk in 1944. This represents a novel historical analysis, and is not found in secondary sources discussing the topic of this article, L. Ron Hubbard's military career.
  • Comment The following links in the article lead to disambiguation pages: American Theater Battlefield Earth Coke Tilden JN466 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll look into the first, second and fourth issues you've raised. As for the third, I discussed this with you at length in the peer review, and I don't propose to continue the discussion with you here - as I have said before, you are misinterpreting the original research policy. I will just point out to other readers that there is no analysis, only a juxtaposition of autobiographical statements and the official record, just as with the rest of the article. The other peer reviewers and GA reviewer did not agree with your interpretation of WP:OR - I refer you in particular to The_ed17's comments. [4] -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It is quite possible to engage in WP:SYN by mere juxtaposition, connecting facts that are not connected in the secondary literature. Here an example: "3,000 disciples of Maitreya Yogeshwara chanted mantras to aid the world economy on Tuesday.(source 1) On Wednesday, the Dow Jones Index rose by 8% (source 2, not mentioning the chanters)." Only juxtaposition, but clear SYN.
Only 3 people ever commented at the peer review; the GA review, from transclusion to "Pass", took 20 minutes, and did not raise a single content query. JN466 01:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Jayen, we've been through this before. There's nothing further that I can say that I haven't already said to refute your arguments. I suggest that we leave this issue to one side, since we are not going to agree on your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:OR, and let others give their views. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, per my referenced comments above. An article on this subject which does not mention I-76/176's sinking date as given by the U.S. Navy is not complete; to give both sides, we need Hubbard's claim and the Navy's assertion. This isn't reaching "A and B [...] joined together in an article to reach conclusion C", this is "opinion A, assertion B, [C is missing]."
I like this quote from David Fuchs (talk · contribs) regarding SYN (link): "As long as you're not linking items in a suspect way (to advance a position, as WP:SYNTH says), you're find [sic]." Here we are not advancing a position; we are stating the opinion of a U.S. Navy commander that he sunk a submarine along with what the official record on the submarine states. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least I note that Fontenoy too does refer to the earlier I-76 designation of the submarine on p. 257, and mentions the renaming on p. 258.
Still, I'd rather there were just one reliably published source out there, among the dozens of sources on Hubbard, which said, in essence,

"Hubbard always claimed to have sunk the I-76 Japanese submarine in 1943. But in fact, war records show that this submarine, which was renamed I-176 in 1942, was sunk in 1944 by someone else."

Given the absence of such a source, our article is ahead of the field. JN466 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Your point might be valid if the section in question - Military career of L. Ron Hubbard#Pacific service: USS PC-815 - was phrased in the way you've just put it. But it's not, so your argument is based on a strawman from the outset. It's very carefully worded to avoid synthesis. It presents two principle facts, both from reliably published sources. The first is that Hubbard said he sank the I-(1)76 off Oregon. The second is that the US and Japanese navies recorded the loss of the I-(1)76 a year later on the other side of the Pacific. If there was a "however" in there, we would be introducing an analytical element - specifically a counterbalancing consideration. But there is no "however" and no analysis, merely a statement of two facts from two sources. Re-read what Ed says about synthesis. Your interpretation is at odds with how we conventionally approach such matters, since we're supposed to present conflicting perspectives non-judgmentally ("where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly"). -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You cannot "avoid synthesis by wording". Synthesis occurs by the novel juxtaposition of unrelated sources. Your very argument that you have avoided it by careful wording indicates that you are guilty of it. On the WT:NOR talk page, editors regularly argue that as long as they haven't used the words "but", "however", etc. when combining material from unrelated sources, they have successfully avoided synthesis. Here is an editor advancing that notion just yesterday in this post. See the replies by Blueboar (talk · contribs), not a novice when it comes to this: [5][6]
Here is an earlier discussion between SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), no slouch either, and Bob_K31416 (talk · contribs), again about the very same point. Bob is arguing that as long as there is no explicit conclusion drawn, only an implicit conclusion, there is no synthesis. SlimVirgin responds that an implicit conclusion is just the same as an explicit conclusion:

... it makes no difference. A SYN violation is when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached by synthesizing sourced material that wasn't explicitly reached by the source(s). (And a juxtaposition is just one form of synthesis.) SlimVirgin talk/contribs 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the current wording of WP:SYN. Another example was added recently. Check the WP:NOR talk page, too; e.g. the examples given here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#More_examples.
We have plenty of good sources explaining that Hubbard's superiors believed he and his crew were mistaken about the submarine. We have good sources stating that none of the other ships attending the action thought there was an enemy submarine in the area, etc. There is the safe and responsible ground to walk on in an FA; synthesising novel arguments from primary source research and army records that no other researcher has combined before you may make a fine book one day, if you ever want to publish your research, but the theory should not have its first airing in Wikipedia. The OR content should be removed; until it is I'll Oppose. JN466 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (Following SlimVirgin's input, I'll Abstain for now, pending further discussion.) JN466 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that no other editors have supported your unusual interpretation of NOR. Your quotes don't support your case. Note that SlimVirgin, in the quote above, is speaking of a case "when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached". There is no comparison in this case; no conclusion, implicit or explicit, is reached; the two opposing positions are stated without any conclusion being drawn. Furthermore, the OR issue was specifically addressed during the Good Article review and was passed by the reviewer. As far as I'm concerned, a decision to oppose that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR is inoperative. The consensus of everyone who's commented on this issue is against you, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, ChrisO, the GA review did not comment on this issue at all. The only other editor who has ever taken an interest in it was Ed, who commented above as well, and commented once in the peer review, a few weeks after we had stopped discussing it.
The OR elements are
(1) the importance you attribute to an obscure primary source quote, for which I was able to find all of three google hits outside Wikipedia (all of these are on other Wikis). There is not a single hit in google books for "Ron Hubbard" and "I-76": [7];
(2) the assumption that Hubbard would have known that the I-176 was formerly briefly called the I-76, and that he was talking about the I-176 when he was referring to the I-76 (rather than just bragging, playing to his audience and pulling a plausible-sounding number out of the sky)
(3) the absence of any reliable source commenting on a claim by Hubbard to have sunk the "I-76" and countering this claim with extant navy records.
It simply is original research -- it may be brilliant original research for all I know, but you didn't summarise the existing literature on Hubbard. Instead, you aim to add to it through Wikipedia. WP:OR is policy. SlimVirgin's latest. JN466 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This is from existing literature. The fact that you can't find it in Google Books or via Google is irrelevant and is another strawman argument - Google does not (yet!) contain all published material, and actually has very little Scientology literature in it (presumably for copyright reasons). As for the GA review, you're dead wrong on that point - see Talk:Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1 and note point 2c. The reviewer checked for OR and passed it. Like I said, the only person who thinks this is OR is you, so I suggest that you accept that consensus is against you and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Existing literature, yes, but not existing literature on Hubbard! Rather than vaguely implying that there are secondary sources on Hubbard and his I-76 that don't show up in Google Books (nor Questia, nor google news, nor JSTOR ...), cite them if they exist.
To summarise, in my view Chris needs a secondary source that ties all his elements on the I-76 together, otherwise he is engaged in original research (he has self-published a lot on Hubbard's war record online). It may be genuinely interesting original research, but WP:NOR doesn't say that we allow good original research. JN466 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
How about someone solicits opinions from the FA director and the two delegates? It's rather obvious that none of you are going to budge :) To Chris: other cites you could use for the sinking of I-176 are the official DANFS entries: Franks and Johnston, although I note that they conflict; Franks says "In May, screening minelayers in Buka Passage, Franks and Haggard (DD-555) contacted, attacked, and sank Japanese submarine I-176 on 16 May.", but Johnston says "[...] she took up antisubmarine patrol off Bougainville. During this duty 15 May 1944, she depth charged and sank Japanese submarine I-176." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here on the SYN issue. I don't see this as a violation of SYN. SYN involves combining source material in a way that advances a position (a suggestion, argument, conclusion, implication) that isn't advanced by any of the sources. It's a form of POV pushing, often inadvertent.
What this article does is combine source material in a way that is purely informative. What position is being advanced regarding Hubbard? The article makes clear that he believed he had sunk a Japanese submarine, and that others disagree. It also says that the British and U.S. analysed Japanese losses and there appeared to be none missing during the period Hubbard says he did this, though a submarine called I-176 was sunk a year later than the Hubbard timeframe, and that same submarine used to have the name Hubbard gave for it. Is the writer of the article supposed to keep this information to himself? "Ha, ha, I know something they'd all love to know, but I'm not going to tell them!" Perhaps yes, if we were dealing with a sensitive BLP issue, and harm could come of it, but in an article about a historical figure, it's simply interesting, and I think it would be obtuse of us not to mention it, even if the sources don't make reference to Hubbard.
SYN does say that source material must explicitly refer to the topic, but that shouldn't be rigidly interpreted to mean, "must explicitly refer to the title of the article," because that would be very disabling. SYN exists to stop editors from sliding in their POVs with the poor use of source material that isn't strictly relevant, to say something none of the sources wanted to say. It's not there to stop editors from using source material to inform readers in a way that seems to flow naturally from the narrative. I admit that this can be a fine line, often based on intuition, but I don't believe it has been crossed here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to comment. One concern I had is that we are giving a weight to an obscure primary source – i.e. the 1950s Hubbard audio talk referring to the "I-76" – that it does not have in the secondary literature, which ignores it completely. This may be simply because no one noticed the talk before Chris, but it could have other reasons too. For example, I don't know how often Hubbard talked about this incident, and whether the story and the submarine type were always the same, each time he told it. I have no way of finding out either. Yet we are devoting a sizeable part of the article to this material. We are giving a 225-word verbatim quote from the talk; whereas it would take just a dozen words to say that Hubbard once expressed a belief he had sunk the I-76 Japanese submarine. Thoughts? JN466 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Btw, the POV position put forward, such as I saw it, was that Hubbard was either a Munchhausen character, someone who enjoyed telling tall tales, or a fool; and put forward using sources that hadn't been used in that way before. Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but it reminded me of various Internet pages entitled "Ron the Nut", "Ron the War Hero" etc. All very good fun, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Then again, I am quite prepared to entertain the notion that I've asked too much of Chris here, as long as I also hear it from someone else than Chris. :) I've changed my Oppose on this issue to Abstain above, so we can leave it at that if you like. Cheers, JN466 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. When you say the "1952 Hubbard audio talk," do you mean this ref: Hubbard, L. Ron (October 23, 1956). "CRA Triangle". Fifteenth American Advanced Clinical Lectures. Bridge Publications? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. JN466 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
We had this problem a few times with LaRouche quotes that hadn't appeared in secondary sources. One editor who was very familiar with LaRouche had back copies of one of his magazines, and would use quotes from it. Some of the LaRouche supporters said it amounted to OR. It boils down to two things: (a) is there any reasonable doubt that the subject really said these things? and (b) is the quote being used to bring him into disrepute, in a way that's unsupported by any other source? As the issue of whether he did or didn't sink a Japanese submarine is being discussed by secondary sources, I see no harm in quoting Hubbard directly on the subject. It's hard for me to comment in more detail, because I'm not familiar with the source material, so I can't judge whether the long quote is being used in a way that might be unfair or out of character for him. It certainly seems okay to me, based on the little knowledge I have. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There actually isn't any alternative to quoting Hubbard's published works directly, as there is no official biography of his life, and certainly no official coverage that addresses this period of his life in any great detail. On the other hand there is a great deal of critical coverage of this period of his life from unofficial biographers and exposés. The problem I faced in (re)writing this article was how to keep it balanced given the disparity of sourcing - a massive amount of anti-Hubbard material and sparse pro-Hubbard material. The only way I could find to resolve this was to quote what Hubbard himself actually said in his own works, such as books and lectures, and let the man speak for himself to supplement the otherwise sparse pro-Hubbard material on this period. There's no issue about the authenticity of his spoken words, since they're not only given on tape/CD but are published in transcript form (which I think would technically count as a secondary source?) by his official publishing organisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I find it stretches credulity that you might have put that 200-word quote in to show Hubbard in a good light, and to balance the anti-Hubbard sources. He comes across like an ass. So if that is your intent, just say something like "Hubbard claimed in a 1956 talk that he had sunk the I-76.", bearing in mind that the research we can call upon today as to the fate of each individual ship was not then available, and delete the rest of the quote.
Also, coming back briefly to the sparsity of "pro-Hubbard" material, during the peer review I pointed you to a 2009 (2000) Oxford University Press source that said it did seem like Hubbard had sunk a submarine after all: [8].

It appears that PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the War.

– J.R.Lewis (ed.), Scientology, Oxford University Press 2009, p. 20, identical passage also in Melton (2000)

I suggested that because it was verifiable, and reputably published, we should think about dropping it in, with attribution, just to satisfy NPOV, but you were adamant and wouldn't have any of it.
Coming to the wider issue SlimVirgin raises, the use of primary source quotes is something that I generally prefer to see handled through the filter of secondary sources. In the German Wikipedia, where I sometimes do a bit of work as well, this is actually policy – the very act of selection from a primary-source corpus is considered an original analysis, and inappropriate whenever there is a sufficient body of secondary literature available. It is that body of secondary literature that should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, with due weight (e.g. what to quote) established by that literature. Personally, I think that makes sense. Bypassing existing analyses of a primary-source corpus in favour of making original selections from it strikes me as not in line with the spirit of WP:OR. So I'd have some sympathy for the LaRouchies there. Just think of a politician that you really like (if there is such a thing), and then imagine someone compiling a list of all the daftest things your favourite has ever said, all the stumbles, all the jet-lagged interviews, etc., and making these statements overwhelm the article with the justification, "But he did say that", and passing it off as an encyclopedic treatment when there are reputably published, rounded analyses available that the article could draw on. --JN466 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on, Jayen, this is just tendentious. We've discussed Melton before and the reasons for excluding his claim: the lack of any corroboration, the fact that he's not a military historian (or an historian of any kind) so has no qualifications to make such a claim, and the fact that it completely contradicts the entire corpus of WW2 Japanese naval history - a classic red flag situation. You've been obsessing over this one single point literally for months. Please just move on and let the rest of us get on with developing articles in peace without the constant wikilawyering and wall-of-text arguments. I do not propose to reply to any further comments you post, since there is clearly nothing that can be gained by doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Only pointing out the inherent contradiction in your bemoaning, above, the sparsity of "pro-Hubbard" material, while at the same time insisting that we shouldn't cite any such sources, even if reputably published, because you think they're wrong. JN466 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Jayen, I agree with you about editors picking and choosing from primary-source material, and I have quite a lot of sympathy with the German position, though I wouldn't want to go that far. I certainly agree that, where an issue in someone's life is not mentioned at all by secondary sources, we shouldn't use primary sources to draw attention to it. However, in this case, the sinking or not sinking of this submarine is discussed by secondary sources. Even if this particular quote isn't in secondary sources, the subject matter is not something that a Wikipedian has unilaterally chosen to write about.
As for J. Gordon Melton, personally I would use that. The book is published by Oxford University Press, and the editor, James R. Lewis, is a specialist in cults. I would use it simply for the sake of providing balance, though I think I also agree with Chris that it's not clear how Melton knows this, and he doesn't seem to explain, so it's not ideal. Actually, what I would do in this situation is write to Melton to ask him what his sources were, and I'd try to follow up from there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, just to clarify, I wouldn't see the disagreement over Melton as a reason to object to promoting the article. There are legitimate arguments for and against using him, and if anyone were going to write to him to request clarification, it could take some time, so I'd see that as part of the normal editing process, not something that had to be done for FA. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As it happens, I know what Melton's source is - the late L. Fletcher Prouty, an ex-USAF officer who was a fairly notorious JFK conspiracy theorist associated with the holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. The Church of Scientology turned to Prouty during the 1980s to comment on Hubbard's military career and he wrote a number of pieces for them arguing that there was a US government conspiracy to falsify Hubbard's naval records. Prouty has absolutely zero credibility as a reliable source for anything, so I'm not surprised that Melton has declined to attribute a claim that originated with him. But the main problem with Melton's claim isn't so much the lack of sources as the fact that it contradicts everything that is known about Japanese military history from World War II. The US, Japanese and Royal Navies and naval historians all state that no Japanese submarines were even anywhere near Oregon in 1943, let alone were lost there. Melton appears to be completely oblivious to the implications of his claim - one would think a responsible or competent scholar would attempt to verify it or cite a source. His claim contradicts over 50 years of scholarship and dozens of published works. As I said, this is a classic example of a red-flagged claim: "a claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community [in this case military historians], or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." Even if Melton were to write back to disclose his source - he's not very responsive, I gather from others who've tried to clarify or correct his statements - the claim would still have to be excluded on the grounds of being way out on the fringe. There is nothing in any published literature that would back it up - I've checked - and a huge amount that actively contradicts it. It is literally a one-man viewpoint in opposition to all the published accounts of the Imperial Japanese Navy's history. It's not that I think Melton is wrong (though I do), but that he's making a claim in an area (military history) in which he has no expertise, without any sourcing, and which is contradicted by the entire corpus of sources on the IJN's submarine fleet. Note that it is not a claim about cults, so his (alleged) expertise in that field is not relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)(outdent) Some scholars like Melton and Frenschkowski say that critics lack access to "many pertinent documents housed in the Chuch's archives". Frenschkowski has written that "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Russell Miller [widely cited in our article] is trying to show, as can be seen from his naval records that have been made public during the processes following the publication of Bare-faced_Messiah (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection)." But unfortunately, and somewhat maddeningly, Frenschkowski fails to give further details, except to say that "This material so far is not part of any bibliography of Hubbard." I still think it unlikely that Melton is right on the submarine. Even though he is a reputable scholar – he writes the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology – other scholars have commented that he tends to follow the Scientology party line rather closely. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my house on Melton being wrong either. ;) I'd be in favour of mentioning his view, with attribution, simply because it is a notable minority view, and in Miller and Atack we are ourselves citing sources whose accuracy others like Melton and Frenschkowski have at least partly questioned. It may not be a bad thing if the reader gets the impression that there are still disputes about some of the details of Hubbard's military career, and that future publications may shed more light on these. JN466 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be against this inclusion in the article—IMHO, this is clearly a fringe theory, so why should we include his viewpoint? If anything, it should be clearly shown in the article that he is probably wrong: "Although an overwhelming majority of sources support that I-176 was sunk in May 1944,<many refs> scholar (first name) Melton supports the claim that PC-815 sunk the submarine off of Washington on (date)." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Melton does not refer to the I-76 or any other designation; he just says "a submarine". JN466 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) - ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Without providing any sourcing and contradicting the long-established facts that the Japanese navy withdrew all of its submarines to the western Pacific by the end of 1942 and didn't lose any submarines off the US west coast at any point during the war. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If Melton's source really is L. Fletcher Prouty, he shouldn't be used; Prouty is at the centre of a swirl of conspiracy theories. Chris also has a point about Melton not being a military historian, and it did rather jump out at me that Melton didn't cite a source. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I recall, Prouty made a statement on Hubbard's notice of separation and the number of his medals, rather than anything to do with the submarine story, but I am now out of my depth. Short of writing to Melton, I couldn't tell you what this particular passage is based on. FWIW though, what ChrisO said above about all Japanese submarines retreating to the West Pacific, and the Japanese not losing any submarines off the US west coast at any point during the war, is directly contradicted by this Naval Institute Press source, which says that

"a very few [Japanese] submarines continued to operate in the North Pacific after the loss of Attu and the evacuation of Kiska" [which was in May 1943] ... the I-180 was sunk during a late night attack in the vicinity of Kodiak by the USS Gilmore (DE-18) on 26 April 1944.

– The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II By Carl Boyd, Akihiko Yoshida, p. 160

Kodiak is jolly well not in the West Pacific. It's on Southern Alaska's west coast, so it seems overconfident to say that an Oxford University Press-published scholar can be discounted without second thought, because there "simply weren't" any Japanese submarines on the US west coast after 1942.
I would suggest we give the date of Hubbard's lecture and shorten the quote from the lecture to the essentials; 225 words is excessive. Let's leave the rest for another day. Thanks for looking in, Slim. Cheers, JN466 03:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident that Chris' use of "west coast" is not meant to apply to the Aleutian Islands. Also, while Dutch Harbor is 2500 miles from Tokyo, the state of Washington is 4784. I-176—and I'd assume her aforementioned sister I-180— had a range of 8000 miles, meaning that to simply get to Washington and back would require more fuel than they could carry. To patrol off of a coast waiting for a target would take even more fuel! As such, I seriously doubt that any Japanese submarine would have been sent to patrol off of the west coast in the latter stages of the war due to the massive logistical problems it would entail. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Kodiak Island is not an Aleutian Island. It's 250 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. A Japanese submarine was sunk there in 1944. Another Japanese submarine made attacks on the Oregon coast in 1942. The Washington coast is somewhere between those two locations, so it's at least conceivable for a Japanese sub to have been there in 1943.
If anything, the west coast would have been easier to reach for Japanese submarines in spring 1943, because from June 1942 until May 1943 they had a base on Attu Island, about halfway between Japan and the US. They didn't need that base though to reach the west coast in '42 and '44. Let's take any further discussion of this to the article talk page though. Cheers, JN466 08:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's drop the discussion about Melton; I am myself in two minds as to whether we should or should not mention him. Let's just assume it is irrelevant to this FA, as SlimVirgin said earlier. Okay? --JN466 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Fixed; thanks. The alt text is present, but it contains info that is not that helpful (see WP:ALT). For example, the lead image's alt text is "Photograph of L. Ron Hubbard in naval uniform in Astoria, Oregon in 1943." but a typical reader won't know what L. Ron Hubbard looked like back then, or that the photo is dated 1943, or that it was taken in Astoria. Alt text should focus on appearance: it should say only what a typical reader would see and understand without looking at the containing article or caption. Better would be something like "Head and shoulders portrait of man in circa 1940 U.S. uniform of a junior naval officer". Similarly for the other images. Eubulides (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the alt tags to take an approach which, to be honest, I'm more comfortable with than a vague description - a little bit of specificity to start off with followed by a description of the scene. For instance: "Photograph of the submarine chaser USS PC-815 viewed from the starboard (right) bow (front) aspect, showing a single-masted vessel running at speed with a large wake visible, a deck gun prominent on the bow and a crew member standing at the starboard aft (rear) railings." Let me know if you think this approach works. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This is much better, but the visually-impaired Wikipedian that I've corresponded with has expressed a strong preference for brief descriptions, I suppose because they didn't want to get bogged down listening to info that's only marginally relevant. The alt text should not say "L. Ron Hubbard" when the caption already says "L. Ron Hubbard"; first, that will result in the same text being read twice to the visually impaired reader, and second, most people don't know LRH's appearance from a hole in the ground so saying that an image looks like LRH is not conveying useful information to them. I took a shot at trimming down the alt text somewhat so that it covers only what's visible in the image, and omits details (such as whether we're seeing the port or starboard side of a vessel) that aren't that immediately useful; please revert any part of this that strikes you amiss. That change also adds the "|link=" for the decorative image. Thanks for helping out with alt text. Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that looks good to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The source is dated significantly after the image was taken, is this source even correct? if it was taken by the military it is probably PD Fasach Nua (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Two questions: could you explain which NFCC criteria you believe it fails? Secondly, I don't really understand your concern about the source. It's a 2008 book which includes a biogaphical profile of Hubbard. The accompanying caption reads "Portland, Oregon, 1943. L. Ron Hubbard, captain of the US Navy subchaser PC 815". -- ChrisO (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The image fails to meet nfcc#8. Was 2008 the first time this image was published? Is the copyright of the image asserted by the publisher? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I've seen the image published in other publications dating back to the mid-1990s. There is no attribution of the copyright. However, it may be moot anyway - I've found an alternative copyright-expired image, published at the time by a now-defunct newspaper. Take a look at File:Hubbard and moulton.jpg and see what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well done on finding a free alternative. The original image may fall into this category, and it is of better quality, FA should be our "best work", but it is not an easy thing to prove the origin of some images. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Our article includes the statement, "Their reports do not list any Japanese submarine losses for mid-May 1943, and do not list any Japanese submarine losses off the US coast during the whole of the war.[42]", cited to a June 1946 source.
    Later sources – Fontenoy, p. 258, Carl Boyd, Akihiko Yoshida, p. 160, [9] – list the I-180 as sunk off Southern Alaska, while Boyd + Yoshida (p. 211) list the I-31 as lost on 13 May 1943 off Attu (Aleutian island).
    Both halves of the statement cited to that 1946 source appear to be outdated and superseded by later research. --JN466 05:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Coggins

Nominator(s): Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I have reviewed the constructive criticism from its first FAC and I have implemented many of the suggested changes, re-ordered some of the sections, copyedited the text, and brought more sources. At this time, I think that it is ready for another critical review as a featured article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • done I've added the rest; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - Prose-wise, word choice needs work.
  • who is best known in the United States for his oil paintings of predominantly marine subjects and for his books on space travel. - remove the second for
    • Corrected. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins wrote and illustrated many books, covering a wide range of subjects, and provided numerous illustrations for advertisements, magazine articles, and magazine covers. - did he cover them or did the books?
    • Removed the "wide range of subjects" phrase. Reads just as well. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • for YANK magazine in the United Kingdom and Europe - do you know which countries, you shouldn't just say a country then continent, it's illogical
    • Good point, removed countries; "war time scenes from front lines" is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his long career, and taught master art classes for 45 years - master or Masters?
    • I think both; but removing the master is just as good IMO, so done. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • He retired in May 2001 at nearly 90 years of age and died at his home in Pennsylvania in January 2006. - End should probably read, at the age of 94.
    • Done. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins was born in in his father's military barracks in London, England on July 10, 1911, - His father owned barracks?
    • No, the barracks where his father was stationed. But it is an awkward construction so I'll rewrite it -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins enjoyed "fiddling around with drawing" and his family had not discouraged him - Why would his family discourage him? I assume this is close to the source?
    • Quote from outre source, but unnecessary, so removed for smoothness of prose. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins's interest in military subjects was due to his father's military service and his early education in a military school. - Cite?
    • Removed. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because of the quality of his maritime illustrations, Coggins was invited by publisher Doubleday to provide artwork for a planned children's book about the U.S. Navy. The author was to be Fletcher Pratt, a well known military historian, and the publisher sent Coggins to meet him. Their common interest in maritime history created a lasting friendship and a fruitful association between the two men. - No citations at all
    • Based on Outre and Berks. Re-written for clarity and citations brought. Three or four sentences in a row with a citation at the end means that the entire group of sentences are based on that citation, as opposed to putting the same note after every sentence. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his career. - Almost repeated from the lead, perhaps you could rewrite it?
    • section rewritten. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that sums up my concerns. ceranthor 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • While there is opportunity for more enhancements, I have reviewed your excellent comments and used them to further enhance the article's content and prose. Thank you, and for the record, done. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Choral symphony

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because, after a considerable amount of work and two peer reviews, I believe it is either currently at or fast approaching FA quality. At this stage, it would only be beneficial for the article to receive FAC feedback and eventual promoition to featured article status. Jonyungk (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thank you very much for alerting me to this. Jonyungk (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another welcome nomination by a writer who is likely to raise WP's profile in this field. I've had a go at the lead—please see what you think.
    • I like what you've done with the lead so far. It reads much more smoothly than before. Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A couple of things apart from the purely micro-technical (including quite a few redundancies and repeat links):
    • "Because the intention was for the choral symphony to remain symphonic (rather than narrative or dramatic), the words were treated symphonically to pursue non-narrative ends, with frequent repetition of important words and phrases, and the transposing, reordering and omission of linguistic passages." The causality (swinging on "Because") works for me, but may I question the opposition created of "symphonic" vs "narrative/dramatic"? I'd have thought it was a fusion, rather than one or the other. Doesn't opera do the same? ("frequent repetition of important words and phrases and transposing, reordering and omission of passages to pursue non-narrative ends"). I do notice a slight tendency in your writing to create binary concepts where it might be safer not to; if I may be so bold, I think this emanates from the sources, and while sources are at the heart of WP's text, we do have the lattitude to pick and choose and interpret a little.
      • You have a very good point. Opera does do the same though the driving force behind an opera remains the overall plot, whereas with the choral symphony the compositional rules governing the symphony take (or should take) precedence. But I have thought through what you are saying about the fusion of symphonic and narrative/dramatic elements and you're essentially right—it is more of a fusion rather than one over the other. I'm open as to how to reword this passage. What about: "The intention was for the choral symphony to remain symphonic, even with its fusion of narrative or dramatic elements that stemmed from the inclusion of words. To this end, the words were treated symphonically to pursue non-narrative ends, with frequent repetition of important words and phrases, and the transposing, reordering and omission of linguistic passages"? Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's ok. Just one point: a choral symphony can be under the influence of an external narrative even in parts where there is no singing; is that correct? Tony (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This is correct. Berlioz mentions this and it is covered to some extent under "Programmatic intent" with the two Schnittke symphonies. I've now mentioned this aspect in the lead section and in "General features" but am open to suggestions on how or whether this should be rephrased.Jonyungk (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "The text came to determine not only tone, but the basic symphonic outline, while the orchestra maintained an equal share with chorus and soloists in conveying the musical ideas." Will readers know what "tone" means here? Is it to do with the linguistic relationship between writer and listeners? And here, I don't quite get the connection that hangs on "while"—these are two quite different statements, aren't they, and deserve separate sentences. Risky to transmit the idea of "equal share" ... really equal? Perhaps "the orchestra conveyed the musical ideas to a similar extent as chorus and soloists"? I'm unsure, but what is there now is unsafe, I feel. This similarity in contribution is compared with what precursor?
      • I've changed the wording per your suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Do watch the "noun plus -ing" constructions, which are usually replaceable by neater grammar ("the first example of a major composer using the human voice"). See these nerdy exercises, on which I'm pleased to receive feedback. The latest edition of the Chicago MOS rightly says that "with" as a connector, can be clumsy, too. Tony (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: Declaration - I have done substantial copyediting on this article, and have watched its progress from a very uncertain, incomplete draft at its first peer review, to what I think is now a mature and high-quality article. No doubt (as with almost every FA I've seen) it could benefit from a final pass over the prose - I have just got rid of a few "with" connectors - but I see no reason at this stage to withhold support. This is a lucid exposition of an important musical concept, thoroughly deserving of its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this article, and while it was good then, I believe it is even better now. It is a well-written, thoroughly researched article that meets the FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on basis of criteria 3:

  • File:Krzysztof Penderecki.jpg: {{PD-Poland}} requires the first publication date and the absence of a copyright notice then, so where was this first published?
    • This image has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:8th.jpg: similarly, for {{PD-US}} first publishing is required—creation is not publication. When or where was this image first published?
    • I would guess probably sometime close to the premiere as it is obviously a publicity photo. What would be the easiest way of finding out? Jonyungk (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • A search at or contact with the Otto E. Albrecht Music Library could yield results. Jappalang (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I have sent an inquiry to the library and should receive a reply within the next business day. Jonyungk (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:1944 Soviet investigators at Babi Yar.jpg: what makes this a public domain image? Who stated it came from the Soviet Archives? The Holocaust Museum certainly does not say so.[10] In fact, it warns that images on its site can be copyrighted.[11] Was it taken by a Soviet? Could it not be a journalist? "In October 1943, as German forces were beginning to retreat from Russian territory, Soviet officials brought a group of foreign reporters to Babi Yar, the ravine outside Kiev in which the Nazis had killed thousands of Jews." per Lipstadt, Deborah, 1993, Beyond Belif, p. 245, Simon & Schuster. Other journalists have visited the site at various times in '43–44.[12][13] Furthermore, this image most likely would not qualify for {{PD-Russia-2008}} or {{PD-Ukraine}}. The photo was taken in 1944, first publishing is unknown, as well as the identity of the photographer.
  • File:Gustav-Mahler-Kohut.jpg: please move this to Wikipedia. 1900 German publication of a 1892 creation means it is possible the creator did not die more than 70 years ago. In fact, this photo was taken by "Berliner Photographie" in 1896.[16] Information from this photo, likely in the same set, points to commons:Creator:E. Bieber and expiration of German copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:OldCity07.JPG: not part of the opposition; the image seems okay, except for the date... EXIF states January 2007, uploader says July 07... Perhaps a clarification with the author is needed? Not a big deal, though (could be wrong setting on the camera, or bad memory...).

All other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Towner

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. The life and times of an Australian Victoria Cross recipient, this article has been passed as a Good Article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history A-Class. I am very grateful to EyeSerene, who has just completed an excellent copyedit of the article. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images all need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • When in the world did this requirement come in? I have done it, but as it is the first time I have had to do so I'm not sure if I have done it correctly. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You did fine, thanks, and I struck the comment. The alt= support was implemented back in October, and WP:ALT was recently modified to recommend alt text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah, okay, I had never heard of it until now. Thanks for your input, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Generally good.

  • "He named the property "Valparaiso"..." Do we know why? Does it mean something in some foreign language? Not essential to the article by any stretch of the imagination, but it piqued my curiosity.
    • I assumed it meant something along the lines of "paradise", but I haven't been able to either confirm this or identify which language it is in. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's Spanish for "Paradise Valley" according to this EyeSerenetalk 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Geez, I re-check my sources and use Google Translate but it gives me nothing, then you turn up with this! Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Heh, took me all of 30 seconds to google "meaning of Valparaiso" :D I'm not sure it belongs in the article though (per WP:SYNTH) EyeSerenetalk 09:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Yeah, I'd have to agree. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
              • If there's no source that mentions it in conjunction with Towner, I agree too. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Allocated to the transport section of the 25th Battalion..." I don't know my military terminology very well, but "to allocate" seems an odd verb choice here; very impersonal. "Assigned"?
  • Is the persistent use of "during" in place of "in" (as in "During January...") Australian English? To me, it seems hideously awkward, but I could be wearing North American blinders. I'd already changed most of them by the time this occurred to me, but I'd be happy to change them back if I'm being imperialistic.
    • Hmm, I've been pulled up on this a few times lately. I suppose it is not the best grammatically, but I tire of the consistent repetition of "in". :) However, I should steer away from this; thanks for your corrections. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "...and was allotted to the 7th Brigade's Machine Gun Company." Another verb choice that seems strange to be, like "allocated".
  • Is there more detail available about his Mentions in Despatches? The dates are nice, but I'd think that the reasons are more likely to be of interest to the general reader.
    • The quoted material just before the first mention is why he was Mentioned in Despatches the first time, but I have not been able to conclusively find a recommendation or reason why he was Mentioned the second time. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, we're all limited by our sources.
  • "...after he was unable to raise sufficient funds for livestock." To buy livestock? Feed it? Something else?
  • "He spent the next three years working as a jackaroo, until he entered into a partnership on Kaloola station..." There's nothing wrong with this sentence, but I wanted to single it out for being so delightfully Australian.
  • References all look good.
  • I hate to do this, but File:Edgar Towner full length J03070.JPG and File:E T Towner P02939.035.JPG are both listed as having been taken c. 1918, but are tagged as having been created in Australia for public domain purposes. However, from what I can tell Towner wasn't in Australia at any point during 1918. I'm sure these will work out to be in the public domain one way or another, but we might need to do some more digging. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Even though they were not actually taken in Australia, the Australian public domain tag still applies as the photographs were taken by, or on the behest of, Australian Government employees (military personnel included) and are held/owned by the Australian Government. Thank you very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I've done some digging and you appear to be correct (the copyright tag on Commons should probably be changed to reflect this, as it currently claims that the work was created in Australia). The photographs appear to be in the public domain in both Australia and the U.S. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Made a few tweaks to address some of the prose issues above. EyeSerenetalk 11:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Eye! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed, and I believe that this article is of featured quality. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support High standard of structure, detail, referencing, illustration and, not least, prose - I found the Victoria Cross subsection particularly well written. Took the liberty of tweaking a word or two; the only other suggestion I have is that "set[ing] a conspicuous example" might be rendered more simply as setting "a conspicuous example". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaking, Ian. I don't mind either way as both work well, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are verifiably in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] J. C. W. Beckham

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


I have recently expanded this article from a number of sources, and it has had one thorough copyedit by another editor. I believe it meets the criteria for a featured article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I fixed the repetitive Beckham... Beckham sentence in the lead. In the future, you don't have to repeat the name, rather, mention the former or the latter, as I did. I think it's more helpful than repeating names in the same sentence. ceranthor 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments - This is quite good.

  • I've done some copyediting; please look it over and make sure everything's okay with you.
  • Yeah, this looks fine to me.
  • Both the "Governor of Kentucky" and "U.S. Senator" sections (and by extension the article lead) seem heavily slanted towards how Beckham won those positions at the expense of what he did once he was in them. Is there really no more information on the latter subject? This article isn't really very long for somebody who essentially served two terms as Governor and one as Senator.
  • I've consulted the major sources that I'm aware of. I know most of his first term was devoted to non-controversial issues and attempting to reunite the Democratic party after the disastrous election of 1899, so it isn't surprising that there are few highlights from this term. Interestingly, the Finch article, which is devoted to senators of this time period, devotes only a single paragraph to Beckham's actions as a senator. Apparently, the political machinations behind his elections were much more interesting than what he did in office.
  • I don't know what a "uniform school textbook law" is. I assume it's a law requiring the same textbooks to be used at schools throughout the state, but it could use some elaboration.
  • I'll have to get back to you on this one. Most of the time, this is just referred to as the "uniform textbook law" in the sources I've found, but one of them might have a few more details. I'll have to double-check.
  • "In March 1904, Beckham signed the Day Law mandating segregation of all schools in Kentucky." I assume that this refers to racial segregation, but it should probably be specified.
  • Clarified.
  • "...on the Senate Committee on Military Affairs." Are no dates available for this? It would help balance the dates earlier in the sentence related to his committee chairmanship.
  • Unfortunately, no. The only source that mentions his service on this committee is the FCHQ article by Finch.
  • "The head of the Jockey Club had lost his fortune and influence..." Do we know his name?
  • His name was James B. Brown. I omitted it because it hadn't been mentioned elsewhere and because James Brown is such a common name. However, I've added it per your comment.
  • File:JCW_Beckham.jpg needs some updated information. The source is a broken link, and the copyright tag claims pre-1923 publication without any evidence (though that evidence might be in that broken link). Other images look good.
  • I can't figure out why the link doesn't work. Let me tell you how to get to the image, and maybe you can help.
  1. Go to the Library of Congress web site: www.loc.gov.
  2. Select "Digital Collections" at the top of the page.
  3. Select "Prints and Photographs" (second column, second item)
  4. Select "I understand. I'm ready to search the catalog" (blue button)
  5. Search for "beckham"
  6. On my search, it is the fourth image of six. The title is "BECKHAM, JOHN CREPPS WICKLIFFE. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, 1915-1921" and the given date is 1915.
  7. When I select the link, the URL in my address bar is the one given at File:JCW_Beckham.jpg. But that link doesn't seem to work directly. Any suggestions?
  • Sourcing looks good, links checked using linkchecker tool (are people other than Ealdgyth allowed to say that?). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fertilisation of Orchids

Nominator(s): dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it's about a fascinating subject, has reached Good article standard, and is timely in relation to the approaching 150th anniversary of publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species... dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done. The images need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I just now added alt text for the lead image (that was an easy one!) but the others still need it. Eubulides (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, have added alt text to all the images, with the exception of the gallery of scans of illustrations of the book as the text was not hidden when I tried it. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried to improve that alt text a bit. The gallery's images are all links so they all need alt text, I'm afraid. But now I'm puzzled: why not remove the gallery? All but one of its images already appear in the article, and the remaining image (Fig. 28) isn't enough to justify a gallery. Instead of the gallery, how about putting "{{Commons|Category:Fertilisation of Orchids|Fertilisation of Orchids}}" near the end of the article? Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the alt text. The original scans are attractive, but for purposes of illustration I cropped the scans and changed the levels with the aim of giving clearer information, making the background whiter. There was a hope that more of the illustrations would be scanned, but that hasn't happened yet. So, it seemed a nice idea to give a pointer to the available images, but the category button would suffice. Unless there's some support for the idea of the gallery, will change it. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No further comment so I changed it to the category button. Eubulides (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remark - it would be good if there was a link to an audiobook for the book. keep up w/ the times. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is a wonderful article. Although I did some copy editing on it, that is not the basis of my support. I think it combines fundamental , scientific information with a narrative style that is authoritative, yet enticing to the reader. Perhaps this is what is meant by "brilliant prose"! The author has been conscientious in attempting to comply with all standards. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


This is a boring article about a boring man who did some boring things. I'm bothering with it only because I'm trying to make Premiers of Alberta into a featured topic. On the upside, the article is quite short. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Charles_Stewart.jpg - It is unclear how this images is PD Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the tag, it's in the public domain because its creator died more than 50 years ago (in 1938, to be exact). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
At least, that's why it's in the public domain in Canada. It's in the public domain in the United States because it was in the public domain in Canada as of January 1, 1996. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Another finely written article. I really only have two concerns:
  • The description of Stewart's relationship with UFA as being "frosty" seemed a bit odd. It's stated that he was a member of UFA, opposed their politicization, but that he still worked well with them after, and that UFA refused to run a candidate against him, or attack his government. Suddenly, as a federal minister, his relationship seems much worse, and full of ill will. There appears to be a gap here where the relationship turned sour. Or, perhaps, a little clarification that his relationship with the Farmers' government deteriorated upon becoming a federal minister?
  • His post-political career seems mighty thin. Is there nothing that can be said of his participation with the organizations he chaired? Or any private business ventures? Resolute 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To your first point, good point. Does this help? Part of the problem is that there's no source that comprehensively covers his relationship with the UFA as Premier and as federal cabinet minister: Jaques and Thomas don't deal with his federal career in any detail, while Foster and Wardhaugh don't say much about his career as Premier. Reading between the lines, I think he felt a little betrayed that the UFA sought to replace his government after he'd been so accommodating towards them. To your second point, I haven't been able to find anything, and at this point I'm not sure where to look (I'm almost certain it would have to be in primary sources of some kind). Note that by the time he left politics he was close to seventy; I surmise that he wasn't all that active post-retirement, though that's just a guess. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think on the first point, it's the word "remained" that I object to. It implies a degradation of a relationship that isn't explained beforehand. Probably just changing it to "his relationship with the UFA was frosty..." As to the second, I can't imagine the needle in a haystack that searching through newspapers would be, with the possible exception of checking after the date of his death for an obit that might add more. It is an odd section though. In short, it says "Stewart sat on two councils then died" in the first paragraph, while the second is a one sentence rehash of the entire article. Now THAT is summary style!  ;) Resolute 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've replaced "remained" with "were", and inserted one more sentence (literally the only one I could find in any of my sources) in the section on his later life. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I'm satisfied with the article's quality and comprehensiveness. All images are PD, references look good to me. Resolute 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Bosworth Field

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

SCENE I. FAC.

Again many apologies to ole Willie... may the soft dirt cushion his turbulence in his grave...

Jappalang

Now comes the test of Bosworth's quality
Made glorious by all who laid pen upon it.
In days past, it was not shaped for critical thought,
Nor made to court the public's eye;
Deformed, unfinished, abandoned before its time
Into this project, scarce half completed,
Now this article aspires to comply
With all four featured criteria.
If you do replace a wrongful image;
You shall feel a sense of justice, the travesty gone,
If you do improve a dreadful sentence;
Your friends shall sing the litanies of sweet prose,
If you do help to fill in the blanks;
Your great deed increases the world's sum of knowledge,
If you do chop off redundant words;
Your trusty sword serves the project well.
Then, for Wikipedia and free information's sake,
Stretch your fingers, draw your red pens.
Tap keys and scroll pages, boldy and cheerfully;
Jimbo and Saint Isidore! Bosworth and FA!

Aye, for those who would dispense with such iambic banter, come sit thee down and feel welcome to say your piece. Take a read of the glorious Harry-Dick battle, where Dick got royally shafted due to the circumstances that spun his fate. If you are in the know, your help to identify the location and creator of this glass window is greatly appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller

I'll add my review here. This is a placeholder to remind me to come and review it when I've had some sleep. Great choice of subject matter. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC) OK, here goes. This is a monstrously good article, and will take some time to review properly. The overall impressions are all positive - good use of illustration, good depth of referencing, tone looks appropriate. All of which is excellent. And now on to detail...

  • There's too much detail in the Lead. Length in number of paragraphs is right, but each one is too crammed. Cut it down.
    • It's difficult to do this without becoming superficial (given the length of the article), but I've trimmed it a little. EyeSerenetalk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comprehensiveness: if you're going to cover Shakespeare's treatment of the battle, which is a good idea, then you really need to cover its treatment by other notable artists, including film-makers not shooting Shakespeare (I'm sure the battle has featured in historical epics)
    • There lies the issue of reliable sources and weightage. Of films, the Battle of Bosworth Field was criticially talked about for Olivier's and McKellan's films (and even so, focus is not solely paid to the battle). The commentary in the article reflects the criticisms and are of the appropriate weightage given without undue weight. It is theatric (plays) version that has received the most reviews among academic and respected sources. Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the image captions are overlong. Some fairly random decision-making in terms of linking/not linking in the captions.
    • I presume the overlong captions are the ones for the battle maps? I have trimmed them a bit, and removed the link to Ambion Hill. Links in other image captions are not found in main article text. Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More anon as the Bard would have said. Maybe. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Images all have alt text. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I added alt text for the lead image as an example; could you please add alt text for the remaining images? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. I have read this article many times—following an invitation from the nominator, I made a series of minor edits during May–June of this year, mainly to help polish the prose. I accept the valid criticism of the length of the lead, but I can't see this being an obstacle to promotion. I think the article should stick with Shakespeare's dramatisation, since this is the most widely known and perhaps the only one that has misled history teachers. I agree that reliable sources could be a problem for modern dramatisations and add that there could be a danger of straying off topic; this is a history article after all. In my view, this contribution satisfies all the FA criteria and establishes a high standard. Graham Colm Talk 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support:Comments, leaning to support: Jappalang is one of our most resouceful editors, generous with advice and meticulous in his reviews. He is also one of our worst poets. However, fortunately for him that is not the issue here. This is a meticulously researched article with a gripping narrative, which I am reading with pleasure. I am picking up various minor points as I go through; before listing any details, can I add my voice to the concern expressed about the amount of detail in the lead? Also, there is rather a lot of clutter at the top of the article – image, infobox stuff, map. I wonder whether a slight repositioning, say of the map, might enhance the article's appearance.

Here are some detailed comments on the lead and Background section.

  • Lead:
    • Nitpick: "...the battle was won by Lancastrian Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by his victory..." Are battles won by individuals? Would it be more accurate to say "the battle was won by the Lancastrian forces of Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by this victory..."
    • Grammar: "...while they decided which side would be most advantageous for them to support." Needs an "it" after "which side", and "for them" is unnecessary
    • "Richard's force outnumbered Henry's and the king divided his army into three groups (or "battles")" The two parts of the sentence are not obviously related, and shouldn't be connected by "and".
    • "This theme is most evident in the Shakespearian play Richard III and, as the finale of the play, the battle has become a focal point for critics in later film adaptations." I am unsure what is meant here by "a focal point for critics". What critics - film, theatre, historians?
      • I tried to address the first three points with these changes. As for "a focal point", it is supposed to mean the critics tend to talk about the battle in the film. Maybe a change to "a focal point of attention"? "Critics" is a general term; the article presents the views of a Shakespearian critic, a newspaper reporter, a military historian, and general views gathered by another Shakespearian critic. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Background
    • "extremely" weak smacks of POV. In any event, who alive at that time had a stronger legitimate claim? Edward IV's claim was pretty weak, too.
    • Another dubious "and": "His twelve-year-old elder son succeeded him as King Edward V, and the younger son, nine-year-old Richard of Shrewsbury, was next in line to the throne." Suggest replace "and" with semicolon.
    • "The royal court was worried, as Edward V was too young to rule and the Woodvilles, relatives of the Queen Mother Elizabeth, were plotting to seize control of the Royal Council who planned to rule the country until the king's coming of age." The sentence is too long, and needs splitting. Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the wording. "...the Royal Council who planned to rule the country" sounds a bit informal. I thought this was a statutory duty of the Council.
    • "secured Edward V" is not immediately plain. "Apprehended" or "took into custody" would be clearer.
    • "extrajudicial" is a single word
    • "Discontent for..." → "Discontent with..."
    • The verb "manifest" requires an object. Thus "manifested itself"
    • "started prematurely by 10 days" is awkward. "...started 10 days prematurely"?

More to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will consider the length (and detail) of the lede. Any suggestions where to place the map? Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have shifted the map into the Background section. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Lead trimmed further... EyeSerenetalk 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no remaining issues with lead or map. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, who wrote this? Mostly beautiful or very professional prose, although I've looked only at the lead. This sentence is a little weak: "Literature, from the 15th to 18th centuries, glamorised the conflict as a victory of good over evil—it forms the finale of William Shakespeare's play about Richard's rise and fall." (All literature? Many English plays and poems? I think User:Bishonen is an expert on this area, inter alia, BTW. (2) The dash doesn't quite work as a connector for me ("and"?). I look forward to reading the rest. (3) Just a little audit on the use or omission of commas before and after names in the middle of clauses? Unsure. Tony (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    To Tony: GrahamColm, Malleus Fatuorum and others have brushed up little bits here and there, but EyeSerene is responsible for most of the beauty that is at hand. Jappalang (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think Jappalang's overstating my involvement, although his kind words are much appreciated. However, I freely admit to something of a blind spot over commas because I can't always decide if a sentence reads more naturally with or without them. I'll proofread when I get the chance and try to tidy them up. EyeSerenetalk 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More stuff

  • Commanders: Intro, last sentence - "In a sense" doesn't seem necessary.
  • Yorkist
    • "Small and slender, Richard III did not have the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors." First three words redundant - Richard' size fully covered by the rest of the sentence.
      • I was trying to point out specifically that Richard was a "small and slender" man. I think striking these three words could result in a possible "well, he is not tall and muscular, perhaps he is just normal sized or short and flabby?" kind of thought? Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about: "Small and slender in contrast to the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors,[40] Richard nevertheless enjoyed rough sports and activities that were considered manly." Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked EyeSerenetalk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "His performance better as "His performances..."
    • "Lieutenant general" is a military rank rather than a post, though it might have meant something different then. Can you amplify?
    • Last sentence of first paragraph reads oddly, given that in the previous sentence Richard has been painted as somewhat irresolute. And why the reference to the Turks?
I've seen the revision. This looks like a sentence that should start "However,..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Darn... I was aiming to show that Richard was a militaristic man with that statement. Hence, this statement is not supposed to contradict or support Ross' or Carpenter's opinion but rather expand on Richard's attitude (a contrast to the seemingly pacifistic Henry). Any suggestions on how to reword this to get the meaning across? Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd still go for the "However..." beginning. At present, in paraphrase, this extract is saying: "Richard had been considered by some as a bit of a military ditherer, somewhat indecisive. However, when he became king he showed a different side" (his "thirst for war" etc. This is not a sticking point, so go with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Also tweaked (missed your responses to Jappalang's latest, so my tweaks were made before I saw your latest. Hope they're ok) EyeSerenetalk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Lancastrian
    • "Slender but strong, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him a decisive man who was more interested in commerce." I think this sentence would read better if Henry's "decisive" attribute was listed with his other positive qualities, thus: "Slender but strong and decisive, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him more interested in commerce."
    • "whom he could rely on" → "on whom he could rely"
  • Stanleys
    • "erupted in bouts of violence" - a bit heavy-footed. "erupted into violence"?
    • "Additionally, Stanley's position as Henry Tudor's stepfather, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472,[69] did him nothing to win Richard's favour." Suspect grammar: "having taken" relates to Stanley, not "Stanley's position." Also, phrase order seems wrong, and can we avoid beginning "Additionally..."? So how about: "Furthermore, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472, Stanley was Henry Tudor's stepfather, a relationship which did him nothing to win Richard's favour."
    • "Wary of the baron..." I've lost track of the identity of this baron.
  • Prelude
    • The comparison in the first sentence is amiss – between the first invasion and the second crossing. Suggest first four words are deleted.
    • Sir Geoffrey Elton – use of title inappropraite in text
    • Does Elton use the word "idolators"? If so, I suggest you put it in quotes, as it's an odd term. Otherwise I think it is too strong a word here, since it suggests veneration and worship. Another term, such as "ardent loyalists", might be more appropriate.
    • "...failed to move against him" – need to clarify "him"
    • Do you really mean "suborned", here? (incited to commit a crime)
    • I am confused by this sentence: "Richard had been aware of Henry's landing since 11 August, but although he had ordered his lords to maintain a high level of readiness, it took three to four days for his messengers to notify them of Richard's mobilisation." Some clarification requested.
I've done a little extra ce on this - see if you agree. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It is fine. Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Engagement: a superb battle account; only one minor point: "Well aware of his military inexperience, Henry handed command of his army to Oxford..." Needs to say "own military experience", for clarity.
  • Post-Battle
    • Suggest link circlet, or descibe it as a crown
    • "100 of his king's men" would be clearer as "100 of Henry's men"
    • I wonder if the events described in the final paragraph can really be considered "Post-battle"?
I note what you say below. The events seem to relate more to the early part of Henry's reign, rather than the immediate post-battle period. For example, in an article on the Battle of Hastings you probably wouldn't refer to William's subsequent suppression of Hereward the Wake. This is just a thought, not a sticking point with me; if you wish to leave it, fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Will conclude later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okey, Brian. I hope these changes resolve the stuff above. As for "Post-battle", these events take place after the fighting. Literally, they are suited for that section. Jappalang (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A few last bits

  • Legacy
    • "to deduce possibly valuable information..." Things can be deduced from information, but information itself cannot be "deduced". Would "insights" be a good substitute for information?
    • There is an apparently intrusive "but" near the end of the second paragraph.
    • Uncertain about the "However" that begins the last sentence.
  • Shakespearian dramatisation: No comment - excellent and informative.
  • Battlefield
    • Suggest "a dispute broke out amongst historians that has led many..." becomes "a dispute among historians has led many..." (neater)
    • Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "toponymical"?

Final Comment: This is a first-class article which tells its main story brilliantly, with much thoughtful analysis thereafter. I have moved to full support notwithstanding a few minor outstanding issues which are really neither here nor there. Congratulations, Jappalang, and I look forward to more of your historical tours-de-force, if not the "poetic" introductions. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian, I have made these changes to address your final concerns. My future endeavour, however, would likely not be of English history, but your words have inspired me; I am going to serenade the FAC masses next with Vogon poetry! Ahem... "Oh freddled gruntbuggly, thy micturations are to me!" It is surely my calling! Okay, "don't panic!" That (Vogon poetry) was a joke. Jappalang (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Don't worry, Jappalang, I enjoyed the poetic introduction - but then I've never understood the problem lifeforms have with Vogon poetry... Anyway, supported this at MILHIST A-Class review and, having re-read once more, can't see any reason not to award the bronze star as well - as I've said before, an epic in itself, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Herrerasaurus

Nominator(s): Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


There was talk about nominating this article for Featured Article two years ago, but it never happened, despite lack of opposition. It still meets the criteria, though, and is equal to several of the Featured bird candidates that I have recently seen. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments as I go - I do recall a couple of queries Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
at least five recent surveys of theropod evolution - "surveys" sounds a bit informal to my ears, would not "analysis" or "review" be better?
Changed to "reviews" per your request, sir. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
and the other archosaurs and synapsids lost diversity. - not thrilled about the wording, something more user-friendly along the lines of decline in variety and number or something similar. Nothing acutely jumps to mind.
I'd think of filling out the second para of Paleoecology by (maybe) some adjectives describing some of the different critters might help make it less listy.
One of the other things I feel would be good to highlight is why Herrerasaurus is important, that is, the poverty of early dinosaur remains, so somehow slotting in something on this, which then helps clarify why the diverse opinions on its placement and how we got to where we are now. This helps with the context of the article.
J worked on the listiness, and I adjusted the "diversity" wording. I've struck out the comments we got to, Cas, but feel free to revert if you feel those issues haven't been properly dealt with. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Trademark moral support as a contributor; not quite sure why this one didn't move on before. I will also be around to work on editor concerns. J. Spencer (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks J. I know it's not a hadrosaur, but if you see something suspicious, feel free to point it out here or attack it directly. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • The image captions should not include the article name, so for example should be Skull cast in Milan. All need fixing
  • Artist's restoration of – surely Artist’s impression
  • lightly-built – no hyphen after –ly per MOS
  • flexible joint in the lower jaw, which allowed it to slide its lower jaw back and forth – clunky, why not flexible joint in the lower jaw, which allowed it to slide back and forth?
  • forelimbs, which were less than half the length of its hind limbs. – “forelimbs” one word, “hind limbs” two?
  • like Casliber, I don’t think you are helping your reader as much as you could – I had to follow a lot of links to keep up with this article, and the use of less technical language or glosses where possible would make it less likely that you would lose your audience. Two examples: were for ocular and nasal in the frenulum section could be eye and nostril, and Carnosaur could be glossed as Carnosaur, a large predatory dinosaur.

I thought this was generally well-researched and quite well-written article, but before supporting, I’d like to see the prose made a little more accessible where it is feasible to do so without undue verbiage. jimfbleak (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jim. I will work on all your comments this evening. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've had a pass on some of the terminology, but am not convinced that everything I did helped. J. Spencer (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns have been addressed, and you are right about speculative colours in the alt text jimfbleak (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. If you see further areas which need improvement, please feel free to mention them here or adjust them yourself. As for the alt text, I don't know the first thing about using alt text, and was just going with a "gut feeling", so I could be dead wrong. At any rate, thanks for reviewing the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Could the following sentence be made a little clearer? "However, an extensive study of Herrerasaurus by Sereno indicates that only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported while additional synapomorphies were discovered.[3]" It might help to make it an active, rather than passive, construction, explicitly naming the verbs' subjects.
  • There is a little bit of redundancy between the last paragraph of the Herrerasaurus#Paleoecology section, and the beginning of the Herrerasaurus#Paleobiology section; in both sections, we point out, in rather similar words, that ornithischians such as Pisanosaurus were less numerous than rhynchosaurs and other groups. JN466 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article uses many technical terms that make it a little hard work – "upland riparian forest" is one example (surely we can say that in English?), "sphenopsids (horsetails)" is another (surely it is enough to say "horsetails"?). Some double-barrelled descriptions of reptile families include redundancies that increase the preponderance of specialist terms beyond what is necessary. Examples:
  • Is there any objection to using the shorter versions? JN466 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jayen. Per your observations, I've gone through and reworked the portions you highlighted. Thanks also for your edits to the article. We appreciate the review. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made some additional small copyedits; pls review. I am still not clear what we mean by "only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported". Does it mean that dinosaurs as a monophyletic group really only share one cranial and seven postcranial features out of Bakker's list, and all the other ones Bakker was wrong about? Or does it mean that Bakker's list was right, but Herrerasaurus only exhibits one cranial and seven postcranial features from Bakker's list? I can only see the abstract of Sereno's paper, but from that it's clear that Sereno classified Herrerasaurus as a theropod and thus already a clear dinosaur (located after the saurischian/ornithischian split, and after the theropoda/sauropodomorpha split in the evolutionary tree). Can we make this passage clearer? JN466 12:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at this further, I think this relates to the previous statement that "theropods, sauropodomorphs, and ornithischians diverged even earlier than herrerasaurids, before the middle Carnian, and that "all three lineages independently evolved several dinosaurian features, such as a more advanced ankle joint or an open acetabulum"." In other words, some of the features in Bakker's list are now believed to be the result of convergent evolution, rather than due to descent from a common ancestor, and it was the study of Herrerasaurus that first suggested that. Is that correct? JN466 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your edits, and the present thorough review, JN. What the Science paper actually says is: "Of the approximately 50 postcranial synapomorphies listed earlier in support of Dinosauria, only seven are supported by the new material of Herrerasaurus." In other words, yes, according to Sereno and Novas, Bakker's original 59 synapomorphies (9 cranial and 50 postcranial) could be pared down to 1 and 7, respectively (although at least three additional synapomorphies were discovered). The authors believed the other similarities, such as sacral similarities between saurischians and ornithischians, were examples of convergent evolution. I'm certainly open to rephrasing this so it's understandable to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've had a go at rewording the passage. The new wording explicitly states that Bakker proposed a list of 9 + about 50 features likely due to common descent. Could you double-check that this is actually so, and that the list referred to is not the result of several authors' work building on Bakker's original paper over the intervening years? Because then we would have to word it differently. Also, if the list of 9 + 50 features was present in Bakker's original paper, then I would suggest the reference to that paper should go to the end of the sentence, after the mention of the list, to make that clear. I've also reworded the lead sentence of the paragraph, to provide better linkage to the preceding paragraph, which already raises some of these issues. JN466 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for restructuring. I will check the reference tomorrow, when my subscription to Nature should be fixed (I can't view the paper, despite being logged in). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It does appear that later authors built upon this list; Bakker and Galton's 1974 paper list a dozen or so, not the 50 that Sereno and Novas (mostly) reject. I've reworded and added a few additional refs. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thought so. Have tweaked the text slightly.
Thanks for following up. And – Support. JN466 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Problem has been addressed. Images need alt text as per WP:FACR #3. I added alt text to the lead image; can someone please add it for the remaining images? Please see WP:ALT for advice. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added alt text, per your suggestion. This is the first time I've heard of or used alt text, so if I've blundered, let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think all we FAC writers are in the same boat. With the benefit of my day-old expertise(?) on this subject, my own feeling is that the artist's impressions at least could do with a bit more detail. For example, in the first one you could say it's facing left, that its back is horizontal, and it is pale green and black. Please don't take this as gospel, someone who actually knows what they are doing may have a different view, and I certainly wouldn't make this a deal-breaker. jimfbleak (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Jim. I incorporated part of one. I'm sort of leery about including colors in the alt text; in the example given on the alt text page, the coin really is gold. Here, the color is entirely speculative. It would probably work quite well for a bird, where the colors are definitely known... but a fossil animal? I'd hate to give the impression that some sort of color has been preserved in/with the fossils... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
When in doubt, briefer alt text is probably better; at least that's what I've been told by a visually-impaired reader. Imagine having to wait for a longwinded person to explain an image to you.... Anyway, I adjusted the alt text a bit. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Eubulides. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Query please forgive my ignorance, but "The balancing tail, partially stiffened by overlapping vertebral processes" lost me towards the end of the sentence. Is there another way to express that? ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've tweaked this to The tail, partially stiffened by overlapping vertebral projections, balances the body and is also an adaptation for speed. No doubt Firsfron will change this if it has made the water even muddier Jimfbleak. Talk to me 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Jim. I've tweaked it further so that it's all past tense, to match the rest of the paragraph. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, also the paleoclimate mentions forests and rains but not whether it was tropical, temperate etc. ϢereSpielChequers 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Gah! They were all fixed. In my effort to clarify "upland" (above), I linked to a disambiguation page. Now fixed. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns:

Otherwise, images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All images were approved at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review, File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg here and File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg here. File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg is based on the work of paleontologist Paul C. Sereno (whose recovery of the skull of Herrerasaurus is discussed in this article) [17][18][19]. I don't know of any sources File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg is based on, but it was also approved. We routinely remove images in which the illustration differs appreciably from known skeletal elements, implied skeletal elements (via bracketing), known non-skeletal elements, implied non-skeletal elements, known range of motion, or images which depict a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. WP:DINO is keenly aware of potential problems depicting dinosaurs, and set up an Image Review in 2006 to address the problem. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please insert the sources for BW in the Description or Source (centralize the sources for the depiction). As for DB, inserting the link for the Dino project's review of this image and pointing out the possible discrepancies in the Description could do, I guess (perhaps that can be done for all images vetted by the project?). Jappalang (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any (current) discrepancy with the DB image. The wrist pronation ("bunny hands") that was discussed during the image review has since been modified, along with a potential dewclaw problem. I'll certainly add the sources for BW. Thanks for the image review. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] North Road (stadium)

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it would be impossible to expand this article any further unless new information were to come to light. I believe that this article meets all of the Featured Article criteria and that the only thing it is missing is a photograph of the site as it exists now, which I should be able to obtain by the time this nomination is complete. Opinions are welcomed and encouraged. – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cliftonian (talk · contribs) – looks good generally, just a few points that need clearing up:

  • "It was the first home of Manchester United F.C." – I'd expand this to "Manchester United Football Club".
    • Done
  • "The ground was originally just a pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate, but the addition of stands by the club in 1891 increased the capacity to around 15,000. However, the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run and, without the company's financial support, they were unable to afford the rent on the ground and were evicted." – This whole paragraph is very clunky and awkward, I'd be happier if it was re-written.
    • Wording seems fine to me. Could you perhaps suggest alternative wording that with which you would be happier?
      • The aspect which seems weakest to me is the first line – "The ground was originally just a pitch". Doesn't sound very good to me – perhaps "Originally, the ground consisted only of the pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate. On the club's addition of stands in 1891 the capacity was increased to around 15,000." The rest is fine. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Instead, they had to change at a pub – The Three Crowns – a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road." – A bit too stop-and-start for my taste – try "Instead, they had to change at The Three Crowns public house a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road."
    • Done
  • "Fortunately, the club's management had been seeking a new stadium ever since the first attempted eviction in May 1892," – "Fortunately"? I wouldn't use this word in an encyclopaedic article.
    • I've removed "fortunately".
  • "the site now serves as the location of the North Manchester Business Park, and before that it was Moston Brook High School." – chronology all wrong. It should be "the site served as the location of Moston Brook High School, before becoming North Manchester Business Park in *date*.
    • Done, with some extra additions
  • "A red plaque could once be found attached to one of the school's walls" – when?
    • The sources don't say when it was attached.
  • "the plaque has since been stolen" – when?
    • The sources don't say when it was stolen.

Looks good otherwise. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments, mate. Glad you liked the article for the most part. Nevertheless, if you could suggest alternative wording for the passage you commented on above, that'd be very helpful. – PeeJay 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright then. I'm happy enough with it now, that paragraph still irks me a bit but it doesn't stop me changing my stance above. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Cliftonian. I have changed the paragraph like you suggested. Your version certainly reads better than mine did. I seem to have a penchant for sentences with lots of clauses! – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 06:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Images shouldn't be watermarked Fasach Nua (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's how the image came from the website. Not sure how to get hold of a similar map for myself. – PeeJay 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Try File:North_road_os.png, I dont have a commons account, but if you could transfer it, that would be peachy! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have now transferred that image to Commons. Thanks very much for doing that for me, FN. Hope you'll support the article's promotion. – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
To eliminate watermarks from that site browse it with firefox, with the Adblock Plus add-in. Then just block the watermark from that site, before screencapping. Nothing wrong with doing that, after all its the watermark that carries the copyright, not the map. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CommentSupport

  • "Unable to afford the increased rent, especially as the Manchester Deans and Canons felt it inappropriate for the club to charge admission to the ground, the Heathens were served with an eviction notice in June 1893."

I know that the Heathens was a nickname of the club. But anyone reading the article who was unaware of this fact might assume that the religious organization evicted them partly on religious grounds. You might want to change the sentence a bit or explain that it was a nickname. Might also want to say what the organization felt about Newton Heath's nickname, if it is known.--EchetusXe (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've italicised "Heathens" to highlight the fact that this is a nickname. Do you think that, in conjunction with the fact that "Heathens" is spelled with a capital H, this will be enough? – PeeJay 09:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think so. Unless anyone else thinks it is not enough?--EchetusXe (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - A small, detailed article with solid prose. Excellent work. My scans could not detect any defects. ceranthor 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This comment makes me extremely proud of this article. Goes to show that not all Featured Articles have to be tens of thousands of kilobytes in size! – PeeJay 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    I do agree that the article is extremely short, though. If promoted, it would likely be the second shortest FA. This shortness might be from a lack of comprehensiveness, but I do not have the knowledge in the area to research. ceranthor 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: 789 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name

  • The article's sole top-level section is "History". If other sources are found, consider adding at least one more for the stadium's structure. It mentions that the stadium eventually got grandstands; any data on the surface area or dimensions of the stadium, or the height of the stands? Seating arrangements? Popularity and revenues over time? I know it's tough to source those things, but criteria 1b is very demanding and I've received concerns about sales data in an unrelated good article nom. Try to find library support or other sources (including pay databases) if at all possible.
  • How is ref 11 reliable? Not much author, editor, or fact-checking mentions there at all, looks blog-ish. I'm not even sure that it says a school was opened at that site.

Article, ref dates, formatting, dabs, and links look good otherwise. --an odd name 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments – Redundancy: "They attempted to take the two grandstands with them, but the attempt failed and the stands were sold for just $100." (not really, but us American don't have pound signs on our keyboards :-)) Attempted and attempt probably shouldn't be repeated in such close proximity. Overall, I'm shaky on this article because the writing seems fine, but there isn't much of it. It just feels like there is more that could be said, but isn't because newspaper sources from the time aren't utilized. In addition to the mentioned lack of a section on the facilities, there's nothing on record attendances, or whether they have been lost to history. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Faxai (2007)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meet FA criteria. Although this is a relatively short article, it's comprehensive of the entire storm, including the large difference between warning centers. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment- I like this article pretty much, but there is one thing that I can see right now that might cause some problems. When you do the difference among warning centers, you say: The Japan Meteorological Agency uses 10-minute sustained winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses 1-minute sustained winds.[12] The conversion factor between the two is 1.14.[13] JMA's peak intensity for Faxai was 100 km/h (65 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 120 km/h (75 mph) 1-minute sustained.[2][13] The JTWC's peak intensity for Faxai was 75 km/h (45 mph) 1-minute sustained, or 65 km/h (40 mph) 10-minute sustained.[14][13]. That seems good, but with the conversions between 10 and 1-min winds are the problem. The JMA only reports in 10-min winds and the JTWC only reports in 1-min winds so would that be OR? --Anhamirak 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
→ "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks--Anhamirak 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This was my only problem, so support. (By the way, is this just our second WPac FAC?) --Anhamirak 02:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No; we have Typhoon Tip, Typhoon Pongsona, Typhoon Paka, and Tropical Storm Vamei. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Anhamirak; the quick reply from JC; and the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review - The two public domain images are fine. Could you please complete the licensing migration for File:JMA Faxai 2007 track.png? Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review, I'm a bit confused as to what I need to do exactly for the track map though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think NuclearWarfare meant to tag the image for relicense to CC-BY-3.0, which I did. --an odd name 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks AnOddName. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, AnOddName got it. Sorry I missed this earlier, but thanks for doing that for me. NW (Talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Theres nothing missing from the MH, Impact or Preps and it looks good.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text to the lead image, to help you get started. Eubulides (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Looked over it, and it looks fine to me on the basis of the FA criteria. Darren23 (Contribs) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unification of Germany

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because, after major revisions, it is broadly inclusive of the topic, plus focused specifically on unification, it is appropriately and amply cited, representative of a variety of widely accepted historiographic viewpoints, is well written and properly illustrated, and generally and specifically documents and explains the important factors leading to unification of Germany. In addition, it lays the ground work for problems that arose after German unification, and directs the reader to further articles on Kulturkampf, etc. I am the primary editor. In addition to informal assessments (see archive), the article has undergone several (archived) peer reviews, plus a good article assessment (listed). Thank you for your consideration. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Deutsches_Reich1.png.....the eng...lish language wikipedia? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

the file is from wikicommons, and is used in several articles in different languages. Are you suggesting that I should change the name of the file? (requiring everyone else to use an file with an English name) or perhaps duplicate it, and change the title on the picture? (equally pointless...why alter the image...?) The point of wikicommons is to share files, and that being the case, we need to share languages as well. Besides, the caption is in English. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Auntieruth55 - there is no need to change the name of the file. Note that the image description page uses both English and German, so there are no problems with accessibility. Awadewit (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue is the content of the file, placenames should either be English or bilingual, unless the document is of historic significance, which this is clearly not! Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
this was unclear from your original post. I've switched out the file for one of far lesser quality in terms of information, but it is in English. This switch is against my better judgment, because the first file had far more information, showing far more explicitly the "kleindeutschland" solution of a Germany without Austria, which is not as clear from the new map. It seems to me that we can pander too much to people who must have everything in English; the other map was understandable even a couple of 10-12 year olds here with me now. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Images should be high quality and accessible, it shouldnt be one or the other The source of the licencing in the current image is missing Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Quality? I'm not referring to the pixels of the image, but rather its ability to illustrate the subject of the article. The picture I took out illustrates this better than the one I put in. I didn't select it off the top of my head, but rather after some consideration of what needed to be in the map, and what was unnecessary. I would MUCH rather use the deleted image than the one I have. How about if I explain what the terms mean in the caption? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
How about we ask someone to simply create a new map based on the original map but which includes English names? We could even have a dual-language map, if you think that would be best. Ruhrfisch has created some maps in the past - he might be able to help. Awadewit (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
that is a good idea. Ruhrfish makes great maps. I did tweak an old map I had, though, and replaced the "questioned" map with this one. See if you like it better? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Fasach Nua, what do you think? I thought the original map was much better. If we could get an English or English/German version of that, I think that would be the best choice. It is almost impossible to read the names on this one because the resolution is so low. Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Okay, you need to standardize your references. Some are Location: PUblisher, year others are (Location, Publisher, year).
  • On journal articles, we customarily put the article in quotation marks and the journal title in italics. So Jürgen Kocka, "Comparison and Beyond". History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 1 (February, 2003), pp. 39–44
  • I'm unclear why you have a bibliography section if you give the full form of the reference in the notes section? Normally, when you give a bibliography section, it's to avoid giving the full bibliographical details in the notes.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm an academic. We AlWAYS ise a bibliography. Are you suggesting I take it out? It includes sources that are not cited, but which I read. And I'll standardize the references now. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No, i'm more suggesting that if you have a bibliography, you just use a "short form" of the source in the notes. See Wilfrid or Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. for examples. And if you did not cite a work in the article, it should go in the further reading section, not the bibliography. On Wikipedia, bibliography is only for works actually cited, and further reading is for works perhaps read but not used. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse. I looked at OWH Sr and I don't see the difference between the shortform there and the shortform in Unification, other than minor punctuation differences? Once a source is cited the first time, unless there are two or more sources by the same author I don't use the title again, just name and page numbers. I would be happy to use a shorter form in the citations as long as it doesn't involve a-b-c-d etc. I don't like reading articles with the multiple cites using the a-b-c-d, because I find them very difficult to figure out. So, withint that constraint, I'm happy to change the citations to whatever they need to be.
re the merged bibliography and the "additional sources" or whatever we want to call them, I had them separated once, and a reviewer suggested I merge them for space. so I did. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The main difference between what you have now and what's in OWH is that OWH never uses the full citation in the footnotes. Instead they are all short form, with the full citation only occuring in the sources section. does that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
not really. Short form is last name and page? I did look at it. There are at least a dozen, although not all, that have the full citation. It's not consistent at all. I also separated out the "Suggested Reading" (am I allowed to use that word, even if it isn't neutral?) again ;) and I went through the citations and made sure they were as short as I could make them. I guess a question is, what is the point of using the short form, is it just to save space??? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Example from your article. Footnote 1 is "David Blackbourn, The long nineteenth century: a history of Germany, 1780–1918. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, Epilogue" but you also list the full citation in the bibliography, is there a need to list it long in the first footnote? Anything in the bibliography should only be listed in "short form" in the notes, if you list any short forms in the notes. You can also list EVERY note long form, if you wish, but right now you're inconsistent, some are long some are short, some are always short, some are long in the first footnote and short later. The idea is that you're consistent and right now it's not. And you've still got a few spots of titles not in italics (see notes 62 and 63). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're saying. I consistently listed every footnote the first time in long form, and after that, in shortened form, as I would do in a paper or published article. I've gone through and eliminated the long form on all first footnotes, however, so this should work, I think. I'll check back after lunch (I'm on vacation right now, and have to pay attention to some others.)--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
okay re citations and footnotes and bibliography. I went back through the entire article, and checked, rechecked, and fixed where necessary. Each citation, the first time, has a complete listing, and after that lists the author's last name, and the page number(s). If there is more than source for an author (such as for Blackbourn or Sperber), I've listed a shortened form of the title. In the bibliography, everything that is referred to in the text is included, but I did use the shortened form (shortened according to CMS, which I gather is the MOS here). I separated the material that is not directly referred to in the article, and listed it under further reading. If a journal article is the source, I've put the journal article in quotes and the journal name in italics, as you requested. So, everything is done consistently, according to style, by the book, so to speak. Hope this works. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
In the bibliography, please list the publication location and the publishing house for all books. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Done this, put all the publishing houses BACK into the bib. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 I worked a bit on the images, but many of them need information that I cannot provide. Hopefully with some additional attention, we can retain most of them.

  • File:Germanempire1871.jpg - I don't see any evidence of this map being in the PD, however I might have missed where it says that on the website. Could you point me to that? Thanks.
this one has been removed. A different one put in its place, authorship explained. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
a user named Wiggy did some translations on the original map I had up, but he didn't do all of them. You might take a look at File:Deutsches_Reich1.png.File:German Reich 1871.png --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Germanempire 1871 english plus language.jpg - This is the new image. I see that the image is licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0. Can you show me where on the website it says that the maps are licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0 and add a link to the source on the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Hambacher Fest 1832.jpg - This image needs a source and an author. Notice that the license claims PD status based on the death of the author, so for this license, we must know the author.
I've translated the German info on the file. The picture comes from a web page of the city, Neustadt, which is near where this festival was held. They are not claiming any copy rights on the images on the website. The commons page claims PD old on the copy right. this is a hand colored drawing from 1832.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've found a different copy, this one not colored, and with higher resolution, and it has much clearer and more detailed sourcing information. --Auntieruth55
I've added a more specific source link and fixed the license for the new image. This is a better image! Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Nationalversammlung.jpg - This image needs a source and an author. Notice that the license claims PD status based on the death of the author, so for this license, we must know the author.
this is a hand colored lithograph (from a newspaper) (mid 19th century). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz Use permissions here
As you will notice, it says that "All materials included in German History in Documents and Images are intended solely for individual, educational, non-commercial use." - This is not consonant with Wikipedia's free license, which also allow commercial uses. We can still use images from the website, however, as long as we demonstrate that they are in the public domain. To demonstrate that the above is in the PD, it would be best if we could get the death date of von Eliott (the original artist) since the copyright expires 70 years after his death. Awadewit (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Parliament Frankfurt Pauls Church 1848.jpg has been substituted for the Naitonalversamlung. Its sources are clearer, I think. Also have death date on artist. It may need some additional tweaking in the description page by someone.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Charicature stitching Germany together.jpg - "German wikicommons" is not the original source for this caricature, nor is Pischdi the original author. Since the PD license is based on the life of the author, we need to know the original author or change the license. Please also translate the description into English.
as close as I can tell, it was a caricature in a newspaper, and I'm not sure which one, either.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We really need a source here. Is this caricature reprinted in any of the books you used to research the article? Perhaps you could try and contact the original uploader and ask them where they got it from? If we can't find any documentation for this image, it will have to be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've given it an invisibility cloak with those codes, so when I eventually find a source, I can add it back in. At this point, it should be "gone" (unseeable).Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Striking because it is not in the article. Note, however, that we should really delete the image if you cannot find a source. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
done some searching, the photo was dated 1860, but no indication of the author. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
more searching. A copy of this photo is located in the Archiv des WSA-Kiel (Archive of the WSA-Kiel (city in northern Germany). here This is an article on the construction of the north sea canal (water street=WS). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added the date information and changing the licensing since we don't know the name of the photographer. Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
artist seems to be that world famous painter, "unknown." All other copies of it that i've seen have no author. I'll look in Wawro tomorrow, see if there is one there. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think "unknown" is the most talented painter out there. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
this is a drawing by Wilhelm Camphausen, 1878. This was an artist who made a series of pictures about the " national war." He died in 1885. He painted historical scenes (such as Bluecher crossing the Rhine, and a very famous picture of Frederick the Great on his horse). Under the category of historical painting and nationalist painting. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We need to have some sort of source here. Do you know a book that this is reprinted in or a museum that holds a copy of this, for example? Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Napoleon III Otto von Bismarck (Detail).jpg This is the actual file in the article. Someone had substituted another file, not sure why! There is a source in the description page (I put it there yesterday. Another source for it: Heritage History Famous Men of Modern times, John Haaren, New York, American Book Company, 1909. Count Otto von Bismarck, p. 344-. here Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This file checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anton Werner was the court painter, and the picture appears to be in the exhibit at Wannseehaus Museum. Werner died in 1915.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

no it's not at Wannsee, or if it was, it's permanent location is Schloss Friedrichsruhe. I found it listed in a catalog (Getty).
This is done. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Prussiamap.gif - The uploader of this map, Electionworld, is not the creator of it (as it states on the image description page). Electionworld has stopped contributing, so we cannot discover the contributor. This map will have to be recreated by someone else and this one will have to be deleted.
I'm not married to this photo.
Do you want to get someone to recreate it? Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
that would be good. Or....we can just do without it I suppose, although it's good to have it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you want to do? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Kolonialbesitz.png - This image does not list an author, but the license claims "life of the author plus 70 years". Do we know the author? If not, we can find a different license.
this one was pulled out because the article doesn't deal with the colonies.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we know who the author of the map is? Note that the license states "life of the author plus 70 years". Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
there is a Ruhrfish recreation. Beyond this, I'm not sure...
What do you want to do? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Kaiser Wilhelm Deu. Eck Koblenz.jpg - The quotation from the website is not an explicit release of rights. I believe we need something more solid than this. The images need to be released under a specific license - this is too unclear. This image needs to be deleted or the licensing clarified.
the website gives a specific release of rights as long as the website is credited. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
1) Notice that the website attaches specific conditions to the release of the rights (journalism and tourism). 2) There is no specific license here, making the entire release ambiguous. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
no problem, lots of pictures of the corner, a very impressive and much photographed space. I swapped it out for one posted by a german user, it's his own picture.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
New image is fine. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am enjoying reading the article. These image issues will take some time to resolve, but they are not difficult. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've shifted someof the images around, using ones that have clearer sourcing inf. Hope this helps.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Some of the images are sandwiching text, which is strongly discouraged by the MOS (see WP:MOS#Images). You might want to work on the layout a bit. Also, images are not supposed to be placed before === and lower headings. There are several of these in the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll take care of this, and the other issues you've brought up. I think sometimes the sourcing on some of these images is a best guess by whoever uploads (including myself). Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've taken care of the sandwiching, I moved some images to a gallery at the end (I like it, and they make sense there), I switched out the Frankfurt Parliament image with one that has clearer licensing, although I might need you to tweak that sourcing, I wasn't sure about it.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments I was impressed by the scope and readability of this article. I do have some comments and suggestions.

  • The critical role played by Blücher's troops, especially after having to retreat from the field at Ligny the day before, turned the tide of combat against the French. The Prussian cavalry pursued the defeated French in the evening of the 18th, sealing the allied victory. - After the Battle of Waterloo FAC, I realize that this is one particular POV. Since this article is not about Waterloo, we obviously don't need to go into great detail about the debates, but I think we need to acknowledge that this is a particular POV and that there are others.
I'll take care of this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Crucially, both the Wartburg rally in 1817 and the Hambach Festival in 1832 had lacked any clear-cut program of unification. At Hambach, the positions of the many speakers illustrated their disparate agendas. Held together only by the idea of unification, their notions of how to achieve this did not include specific plans, but rested on the nebulous idea that the Volk (the people), if properly educated, would bring about unification on their own. Grand speeches, flags, exuberant students, and picnic lunches did not translate into a new political, bureaucratic and administrative apparatus; no constitution miraculously appeared, although there was indeed plenty of talk of constitutions. - This is entertaining, but I'm wondering a bit about the language. It sounds a bit sarcastic, especially the bits about the flags and picnic lunches. There are some other examples of this kind of language throughout the article which can be toned down.
I'll tone it down a little, but generally I don't think it is too sarcastic. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The historiography section at the end only mentions 19th-century historians. Is there a reason it stops there? If so, that should be explained. If not, the section should be expanded to include 20th-century views.
This last section on "building" is dealing with the problems inherent in "starting" a nation. Consequently, I left the nationalist historiography of the Empire and so on to the other articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pro-Bismarck - The article seemed a bit pro-Bismarck to me as I was reading. Statements such as the following gave the impression that Bismarck was a diplomatic genius who could do no wrong: This required political and diplomatic skill worthy of a Machiavelli, and Bismarck manipulated circumstances to suit his needs. - Again, I'm wondering about the presentation of the Bismarck material.
well, he did, and it's cited. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • All of the images also need alt text. (This requirement was just added for FA.)
Oh Joy! Oh Bliss! I'll take care of it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article in the future as these issues are resolved and I learned a lot from reading it. Thanks so much for working on such an important article! Awadewit (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just let me know when all of these things are finished. Thanks for all of your hard work! Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks, I'll take a look and follow the example. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Per WP:LEDE, the lede should not exceed four paragraphs. I've joined a few paras to make four overall. JN466 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
okay, we ran into an edit conflict while you were doing that. However, I think I've everything I added while you were working on the lead back together.
alt text is done.
citations added at ambiguities re Bismarck
German enthusiasm for Prussian performance at Waterloo added, plus ethusiasm over Leipzig
a couple of places sort of toned down, but...Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflicts. The lede still seems a little long. I noted it has two mentions of Realpolitik, as well as two mentions of the Zollverein. I wonder if it can still be tightened up a little further, by referring only once to the role that each of these aspects played? JN466 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I shortened it. See if that is better.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well done, I think that flows better. JN466 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of stuff so far:

  1. The lead has been fixed, as far as I can tell, yes? So everyone is happy with that?
  2. Images are properly sourced and attributed, placed, sized, captioned, and so forth,. The one that is still problematic is invisible, and when I find the appropriate source on it, I'll add it. Meanwhile, it's not "there"... so we're happy with that?
  3. Alt text is added to all images, so we're okay on that?
  4. Bismarck material is properly (overly perhaps) cited, so it can stay? I think it needs to. His contribution was critical.
  5. I'm adding a sentence to link to the "sarcastic" section, here here

So, what else needs to be done? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The maps are still an issue - see the images that are unstricken above. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Images of File:Prussiamap.gif and File:Kolonialbesitz.png The latter is not necessary to the article on German Unification, but it should be necessary to an article on the German Empire (Second Empire, whatever we call it). I've removed it from Unification. I'm not sure what needs to be "fixed" in it. It's a Ruhrfisch adaptation. Re the former, it is important to this article. What is wrong with it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you check the reference for our mention of the "prolific historian, Wilhelm Raabe"? Wilhelm Raabe was a novelist; I can't find any trace of a historian called Wilhelm Raabe. JN466 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sheehan implies he is an historian; clearly he's a novelist and possibly he wrote historical stuff as well. I've clarified that. Also added a bit on roads and rivers at that point.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've corrected the German title of Lenau's poem, and have altered the description of it slightly. Pls review. JN466 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
yes, that is fine, looks good to me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I am calling it a day for today; I am about half-way through. Will still need a day or two to read through the rest of it, it is a long article. Interesting though, must have taken you yonks to put together. Cheers, JN466 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad you're finding it interesting. Yes, it is long, but it is a big subject and a top priority for the project. Not as long as the battle of Waterloo ;) One reviewer in the GA process didn't want to read the article, although he wanted to review it. Ummmm, not sure how that would have worked. It definitely was not a short process to put it together. Had to find all the references, etc. I'd done the reading as part of comprehensives, but then pulling out the specific pages, etc., was time consuming. Initially I tried to just "improve" the existing article, but at some point I realized the whole thing needed to be redone. So.... Thanks for taking the time to deal with it. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is still needed for the images in the The Nation in images: Germania depicted section. That section used to be a gallery, which doesn't work with alt text; I changed it to a table (which is better anyway), and somebody needs to add alt text there. Thanks for doing the alt text for the other images; I tweaked the text a bit and fixed some bugs. Eubulides (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I discovered it didn't work in gallery. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re perception of emphasis on Bismarck. I've subsumed that section re him and Realpolitik into the previous section, which de-emphasizes him considerably. Text isn't remarkably changed.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

done. :)

Sorry, I didn't like the modifications done to this section yesterday. I understand what and why they were made, and I've seriously modified it. Hope this works. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not all that happy with them myself. :) You know your way better around this, so I am glad you had another look. We're still not quite there, though; Bismarck gets appointed twice (once in the first para, once in the second), and Wilhelm is first Wilhelm and then William. Also, the army reforms mentioned in the first para are the same as those mentioned in the second. It might make sense to get everything in time sequence, i.e. start with Moltke and v. Roon (currently in 2nd para), explain that their reforms cost money and there was a conflict about the budget (currently in 1st para), and that the new king appointed Bismarck because he believed Bismarck could sort it (currently in 1st and 2nd para). The rest should flow fine. If I've slipped up or got hold of the wrong end of the stick, or you'd rather do it differently, please let me know. Best, JN466 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
see of this works better 7-14-09 revision Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wildfire

Nominator(s): MrBell (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because of its importance as a global topic. MrBell (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

comment - stunning imagery Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

comment agree with Fasach Nua, if it was only a question of images, this article would deserve promotion without further ado!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
another comment Where does the definition in the first sentence of the article come from? I don't see it in ref 2.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Both Ref 2, slide 35 and Ref 1, page 4 have the definition. Wildland is just a US term for the wilderness/outdoors. MrBell (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sitting here thinking about it, the definition in the ref is kinda odd, because in the US, wildland fire includes wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. Basically, a wildfire is any uncontrolled fire of the wildland fire type. And since wildland fires occur in the wildland (aka wilderness), then a wildfire is any uncontrolled fire in the wilderness. MrBell (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The images are so good that there is a danger that people will look at these and not read the article. I found myself doing this. I will read it; meantime, I couldn't understand the caption under the tryptich ("Forest development in the Bitterroot National Forest...") How exactly does one interpret these pictures from this caption, and why is it in quotes? Brianboulton (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How about now? I hesitated rewording the direct quote from the text, but you were right, it was difficult to interpret. MrBell (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
However, would the picture fit better after the discussion of fuel build-up in the suppression section? MrBell (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Makes sure that the ISO-style dates in the citations are formatted correctly: I've seen several that are YYYY-M-D, M-D-YYYY, etc., instead of YYYY-MM-DD. Scripts or bots might not notice them all—you may need to go through by hand (ugh), and I'd rather not, at least yet (sorry). I agree that there's great images here.--an odd name 08:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) done

  • Comments -
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. done
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted NIFC, NWCG, USDA, etc. done
  • Newspaper titles should be in italics, and the articles should be in quotations marks. done
  • In your notes, titles of books should be italicised, such as "Are Big Fires Inevitable, 14" where the title should be in italics, to match the form given in the references. done
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
done At least I think I fixed them all. Let me know if there are others I missed. MrBell (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • On first glance, this article looks fantastic. I'll have some comments for you as soon as I have time to edit. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note Please don't use templates such as {{done-t}}; they slow down loading time of the FAC page. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I was aware that the use of the image templates {{done}} and {{notdone}} was discouraged in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates ("Supporting and opposing"); however, I was under the impression that the use of the non-image templates {{done-t}} and {{notdone}} was encouraged, per Wikipedia:Peer review "How to respond to a request." Is this not true, and should their use be discouraged on the peer review page as well? MrBell (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Even though those are "non-image", they are still templates, and they can still cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about peer review, as I don't follow what goes on there much. I just know that SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) doesn't like them on FAC because of template limits and FAC's load time. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Good job overall, great images. But broadly speaking, there are large parts where US-specific situations are described as if they were broad generalisations. Specifically:

Lead
  • General comment - the lead reads more like an introduction and less like a summary of this article.
  • I don't think the first sentence requires three separate refs to support an uncontroversial statement of what a wildfire is. Not a fan of refs in the lead (since it's a summary of the article, anything in the lead should be supported by refs in the body of the article), but that's neither here nor there.
Better with only two?
Yes and no. All three are very similar - they appear to be standard US government definitions, and they're linked to fire management laws. But wildfire has a meaning in English that's fuzzier than this one, I suspect. Unfortunately, most people who write about wildfire seem to assume it's a common English word that doesn't need to be defined. One thing though - if you're using US government definitions, I would recommend that you stick a bit closer to them, and use "wildland" rather than "wilderness"; it's more accurate "wilderness" has an element of "pristine", while "wildland" is merely uncultivated land.
How about now?
  • sentence 2: Greek fire really doesn't deserve more than a hatnote here, but if it's mentioned at all it should be further down in the lead. It's not central to the understanding of the article, it doesn't deserve second billing.
  • sentence 3: "bushfire" (in Australasia) - bush fire has much wider usage than just Australasia (see here, for example); phrasing it like that suggests that it's a local usage, which creates a misleading impression.
  • para 2, sentence 1: e.g., as a Latin abbrev, should be italicised
  • para 2, sentence 1: "peat, shrub, trees" goes from a collective noun ("peat") to a singular noun ('shrub") to a plural noun ("trees")
  • para 2, sent. 2: "or an action of man" - non-gender-specific language is preferable, as it something other than passive voice.
  • para 2, sent. 3: "nine out of ten" - is the source speaking globally, or only about the US?
  • para 2, sent. 4: there's a shift in tense in this sentence: "are common" to "occurring"
  • para 3, sent.1: "Along with the direct damage" - damage hasn't been mentioned yet, so you can't talk about "along with...damage"
  • para 3, sent.1: "direct damage...beneficial effects" - you can't really contrast "direct damage" with beneficial effects; if I see "direct" damage specified, I'd expect to see it contrasted with indirect damage. Alternately, you could contrast "damage" with "beneficial effects"
  • para 3, sent.1: "as many plant species are dependent on the effects of fire for growth and reproduction" - while strictly speaking this is true (every system has got to have at least a few pyrophytes), the idea that fires are important for plant regeneration isn't true of all systems. This should be re-phrased to make it clear that this observation is a (broad) local, rather than a global generalisation.
  • para 3, sent. 2: "too much wildfire may cause other negative ecological effects" - "too much" isn't an appropriate term for wildfire. "Too many"/"too frequent" (too short a return time) or "too large" (in areal extent), but not "too much"
  • para 3 in general is too North-American-specific; the following can't really be generalised outside of the US or, at best, the developed world:
    • "The strategies ... have varied over the years"
    • "now incorporate techniques that permit and even encourage fires in some regions"
    • "Wildfires generally do not involve property"
    • "with extensive urbanization of wilderness"
I've made some changes. I agree that the above statements may not apply to countries that don't have the resources to fight fires. However, I have yet to find anything discussing their actions one way or the other. What do you suggest?
Distinction from other fires
  • para 1, sent. 1: "peatlands" rather than peat, for consistency with grasslands. woodlands, scrubland...
  • para 2: the "defining characteristics" seem local rather than global. Ref [14] does not appear to support the assertion that "wildfires" are 100k+ acres, it simply calls them "large fires"; I couldn't find anything in my skim of ref [15] to support the assertion that speed was a distinguishing characteristic of wildfire. :Additional ref, page number added
I still don't see it.

Some of the defining characteristics of wildfires are the large area of burned land, from hundreds of acres

is supported by ref [2], the "definition of map terms". It only defines a wildfire as "Any nonstructure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland"; it says nothing about size. The previous term, "Large Incident", is defined as "A wildfire of 100 acres or more occurring in timber, or a wildfire of 300 acres or more occurring in grass/sage". I don't see this as supporting the idea that wildfires can be defined as fires that burn "hundreds of acres". The second ref supports the assertion that wildfires can be much larger, but it doesn't support the idea that they are by definition large fires. It simply lists "Large Fires (100,000+ fires)". The idea that wildfires can be large isn't the same as the idea that wildfires are, by definition, large. The same issue with the speed of spread - the Otways fire speaks of one that spreads quickly, but doesn't appear to say that especially rapid spread is a characteristic of wildfires.
These two sites[22][23] suggest that, at least in the US, wildfires could mean just a few acres (USFS site, average of 31 acres ~ 0.12 km2). Should the "definition" of hundreds of acres be removed altogether, or can the term "features" be used instead and just point out certain "general descriptions" of wildfires?
Is the additional ref after "continuous fuels, thick vegetation and continuous overhead tree canopies" sufficient to claim wildfires have rapid spread?
  • para 2, sentence 3: you should provide some context for the "Mann Gulch fire" - where is Mann Gulch, at least identify the country it's in.
  • para 2, sentence 3: after using imperial units earlier in the para (acres) the article switches to SI (°C)
Question: If a reference uses either units, should I convert it to one standard unit, or would that interfere with verifiability?
Use one standard. That's fine. Conversion is a simple mathematical operation. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Physical properties
  • para 2, sentence 1: "required to evaporate the contained water" - "the contained water" isn't really normal English usage.
  • para 2, sentence 5, 6: these sentences are grammatically inconsistent
I've made some changes, but I'm not sure what you meant; could you elaborate further?
That's fine
  • para 3, sent. 1: In the previous section, you clocked the fires at 11 km/6.8 mph, while here a speed of 10.8km/7mph is used, based on the same source. While part of the problem is inconsistent specification of the number of significant figures in {{convert}}, there's also the problem of inconsistent rounding. These need to be fixed.
Fuel type
  • Photo captions aren't specific enough - "Utah" and "Northern Cascades" - should specify country
  • para 2 ("Ground"), sent. 2: "which was a result" (or something such) rather than simply "a result"
  • para 3 ("Crawling or surface") - this is unreferenced
  • para 4 ("Crown, canopy, or aerial") - six references to support an uncontroversial statement is a little excessive
Those references are all the sources that contributed to the section. Should they stay there or where they are now?
  • The slow-moving wildfires that are causing major changes in the Amazon need to be mentioned here, as should the synergism between logging, ranching and small-holder cultivation in the advancing frontier in the Amazon.
Mentioned in the ecology section; see next note...
  • Climate change is mentioned in the next section (the ecology section) but would probably fit better in this section.
I'm not sure I understand. I was under the impression that climate change is an ecological focus. Could you elaborate?
Ecology
  • para 2, sent. 1 (and continuing) - these statements about fire-dependence and fire-suppression are specific to the US (and perhaps a few other areas); they should not be presented as broad generalisations
Moved to the Plant adaptations section. It is appropriate there?
Plant adaptations
  • para 1, sent. 1 - "wilderness" in unnecessary here, since the operation concept here is "ecosystem", not "wilderness"
  • Many of the "see [xxx]" are capitalised (like "pioneer species", "serotiny") - these are not proper nouns and should not be capitalised mid-sentence
What about those in the {{see also}} templates, should those be lower case as well?
Those are fine, IMO.
Prevention
  • para 1, sent. 3: "Current policies often..." - again, which policies, where? (This sounds US-specific)
  • para 3, again, seems overly tied to the specific case in the US, but is written as if it's a broad generalisation
Detection
  • Again, it sounds like the US situation is being generalised too broadly.
Should I add statements and citations that name countries in particular? (see [24], [25], [26]) MrBell (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Added some further comments in blue; more later. Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Is the text I added appropriate? MrBell (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it. I tweaked it a bit to try to improve it. Hey, that's the Ionian Sea, not the Aegean! Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no History section or subsection, could be very useful just below the Characteristics. Brandt 08:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
What should a history section or subsection include? Should it be combined with the ecology section, or perhaps move the Fossil record info to the history section? MrBell (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that there's now a History section in progress. Suggestion: add a summary of the historical record (which basically begins where Fossil record leaves off). For example, how about when the ancients set wildfires deliberately, as part of hunting or raising crops or fighting wars? How about wildfires in mediaeval Europe or ancient China or 19th century America? that sort of thing. (I'm no expert, but surely there are sources about this.) Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added some detail; is it suitable?
Deliberate fires such as this are already covered in Causes through a link to Slash and Burn. I'm not convinced that it needs to be duplicated in History, but a {seealso} link and a short summary could provide a useful addition to the History section.Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Support. Looks fine now. Brandt 12:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I reviewed this article sometime ago and having read a few papers since then I think that there is another 'point' that could be added to Ecology. A Wildfire in Heather in Fylingdales Moor, in 2003, in the UK, stripped the moor of peat back to bare bones and exposed prehistoric archaelogy, which was good for the archaeologists in the short term. One of the problems (not mentioned in this article) was continuing severe wind errosion which could have had serious consequences, especially with rain and frost errosion compounding the problem. The decision was made to manually 'seed' the affected area with grass and heather seads to stabilise the surface and to allow the heather to regrow. I have a reference for this. On a non-wildfire topic, Iceland has also experimented with manually 'seeding' areas of desert affected by volcanic debris to minimise losses from wind errosion (I don't have a reference for this).Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I reviewed this article at WP:GAN back in March 2009 and was impressed by it's quality, which appeared to me to be a Good WP:GAN. It has been further improved by the nominator since I reviewed it; particularly as a result of this WP:FAC. Having seen several recent articles progress from GA-level through to FA-level, I am very happy to support this one at WP:FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ba Cut

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


An interesting, infamous but obscure Vietnamese warlord of the Hoa Hao religious sect. Basically all of the research done on the Hoa Hao is on their religious/political aspects and the military wing is basically neglected, probably because most historians regard them as little more than brainless bandits unworthy of study. For example, the book by Hue-Tam Ho Tai that I cited is regarded as the leading work on new peasant religious movements and has about 50 pages on the Hoa Hao and only about 5 sentences on this guy. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Interesting I agree, and I'd really like to see this article promoted, but it's not there yet for me. I'll give more detailed comments elsewhere if anyone's interested, but here are just a few examples of the problems I see, picked randomly:
  • "Despite his weak military situation, Ba Cut sought to interfere with a fraudulent referendum that Diem was staging in order to depose Bao Dai as head of state." The phrase "interfere with" sets up a false expectation in the reader's mind that Ba Cut interfered by initiating the referendum, an expectation that's dashed as the sentence unfolds, and is therefore jarring.
  • "Tho agreed to meet Ba Cut alone in the jungle, and was not ambushed." Why would a reader be expecting that Tho would be ambushed?
  • "Ba Cut broke from the VNA in August 1954 with his 3,000 men, and began resisting it with force, whereas most of the other Hoa Hao leaders had accepted payments to integrate their forces into the VNA. The phrase "resisting it with force" seems strangely unidiomatic, and the tense switch between "broke" and "had accepted" seems a little jarring.
  • "... possibly due to the fact that details of the planned attack ...". Everything here unless stated otherwise should be a fact, no need to underline that fact. "Possibly because ..."?
  • "In mid-1954, General Nguyen Van Hinh, head of the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) of the State of Vietnam announced that he did not respect the leadership of Prime Minister Diem, and vowed to overthrow him. This did not materialise ...". What did not materialise? The vow or the overthrow"?

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed these and done another copyedit, please have a look YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it still needs some serious attention. Just look at the first sentence for instance: "Lê Quang Vinh (1923 – July 13, 1956), popularly known as Ba Cụt (Short Third in Vietnamese, referring to a shortened third finger), was a military commander of the Hoa Hao religious sect, which had operated in the Mekong Delta." Had operated before what? Shouldn't that just be "operated"? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it should have been. Obviously I was careless yesterday and left a few random words/typo in there. I've swept it again YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Images fine, ideally should be moved to commons Fasach Nua (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I improved it a bit. Eubulides (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • The second paragraph of the lead makes me think that I'm reading about a folk hero. It's full of colorful wording that I normally would not expect in an encyclopedia article. Rewording needed?
Well all books mention his finger at the start and start by telling us that he is demented, more or less. The body has it in more detail that analyses of him are scathing. I don't see any colourful words there, the topic is inherently colourful YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "weak position"? You should probably elaborate a bit on this.
Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "paddies" - rice paddies or paddy fields?
Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a sense of choppiness in the first paragraph of the "Early life and background" section. IMO, the sentences don't flow smoothly. In one sentence you're talking about Ba Cut being an orphan and in the next you're talking about his fanatical hatred towards landowners. Transitions, better flow?
Rearranged it, but there is still nothing else of his childhood except that he was illit so moved that to the front. that Tai book is the most authoritative Hoa Hao book. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I assume you're only saying that his prophecies about WWII were correct, not his miracles. You could probably clarify the ambiguity there. In addition, maybe you could detail some of the prophecies or miracles he supposedly performed?
Expanded, without giving specific examples of diseases and minutae of his predictions YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "During World War II, Imperial Japan invaded and seized control of Vietnam from France, and its defeat and withdrawal at the end of the war left a power vacuum in the country." – possibly split these into two sentences?
semicolin I think YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • At the start of the third paragraph, you refer to Hoa Hao followers as "The Hoa Hao". The Hoa Hao was simply the religious tradition, not the name given to its followers, right?
    • Same issue with Cao Dai.
Some people use "Cao Daists" but the dominant wording is "The Cao Dai" etc instead of Buddhism<->Buddhists YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with a couple of minor conditions: I understand that all images need alt text now, per WP:ALT; also can you pls review the References section and ensure that all books with ISBNs have them noted - some won't have them but there seems to be a larger-than-normal proportion of those here. Took the liberty of making a few minor copyedits but apart from above can't see anything to withhold the bronze star: well structured, meticulously cited, engagingly written - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Alt is all there and every book after 1965 has ISBN as given. The journal article doesn't have an isbn YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool - apologies re. the alt text, I didn't look when I was editing but just moused over the infobox pic afterwards and for some reason it didn't appear as it usually does... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I like this article. There are a few areas still where I think the phrasing needs to be made more idiomatic, but I'm confident that can be done easily and quickly.
  • From Career: "By this time, with France on the way out ...". I know this is referring to France preparing to leave Indochina, but it's actually suggesting that it was the country of France that was on the way out, i.e., in some kind of terminal decline. Which hasn't quite happened yet. :-)
  • From Career: "As the French tried to dilute his autonomy ...". Not sure you can dilute autonomy. Would something like "undermine his authority" perhaps be better?
  • From Last stand against Diem : "... his remaining forces were dismantled in battle." Dismantled seems like a strange choice of word to me. Might defeated or destroyed be better?

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good now, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Helgoland class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


I rewrote this article some time ago, and it has been working its way up the assessment ladder. It just passed MILHIST A-class review last week, and I feel it's at or close to FA standards. I welcome all constructive comments, thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Everything appears in order. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Support Your pics are all right aligned. Starting from the top they need to be right / left without left aligned directly under a ===subsection===. In your Footnotes there are instances of pp. 23, 24 and pp. 23-24 (for example); they need to be consistent. --Brad (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, the problem with the pictures is that most of them are in short sections, and according to the MOS cannot be left aligned (unless they're starting in the second paragraph). For example, Iridescent moved one that was left aligned for this reason. As to the footnotes, I'll fix those up when I get the chance. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I fixed the one for "23, 24"; do you think I should do the same for "173, 175" as well? Page 174 is a map, if that matters. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good. --Brad (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - last paragraph of the Jutland section needs a reference. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops, thanks for catching that! I've added a ref now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose - I am not impressed by the prose, which is far from FA standard. The article suffers from redundancy—count the number of "also"s. There are poorly constructed sentences, e.g. "Of the need to step up naval construction due to the fact that Germany was becoming increasingly isolated in Europe, von Tirpitz stated, "The aim which I had to keep in view...for technical and organizing reasons as well as reasons of political finance was to build as steadily as possible." And, boring repetitions such as three consecutive sentences in the Lead beginning "The ships..". Some phrases are not complete, such as The ships had an armored belt that was 30 cm (12 in) thick at its strongest - strongest what? Here, The first major operation of the war that the Helgoland-class ships participated was the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby on 15–16 December 1914 there is a missing "in". The article needs a thorough copy-edit; it does not represent our best work. Graham Colm Talk 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I've made some fixes to the article and reworded some sections. Let me know if there are more things that need to be fixed. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it's late in the evening in England, I will revisit the article in the morning. Graham Colm Talk 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Images checked out pre 1923, all are PD in the US, or have permission given. Are there sources for the infobox stats? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The stats in the infobox are repeated in the prose, and cited there. Do you think I should add a note along the lines of "All specifications sourced to Gröner, pp. 24–25" in the "notes" field in the infobox? Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It certainly would't hurt, a short note such as "Source: Groner pp 24-25" or simply link it with the rest of the refs like "Source:[1]". --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I moved a footnote into the "notes" section of the infobox. How does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follow:

  • File:Ostfriesland-2,000lb-bomb.jpg: Requires a source (url, document/archive ID, publication), since the US Government does not simply hand photos out on the street. I found a similar photo on http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navybomb2.htm, which states it came from the book, The Naval Bombing Experiments by Vice Admiral Alfred W. Johnson. A possible issue is that the press, having been mentioned many times and seemingly well-informed of the experiments, could have been the author of this photo (guest observers). A clarification is likely needed, perhaps a check through the book for the photographer is advised.
  • File:High Seas Fleet 1st and 2nd battleship squadrons HD-SN-99-02145.JPG: this is a German postcard (M. L. Carstens, refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Seydlitz/archive1), appropriated by the US War Department. Scenario 1: Koch of the War Department photographed the postcard for the DoD database; that does not make him the copyright holder of the photograph (postcard). Scenario 2: Koch is not of the War Department, and is the photographer for the postcard; we need to find out his date of death to allow for copyright in the country of origin to have elapsed. Scenario 2 is very likely the case since the ARC (National Archives, http://arcweb.archives.gov) sources his information from "Author's Sociale verdediging, 1982: t.p. (K. Koch) p. 5 (Drs.)", which is this book (1982)—an unlikely publication from a US citizen. and published in 1982 points to his death as uncertain. Until Koch's identity and life is affirmed, it is best to move this to Wikipedia.

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the images, Jappalang. I cut the second image, at least until I can find more info on K. Koch. I seriously doubt it's the Koch you found at Open Library (he'd have to be at least in his 20s to be taking pictures for Carstens, I don't think he'd still be publishing be publishing books nearly 60 years later). But until I find out who he was and when he died, the image will have to go. As for the first photo, it seems to have come from this document on history.navy.mil. The text is from Hap Arnold's book, but it doesn't indicate what the copyright status of the images is. If you think it'd be better, I can replace it with this one, which has a dead-tree source. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Koch published his books as early as the 1960s,[27] so it is not implausible for him to be a 20-odd-year old photographer who sold his works to Carstens in the 1910s. After all, it is the National Archives who declared him to be the photographer. As for the Ostfriesland bombing, it would be preferable for the photo with a definite source to be used. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I've switched the photo, so everything should be in order as far as images are concerned. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. To help get started, I added alt text to the 1st image. The rest still need it. Eubulides (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I added alt text to all of the images (don't know if I did it right though, I've never heard of that before). Thanks for pointing that out to me, and for doing the first one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The alt text still needs a bit of work. For example, for File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-55, Linienschiff "SMS Ostfriesland".jpg the alt text is currently "An illustration of the battleship "Ostfriesland" with a smaller boat alongside". The words "An illustration of" are redundant and can be removed. The word "Ostfriesland" should be removed, as it is not immediately obvious just from looking at the image. Other alt text instances have similar problems. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify for more advice about this. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese classifier

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is thoroughly researched and has been through several rounds of copyediting (GA, PR, and repeated copyedits from me over about a month and a half). I feel it's a comprehensive treatment of this subject that should be both an informative introduction for people unfamiliar with it, and a well-researched analysis for people who already have a background in linguistics and/or Chinese language. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami's comments
  • "Different nouns often require different classifiers": Reword. Maybe s.t. like "nouns require specific classifiers (classifiers are lexicalized)" would make it clear that it isn't just random or speaker choice. I think much of this is lexicalized: other than 个 being generic, and apart from poetry, AFAIK each noun has its "correct" classifier, which means that it is not being assigned semantically, even if semantics or analogy is the historical explanation for the assignment. ("different dialects often using different classifiers to count the same item" makes it clear that speakers aren't deciding which classifier to use while speaking, but that the assignments are already set.)
    • While I personally believe they are lexicalized—at least for the most common words—just like you do (at the very least, they are certainly taught that way, as classifier-noun pairs) I'm not sure we could call it a fact yet. While most of the papers I'm familiar with seem to like the prototype theory and argue that classifier-noun pairings are often lexicalized/arbitrary, I don't think it's 100% accepted yet, and even some of these papers think there are still some semantic factors floating around (for example, the Zhang 2007 paper); it also gets messy, of course, trying to draw a distinction between classifier use synchronically (probably lexicalized) vs. where the classifiers came from in recent history (probably arose through analogy to prototypes, a bit more semantic). Mainly I was just trying to keep the lede simple (ie, what a person just starting to learn Chinese would know-- that books go with ben, pants go with tiao, etc.). I will try to think of other possible rewordings to make this clear. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)'
    • After looking at this more, my impression is that the word "require" does make it clear that this isn't random or speaker choice. I can't really think of any better way to put it that still flows well; maybe something like "each noun can only be used with certain classifiers (based on inherent properties of the noun or on learned/lexicalized associations), and cannot be used with other classifiers." I'm hoping to avoid using intimidating jargon like "lexicalized" and "association", though, in the lede, since it might make the article less accessible to lay readers, so that parenthetical might not be so good to include. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "they are just motivated by analogy": there's no "just" about it. This is an ongoing and productive avenue of research. Might want to link prototype theory.
  • "the mass-classifier 盒 (hé, "box") may be used with anything that fits into boxes": Reword. You mean 'anything that's in a box', or maybe the quantity of a box, don't you? You wouldn't use "1盒cigarette" for just one cigarette, which is how I could read this. Would "1盒cigarette" mean only 'a pack of cigarettes', or could it be used to mean 20 cigarettes that aren't actually in a pack?
    • Ah, yes, you're right. Changed to "may be used with anything in a box". As for the other question, I'm pretty sure it would only mean a box of cigarettes, not "a box's worth of cigarettes" (for that I would use "1盒的cigarette", lit. "1 box COMP cigarette" or "1 box's cigarettes"); I don't think it has that second meaning, although I'd have to consult a native speaker to be sure. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) update: I checked with a friend from Shanghai and she agreed with this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "where the Chinese system originally came from": "originally" is redundant.
  • "and slowly had their meanings bleached away": Reword as active voice.
    • Do you mean like "and their meanings were slowly bleached away"? That is still passive but less passive (I guess "had their meanings bleached away" is doubly passive, not sure what the official description of it is); I don't see any way to reword this as truly passive, since there's no agent. Certainly couldn't say "people bleached their meanings away", and I don't know if 'bleached' can be used intransitively ("their meanings bleached away")... I've changed it to "their meanings were gradually bleached away" for now, does that work? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • usage: you might want to use 'cattle' in your English examples, in place of perhaps in addition to 'cat', because that requires a classifier in English ('cattle' is not directly countable in English, and has no singular ("neat" being obsolete), much like Chinese nouns): a head of cattle, this head of cattle, three head of cattle, these three head of cattle, three head of black cattle, three head. (Yes, 'this head of cattle' is not common in English, but it does occur: I can sell you this head of cattle; At five years of age this head of cattle is worth perhaps $40.) Also: do you say 'many head of cattle' in Chinese, or just 'many cattle'?
    • Ah, wow, I could have sworn I mentioned cattle in there somewhere (AFAIK "head of cattle" the most famous, if not the only, example of a count-classifier in mod. English), but I can't find it. I will try to add mention of it tonight, at the very least in a note (something along the lines of "English doesn't really have classifiers, but there is this one"). As for 'many'.... just "many cattle" is probably the best. "Many头cattle" sounds like a students' error to me, although again I'd have to check with a native speaker to see if it's entirely impossible or not. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Update I asked a couple friends and there was disagreement, but the general consensus I've taken away from it is that "many-CL-N" may not be technically incorrect but it's never, or almost never, said. (It seems complicated...sometimes I miss the comforting arms of prescriptive grammar and ignorance...) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I added a brief note on "head of cattle". A lot of the sources I've read mention it, but I can't find it right now (and most of them are scans of things, rather than nice PDFs, so they're not searchable), but I think the one source there is sufficient. Personally, I don't agree with the view that "head of cattle" is an example of a count-classifier in English ('cattle' seems more like a mass noun for me, and 'head of cattle' just like 'grain of salt'...note that we don't say "five head of cows"), but the example is cited enough that it's worth mentioning. As for using it in the "usage" explanation... I actually specifically avoided it, partly because it's unusual English (either it's a count-classifier, which makes it different from the norm, or it's a mass-classifier, where I was trying more to give an example of a count-classifier), and partly because I wanted to use an example with a real countable noun to highlight the major difference between English and Chinese--that Chinese uses classifiers for counting discrete objects, but English leaves that space empty. I'm worried that if I used "head of cattle" as the example, then readers might not realize that with other English nouns, a classifier-less phrase ("five cats") would have a classifier added when translated into Chinese. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • other uses: you might want to clarify that 片 is not the classifier for clouds.
    • Added a brief clarification, let me know if you think it's enough. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't read this far, but if you don't explain where 个 came from, that would be of interest to me as a reader.
    • The article doesn't currently mention it, but there is a ton of literature on it and it would be easy to add (off the top of my head, out of the current references, Erbaugh, Ahrens, and Wang all have sections on it; Erbaugh even has sort of a timeline of all the different things 个 has meant over the years). Appropriate places to add a little bit on it would be the Neutralization section (if I put it there, it would probably have to go in a footnote, unless I do a bit of reorganizing) or the Origins/History section. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, enough for now. I'll try to take up the rest of the article later. kwami (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; I'll leave responses above (I know the FAC guidelines say not to, but I find it easier to keep track of which responses go to which comments that way; if you don't want your points to be split up, let me know and I'll move my responses down below). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, with "Different nouns often require different classifiers", the problem I see is that the meaning, that for each noun there is a specific classifier, is rather opaque. Yes, it is logically required by the following text, but I think it would be better to simply say it to begin with.
"their meanings slowly bleached away" sounds fine to me.
Good point on 'cattle'. You could maybe have the 'cat' example to show the difference, then the 'cattle' example in parentheses to make the construction intuitive. I think it's important to tie material in with things the reader already knows, as far as reasonably possible.
'Head of cattle' has nothing to do with mass nouns. You can say either 'five cattle' or 'five head of cattle', 'five sheep' or 'five head of sheep'. The 'head' shows that you're treating the animals as livestock rather than generic animals. AFAIK, 'five head of deer' or 'five head of quail' would only be used if they were being hunted, farmed, considered for wildlife management, etc. But then you get "1000 head of cattle and to 20 head of horses", "30 head of horses and mares", with a clear plural. kwami (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
About "different nouns often require different classifiers"...not sure if I'm understanding you, are you basically saying that it might be better for the introduction to have a bit of a "white lie" for simplicity's sake (ie, suggesting that every noun has one and only one classifier that it absolutely must use) and then further along in the article clarifying the issues of variability, usage, etc?
As for the cattle example...I suppose I could put a cattle sentence directly below each cat sentence, to give two examples of each structure. That would fit the most nicely into a table, and I could add a note to the table along the lines of "notice how in English, 'three cats' doesn't need a classifier but 'three head of cattle' does, whereas in Chinese they both need classifiers". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I made a mock-up example here. The top example is both cat & cow sentences in one table, as I had suggested above; as it turns out, once I put it together I think it's hard to read. Below it is the examples in separate tables, which I like a little better. (Another problem, though, is that I think the cow examples sound very awkward in English...can you think of any times where you can use an adjective in "X head of cattle"? My adjective examples don't translate well, but I figured since there were adjective examples for cats there should be adjective examples for cows as well.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"head" is uncountable: 5 head of cattle, not 5 *heads of cattle.
No, I don't think we should lie in the intro. I just don't think the word "different" in that sentence is very clear. "Nouns are associated with particular classifiers", maybe?
Color: As is, the color doesn't add much to the chart. First, I think the Chinese words should be color coded to match the schema. Second, IMO the CL should be the brightest color. NUM and DEM could share the second-brightest color. It's the adjective IMO that should be left black.
Arrangement: I think the simpler examples should come first: num-cl N and dem-cl N. Then the one w/o the noun. Only then introduce the adj. Also, we might want to add san zhi hei-de for "three black ones", "five head of big ones". kwami (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestions for arrangement of the table are good, and I've reorganized it and also redone the colors: here is what it looks like now. I tried to use a bright color, red, for the CL, and dull colors for all the others (I ended up putting color on the ADJ because when left black it stood out, whereas we probably just want CL to be standing out...so I made it brown--I tried orange, but it was too light to read easily). I just want to make sure it doesn't cause accessibility problems for people with screen settings different than mine...if there is a chance that it would cause accessibility problems, maybe it would be better just to leave the whole thing black?
As for the lede, "Nouns are associated with particular classifiers" sounds pretty good...I just also want to make sure it's clear that noun X is also associated with different classifiers than noun Y is, since I think that is one of the main ideas. I'll have to try to think of a good way to express both of these things at once without getting overly complicated in the lede. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've added the new tables to the article, I think they're ready. As for the sentence in the lede...I realized that what I was worried about isn't a big deal, since the following sentence clarifies the point I'm trying to make. So here are the possible rewordings I have in mind; they're pretty similar to what you suggested:
  • "Each noun is associated with particular classifiers." (even shorter than what's there now, but the rest of the paragraph explains it)
  • "Each classifier is associated with a particular kind of noun." (different emphasis... probably more accurate than the other sentence, but might also be more confusing for readers)
Any preference? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the first. The second is linguistically dubious: nouns don't likely come in "kinds", but in semantic networks. But nouns are associated w particular CL, AFAIK either lexically or though association with semantically similar nouns. kwami (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, regarding your question about 个...after starting to read Wang a little more closely, there is easily enough on this topic for a good paragraph about the origins/history of 个. The question is just where to put it--in the Neutralization section, or the "classifiers themselves" subsection of the History section. I am leaning towards the second, partly because it would flow better (it will probably be easiest to talk about the historical development of a particular classifier after we've already discussed the historical development of classifiers in general), and partly because that section is already pretty small and could use some beefing up. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Update Added it, in a new subsection. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I started the article because I thought it would be of interest - I'm somewhat of an armchair linguist. Before I finished the introduction, though, I got bogged down. I'm actually familiar with classifiers because I learned to speak a tiny bit of Thai a while ago, but I didn't even recognize that this was basically the same thing I was already familiar with until quite a ways through the introduction. I would try to make the intro even less technical because if I didn't really get the picture--as a well-educated person who actually has used classifiers in the past (though never learning their name, or maybe just forgetting what they were called)--I don't think a lot of other people are going to get it either. Maybe it would help to frontload the intro with stuff from the second paragraph so that readers understand that one word is used for things that are similar to each other etc and get a bit of a practical understanding of what a classifier is before (or immediately after) confusing most readers with reference to bound morphemes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see if I might be able to reorganize things. You're right, there's a difficult balance to strike—for the sake of comprehensiveness and stuff I feel obligated to give a basic linguistic description of what they are (how they're bound morphemes, yada yada), but on the other hand I also want to start off with a simple description for lay readers and gradually work up to the more complicated stuff. In my experience the first sentence of a lede often has the more formal/technical definition of a topic and then the rest of the lede goes on to explain it in simpler English, which is what I tried to do here, but I'll try and see what I can do to simplify things more. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article for GA; it was a good article then, and has improved since. I believe it meets the FA criteria, and is an impressive and useful explication of a complicated topic (I now use it as my go-to reference on the subject in my studies of Mandarin, as I have not found a better, more concise discussion of the topic). Ricardiana (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TNA X Division Championship

Nominator(s): --WillC 04:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it should be an FA. Plus the previous one had to be withdrawn due to a dispute. I assure everyone, that will not happen this time around. All concerns will be addressed quickly.--WillC 04:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That page should have said how they check their facts and where they get their information. Oh well. I can't say. It is used in multiple FLs, GAs, etc. So I can't say why it is considered reliable.