Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
|
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ucucha, Graham Beards, and Ian Rose—determine 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 coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
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. The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. 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 Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
|
||
|
Nomination procedure
Supporting and opposing
|
|||
Contents
- 1 Nominations
- 1.1 Amphetamine
- 1.2 Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette
- 1.3 September Morn
- 1.4 The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
- 1.5 Maurice Richard
- 1.6 Lawrence Wetherby
- 1.7 Pancreatic cancer
- 1.8 Xx (album)
- 1.9 Gloria Steinem
- 1.10 Josh Hutcherson
- 1.11 Telescopium
- 1.12 Hoopoe starling
- 1.13 The Who
- 1.14 City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)
- 1.15 Marvel Science Stories
- 1.16 Murder of Dwayne Jones
- 1.17 Freedom Planet
- 1.18 St Helen's, Ashby-de-la-Zouch
- 1.19 I Never Liked You
- 1.20 William F. Raynolds
- 1.21 Sega Saturn
- 1.22 Caldas da Rainha
- 1.23 Battle of Schliengen
- 1.24 Hillary Rodham Clinton
- 2 Older nominations
- 2.1 Good Girl Gone Bad
- 2.2 Shah Rukh Khan
- 2.3 Master of Puppets
- 2.4 Falcon's Fury
- 2.5 FIFA Club World Cup
- 2.6 Taiko
- 2.7 History of KFC
- 2.8 The Boat Race 2003
- 2.9 Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)
- 2.10 June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina
- 2.11 Olympic marmot
- 2.12 Typhoon Karen
- 2.13 2010 Sylvania 300
- 2.14 William Wurtenburg
- 2.15 Spokane, Washington
- 2.16 Smyth Report
- 2.17 AI Mk. IV radar
Nominations[edit]
Amphetamine[edit]
- Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't know what this article is about, based from the name alone, so I'll forego a description. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from AmericanLemming[edit]
@AmericanLemming: I'm renominating this now, though I assume you'll be busy until later in the month, so no worries. I've made this section for you in advance.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Jfdwolff[edit]
This is a very good article. Balanced in an area where there's information from numerous domains to compare and weigh. Using every way possible to clarify difficult concepts using notes and tooltips etc.
- While almost all sections are supported heavily by secondary sources, I still find a number of primary sources in some sections. I found one of these to be over 20 years old (e.g. Imperato et al 1993). They may not have been reproduced or included in the current paradigm.
- A number of references currently contains a message that the "chapter" parameter is being ignored. Can this be fixed?
I will see if any other concerns arise from reviews by others (as I cannot claim much expertise in the subject matter) but I have a low threshold for support provided the primary sources concern is addressed. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Don't bother with doing so, I don't mind cutting primary sources because any that are included are unnecessary for WP:V. The few primary sources covering medical content in humans are all coupled to WP:MEDRS-quality reviews, as far as I'm aware. I'm quite pedantic about citing anything medical regarding humans with medical reviews or high-quality pharmacology references. I generally don't care that much about claims made that are relevant to specific nonhuman animals, provided the species is indicated in the text. In any case, I replaced it with a new medical review covering preclinical evidence (I assume this means "lab animals", so I kept that phrase). That sentence was just meant to provide context to indicate that dopamine and acetylcholine interactions from amphetamine are not unique to humans.
- In the few other cases that I included the primary sources with reviews, I did so because: (1) I found it hard to find the information in the review when re-checking (the review on flavin-containing monooxygenase, where it's in a table instead of the article) or (2) I thought the material was important, but not widely covered in reviews in a relevent context or relevant databases (e.g., the dopamine beta-hydroxylase references). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Edit: Forgot to note, I'm discussing the citation error issue on the CS1 module talkpage. Will probably have them fixed by tomorrow. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette[edit]
This article is about... a man who is a significant figure in the history of two nations. I'm sure you've heard of him.Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
September Morn[edit]
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a painting which was of huge social impact in the United States when reproductions were first exhibited in 1913, but has since been essentially forgotten. A note, however, that sources are often conflicting; even such seemingly simple issues as when the painting first reached the US have more than one version, supported by equally reliable sources.. This article was PRed by Tim riley, SchroCat, Cassianto, Wehwalt, and Sarastro1. I believe it is a neutral and thorough treatment of this subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support – a fine article on what has latterly been a controversial topic. This is beautifully balanced, and a credit to Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 01:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the help, Tim and Wehwalt! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- "From 1913, reproductions of the painting caused in the United States.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Controversy. Brain fart fixed.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Mark Miller[edit]
This is an excellent article and has improved greatly since I last looked at it, however you know my concern over at least one particular passage and the source used to cite it. In the "Acquisition by the Metropolitan Museum of Art" section the line: "In September 2014, the Met's website listed the painting as not on display...". My concern is the wording used with the source not actually supporting the dating used and is an arbitrary date given for the moment when the website was accessed for the information. The website/source does not mention a date as to this particular claim. There are versins of the source used. One is a cached/archived record of the website that was cached by WebCite (an outside archive company not related to the museum or website as the source). It is this actual site (that is still available online) that is the actual source, not the cached record made by a private company. The only fact that can be summarized here is the fact that the: "Met's website states the painting is not on display". It seems to be an matter of the source not really supporting the claim of dating and simply writing it as above seems to be the best route here.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Consensus was here, and in other discussions, that the "as of" wording was proper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is not the concern I stated. We discussed this at length and no consensus was formed about the issue that I recall. How would you like to handle the issue now?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Simple enough: What do other reviewers think? Or, once we get a source review, the source reviewer? I've already told you what I think, and you've told me what you think. The question is just one of consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Other than that I support this FAC.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Pinging Tim riley, Cassianto, Wehwalt, and Dank (and German Joe if he wants to weigh in too). What do you think about this point? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Other than that I support this FAC.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Simple enough: What do other reviewers think? Or, once we get a source review, the source reviewer? I've already told you what I think, and you've told me what you think. The question is just one of consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is not the concern I stated. We discussed this at length and no consensus was formed about the issue that I recall. How would you like to handle the issue now?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- If I'm understanding the point correctly, WP:CRYSTALBALL is policy, and one interpretation of that policy is the guideline WP:DATED. If we say "Met's website states the painting is not on display", then next month, we're lying ... we don't actually have any evidence (yet) that it's not on display next month, just this month. On another point: the lead says "As of 2014 it is not on display", and that seems to come from "In September 2014, the Met's website listed the painting as not on display, though it had been hung in the museum around 2011." I don't think that a ref that shows that the picture wasn't up in September 2014 proves that it wasn't up at all in 2014 (although of course, if you have snapshots of the website at other times this year, that would work). Perhaps the lead should say "As of September 2014 ...". - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- To base the interpretation of policy on WP:DATED it states: "..to signal the time-dependence of the information.". How is the information time dependent if the source makes no mention of time? Where does the "September" in "As of September.." come from? From an outside web snapshot. We need an actual reliable source to make a claim of something like "As of (or "since") [this date]]" for any additional policy or guideline to take effect beyond making sure the reference supports the claim and that the summary of the source is based accurately off the content from that source. Even using simple math requires numbers given by a reliable source or how can we mention it? This is what confuses me in this situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you agree with my first two sentences? If not, what's my mistake? - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely fine with using {{As of}} 2014. Mark's point, and it was brought up a while back, is that the Met's website itself does not explicitly give a date, whereas we are using it to support an as of statement with a definite time frame. The date portion would be supported by something that does have a definite time frame i.e. the webcite archive. However, Mark takes issue with that, because he thinks WebCite is not an RS, and/or that the date has to be on the Met's website itself to be cited. I've opposed this, both because I think it is very fine hair splitting with what WP:OR and WP:RS say (the same level of obviousness as WP:CALC and WP:TRANSCRIPTION, IMHO) and because a simple statement that the website says it is not on display (or that the painting is not on display) is liable to date (and thus make the article incorrect). That's my understanding, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I think it is, not just a weak sourcing, but creating the source (the WebCite web Cache/archive that was created on that date) that is added on top of the original source to cite, not just the actual fact that the webcite states it is not on view, but give an arbitrary dating for the as of that...as a reference point, has no encyclopedic value put to slide a gauge to a date and proclaim that as a date to say "as of" when the facts and situation don't seem to call for it. Why can't that simply say "While owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not displayed". Why are we even narrating what the museum says on the source...why not just summarize the facts. It seems less engaging as prose to try and...almost bend the sentence to reference the web site itself as stating something just to create the time-dependency. It may no be a form of OR, but it seems like unnecessary dating as the source date is fabricated by the time of the archiving of an outside entity not involved with the source and not RS. It seems un-encyclopedic to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you agree with my first two sentences? If not, what's my mistake? - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry this obsessive discussion is completely ridiculous. On a particular date their website states it was not displayed. That's all you can and should say. You certainly can't say "While owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not displayed" (even apart from the wierd grammar). They may have displayed it in the past, & might put it on display next week. Let's move on. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- To base the interpretation of policy on WP:DATED it states: "..to signal the time-dependence of the information.". How is the information time dependent if the source makes no mention of time? Where does the "September" in "As of September.." come from? From an outside web snapshot. We need an actual reliable source to make a claim of something like "As of (or "since") [this date]]" for any additional policy or guideline to take effect beyond making sure the reference supports the claim and that the summary of the source is based accurately off the content from that source. Even using simple math requires numbers given by a reliable source or how can we mention it? This is what confuses me in this situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Image check - all OK (copyright)
- All images are PD and have sufficient source and author info. Source links all active.
One small question about the gallery: the first 3 images aren't clickable for full view or more image information (on a 1920 x 1080 screen with Windows and FF). Can the captions be trimmed a bit? First one doesn't really need "September Morn", the next 2 would be OK without the quoted text.GermanJoe (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)- Went an alternative way, but done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Went an alternative way, but done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support – Educational, informative, well written and comprehensive are just four reasons as to why this article should be promoted to FA in my view. This made for some happy holiday reading for me! Cassiantotalk 11:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for all of the help, Cass! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support It's not just me that's branching out. I like to find a nitpick if only to show that I've read the article, but your skill and the previous reviewers have left me no crumbs. Great stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- <blush> Thanks Jim. Glad you enjoyed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support – Over the last three months I've watched this article expand from a stub to the comprehensive, well written, balanced account now presented. It is neutral and successfully conveys what some perceived as a controversial subject in an educational and encyclopaedic manner. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, SP, especially for catching those out of order references as the article grew. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
MOS review by SandyGeorgia[edit]
Is anyone still reviewing for crit 2, compliance with Wikipedia's house style? Samples only as they caught my eye, check throughout needed:
- WP:NBSP. On my screen 7 million is wrapping. Also, c. 1913. And others ... please review throughout ... anywhere a word might be split from a number on a screen should use nbsp to avoid wrap.
- WP:MOSNUM. 163.8×216.5 centimetres (64.5×85.2 in), spaces around the x are shown correctly in the infobox, but not in the text.
- Most of the short citations end in a period, so they should all end in a period (consistency in citations).
- MOS:LQ query, samples only ... he had boasted "If I had never seen it from the day I put down my brushes after painting it, I could make a perfect copy". However, not having copyrighted the work, he did not receive any royalties from the marketing frenzy in the United States; he recalled, "Nobody was thoughtful enough even to send me a box of cigars".
Separately:
- he gave a price of 50,000 francs ($10,000) – more than he expected anybody to pay. $10,000 in what year's dollars? then or now ? conversion used?
- valued at an estimated $30,000 (in what year's dollars? then or now? conversion used?)
I will try to find time to check more thoroughly later, but these minor issues should be easily addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy, thanks for the comments. #3 is generally (or, at least, in my experience) part of the image review, though it appears to have been skipped here; I'll do it. You are correct about #1 and $4, I'll go through them now too. The spaces in #2 apparently had trouble with screenreaders; Graham87 could probably explain that better. Both prices are in contemporary dollars (I thought that implicit agreement was that, unless otherwise stated, prices are contemporary). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- You lost me on #3 being related to an image? Citations, not captions? We'll see how Graham responds (he's Da Man on accessibility and screen readers), but see The Raft of the Medusa. Not sure on the implicit assumption of then dollars, nor do I know where to find that in MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- OK, I found something at WP:MOSNUM that may be helpful:
-
- In some cases it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time. See 22898 and [1].
- So, for example, I just read a Mike Christie article about very old science fiction magazines, and it discusses something like (don't quote me, this is from memory) them costing a nickel. In that case, the context makes it clear that it is then-dollars, so I didn't ask the question. But in this article's case, it is not so clear to me. Also, did we do the convert from francs to $, or did the source? And do we know if the sources are giving then-current dollars, or something else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel[edit]
- Nominator(s): QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is about The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, a motion picture. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Mark miller[edit]
Image review
All have the proper license and rationales for non free content, however, File:Participant Media logo.jpg does not pass NFCC# 8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.. The non free logo is certainly not needed to increase the readers understanding an its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. The company is mentioned in passing in a short section. I see no justification for use of the non free image in this section.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Got it. I have switched out the image. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- File:Participant Media logo.jpg is free use, but also out of date. - hahnchen 17:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Maurice Richard[edit]
Maurice Richard is one of hockey's greatest legends. The first player in NHL history to score 50 goals in one season and the first to reach 500 for his career. An eight time Stanley Cup champion, and a member of both the Canadian Sports and Hockey Halls of Fame. He is also a cultural icon across the country, but primarily in Quebec where his on-ice outburst and subsequent suspension in 1955 precipitated the Richard Riot, today regarded as a violent manifestation of Francophone Quebec's dissatisfaction with its place in Anglophone Canada. Though apolitical himself, Richard's legacy was cemented when he was made the subject of Roch Carrier's legendary short story, The Hockey Sweater.
I was asked several months ago to try and expand Henri Richard's article from a poor stub into something better - and at some point I still will - but I was instead inspired to write about Henri's famous brother. It reached GA status in May and I have run periodic copyedits since to tighten the prose. I believe it is now FA quality, and I hope the community will agree. Cheers! Resolute 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Richard was one of my childhood heroes. The least I can do is review this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Maurice richard profile.jpg - How do we know that this is PD, if the date is unknown? If it's from 1950, then it's not expired. Also, what's the US copyright on this image?
- The Library and Archives Canada specifically notes that the copyright is expired. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed that. I'd mark "Before 1949" if then, so the question doesn't have to be asked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Library and Archives Canada specifically notes that the copyright is expired. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- File:Maurice Richard 1945.jpg - How does this meet URAA criteria #2? You'd need to know where it was first published for that
- The image would have fallen into the public domain in Canada on the URAA date. I don't believe URAA applies to it. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's criteria 3. What about criteria 2? Unless you know the original publication, or at least an early publication, then it would be difficult to confirm. One way would be to see if copyright was registered in the US (doubtful, but possible) in the year the image was photographed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The image would have fallen into the public domain in Canada on the URAA date. I don't believe URAA applies to it. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- File:Maurice Richard and Toe Blake.jpg - This too. To know if it meets URAA criteria two, we need to know where it was first published (i.e. the publication).
- Same as above. The image was already PD in Canada on the URAA date. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- As above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Same as above. The image was already PD in Canada on the URAA date. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- File:Henry and richard.jpg needs to be downsampled to meet the NFCC.
- Will do. Is there any specific resolution limit, or is this arbitrary? The FUR should be improved, I notice, and I will do that also. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:IMAGERES recommends 100k pixels maximum (which for this file would be would be a bit smaller), though the current 300 wide is acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Will do. Is there any specific resolution limit, or is this arbitrary? The FUR should be improved, I notice, and I will do that also. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- File:Richard sculpture.JPG should note the copyright of the statue as well ({{FoP-Canada}} on Commons)
- File:Hhof maurice richard.jpg - Is this trophy given to the teams (like the Stanley Cup) or does it stay put? That'll affect if it meets the FoP criteria or not.
- All of these trophies are on permanent public display at the HHOF, though they (or copies of same) do travel periodically. But again, always maintained as public exhibits. I believe it easily meets Canadian FOP requirements. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- If they are on "permanent" (for the life of the object) public display, I agree. This should be okay; the FoP template doesn't mention it having to be outdoors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- All of these trophies are on permanent public display at the HHOF, though they (or copies of same) do travel periodically. But again, always maintained as public exhibits. I believe it easily meets Canadian FOP requirements. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- File:Maurice Richard jersey.JPG - Fine — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- General comment: A lot of your harv references are broken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Prose comments
- Is the Pocket Rocket really worth mentioning in the second sentence? I'd push Henri back to the second paragraph, maybe
- Really don't like the lead. It's all his achievements, none of his life. I mean, he was more than just his legacy. You don't mention how he rose up from poverty, or how he was fairly injury prone... and his famous temper is couched in a much more discrete term ("intense")
- In one league, he led his team to three consecutive championships and scored 133 of his team's 144 goals in the 1938–39 season. - which team?
- and resulted in his famously being named first, second and third star of the game. - what resulted in this?
- after he criticized Campbell in a weekly newspaper column with his byline. - is "with his byline" really necessary here?
- See discussion below with Issacl. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- If it's ghostwritten, is it necessarily him criticizing Campbell? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- See discussion below with Issacl. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- True to his word, - feels like editorializing
- the return of his former Punch line teammate, Toe Blake, - don't seem to recall you mentioning that they'd disbanded
- I think that #Playing style should be after the remainder of his biographical information. It is really jolting to switch from Ambassador to style to Ambassador
- That probably sets up the same problem in reverse. Player to personal to player. I moved the fact that Richard was offered the role of team ambassador to the lead of the Personal life section. Does this look better to you? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- That helps, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- That probably sets up the same problem in reverse. Player to personal to player. I moved the fact that Richard was offered the role of team ambassador to the lead of the Personal life section. Does this look better to you? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Richard was named a vice-president in 1964. - explicitly say that it was one of the team's VPs? Also, anything to link?
- Done on the first. What are you looking for in terms of a link? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking something like President (hockey) or President (sports), but apparently both would be redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done on the first. What are you looking for in terms of a link? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- But even if Richard always refused to be seen as a symbol of national affirmation, he is widely considered as one by Quebec's francophone population to this day, and it is still commonly said that Richard was a « Héro malgré lui » («Hero despite his will»). - what's this supposed to be? A direct quote?
- That last paragraph, with Malancon, has some serious weight issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. It is really a long quote. I think the countering quote added by the same IP that put the commentary above in helps in this regard. (and I was able to verify that one.) Does that help, or should I still cut that Melancon quote down? Otherwise, still considering how to handle the lead, and still planning to look at the copyright status of those images. Thanks! Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd trim it a bit. Rocket is a fairly big subject, and the Quebec separatist movement an even bigger one. Giving a single person a whole paragraph would feel undue either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. It is really a long quote. I think the countering quote added by the same IP that put the commentary above in helps in this regard. (and I was able to verify that one.) Does that help, or should I still cut that Melancon quote down? Otherwise, still considering how to handle the lead, and still planning to look at the copyright status of those images. Thanks! Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "with his byline": I copy edited the text to this wording to keep note that the column was Richard's (albeit ghostwritten), as opposed to a weekly column attributed to a sportswriter (or a staff). I think there is some value to maintain this distinction, but if consensus feels otherwise, the clause can be removed. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- That line was added by another editor at some point. On the GA reviewed version, I had written that Richard authored the column. Unfortunately, it also appears that an editor, while well meaning, added some content that degraded the prose in several areas after I started this FAC. That is why Henri Richard is needlessly mentioned in the second sentence. I will have to go clean it up, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Just checking in right now to thank both of you for the comments and reviews. Resolute 23:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was the one who modified the text regarding the column's authorship, since the source noted that it was ghostwritten, so stating the column was authored by Richard seemed a bit too assertive. I can try to re-edit it again. (The change regarding Henri was not done by me.) isaacl (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can't remember, but was Richard still ghostwriting his article at that time? If he was, then noting that it was under his byline would be incorrect. I would rather use a variant of "...that he helped author" unless we are certain he was writing under his own name at that time. I'll have to go back to research the exact status of his article at that point. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- According to the Montreal Gazette article cited, the column was ghostwritten by someone else for Richard, which implies the column had Richard's name on it. I'm not sure what you mean by "was Richard still ghostwriting his article"; there would be no benefit to the reporter or paper to let Richard write anonymously. isaacl (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can't remember, but was Richard still ghostwriting his article at that time? If he was, then noting that it was under his byline would be incorrect. I would rather use a variant of "...that he helped author" unless we are certain he was writing under his own name at that time. I'll have to go back to research the exact status of his article at that point. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was the one who modified the text regarding the column's authorship, since the source noted that it was ghostwritten, so stating the column was authored by Richard seemed a bit too assertive. I can try to re-edit it again. (The change regarding Henri was not done by me.) isaacl (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Lawrence Wetherby[edit]
After a long absence from FAC, due in part to the addition of a second child to our family, I've decided to resume pursuit of a Governors of Kentucky featured topic with this nomination. (Three more GAs need to attain FA status for a featured topic; four after next year's gubernatorial election.) Although it has been a while since I've worked on the article – a recent copyedit notwithstanding – I still have access to the sources and believe this article provides a comprehensive overview of Wetherby's life. I will try to address any concerns promptly, although the time I can devote to editing is much more uneven than it used to be. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Welcome back! - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hope you'll have a chance to review at some point. You always have good comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments, leaning toward support.
- No better/other pictures? At least on my display, the infobox picture is a bit out of focus. I'm not a huge fan of adding pictures just for window dressing, but maybe there are a couple other illustrations of things in the article we could dig up, if no other photos of Wetherby are available.
-
- Not that I'm aware of, unfortunately. Until very recently, the article used his official gubernatorial portrait under a fair use rationale. Recently, I learned of the {{PD-US-no-notice}} template – and its associated copyright implications, obviously – and scoured the Kentucky Virtual Library for a free alternative for Wetherby, among others. This was the best I found, which isn't saying much, but at least it's free. For other images we could use in the article, my KYVL search also turned up freebies of Earle C. Clements and Bert T. Combs, while we already had a good quality photos of Happy Chandler and Alben Barkley. There's also an aerial shot of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant that opened during Wetherby's administration and is mentioned in the article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please run the External Links tool and update/post archive links as needed. I show three dead links.
- Do we need the citation in the lead? I feel like the sentence is not likely to be challenged, unless someone asked you to put it there.
- I'm a bit puzzled by the link to Term limits in the United States in the lead, since the article states Kentucky has a two-term limit. Do they count partial terms?
- "Chandler did not support Wetherby's 1956 bid to succeed Democrat Alben Barkley in the Senate, which contributed to his loss..." This reads awkwardly to me. I think it's the "Chandler did not support ... which contributed" construction. Maybe "Chandler's failure to support ... contributed"?
- Beginning a section with "Also in 1943" was jarring. Maybe a matter of opinion.
- "Over the course of his administration, he increased funding to education by $20 million." This doesn't mean as much without the context. $20 million on top of what?
- "support peaceful implementation of the Supreme Court's school desegregation order in the case of Brown v. Board of Education" The wording is strange here. Can we revise?
- "He failed in his efforts to amend the state's constitution to allow the governor to succeed himself in office." This sentence seems to offer some explanation of the statement in the lead that he was limited to one term.. I'm assuming later on Kentucky amended the constitution to allow two consecutive terms? Or is the linked article incorrect?
Looking good overall. --Laser brain (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Support, everything looks good and my comments have been addressed. I haven't looked too hard at source formatting but I'll speak up if I see anything. --Laser brain (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Pancreatic cancer[edit]
- Nominator(s): Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This is about one of the most aggressive and hard to treat cancers. Improving the article has been one of the targets of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I'm very grateful to all the many editors who have contributed. The article has had a thorough peer review, with several editors editing as well as commenting. The article has also been reviewed internally at Cancer Research UK. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Review by SandyGeorgia[edit]
Great to see you here, John! I am watchlisting, and will review, but not today, and perhaps not tomorrow. Right off the bat, though, I am seeing several incomplete citations; could you run through and make sure all of your citations are complete and in a consistent format? Your PMID sources seem consistent, but some others are incomplete. Also, could you explain minor deviations from MEDMOS suggested sections? More later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
| Citations mostly cleaned up, with a few outliers to be addressed still |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Citation consistency and some MOS issues are mostly (not completely) cleaned up, and I've left some prose and sourcing discussion on article talk.[1] Please ping me for more thorough review when some of that has been processed. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from an ip[edit]
I don't to make any review comments on sections I've worked on, but I think it's probably ok to help out elsewhere.
- In the "Risk factors" section:
Some studies have found links with diets high in red meat, processed meat,[35] and sugar-sweetened drinks (soft drinks).[36] The abstract of ref. 36 concludes "a slight correlation between risk of pancreatic cancer and [carbonated soft drinks] consumption has been found." Personally I don't think "a slight correlation" (whatever that may be) would provide strong enough causal evidence to deserve this mention. According to PMID 22194529 (technically, another potential MEDRS), "Although we were only able to examine a modest intake of [carbonated soft drinks], there was a suggestive and slightly positive association for their intakes which reached statistical significance in certain subgroups of participants (e.g., nondiabetics, nondrinkers of alcohol)." [2] Hmm, I'd cut it...
Fwiw, I'd also perhaps avoid starting the sentence with the phrase "Some studies have..." as this can give an impression of cherry picking of primary studies, whereas the evidence for red and processed meats is actually sourced to a meta-analysis (ref. 35), albeit of observational studies.86.164.164.29 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I've cut the soft drinks, although they did actually show up in my survey of advice from NCI, CRUK, ACS et al, which was why they were there. The meta-analysis shows that "some studies have...". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't have much to say but it's in regards to the same section as what 86.164.164.29 just commented on so I'll just piggyback off them:
- "though see the sections on obesity and alcohol" should probably be cut – there is no (longer?) a section on obesity and the section on alcohol is literally a sentence away.
- PMID 24403441, a systematic review on nutrition and pancreatic cancer, seems like a useful source for this section. There are a lot of conclusions about particular foods that are drawn from observational studies, so lets skip ahead briefly to the conclusion: "There is an abundance of evidence in the literature on the role of nutrition in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Often the evidence is inconclusive due to confounding factors...The lack of large randomized control trials makes it harder to establish causative associations for various nutrient types. [list of associations follow]."
- Good luck! NW (Talk) 22:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have much to say but it's in regards to the same section as what 86.164.164.29 just commented on so I'll just piggyback off them:
- The "Classification" section basically provides information on histological types, without really summarizing the clinical classification in terms of grading and staging etc, which as usual in Wikipedia disease articles is located (usefully, imo) under "Diagnosis". Broadly per the spirit of a helpful discussion at Cancer Research UK on the fringes of Wikimania and subsequent proposals at MEDMOS, including this one, I think it would be both more appropriate and more reader-friendly to title the section as "Types". As I feel that the heading "Classification" may needlessly be a source of discouragement to our readers – this is the opening section after the lead - I've boldly implemented the suggestion I made at PR... 86.164.164.29 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- IP 86, I have reverted your change of "Classification" to "Types". Wikipedia has long-standing guidelines for medical content, and I'm concerned at so many changes being put forward
(by ips, no less)to representone disease and one group representing that diseaseCORRECTION "diseases" at the expense of "conditions" that don't have an underlying disease process. Our standardized headings have worked well for many conditions: if you want to change them, please considerregistering an account,working across the board on numerous kinds of medical content on Wikipedia, and making your arguments to develop consensus on guideline pages. Do not, please, make a change to an article at FAC and then push for the guideline to change to match that. Articles should be stable when they appear at FAC (see crit. 1e). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I have politely (I think) requested SandyGeorgia to address the substance of the concern I raised, and I have also pointed out to her (I can add chronological diffs, if necessary) that in no way did I "make a change to an article at FAC and then push for the guideline to change to match that." I would be glad if she withdrew her accusations altogether (including the false assumptions and illegitimate demands regarding my contributions). I will refrain, for the time being at least, from making any other consideration here.
Good luck to the FAC! 86.164.164.29 (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- On my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have politely (I think) requested SandyGeorgia to address the substance of the concern I raised, and I have also pointed out to her (I can add chronological diffs, if necessary) that in no way did I "make a change to an article at FAC and then push for the guideline to change to match that." I would be glad if she withdrew her accusations altogether (including the false assumptions and illegitimate demands regarding my contributions). I will refrain, for the time being at least, from making any other consideration here.
- IP 86, I have reverted your change of "Classification" to "Types". Wikipedia has long-standing guidelines for medical content, and I'm concerned at so many changes being put forward
Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]
- Way out of my comfort zone (and makes me queasy), but let's see if I can make it through. I'm only looking at the prose, and through the eyes of a (very) non-subject expert.
- I see a mix of serial and non-serial commas
Lead[edit]
- One to two in every hundred cases of pancreatic cancer: there can't be 1 1/2 cases out of a batch of a hundred, so perhaps this would be better as "one to two per cent of"
-
- It's been changed from that for reasons of accessibility; %s are less widely understood than one might think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- A smoker's chances of developing the disease are reduced if they cease smoking: I personally think the singular they should be freed from the closet, but I thought I'd point it out just in case this wasn't intended.
-
- No, out and proud. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Treatment options are partly based on the cancer stage.: meaning they are decided based on the cancer stage?
-
- Yes, both of those, which seem slightly different but valid statements to me. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- the top three vary by gender, including breast cancer for women and prostate cancer for men: I wonder if this should be in the article, as it's US-specific
-
- It's in a note (or should be) & that bit is certainly not US-specific. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- the 5-year survival rate rises about 20%: rises to or by 20%?
-
- "to", done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- signet ring cell carcinomas: I don't think "signet ring" is linking where you intended
-
- No indeed, someone had changed it. Sorted Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Classification[edit]
* ("invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term): are "invasive" or "ductal" carry any meaning?
-
- Yes, the ones you'd expect: invasive because cancer (and a very agressive one) and arising in the ducts. Meaning is not really the issue, it's a question of the variable names used. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- endocrine cancers (see next section): perhaps "(see the [[#Endocine|Endocrine section]])" in case someone rearranges sections (say, by alphabetizing them)
-
-
- Anything is possible, but they are more likely to rename them, messing up the link, aren't they? I thought such links were discouraged. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can avoid having the links break by using {{anchor}}. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Anything is possible, but they are more likely to rename them, messing up the link, aren't they? I thought such links were discouraged. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Signs and symptoms[edit]
- This is one of the main reasons for the generally poor survival rates. Exceptions to this are the functioning PanNETs, whose over-production of hormones is likely to give a range of symptoms according to the type.: is this supposed to share an inline cite with the previous statement?
-
- No, needs another. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- In the UK, about half of new cases: is this comparable to other countries?
-
- I don't have comparative figures for anywhere, which may not exist, but it should be fairly comparable for developed countries, perhaps on the high side; probably rather more so than US figures which are endlessly given in these articles without arousing any comment, and are often also at the extremes for the developed world. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Up to two-thirds of people have abdominal pain, < !-- Wolgang 341 cites 2007 study that says "nearly 75%" -- >: "nearly 75%" is more than two-thirds---what's the story here?
-
- Refined per the source to "In up to two-thirds of people abdominal pain is the main symptom" which probably accounts for the difference, though actually such statistics do jump around between different studies. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Risk factors[edit]
- CDKN2A is a disambiguation page
-
- Yes, though I doubt that it should be (is anybody familiar enough to confirm?). Linked to p16 Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There was another one, fixed: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, though I doubt that it should be (is anybody familiar enough to confirm?). Linked to p16 Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There a commented-out bit on gingivitis. What's the story?
-
- From the old version, but most main sources don't mention. I should cut. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- While the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established ... the majority of studies have found no association: the association is well established, yet the majority of studies find no association?
-
- 2 diseases: "While the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established, considerable research has failed to firmly establish alcohol consumption as a risk factor for pancreatic cancer." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Diagnosis & Staging[edit]
- < !-- Yes, refs needed; I know; Wolfgang I think -- >: so you plan to deal with this? The following paragraph lacks cites, too.
- Pancreatic cancer is usually staged using a CT scan.: also uncited
- (e.g. cholangiocarcinoma) and some stomach cancers; thus, it may not always be possible to be certain that a tumor found in the pancreas arose from it.: where should the closing parenthesis fall? Also, lacking a cite
I'm going to take a break---I've got a cold that's making it hard to concentrate on this. If I don't return, ping me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Curly Turkey, feedback from someone who is "out of their comfort zone" is a good thing! Suppose your long-lost Aunt Mabel is diagnosed with Pancratic cancer tomorrow? You, as a layperson, should be able to get from this article info you seek. Layperson review is desirable ... so please keep going! (Since you've inquired many times at WT:FAC about how to manage a review, see my section above as a sample of how to use article talk to shorten very long FACs :) I hope you're feeling better soon. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from NikosGouliaros[edit]
I've previously reviewed the article, making minor contributions; I'll try not to repeat myself. I feel the need to congratulate Wiki CRUK John and everyone else who has worked for this excellent result.
Classification[edit]
- "("invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term)": I still feel that the meaning - i.e., that some sources refer to the same disease as "invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma" and "ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma"[2][3] - isn't clear; to this attests the comment by Curly Turkey. Some minor rephrasing might be warrantied.
- "This cancer arises in the tiny ducts that carry certain hormones and enzymes away from the pancreas": I'm not sure what the sources exactly say; however, the epithelial cells adenocarcinomas arise from aren't only found in the "tiny ducts", but also in the main pancreatic duct. Moreover, strictly speaking, these tiny ducts carry pancreatic products outside the organ not directly but through the pancreatic duct. Some rephrasing might be warrantied.
-
- "tiny" removed; don't think I put that in. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a bit baffled by the link to islet cell carcinomas. Is the linked article article about the PanNETs (and therefore an article with a mistaken/obsolete name), or to another pathologic entity? In the latter case, the link might confuse the reader.
-
- Jumping in here... Hum, fair point... The problem is that Wikipedia is a bit behind the curve here, and that page should perhaps (imo, at least) be renamed as Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and updated accordingly, based on current MEDRS. Thoughts? 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The main, far longer, article is neuroendocrine tumor, covering a wider range of sites, which I think is reasonable. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (you had a typo, 86) redirects to Pancreatic cancer; I'm not sure it should. islet cell carcinoma should be merged to one of these (NET or here) I think. Mind you the codes are still there in the ICD/Mesh databases - would they get removed? It doesn't feature in the most recent literature, as the text says. I'd welcome other views. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, those are all questions I'd been asking myself too (but wasn't really in a hurry to get involved in... help!) At present, the information at Neuroendocrine tumor#Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is largely genetic, and I feel "Pancreatic cancer" probably is the more appropriate redirect, for the moment at least. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The main, far longer, article is neuroendocrine tumor, covering a wider range of sites, which I think is reasonable. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (you had a typo, 86) redirects to Pancreatic cancer; I'm not sure it should. islet cell carcinoma should be merged to one of these (NET or here) I think. Mind you the codes are still there in the ICD/Mesh databases - would they get removed? It doesn't feature in the most recent literature, as the text says. I'd welcome other views. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Jumping in here... Hum, fair point... The problem is that Wikipedia is a bit behind the curve here, and that page should perhaps (imo, at least) be renamed as Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and updated accordingly, based on current MEDRS. Thoughts? 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Signs and symptoms[edit]
- Image caption: I propose "Man with jaundice etc" instead of "Painless jaundice" (pain isn't shown!)
-
- But he's smiling! [joke]. I agree, done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Painless jaundice": The problem here is that, in the line just above, we say that jaundice with pain is much more common than painless one. We could just delete the adjective painless here. On the other hand, cancer (pancreatic, bile duct, ampulla of Vater, metastatic liver) is a typical cause of painless jaundice.[4] This is not a contradiction: a disease can be the most common cause of a given symptom, and this symptom can still be uncommon in this disease.
-
- Yes. Am I right in thinking that the jaundice itself is never the cause of the pain as such? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you are. In painful jaundice jaundice and pain only have a common cause. NikosGouliaros (talk)
- Rewritten to:"Jaundice, a yellow tint to the whites of the eyes or skin, with or without pain, and possibly in combination with darkened urine. This results when a cancer of the head of the pancreas obstructs the common bile duct as it runs through the pancreas."
- Yes you are. In painful jaundice jaundice and pain only have a common cause. NikosGouliaros (talk)
- Yes. Am I right in thinking that the jaundice itself is never the cause of the pain as such? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- It might be better if every paragraph in the bullet list begins with a mention of the actual manifestation; e.g. one can rephrase: "Nausea and a feeling of fullness, caused by compression of neighboring organs by the tumor, which disrupts digestive processes and makes it difficult for the stomach to empty".
-
- But this point, which has been rewritten by about 6 people including you, also includes the floating stools. I think it's ok & I'm reluctant to reopen this one. We are going round and round in circles on several of these points. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken. NikosGouliaros (talk)
- But this point, which has been rewritten by about 6 people including you, also includes the floating stools. I think it's ok & I'm reluctant to reopen this one. We are going round and round in circles on several of these points. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I still disagree with the subheading "other symptoms" in this context. It just isn't clear what separates symptoms below the subheading from symptoms above. This must be solved somehow. Just deleting the subheading might be enough.
- This bullet point could be added: "Other non-specific manifestations of the disease include: weakness and fatigability; dry mouth; sleep problems; constipation; dyspepsia; and a palpable abdominal mass."[5]
- A more general issue: Symptoms and signs are different types of disease manifestations. Are we supposed to make a distinction clear and list them separately? (No distinction is made in the FA lung cancer.)
-
- Imo, no. Symptoms can also be signs (though not all signs are symptoms). 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was and I am in favor of a subsection dedicated to Metastasis; however, one might expect that, if this will be in the "Signs and symptoms" section, it must include some symptoms of metastatic disease.
-
- Too various, allowing for the major possibilities, aren't they? Also they are not given in any of the main sources I've used on pancreatic cancer, which makes me think we have gone far enough down this path. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken. NikosGouliaros (talk)
- Too various, allowing for the major possibilities, aren't they? Also they are not given in any of the main sources I've used on pancreatic cancer, which makes me think we have gone far enough down this path. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm just reminding that the faulty picture must go.
-
-
- Gone. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Risk factors[edit]
Everything looks great, aside of the paragraph on rare hereditary syndromes, which looks wedged in the bullet list. Why don't we just connect it to the previous paragraph?
- Indented, which works I think. It's all too long for one para. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Diagnosis[edit]
- I'm still not sure that repeating the disease symptoms in this section is justified. Could other reviewers say what they think?
-
- I don't think it's appropriate either. (Commented here, under "Anything else outstanding?). 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- And I must add that this repetition is not present in the Diagnosis sections of any of the 4 FA's on maligancies (acute myeloid leukemia, cholangiocarcinoma, endometrial cancer, and lung cancer). Unfortunately the medical MOS is not clear on what should be included in this section. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate either. (Commented here, under "Anything else outstanding?). 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Similarly, I think the place for Courvoisier sign is the Symptoms and signs section.
-
- Well, that's one that actually is diagnostically relevant. Since MEDMOS doesn't really follow the usual practice for journal review articles anyway, I think a reasonable case could be made, from a WP perspective, for including this sort of diagnostic red flag here. 2c, 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do not agree; the same case could be made for painless jaundice. Courvoisier sign is a sign and is probably warrantied to be in the S&S section. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that's one that actually is diagnostically relevant. Since MEDMOS doesn't really follow the usual practice for journal review articles anyway, I think a reasonable case could be made, from a WP perspective, for including this sort of diagnostic red flag here. 2c, 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Only now do I notice that the CT image has the arms of a disconnected cross pointing at the tumor. I was thinking of making this a bit more obvious, e.g. by coloring the arms - this could be requested at the graphics lab.
-
- Caption changed, to "... Cross lines towards top left surround a macrocystic adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head.", but yes, added colour is an achievable improvement. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Requested at the graphics lab. NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- And I'm grateful to Centpacrr for doing it. I think it looks better. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thanked, and added color noted in caption. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Caption changed, to "... Cross lines towards top left surround a macrocystic adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head.", but yes, added colour is an achievable improvement. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Staging[edit]
- The mention of Stage III seems a bit out of the blue; the average reader does not know how many the AJCC-UICC stages are. I propose the following rewriting of the first paragraph (my additions in italics):
- The cancer staging system used internationally for pancreatic cancer is that of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control, referred to as AJCC-UICC; it designates 4 stages, which correspond to specific TNM stages. Stage I and II tumors are resectable, and so are the subset of Stage III tumors that do not involve the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery and are classified as "borderline resectable"; the remaining Stage III and Stage IV (metastatic) tumors are unresectable. The TNM staging system builds up an overall stage by assessing the Tumor size, spread to lymph Nodes and Metastasis. Stage T1 is localized tumors less than 2 cm in size, T2 tumors over that size but still wholly in the pancreas, and the other T stages are defined by the degree of spread beyond. A simpler practical classification groups the tumors as "resectable", "borderline resectable", and "unresectable" because of locally advanced or metastatic disease.
- Is it acceptable that the images have more details on the TNM staging than the text mentions? (It's a question, not an opinion.)
-
- I think so. There's not much more. But I can add if desired. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The TNM image gallery isn't centered but its heading is. Could it be formatted a bit better? Maybe center the gallery too?
-
- For me the gallery is left-aligned and the heading right-aligned, the latter looking a bit odd. At Help:Gallery tag I'm not seeing options for these at all (on IE). Maybe there are different templates or tags to use. Wiki CRUK John (talk)
- By "Heading" I mean the words "Pancreatic cancer staging". And what I mean is this. NikosGouliaros (talk)
- Sorted, thanks Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- By "Heading" I mean the words "Pancreatic cancer staging". And what I mean is this. NikosGouliaros (talk)
- For me the gallery is left-aligned and the heading right-aligned, the latter looking a bit odd. At Help:Gallery tag I'm not seeing options for these at all (on IE). Maybe there are different templates or tags to use. Wiki CRUK John (talk)
Mechanisms[edit]
- Intraepithelial neoplasia merits a wikilink. The article on it is little more than a disambiguation page; imo it should become a redirection page to carcinoma in situ, where our wikilink should also be directed to (despite the fact that this page too is in heavy need of improvement). (Or perhaps Carcinoma in situ should be renamed intraepithelial neoplasia; this is a tricky subject, expert opinion is warrantied, and not very relevant to pancreatic cancer).
- I'm not entirely sure that all or most exocrine pancreatic cancers evolve from cysts; is it supported by the sources? (I've no access to the NEJM article). In my mind, intraepithelial neoplasia is the universal preliminary lesion of adenocarcinoma.[6][7] NB: The existence of several types of precancerous cysts that often evolve to frank cancer does not mean that these lesions are the major precursor lesion of adenocarcinomas.
- I'm not an expert on the subject; but after rereading this section (in more depth than I did while peer reviewing the article) I wonder if it might not be totally accurate. I admit not having the time to dig into the matter in detail (not being an expert on it).
- The ominous image of liver metastases might be better off in the Metastasis section of Signs and Symptoms.
-
- Moved Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Management[edit]
- "Encasement": maybe, for the sake of clarity, make it "encasement by the tumor"?
- One could link median survival to Survival rate#median survival.
- "Τhe changes of the last few years have only increased average survival times by a few months": And let's always pay attention never to refer to "average" when it's about "median".
-
- Time to read the lead section of average, I think. I'd be amazed if it was not about equally true of both, but will check the sources. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Watchful waiting of small tumors identified incidentally, for example on a computed tomography (CT) scan performed for other purposes, may not ultimately need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear.": Something sounds wrong here.
- "Radiolabeled hormone: some PanNETs absorb a hormone called norepinephrine and these may respond to nuclear medicine medication, radiolabeled MIBG therapy (or, experimentally, other hormones), given intravenously.": May I suggest rephrasing?
Outcomes[edit]
- "increased average survival rates": As above: is it truly average or actually median? If unsure, it might be better to just mention "increased survival rates".
-
- As above; the rates are calculated on the medians, but I avoid that term for accessibility reasons (and even more "measures of central tendency"), so your dichotomy is strictly incorrect (a median is an average). But the whole issue can be skipped by omitting any measure I think, and the source often does so in discussing them. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have no strong view on it (I would if it wrote "mean" instead of "average"); why don't you just leave it as it is. NikosGouliaros (talk)
- As above; the rates are calculated on the medians, but I avoid that term for accessibility reasons (and even more "measures of central tendency"), so your dichotomy is strictly incorrect (a median is an average). But the whole issue can be skipped by omitting any measure I think, and the source often does so in discussing them. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Distribution[edit]
- The fact that I do not support "Distribution" as a substitute for "Epidemiology" as a section heading still applies (see the discussion in MEDMOS), but it wouldn't oppose a FA candidacy for it.
- "In recent clinical guidelines": I'm not sure this offers anything
History[edit]
- Maybe add a couple of words on how vitamin K helped with postoperative survival?
-
- Will do, though I now see from this that my source appears to be mistaken in calling this a discovery of 1940, since the key papers came out in 1938 (notes 2 & 3)! Irritating & I'd better say something. Probably a mistaken confusion with the line following. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Research[edit]
- I'm not sure that "the tissue surrounding the pancreatic tumor" is the most accurate definition of "stroma" we could come up with.
References[edit]
- Are citations supposed to be totally uniform? E.g., have all the same links (linkable title, DOI, PMID), uniformly mention either full journal titles or initialsms, etc? I don't particularly mind, but I can start working on it
-
- Yes, very much so, see the top of the page (Sandy Georgia comment). But there has been a lot of re-editing by various hands, especially in the peer review. I think we may need a section on the talk page to confirm what the style for the article actually is - I don't have very strong views, since there appears to be (very wrongly imo) a local consensus that page refs should NEVER be used for articles, except that it should as close as possible to the auto-template style in the standard editing window menu. But various people have adjusted the refs to suit their own preferences and we need to be consistent. Any help on this greatly appreciated. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've copy edited the citations from the lead, adding some doi's and url's, and making the use of commas and semicolons more uniform. It's an example of what I have in mind. I haven't touched the journal names though; I see some articles in PMC without uniform style for them.[6] NikosGouliaros (talk)
- Yes, very much so, see the top of the page (Sandy Georgia comment). But there has been a lot of re-editing by various hands, especially in the peer review. I think we may need a section on the talk page to confirm what the style for the article actually is - I don't have very strong views, since there appears to be (very wrongly imo) a local consensus that page refs should NEVER be used for articles, except that it should as close as possible to the auto-template style in the standard editing window menu. But various people have adjusted the refs to suit their own preferences and we need to be consistent. Any help on this greatly appreciated. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
- Am I exggerating if I propose to replace the lead image, because of its inaccurate depiction of the pancreatic duct? We could go for this image, which is the lead image in pancreas; or the CT image that shows the tumor, which will be similar (though perhaps a bit inferior) to the lead image in cancer and lung cancer.
-
- I wasn't aware that had a mistake too; what is it? Both of those images are already used, and I'd rather have one that shows the pancreas in its surroundings in that position. I'll look for another.
- There's this, thias, or this (COI), Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- In the current one, the pancreatic duct should be much longer and continuing further down to the tail.
- I think the "COI" one is the best of the three :) NikosGouliaros (talk)
- Right, yes, I saw that. Will change to the CRUK one for now. There may be better ones but the categorization on Commons is unreliable so they are hard to find. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's this, thias, or this (COI), Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that had a mistake too; what is it? Both of those images are already used, and I'd rather have one that shows the pancreas in its surroundings in that position. I'll look for another.
(To be cont'd) --NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Mostly done. --NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Inflated values automatically calculated.
- ^ Shimada, K; Sakamoto, Y;Sano T; et al (2006). "Prognostic factors after distal pancreatectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body and tail". Surgery 139 (3): 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.004. PMID 16546491.
- ^ Seufferlein, T; Porzner, M; Heinemann, V; et al (2014). "Ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma". Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 111 (22): 396–402. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2014.0396. PMID 24980565.
- ^ For current lack of a better source: Chemannur, AT; Smith, JG; Wu, GY; et al. "Biliary disease clinical presentation". Medscape. Retrieved 2 December 2014.
- ^ Alberts, SR; Goldberg, RM (2009). "Chapter 9: Gastrointestinal tract cancers". In Casciato, DA; Territo, MC. Manual of clinical oncology. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins. pp. 188–236. ISBN 9780781768849. p. 218-9
- ^ a b Wolfgang, CL; Herman, JM; Laheru, DA; et al. (September 2013). "Recent progress in pancreatic cancer.". CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 63 (5): 318–48. doi:10.3322/caac.21190. PMC 3769458. PMID 23856911. p.
- ^ Strimpakos, A; Saif, MW; Syrigos, KN (2008). "Pancreatic cancer: from molecular pathogenesis to targeted therapy". Cancer and Metastasis Reviews 27 (3): 495–522. doi:10.1007/s10555-008-9134-y.
Comments from WS[edit]
Overall a great article which saw a lot of improvement over the last months. I am a bit confused over whether it is supposed to completely cover neuroendocrine tumors or not. Depending on the answer to that question it either contains much too little or too much information about them. Considering the big differences, wouldn't it be more clear to have a short general pancreatic cancer and then separate articles for adenocarcinoma and endocrine tumors? (no doubt this has been discussed before, I haven't looked that up).
The information about resectability is very short and simplistic and should be expanded. Vascular involvement does not necessarily preclude surgery, e.g. splenic artery and vein involvement in more distal tumors is usually not a problem as they can be resected en-bloc (with or without the spleen). There is a lot to be said about borderline resectable tumors, where vascular reconstructions (especially for venous involvement) and neo-adjuvant therapy (to increase the chance of free resection margins) are slowly becoming more commonly used. Also the info about resectability is now spread out across at least three sections, it would be helpful to consolidate that. --WS (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for these, and the earlier comments. The scope issue has been discussed before, and does present a dilemma. At the moment the article is supposed to cover all, and arguably gives too much weight to PanNETs, while still too little information about them - they are a diverse group its hard to generalize about. We have the same issue at Brain tumor, but there the balance is different, and we are planning to consistently adopt the approach you suggest. Here I think the present solution is the best, given the predominance of PAC and other factors. One issue is that pancreatic cancer is the common name and the natural search term.
- I'll look at the resectability question - I'd been meaning to add some bits, like looking for the fat-plane. So far I have avoided specifying blood vessels and similar detail, as once you start you may have to do a fair bit, and Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Pancreatectomy (hmmm) have their own articles, though neither touch on this at present. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Liver cancer is a good example with a similar situation (HCC vs cholangiocarcinoma), I think it works very well there to have three articles. I think it is almost impossible to comprehensively cover both in one article and at the least PanNet should be split out, leaving only the necessary bits here. Regarding respectability, that should be covered here as it is specific to pancreatic cancer and one of the most important aspects of the diagnosis. It does not need to be very difficult, as there is no definite consensus, but broadly speaking coeliac trunk/superior mesenteric artery/hepatic artery involvement is generally considered unresectable, SMV/portal vein involvement often unresectable but sometimes done with vascular reconstruction, and splenic artery/vein resectable. Assessing resectability with CT is hard to completely cover as various criteria exist, would keep that very general. --WS (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't changed the situation as I found it, which is that we have "Pancreatic cancer", to which PAC redirects, and neuroendocrine tumor covering all sites. There's been discussion but no great consensus to (effectively) move this to PAC and split out the PanNETs. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Liver cancer is a good example with a similar situation (HCC vs cholangiocarcinoma), I think it works very well there to have three articles. I think it is almost impossible to comprehensively cover both in one article and at the least PanNet should be split out, leaving only the necessary bits here. Regarding respectability, that should be covered here as it is specific to pancreatic cancer and one of the most important aspects of the diagnosis. It does not need to be very difficult, as there is no definite consensus, but broadly speaking coeliac trunk/superior mesenteric artery/hepatic artery involvement is generally considered unresectable, SMV/portal vein involvement often unresectable but sometimes done with vascular reconstruction, and splenic artery/vein resectable. Assessing resectability with CT is hard to completely cover as various criteria exist, would keep that very general. --WS (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Xx (album)[edit]
This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. The previous FAC did not reach a consensus. Dan56 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Spike Wilbury[edit]
Object as in the previous nomination. I find it a bit curious that this was opened when little was done during the first nomination to address objections (other than negating them) and nothing of substance has been done to the article since the last nomination closed. It closed with three open objections, 2 of which directly reference plagiarism concerns. I also find it troubling that you notified three editors of this nomination, but failed to notify any of the editors who opposed the last one. I can't help but to feel you are trying to sneak it under the radar. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Spike Wilbury. Since Ian Rose closed the last nom on October 26, Dan56 has made no effort to clear the article of close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and peacockery. In fact, only 4 edits have been made to the article in that time, and none of them address the bevy of concerns identified during the last FAC. I also share Spike's concerns that Dan56 has notified three editors: [4], [5], [6], in an apparent attempt to skew the consensus here in favor of promotion. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Spike Wilbury, the only objections were from you and RationalObserver, who applied his personal standard for paraphrasing, which he attempted unsuccessfully to promote and rewrite policy WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM--[7]), [8], [9])--while the FAC was going on! You don't find that the least bit suspicious? SNUGGUMS was ultimately "neutral", while Tezero gave a "tentative support", and Ian Rose concluded there wasn't enough to determine a consensus. I'm not obligated to rewrite the article to meet your or RationalObserver's preferences or objections about musical jargon or close paraphrasing--I didn't leave these objections unanswered, I responded to them and defended by position with an effort equal to the one give by those who objected. If you don't agree, you're free not to, as am I to ask for others' opinions. Why would I invite the reviewers from a review that led to no consensus? I didn't agree with your objection, and am highly suspicious of RationalObserver and his interest from the start. I feel the previous FAC was tainted, and I'm free to open a new one when there was no consensus before. Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dan56, I've tried to be patient with your paranoia, but now this is getting abusive. If you accuse me one more time without filing an SPI I will file an AN/I report for personal attacks. FTR, Nikkimaria was one of the last editors to take a look at the last FAC, and she concluded the following:
- I agree that this article is not only littered with close paraphrases, but there are also numerous instances of text-source integrity issues, as Dan56 demonstrates an inability to properly paraphrase without changing the intended meaning. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Spike Wilbury, the only objections were from you and RationalObserver, who applied his personal standard for paraphrasing, which he attempted unsuccessfully to promote and rewrite policy WP:Village Pump and WP:PLAGIARISM--[7]), [8], [9])--while the FAC was going on! You don't find that the least bit suspicious? SNUGGUMS was ultimately "neutral", while Tezero gave a "tentative support", and Ian Rose concluded there wasn't enough to determine a consensus. I'm not obligated to rewrite the article to meet your or RationalObserver's preferences or objections about musical jargon or close paraphrasing--I didn't leave these objections unanswered, I responded to them and defended by position with an effort equal to the one give by those who objected. If you don't agree, you're free not to, as am I to ask for others' opinions. Why would I invite the reviewers from a review that led to no consensus? I didn't agree with your objection, and am highly suspicious of RationalObserver and his interest from the start. I feel the previous FAC was tainted, and I'm free to open a new one when there was no consensus before. Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Response in the previous FAC to aforementioned Nikkimaria's comment:
-
-
-
- "I think rationalobserver embellished those instances, particularly those where certain technical phrases or simple words could not be paraphrased but did not "copy" the creative language of the source. As for that example, Phrases in her AllMusic review comments that the "restraint and sophistication ... [are] all the more impressive". I don't see how it's controversial to say that she found it "remarkably poised and sophisticated" when she said that those qualities make it "all the more impressive". The meaning is the same IMO; "impressive" for its "restraint and sophistication" = "remarkably poised and sophisticated"." Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dan, that's a WP:SYNTH to take Phares' comments about the album being "remarkable" and "sophisticated" to say that she described it as "remarkably poised and sophisticated". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what I said, you're just misrepresenting my argument out of obstinance. Phares' comments are "[the] restraint and sophistication ... [are] all the more impressive". Not SYNTH. Dan56 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- From the article: "Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". From the source: ...they boast impeccably groomed arrangements. The beats pulse rather than crash; the guitars are artfully picked and plucked; and the vocals rarely rise above a wistful sigh. This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive; ... XX is still a remarkable debut". Nikkimaria, will you please settle this matter by clarifying why you said, "text-source integrity problems - I would flag the remarkable/remarkably switch mentioned above as one such example"? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what I said, you're just misrepresenting my argument out of obstinance. Phares' comments are "[the] restraint and sophistication ... [are] all the more impressive". Not SYNTH. Dan56 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dan, that's a WP:SYNTH to take Phares' comments about the album being "remarkable" and "sophisticated" to say that she described it as "remarkably poised and sophisticated". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "I think rationalobserver embellished those instances, particularly those where certain technical phrases or simple words could not be paraphrased but did not "copy" the creative language of the source. As for that example, Phrases in her AllMusic review comments that the "restraint and sophistication ... [are] all the more impressive". I don't see how it's controversial to say that she found it "remarkably poised and sophisticated" when she said that those qualities make it "all the more impressive". The meaning is the same IMO; "impressive" for its "restraint and sophistication" = "remarkably poised and sophisticated"." Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- From the article: "Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and hailed the album as a remarkably poised and sophisticated debut". From the source: ...they boast impeccably groomed arrangements. The beats pulse rather than crash; the guitars are artfully picked and plucked; and the vocals rarely rise above a wistful sigh. This restraint and sophistication make the fact that the xx's members were barely in their twenties when they recorded the album all the more impressive; ... XX is still a remarkable debut". Dan56 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Dan56, I've tried my best to stay out of the conflict between you and Rationalobserver. I only mention her opposition because it was outstanding at the time of the last FAC closing. I have reflected on your comments to me regarding your method and motivation for bringing this back here without changing it much. I still don't like it, but at the same time, I don't think my participation here is helping in any way. So, I'm striking my objection and unwatching the page. Good luck going forward. I do hope the endgame is the improvement of this article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Comments from Mashaunix[edit]
Comment I'm no expert on this subject matter and FA standards, but since I've been invited to do so, I'll share what I have to say. I think the article is comprehensive and generally very well written, but needs some more work before being granted FA status. In my opinion it would be good to invite another experienced editor with a close interest in the subject to review the style and content of the article and make some improvements to these areas, addressing some of the concerns raised above. As of now the article seems a bit too subjective as far as I can judge, though I feel that it could be promoted to GA status. I'm willing to offer some specific ideas for improvement myself later this month when I have more time, but I don't think I have the knowledge and experience needed to make all the changes that I'd like to see.
Also, does the article meet MOS:TM?--MASHAUNIX 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Gloria Steinem[edit]
- Nominator(s): Maranjosie (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about Gloria Steinem, an influential American feminist. I believe it should be nominated because its subject is important and because it is well-written and referenced.Maranjosie (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment A 6 sentence lead isn't nearly long enough. The rest of the article looks more like a GA (which it is) than an FA, in terms of length and depth of analysis. The only books mentioned seem to be the two biographies in Further reading. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Johnbod. Moreover, the GA review was cursory and looks a bit suspicious, being by a new user with only eight edits ever. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your feedback. I will try improving the article with better analysis and more of a lead when I get a chance and then maybe re-submit it. Maranjosie (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose at the moment. While this is an article on an important topic about which a great deal must be written and it's certainly not a "bad" article overall, its organization is mediocre: lots of short paragraphs, widespread "on such and such a date, such and such happened" pararaph starting, some short sections that could probably be merged into others (if not expanded), and too high a reliance on lists. There are also some sources of questionable reliability (e.g. The Phrase Finder, Rhrealitycheck) and, less importantly, the titles of the various online works should be written out longhand, not simply as "Site.org". I'd suggest looking a bit further for sources about her personal life and the other short sections, finding a way to turn Awards and honors and In media into prose-focused sections, and getting a copyedit. Tezero (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Josh Hutcherson[edit]
- Nominator(s): Gloss 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about actor Josh Hutcherson, most well known as of late for his role as Peeta Mellark in The Hunger Games film series. Hutcherson has also been in well known films such as Firehouse Dog, Bridge to Terabithia, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Kids Are All Right. The article was up for a peer review in December 2013, which closed without a single review, passed its GAN in February 2014 and then failed a FAC in April 2014 due to a lack of reviewers. I began working on the article again and brought it to another peer review which closed a few weeks ago again with very little success, put a little more work into the page and now I'm back with it and hoping to gain some more reviews and pass this one through to become featured.
As always, I'm open to any suggestions for improvement and welcome the feedback. Gloss 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Mark Miller[edit]
Image review
- There are 6 images being used in the article. All have proper license and attribution. However I believe there may be too many images with little EV. I would suggest losing File:Josh Hutcherson 2012.jpg as it does not add very much to the article and another 2012 image is represented of the subject in another section. Also File:Josh_Hutcherson_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg is decorative and redundant. It has no relevance to the section or list.
- The main image had a proper free license but was uploaded as a very small version and was very washed out. I have taken the liberty at Commons to upload a newer version in the cropped but full size version of the original and corrected the washed out look of the image from this to this.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I've removed those two images, good point. And wow! Thank you for uploading a new version, that looks much better. I'm no image-pro, so the help is much appreciated. Gloss 03:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well written?
- The article needs a bit of a general edit to help the writing, just a bit, to be more engaging, and more focused.
Lede section
-
- "Joshua Ryan "Josh" Hutcherson (born October 12, 1992) is an American actor." should actually read: "Joshua Ryan "Josh" Hutcherson (born October 12, 1992) is an American film, television and voiceover actor." Here is where it is important to be focused and precise. As an actor we want to know what kind of actor and what genres.
- The line that follows goes directly to his acting career and skips over his personal life. At least add some mention of his being a native of Kentucky and having working parents. The personal life section is short and could use some expansion but something along the lines of: "A native of Kentucky who's working parents held careers in the air line industry and US Government, Josh began his acting career in....."
- He received eight Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor in those five years, half of which he won. is awkward. That should read something like: In that five year span, he has won four out of eight Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor.
- The line: Beyond entertainment, Hutcherson is heavily involved in a gay–straight alliance chapter he co-founded with Avan Jogia, "Straight But Not Narrow." Should read: Aside from the entertainment industry, Hutcherson is heavily involved in the gay–straight alliance chapter he co-founded with Avan Jogia, they call "Straight But Not Narrow." Be sure and say "the" gay-straight alliance not "a" as we are being specific to a particular group the subject created.
- Also...there is a mistake here referring to Hutcherson as a co-founder of "Straight But Not Narrow." He is actually an "advocate" but is not listed as a co-founder. See this Facebook image with its caption.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
(I have more but this is some this to start)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- @Mark Miller: Given I've gone a year with this article getting very little feedback, I just want to say how much I appreciate you reviewing this! I've taken care of all of these points.
-
- I agree with you about the writing needing to be a bit more engaging. I've read the article 500 times over, so it's hard for me to think of different ways to word things. I brought the article to the WP:GOCE and a user copyedited the article. However some further rewriting/rewording could definitely be beneficial.
-
- As for the personal life section, are you referring to the early life section? The personal life section I feel accurately covers a good amount of information. The early life section is rather short, however not too much information is out there on his early life. I'm going to look into this some more and see what I can come up with.
-
- Thanks again! Gloss 02:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time for lack of comprehensiveness and per SNUGGUMS comments and concerns as well as my own that this will certainly take longer than the period of the FAC to bring up to criteria. There are sources out there to begin a more detailed coverage of the personal life section. The subject has been very candid in a number of interviews and his story may not be as exciting as a film plot but there are points that are worth encyclopedic coverage. One other source to look at is: "Jennifer, Liam and Josh: An Unauthorized Biography of the Stars of The Hunger Games" by Danny White. This goes into more detail about the early years to at least begin researching other RS.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I am sorry but I can't be neutral on this part. The personal life section must be expanded. He's not gay but he does support gay rights. So...uhm, the personal life section is almost entirely about his advocacy for gay rights. He has to have more of a personal life than that even at the age of 20 something. It isn't that I am looking for a long personal section. They tend to be a little short, but his advocacy is only about philanthropy. We don't want gossip and who he is "dating", but if he is in a serious relationship that may be mentioned in a reliable source.
- I think the early life section has more that could be added (it also doesn't need to be a long section, just comprehensive). There also should be some education background. Did he attend college? I don't see mention of that.
- The career sections are great but the reception section seems rather small compared to the career section. He may be young, but he has a large body of work and if you are including a reception section it should cover from his first notable work to his most recent notable work and touch on the biggies in between.
-
- I think at the very least, if you can expand on the personal life section at least 2/3 larger with maybe a mention of politics and other interests (see Jake Gyllenhaal and Ethan Hawke) and, either incorporate the existing reception section into the career section (they go together anyway) or expand on it a bit to have broader coverage of critics reviews etc., I could support this FAC.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding some more comments. I'm very eager to keep this ball rolling, so I'll put some serious thought and work into these suggestions. Just to answer one of your quick questions… no, he didn't go to college.
He didn't even go to high school.Gloss 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Update: He did apparently attend high school for one semester. Information added. Gloss 01:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)- Also just to note, there isn't really any confirmation on a relationship at all right now, let alone a serious relationship. Neither the previous relationship or supposed current one have ever been fully confirmed in the first place, so I've come to 100% agree with that information being removed. Gloss 07:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I would look for a source for his home schooling and I would also look for a source for his relationship/s or I would take a moment to reconsider the overall size of the personal section and the undue weight of the gay advocacy issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Mark Miller: - check out this version of the personal life section. This is from before the GA review. The reviewer felt a lot of that information was irrelevant and some more has been chipped away over time. Is there anything in there that you think could be re-inserted? I'm going to re-add the political information back in… that seems ok. Gloss 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would look for a source for his home schooling and I would also look for a source for his relationship/s or I would take a moment to reconsider the overall size of the personal section and the undue weight of the gay advocacy issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Also just to note, there isn't really any confirmation on a relationship at all right now, let alone a serious relationship. Neither the previous relationship or supposed current one have ever been fully confirmed in the first place, so I've come to 100% agree with that information being removed. Gloss 07:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding some more comments. I'm very eager to keep this ball rolling, so I'll put some serious thought and work into these suggestions. Just to answer one of your quick questions… no, he didn't go to college.
- I think at the very least, if you can expand on the personal life section at least 2/3 larger with maybe a mention of politics and other interests (see Jake Gyllenhaal and Ethan Hawke) and, either incorporate the existing reception section into the career section (they go together anyway) or expand on it a bit to have broader coverage of critics reviews etc., I could support this FAC.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]
| Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS |
|---|
|
I'm very sorry Gloss, but this doesn't meet FA criteria. 1a: Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. As Mark said above, this could use work.....
1b: Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Definitely not. In fact, I'm not sure it meets 3a of GA criteria.
1c: Well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. Needs work. EthniCelebs (the source used for ancestry) is NOT a reliable source, and neither is SugarScape. I'm not too sure about "Bustle.com" or "Zimbio" or "MovieVine".
1d: Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias. No complaints here. 1e: Stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. All good. 2a. Lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections. Looks pretty good. 2b. Appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Nothing of concern. 2c. Consistent citations: consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). Not exactly.....
3: Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Looks better with Mark's input, though I'm not sure the pictures with Vanessa Hudgens are needed. If anything, I'd only use one image.
4: Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Needs cleaning, and might not meet 3b of GA criteria.....
I suggest withdrawal as there's simply too many flaws to address during an FAC. Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: @SNUGGUMS: That's OK about the Oppose !votes. Frankly, I'm not too concerned about it. What I am concerned about is improving the article as best as I can and since you both seem to have legitimate concerns, I'd still appreciate the help you both were offering and the feedback, either with me as I continue with the article or along the sidelines throwing some tips my way. The Jennifer, Liam, and Josh book is a great find, and I thought the OUT article was covered more or less, but it doesn't hurt to see what else I can squeeze out of it. And by the way, Snuggums.. found another inspiration :) Gloss 13:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: @SNUGGUMS: One way you guys could additionally help me out a bit is to help me figure out what the article is still missing, if you feel it's still missing anything. As comprehensiveness states: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" - and since you've both last commented, I've added a good chunk of information to the article, mostly using the book but also with the help of the OUT article. One concern was that the personal life section is too short, and I noted in the comment above that all of the relationship stuff was taken out by another user, shortening it even more. Is there any topics you guys can think of that aren't covered that information may exist on? Gloss 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC) |
- If anything, might be worth looking more into his career outside of acting. Overall, I'm neutral now, and will end with that. His relationships can stay or go, no preference there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Telescopium[edit]
This is the latest in a number of constellation articles improved to GA/FA status. It got good feedback at Talk:Telescopium/GA1, but quiet Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Telescopium/archive1. Mike Peel (talk · contribs) (an astronomer) has given some feedback on the talk page, which I have followed. Anyway, have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tezero[edit]
Today I'm thankful for a consistent stream of interesting FAs in subjects I wouldn't normally be tuned into. Expect comments by sometime tomorrow; ping me if I don't get around to it. Tezero (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I split the single paragraph in history; rework or revert if you think I did it wrong or, for some reason, shouldn't have split it at all.
- "A small constellation" - By what metric? Number of stars? Number of lightyears separating the farthest stars within it? Ostensible "area" from Earth's perspective? Actual "area" as the sum of a series of triangles drawn among the member stars?
- How many stars are in Telescopium? If no specific number is available, how many are estimated?
-
- good question - depends on how you define it, with more powerful telescopes, all constellations have millions of stars. Have added how many stars are visible to the unaided eye in good viewing (urban/rural border area to mag 6.5) to give context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- The centaur in the old star chart makes me think: I'm sure Telescopium is too recent a discovery to be associated with any kind of folklore or heavenly symbolism, but are any of its member stars? I mean, if you don't think this'd be straying from the topic of the article - it just might help if a bit of real-world context, as it were, were given.
- "spectral class K" - What's a spectral class? At the very least link this, but ideally you might give context as to what this means, perhaps by listing a few other things that are of spectral class K.
-
- they are described as orange giants (orange stars = class K). Can't give examples as no source does that so it'd be sort of OR. I've linked it now - giant star is also linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- "127 light years distant" - Distant from what? Also, this is kind of an odd way to begin a sentence.
I'm quite tired right now, so I'll have to sign off for the night. I'll be back with more, though. Tezero (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Jeez, sorry, forgot all about this. Anyway:
- "Epsilon Telescopii is another double star, though this time a true binary system" - ???. Even if the reader could be expected to know what a binary system is, I don't see the context for bringing this fact up.
- Also, in both that instance and a later one, "this time" is strange wording.
- "One theory of its origin is that it is the result of a merger between a helium- and a carbon-oxygen white dwarf. If the combined mass does not exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, the former will accrete onto the latter star and ignite to form a supergiant. Later this will become an extreme helium star before cooling to become a white dwarf." - Relevance? This level of detail isn't given for the other stars.
- "RR Telescopii, also designated Nova Telescopii 1948, often called a slow nova is now classified as a symbiotic nova system" - restructure/alter somehow, like "While RR Telescopii ... is often called a slow nova, it is now classified ..."
- White dwarf is linked twice in one paragraph, even though it's referenced several times earlier without any link at all.
- "slightly (1.1 to 1.3 times) as massive as the Sun" - You mean "slightly more massive than the Sun", or "about as massive as the Sun"?
- "This is an unusual distance from the star" - Unusually high or low? Also, this could be worded a little more clearly, e.g. "This is an unusually high/low distance for the brown dwarf to be from HD 191760".
- "45000 light-years distant" - Should probably use a comma, and is this in relation to Earth or Theta Arae?
Alright, now I'm done. Nice work, though I wish astronomy articles in general had a higher standard of accessibility. Tezero (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I can support now. Nice work all around; I now know slightly further from nothing about constellations. Tezero (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Other comments[edit]
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- File:NGC_6845GALEX.jpg: permission links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html#Guidelines
- ST11
Only three things: I'd expect to see GRB 980425, IC 4889, and SN 1998bw mentioned in the deep-sky objects section; they're all well-studied. I expect to support after this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- nice find on the GRB/SN - added now
Support and comments[edit]
Happy to support, just a couple of points below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
one of twelve... One of several...
ESO-HARPS instrument— I think we need some sort of clue what this is
Hoopoe starling[edit]
This extinct bird is interesting but rather obscure, and a thorough review of its scattered literature has only been published this year, so it could finally get a proper article here. The article was recently copyedited thoroughly and became a GA. The choice of infobox image may seem odd, but it is the only known life drawing of this species, and also the only image we have that depicts the bird's crest accurately. Most other available images have some inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]
I might bump up the extinciton date to the frist paragraph---it's the first thing I find myself wanting to know once it's mentioned that it's extinct.
Sexual dimorphism is mentioned in the lead, but I don't see it in the body
Sieur Dubois ': that final "s" is most likely silent, so this should almost certianly be "Dubois's"
Were there no human populations on Réunion before the French? If not, ou might want to state so explicitly so people don't wonder about the native populations.
-
- There was no native population, it had been visited before, but first permanent settlements were French. What if I say "all connected to activities of human settlers on Réunion"? Won't that make it clear that they weren't there before`? FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, "settlers" sounds like "colonists", which doesn't make it clear the island was uninhabited. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- The source doesn't really say anything like what you request. How about the latest addition I made? "all connected to the activities of humans on Réunion, which it survived alongside for two centuries." Though it is not directly stated the islands were uninhabited before some date, I don't see how it could mean anything else. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're right. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- The source doesn't really say anything like what you request. How about the latest addition I made? "all connected to the activities of humans on Réunion, which it survived alongside for two centuries." Though it is not directly stated the islands were uninhabited before some date, I don't see how it could mean anything else. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, "settlers" sounds like "colonists", which doesn't make it clear the island was uninhabited. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There was no native population, it had been visited before, but first permanent settlements were French. What if I say "all connected to activities of human settlers on Réunion"? Won't that make it clear that they weren't there before`? FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
the island of Réunion and proposed a new binomial, Fregilupus borbonicus: had the name of the island been changed at this time? It may not be immediately obvious that "borbonicus" refers to the earlier name for the island.
-
- Sources about the bird don't say. Isn't it clear from the preceding "then called "Bourbon"? The name is also used in some of the quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- It was a couple paragraphs earlier and in passing, and with the different spelling & pronunciation it could easily go over a reader's head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- It was a couple paragraphs earlier and in passing, and with the different spelling & pronunciation it could easily go over a reader's head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sources about the bird don't say. Isn't it clear from the preceding "then called "Bourbon"? The name is also used in some of the quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
to the starling family (Sturnidae),: I'm not confident I understand where to italicize and where not to---should "Sturnidae" be italicized?
I see the serial comma in some places and not in others.
The male was generally thought: or "is thought to have been", or has thought changed?
weighed 4 oz (113 g): I assume "4 oz" is a rounded figure; perhaps "113 g" should be rounded, too?
-
- That's what the old account says, so I'm not sure if it should be changed? The secondary source just repeats it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- You mean, the sources say 4 oz (113 g)? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the part: "is four ounces [113 gr]" so the conversion seems to be added. How would you write it instead? FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- If it's right in the source, then just leave it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the part: "is four ounces [113 gr]" so the conversion seems to be added. How would you write it instead? FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- You mean, the sources say 4 oz (113 g)? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's what the old account says, so I'm not sure if it should be changed? The secondary source just repeats it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
during [[austral summer]]: I might shorten this to [[austral summer|summer]] to the avoid repetition
-
- Removed them, there are no articles about those subjects after all... By the way, what's with the reflinks? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Those were supposed to be
<nowiki>...</nowiki>, but I goofed (now fixed). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those were supposed to be
- Removed them, there are no articles about those subjects after all... By the way, what's with the reflinks? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
after the arrival of man: not a very 21st-century wording
other recently-extinct birds: recent at the time, or recent today?
-
- Both (as this species was one of the last to go extinct from the island), but "recently extinct" generally means something that went extinct within the last few centuries... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- That might not come across to the general reader (Wikipedia's target audience). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- What if I just remove "recently"? Perhaps "now-extinct birds"? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think "now-extinct" is fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- What if I just remove "recently"? Perhaps "now-extinct birds"? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- That might not come across to the general reader (Wikipedia's target audience). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Both (as this species was one of the last to go extinct from the island), but "recently extinct" generally means something that went extinct within the last few centuries... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bird-of-paradise is sometimes hyphenated in its article and sometimes not. Do you know the story behind that & whether it should be hyphenated here? Also, Bird of paradise and Bird-of-paradise are different articles, and Birds of paradise points to the latter. This article links to both articles.
- The Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris is titled in English in its own article---you might want to consider that here, too. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Everything looks fine now, and I'm happy to support. Sorry I forgot to come back earlier. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Fregilupus_varius.jpg: what are the dates of death of the authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from HalfGig[edit]
- "iris[disambiguation needed]" needs to be fixed
- Most of the references that are PDFs have (PDF), but one does not. This should be fixed. HalfGig talk 01:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Cas Liber[edit]
- I read this on my smartphone - saw a couple of minor things, only found one now, but others were trivial. pretty comprehensive. I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Will look again to see what I missed ...hmmm..but looks fine.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support and suggestion from Jim[edit]
Support. You might want to consider explaining varius. 'varius L. varius various, diverse, variegated (variare to variegate). Jobling, James A (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. p. 399. ISBN 978-1-4081-2501-4.. FWIW, p 164 confirms your etymology of the genus name too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is already in the article, not enough? " and its specific name means "variegated", describing its black-and-white colour." FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Source check[edit]
- American Committee for International Wild Life Protection 13: is that "13" really part of the name of the publisher?
- MOS:CITE doesn't appear to require it, but it sure would be nice if you could give more specific page references for you sources. I'm thinking particularly of ref#2, cited 17 times to a 75-page article.
- Assuming that "13" is right, source formatting appears to be correct. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from SandyGeorgia
- ... and having more-curved beaks ... I'm not understanding why a hyphen is needed?
- WP:DATEOTHER, typically we would use 1726–27 intead of 1726–1727.
- WP:NBSP, 50 years, etc ...
Samples only (I haven't read the article, just a quick flyover for MOS-y stuff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Cool, thanks <unwatch>! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-
The Who[edit]
- Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The Who are one of the most important rock bands to have an article on Wikipedia, with over a million views a year. I started work on improving it in autumn 2013, getting it to good article status. Since then I've been gradually working on tightening up the prose, the sources and the layout, and the article went through an extensive peer review a few months ago. That has now finished, so I think it's time we had a look to see if it can meet Featured Article status. I await comments with interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Wasted Time R[edit]
Lead[edit]
Comments. While the lead is factually accurate, it's too much a narrative of releases and events and I don't think it captures what is really important about The Who. A significant percentage of readers never look past the table of contents in an article, and so the lead has got to serve as a self-standing description of the group. Here are some of the things I think are missing and some of the things that could be removed:
- The lead doesn't describe the group's sound – in particular, the two things that made the group most unique, Townshend's power chords on guitar and Moon's frenetic drumming.
-
- I think the best thing I can do here is pull out something from the introduction of the three main book sources (Marsh, Fletcher, Neill / Kent) and see what they have to say. There's a slight difference on emphasis as the books probably assume you a little about the band to start with, whereas this article should assume no prior knowledge whatsoever. Obviously anything new here needs to be reflected into the body (probably under "Musical style and instruments"). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- It only barely alludes to Townshend being the group's songwriter. In fact he is an acclaimed one, and the lead could briefly mention his recurring themes such as age and Meher Baba-based spirituality.
- It should briefly mention the group's focus on pop art in the early days.
- It should briefly describe Tommy as the allegorical story of a deaf dumb and blind boy.
- It should briefly describe Quadrophenia as a rock opera that mirrored the group's four personalities in a look back at the mod movement.
- Something should briefly be said about the volatile personalities in the group and the infighting and hotel room trashing – more than most groups, this was a vital aspect of their existence at the time.
- More needs to be said about Who's Next since it's their most popular/best selling album. The lead should mention the innovative use of synthesizers and say that "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" rank in top-rock-songs-ever lists.
- There's no need to name every album they released in the lead. A Quick One and Who Sell Out don't have to be mentioned by name – instead you could say their early albums experimented with conceptual forms, something like that. I really like Who By Numbers, but at the end of the day it's not a part of the Who story that people most need to know. There's no need to mention by name both of the Kenney Jones-era albums – nor is it necessary to say in the lead where Jones came from.
-
- I think this fell out an earlier review (either GA or one of the PRs; can't remember which) where somebody said all the albums needed to be listed. I agree with you on this point, and I would say that the important singles should be mentioned; "I Can't Explain" - first hit, "My Generation" - first big hit, "Happy Jack" - first US hit, "I Can See For Miles" - first big US hit, then albums from Tommy through to Quadrophenia, maybe "Who Are You" and I think that should suffice. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- As I said earlier, "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" should be mentioned. Mentioning the album Who Are You is useful because it implicitly mentions the title song as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've redone this bit - have another look and see what you think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think the changes regarding what is named and what is not named are for the better, but I don't agree with all of the characterizations (the significance of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is not that it was a "hit", Quadrophenia is not a "celebration" of anything ...). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think this fell out an earlier review (either GA or one of the PRs; can't remember which) where somebody said all the albums needed to be listed. I agree with you on this point, and I would say that the important singles should be mentioned; "I Can't Explain" - first hit, "My Generation" - first big hit, "Happy Jack" - first US hit, "I Can See For Miles" - first big US hit, then albums from Tommy through to Quadrophenia, maybe "Who Are You" and I think that should suffice. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The lead says Endless Wire was in the top ten of the album charts in the UK and the US - but that's not a metric used for any of the earlier albums (in recent years all it measures is first-week splash). Sales certifications is more appropriate for albums, and in the US it didn't even make gold.
-
- Should we just say it was released and leave it at that? It's the only album they've released in the last 30+ years, so just mention of it should be sufficient in the lead, wouldn't you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that change suffices. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Should we just say it was released and leave it at that? It's the only album they've released in the last 30+ years, so just mention of it should be sufficient in the lead, wouldn't you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The lead should omit future speculation - whether they release another album ("TBA (Summer 2015)" in the Discography section should be removed) or whether they really do retire from touring, time will tell (rock artists are notorious for multiple retirements).
-
- The body did mention this at one point, but the counterpoint source used was the Daily Mirror, so it had to go. I don't know who added "TBA (Summer 2015)" - wasn't me, honest - but that can go right now! As it is I've trimmed the lead down to just mention The Who Hits 50!, which I don't think had been named when that went in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the general problem with the comments on the lead is that I feel it is right on the edge of what is acceptable at WP:LEADLENGTH, so if facts were to be added, something else ought to be taken away to restore balance. Indeed, The Beatles and U2 seem quite acceptable as FAs to have a three-paragraph lead; although the Who has arguably been more active and released more significant work, maybe we should follow suit? I've redone it, cutting down the history to what I think are bare essentials, and adding something from the "Musical Style" and "Legacy and Influence" sections which were under-represented. To be honest, I think the best way forward is for all interested parties to say what they think are the important facets in the lead, then when we have consensus, we can put something around that. How does that sound as a way forward? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with lead length; I think this one should be four paragraphs, not three, given the length of the article. (Other FA articles aren't always the best guide; the lead for Katy Perry manages to never say a single thing about what her music is like or what her artistic persona is!) The part that begins "They have made major contributions ..." is good, and I suggest expanding it with power chords as a compositional, innovative synthesizer use, songwriting themes centered around age, identity, and spiritual meaning, and whatever else you come up with. This is your chance to tell the reader what made the Who different. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't diss Katy Perry too loudly otherwise SNUGGUMS might come up and give you a bit of a slap, but it certainly would be good to get their opinion here. In the meantime, I've put in the use of synths, since doing a bit of work on Won't Get Fooled Again itself has tripped up its obvious contribution. Lyrical themes are another good point to add, specifically that the Who did not do boy / girl love songs at all; although that needs to be added in the article to - the best source I have is the Live at Leeds reissue CD notes that play up "My Generation", dismissing the Beatles and the Stones as "still writing love songs during this period" (which, being late 1965 is actually questionable, but the basic point is sound). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I didn't find Wasted's comments to be offensive/dissing at all, Ritchie, don't worry. However, I couldn't really think of a good way to incorporate that detail in her lead when working on the article (I got it up from a DGA to GA this past June, and up to FA in August). Wasted, I do welcome you to give specific suggestions on how what to say where in the lead for her article and/or perhaps edit it accordingly yourself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
That's it for now, will add more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Body[edit]
Some comments regarding the article body, in roughly appearance order:
- "Daltrey maintains that his subsequent musical career saved him from a dead-end working man's job,[9] and in 1959 he started the band that was to evolve into the Who." That's an important point about The Who, but the phrasing is awkward. Maybe here give the 1959 fact, and later in the article mention Daltrey's belief, because that was core to his arguments with Townshend in the mid 1970s. (see Marsh as source)
-
- I've moved this to 1975, where Daltrey and Townshend had what can only be described as a major public brawl in the NME, where Daltrey made it clear that the Who had saved him from being a sheet-metal worker and he felt Townshend was unprofessional. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've moved this to 1975, where Daltrey and Townshend had what can only be described as a major public brawl in the NME, where Daltrey made it clear that the Who had saved him from being a sheet-metal worker and he felt Townshend was unprofessional. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Cliff Bennett and the Rebel Rousers should be linked as such.
-
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Johnny Kidd & the Pirates should be linked as such.
-
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article needs to have a description of "My Generation" the song! It's their early signature song and the stuttered vocal and the "Hope I die before I get old" are both super famous then and now and need to be mentioned.
-
- Done. Marsh also considers the key change significant, so I've added that too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have a side box that quotes the whole "People try to put us d-down" verse through to "Hope I die before I get old". It deserves that level of prominence in the Who story. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- This has been resolved by means of the audio clip. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have a side box that quotes the whole "People try to put us d-down" verse through to "Hope I die before I get old". It deserves that level of prominence in the Who story. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Marsh also considers the key change significant, so I've added that too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article should have a brief description of "Substitute". The identity confusion lyric is another theme of Townshend's and it shows how he early on was writing on unusual topics.
-
- Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- A brief description of what the "A Quick One" concept was about would help.
-
- Do you mean the title track? The background of the album is already there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a brief description of what the title suite is about. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a brief description of what the title suite is about. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mean the title track? The background of the album is already there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- A little more description of what Tommy is about would help - allegory of mass cults, of rock stars, etc. And "We're Not Gonna Take It" might be mentioned as the most well known song on it after "Pinball Wizard".
-
- Interesting comment this as I remember the GA review also says "we could do with a bit more Tommy". Are you sure your background is the case as documented in sources though - certainly my impression is that the plot is vague and what there is derives from spiritual enlightenment via Meher Baba, plus a bunch of other songs that were kicking around at the time. I think I might have held back a bit on this section as otherwise I could write far more of it, being my favourite period on the group. In the event, I took Tommy (album) to GA instead which seemed to satisfy my "itch". I'll have a look over there and see if there's anything that really stands out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the article can say that the plot is disjointed but the work is clearly about this and that and another thing, although even Townshend himself was not able to consistently explain it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not really convinced that Tommy is clearly about anything one way or another - indeed, I would say that the most significant element of the plot is that it's vague and confusing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the article can say that the plot is disjointed but the work is clearly about this and that and another thing, although even Townshend himself was not able to consistently explain it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting comment this as I remember the GA review also says "we could do with a bit more Tommy". Are you sure your background is the case as documented in sources though - certainly my impression is that the plot is vague and what there is derives from spiritual enlightenment via Meher Baba, plus a bunch of other songs that were kicking around at the time. I think I might have held back a bit on this section as otherwise I could write far more of it, being my favourite period on the group. In the event, I took Tommy (album) to GA instead which seemed to satisfy my "itch". I'll have a look over there and see if there's anything that really stands out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- As I said above, sales certifications are a better metric of album success than chart position, so you might mention the sales for Who's Next. And as I said above two, you can give best-song-ever list appearances for "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" as well as saying they are staples of classic rock radio.
-
- I've done quite a bit of work on Who's Next recently (it's at GAN now) and moved some stuff over from there that covers this area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's still more that can be said here. It tells me that someone plays a violin solo on "Baba O'Riley" but nothing regarding what the song is about or the minimalist influence that is responsible for half its title. And the article should mention somewhere that Townshend sang lead parts now and then during the Who's career, with the "teenage wasteland" refrain being a good example. And if I didn't know already, this article wouldn't tell me that "Won't Get Fooled Again" is an 8 1/2-minute epic about questioning political involvement that features what many have said is the greatest synthesizer in rock, the greatest drum entrance in rock, and most of all the greatest scream in rock. These are things that the reader of this article should know even if they don't click through to any album article or any song article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I have to disagree - if you asked the Sex Pistols what their favourite Who songs were, they wouldn't be anything off Who's Next, but they'd be the mid 60s singles. The 69-71 period is my favourite era of the Who, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it dominates everything else. Obviously you can't say such loaded POV terms such as "the greatest synthesizer in rock" in a GA, let alone an FA, so you'd have to go to good sources and qualify who said what, which would start to introduce topic drift just to get the claim to stick. Even then I don't think there's enough non-fan opinions to make it stick. Having done a quick straw poll around friends, I get the impression that for non-Who fans and non-rock fans, it's best known today as "that theme from CSI". I don't think I'd even include that much information in Who's Next article itself. I think the best thing to do is ask a friend who isn't a particular Who fan and see what their response is - that would give us a good idea of what the reader requirements are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's no competition here - the early singles were innovative and greatly influential as you say. I'm sure you can come up with sources that describe the scream - a Google Books search shows a bunch of them. Just to take one off my shelves, John Swenson in the New Rolling Stone Record Guide (1983, page 544) says "His [Daltrey's] scream at the climax of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a moment of pure rock transcendence." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's already in the article, the caption with the audio clip (under "Musical Style and Influence"), that uses a caption from Marsh's book, that says "the greatest scream of his career", with a sample to show it, and also showing the organ / synth, Moon's drum roll and Townshend's power chord. Sums it all up nicely. Also, the article is over 60K, which is right on the limit of WP:SIZE. So we have to use summary style, which we do as Who's Next and "Won't Get Fooled Again" are spinout articles, as expected. However, I think superlatives are still a bit too POV for an FA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's no competition here - the early singles were innovative and greatly influential as you say. I'm sure you can come up with sources that describe the scream - a Google Books search shows a bunch of them. Just to take one off my shelves, John Swenson in the New Rolling Stone Record Guide (1983, page 544) says "His [Daltrey's] scream at the climax of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a moment of pure rock transcendence." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I have to disagree - if you asked the Sex Pistols what their favourite Who songs were, they wouldn't be anything off Who's Next, but they'd be the mid 60s singles. The 69-71 period is my favourite era of the Who, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it dominates everything else. Obviously you can't say such loaded POV terms such as "the greatest synthesizer in rock" in a GA, let alone an FA, so you'd have to go to good sources and qualify who said what, which would start to introduce topic drift just to get the claim to stick. Even then I don't think there's enough non-fan opinions to make it stick. Having done a quick straw poll around friends, I get the impression that for non-Who fans and non-rock fans, it's best known today as "that theme from CSI". I don't think I'd even include that much information in Who's Next article itself. I think the best thing to do is ask a friend who isn't a particular Who fan and see what their response is - that would give us a good idea of what the reader requirements are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's still more that can be said here. It tells me that someone plays a violin solo on "Baba O'Riley" but nothing regarding what the song is about or the minimalist influence that is responsible for half its title. And the article should mention somewhere that Townshend sang lead parts now and then during the Who's career, with the "teenage wasteland" refrain being a good example. And if I didn't know already, this article wouldn't tell me that "Won't Get Fooled Again" is an 8 1/2-minute epic about questioning political involvement that features what many have said is the greatest synthesizer in rock, the greatest drum entrance in rock, and most of all the greatest scream in rock. These are things that the reader of this article should know even if they don't click through to any album article or any song article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've done quite a bit of work on Who's Next recently (it's at GAN now) and moved some stuff over from there that covers this area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Robert Hilburn should be linked.
-
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Quadrophenia description should briefly mention that the album and its musical scheme reflects each of the four personalities of the group.
-
- Done. I think a description of what the themes are and what personalities they reflect belongs in that album's own article, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. But your addition doesn't quite make clear that the four different personalities of the Who members are also the four different aspects of Jimmy's personality that he is struggling to reconcile. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I think a description of what the themes are and what personalities they reflect belongs in that album's own article, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's too much detail on the session musicians for the Tommy film - doesn't have that much to do with The Who and can be handled in the soundtrack article.
-
- Okay. I left in Kenny Jones as his tie to the Who is much stronger, and Elton John as he had the hit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- But an important effect of the Tommy film is that it gave Daltrey a new power base in his arguments within the group. (See Marsh as source)
-
- Are you sure about that? I thought it was more to do with Lambert and Stamp being fired as managers, who Townshend sided with far more than Daltrey. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I've been looking through the Marsh book and I can't find what I remember being there. So ignore this until and unless I do. 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? I thought it was more to do with Lambert and Stamp being fired as managers, who Townshend sided with far more than Daltrey. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where is says "(except for Daltrey, who retired to bed early)", you should add that Daltrey always did that, to protect his voice and because he was the most serious in the group about their professional responsibilities. (See Marsh as source)
-
- It doesn't specifically say it at that point (p.432) but it is worth adding somewhere earlier. I'm just not sure where. Certainly it was evident by 1967 that he wasn't get involved in hotel trashing and never did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Daltrey punched out Townshend a different time, in a studio session, didn't he?
-
- Did he? Hmmm, have to have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, I was confused, what you describe is what I was thinking of. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Did he? Hmmm, have to have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- In "The Godfathers of Punk" you should delink Punk - links within quotes are bad from and it's linked right after that in the sentence anyway.
-
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- You could say that the songwriting on Who By Numbers" presaged Townshend's solo career approach.
-
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- You could add to Moon being absent from "Music Must Change" is because he couldn't handle the 6/8 time signature.
-
- I think that's done, though I can't find what the MOS says about describing time signatures (if anything). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- You could use {{music|time|6|8}}, though it doesn't seem to be recommended anywhere (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music recommends using the {{music}} template, but doesn't mention time signatures). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's done, though I can't find what the MOS says about describing time signatures (if anything). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the description of the Quadrophenia film, it's misleading to say it starred Sting. He down in the billing and basically has a small part, but one that made an impact with. Phil Daniels is clearly the star.
-
- I swapped the sentences around, and changed this to "played" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that the Shepperton performance was Moon's last is in the article twice.
-
- I've changed the second one to "the Shepperton concert" (the second mention is important in context that it's on The Kids Are Alright) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Join Together album should be linked.
-
- Done. I tend to forget about adding wikilinks because half the time I get a message from DPL Bot telling me I've done it wrong ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article should briefly identify Zak Starkey as Ringo's son and mention Moon being a friend of Starr back in the day and teaching Zak drums.
-
- I'll pull something out of Fletcher's Moon biography that says this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where it talks about Townshend playing acoustic guitar it should emphasize that he excelled at this - witness "Pinball Wizard" among others - and it should add that Townshend used a flamenco technique in his playing of acoustics.
-
- Done, though I've gone for the slightly milder and less POV of it just appearing on albums from Tommy onwards more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where it says "at the MGM Grand Garden Arena." the period should be a comma.
-
- I've taken out the full stop altogether. Every time you remove a comma from an article, Eric Corbett cheers Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- "The Beatles were fans of the Who and appreciated their live sound when on tour." - unclear whose tour you are talking about.
-
- The specific bit in the source is "the big sound they had discovered on tour while listening to groups like The Who". Changed to "appreciated their sound". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- It might be worth noting that The Who never won a Grammy during their main career, only maybe in retrospect.
- Did Entwistle really ever play keyboards on a Who record (as opposed to one of his own)?
-
- Yes, he is credited as piano on the liner notes for Who's Next and for synthesizer on Who Are You. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Right you are. Guess it's been a long time since I looked at the back cover of my Who LPs! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, he is credited as piano on the liner notes for Who's Next and for synthesizer on Who Are You. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Footnote 193 uses The Who's official site as a source. Generally not a good idea if you can find a third-party source for the same material.
-
- Yes, I've started taking out the official site elsewhere, as I've discovered it goes out of date very quickly (being revamped every six months or so) and has a tendency not to transfer to the Wayback Machine very well, so they have a high risk of becoming unverifiable very quickly. I'll make a point of removing all citations for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've replaced this with Marsh, but there are several other references to the official site, mostly (then) contemporary press releases added in Wikipedia's lifetime. I'll have to revisit this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I've started taking out the official site elsewhere, as I've discovered it goes out of date very quickly (being revamped every six months or so) and has a tendency not to transfer to the Wayback Machine very well, so they have a high risk of becoming unverifiable very quickly. I'll make a point of removing all citations for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Footnote 54 uses use the fn:pageno format, but that isn't used for the books and seems inconsistent. You could just include the three pages of the liner notes that you use in the base cite.
-
- As this only cites "My Generation"'s chart position, I think the best thing is to pull that from a book instead. Then only page 5 of the CD liner notes (basically describing Live at Leeds) is used, negating the need for {{rp}} Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That's it for now, although I might think of more things later. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC) A few more:
- There should really be somewhere a capsule portrayal of The Who's stage act appearance: Daltrey strutting on stage, spinning the microphone on its cord in the air; Townshend windmilling the power chords and leaping in the air; Moon leaning over his drum kit, bashing it with abandon; and Entwistle standing still, passive and expressionless.
-
- I am starting to go towards agreeing with this, and the last paragraph in "Musical style and equipment" could accommodate this. The tricky bit now is to find a good source that summarises it as being a general overview of the band's entire career, rather than one specific era - not to mention the fact that the group have 35 years of post-Moon activity, not all of which can be written off as being insignificant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's a good quote on the group that you could use in Marsh's entry on The Who in the 1980 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, page 286: "Their spats and feuds, public and private, were the essence of Who mythology."
- The article should mention that The Who were the halftime act at Super Bowl XLIV in 2010, since that is a very high-profile appearance in the US.
-
- Seriously? I can do (it probably got trimmed out during a purge I did before I took the article to GA) but I don't really think it compares with the Marquee, Monterey, Woodstock or the Isle of Wight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously. It definitely compares with some of the events already listed in the post-Entwistle era. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done - since Rolling Stone said the gig was in front of 100 million people, I agree it should go in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously. It definitely compares with some of the events already listed in the post-Entwistle era. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? I can do (it probably got trimmed out during a purge I did before I took the article to GA) but I don't really think it compares with the Marquee, Monterey, Woodstock or the Isle of Wight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- In "Legacy and influence", no links inside the quote in the side box.
-
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That's it for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just a quick holding reply, thanks for the comments so far. I've just been a bit busy elsewhere this week (both on and off wiki), and I have a few GA reviews I need to finish off as priority, but hopefully I'll get round to tackling all of this lot soon. I think mainly sorting out the lead looks to be the difficult bit; everything else doesn't look too insurmountable providing I find a spare evening or two and round up my collection of book sources. More later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- No problem. I did realize a major omission though:
- The article needs some audio clips. Looking at comparable FA articles such as The Beatles, U2, David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, they all have between two and four audio clips in them. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I've never been a fan of audio clips - not so much their presence in articles but rather the requirement to get the FUR right. However, it will solve a number of issues - a "My Generation" sample would allow us to caption it with the "Hope I die..." lyric and provide a much needed break in the text in a section of the article where images are sparse. Then the riff from "Pinball Wizard" would document the acoustic playing, and the end of "Won't Get Fooled Again" (about 7:42 - 7:47) would sum up synths, Moon's drumming, power chords and Daltrey's vocal projection all in one hit. How does that sound as a first draft of ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds good. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've never been a fan of audio clips - not so much their presence in articles but rather the requirement to get the FUR right. However, it will solve a number of issues - a "My Generation" sample would allow us to caption it with the "Hope I die..." lyric and provide a much needed break in the text in a section of the article where images are sparse. Then the riff from "Pinball Wizard" would document the acoustic playing, and the end of "Won't Get Fooled Again" (about 7:42 - 7:47) would sum up synths, Moon's drumming, power chords and Daltrey's vocal projection all in one hit. How does that sound as a first draft of ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Some new comments from me that I didn't think of previously.
- It would be worth mentioning that The Who were an unusually self-reflective group thanks to Townshend. In other words, he spent a lot of time thinking about what it meant to be the Who and what their role should be towards their audience. This shows up in the later parts of Tommy. And it's no accident that the Who appear as a character in the Quadrophenia story. This is a consistent theme of the Marsh book and this almost obsessive self-reflection on the part of Townshend is one of the things that made the Who different.
- The portrayal of Moon isn't quite right in this article, which makes him out to be the stereotypical overindulging, self-destructive rock star. Which is was, but he was also a classic British eccentric, often completely dressing the part of various extravagant characters and the like. That's partly why the British press labelled him "Moon the Loon". There's a good quote on one of the photo plates in the Marsh book about this, which I don't have in front of me right now.
-
- I felt this belonged more in Moon's own article, but what I think might be a good idea is to create a new "Personal relationships" section that discusses how the members of the Who and associates got on (or, rather, didn't). I think we ought to cover the paradox that is that the Who always seemed to hate each other and were always leaving, yet the classic band stayed together for as long as it could. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it needs a separate section - the infighting is really intertwined with the history of the group. The article on Moon can go into his persona as an eccentric in more detail, but it also deserves mention here to give a fully rounded portrayal. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I felt this belonged more in Moon's own article, but what I think might be a good idea is to create a new "Personal relationships" section that discusses how the members of the Who and associates got on (or, rather, didn't). I think we ought to cover the paradox that is that the Who always seemed to hate each other and were always leaving, yet the classic band stayed together for as long as it could. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are there some respectable critical voices that dissent on the Who, who think they are overrated? If so, their views should be alluded to in the article. Unfortunately I can't think of any offhand but maybe others know of some. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Elements of their career that have been covered negatively (eg: 1968 Australia tour, Quadrophenia first tour, "The Who On Ice") are in the article, and from the early 80s to the late 90s I don't think the Who were as popular as they were or are now. Possibly a lack of strong criticism stems from Townshend being the first one to criticise the band before anyone else gets a look in! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you do have a point with that last bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Elements of their career that have been covered negatively (eg: 1968 Australia tour, Quadrophenia first tour, "The Who On Ice") are in the article, and from the early 80s to the late 90s I don't think the Who were as popular as they were or are now. Possibly a lack of strong criticism stems from Townshend being the first one to criticise the band before anyone else gets a look in! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]
Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I seem to remember the GA review looked at images carefully to the extent that two got deleted on Commons as a direct result. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from John[edit]
Support, subject to getting a few audio clips as above. Prose looks ok, sourcing looks good (though I haven't done any spot-checks). --John (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Still tending to support but I would like to see the valid concerns of Snuggums and Curly addressed. --John (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]
| Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS |
|---|
|
You've done quite well, Ritchie. Before anything else, I should say to you and John that audio clips should never exceed 30 seconds per WP:Manual of Style/Music samples. Of the ones currently used, File:Won't Get Fooled Again.ogg is 33 seconds long, and File:My Generation sample.ogg is 35 seconds long. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Now onto the review.....
Overall, outstanding article and quite close to becoming FA material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
|
- Support a truly fine piece of work. Well-deserving of FA! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]
- I still have a number of unaddressed comments on the talk page. Perhaps I should move them here, but for now I have a few new comments on the lead:
-
- I haven't got round to looking at those, but pretty much all of them are requests for additions for content, which, on a 62K article that is on the limit of WP:SIZE I wouldn't be happy without a consensus, particularly as some (such as Jimmy Page playing on "I Can't Explain" which Marsh says is false, or adding non-notable tribute bands) I think would introduce problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if Page on "I Can't Explain" is disputed, then it should be left out, but some of the other stuff should go in—especially the naming of the band. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand, the bit about Townshend and Barnes coming up with the name is in the article. I have put in Page as playing on the B-side, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I meant about Entwistle or Moon coming up with the name Led Zeppelin. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- How does that relate to the Who more than, say, Ann Margaret (which got removed)? I do want to add something about Moon leaving the Who in '66, but I can't remember if this ties in with that incident. If it does, it can go in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I meant about Entwistle or Moon coming up with the name Led Zeppelin. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand, the bit about Townshend and Barnes coming up with the name is in the article. I have put in Page as playing on the B-side, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if Page on "I Can't Explain" is disputed, then it should be left out, but some of the other stuff should go in—especially the naming of the band. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't got round to looking at those, but pretty much all of them are requests for additions for content, which, on a 62K article that is on the limit of WP:SIZE I wouldn't be happy without a consensus, particularly as some (such as Jimmy Page playing on "I Can't Explain" which Marsh says is false, or adding non-notable tribute bands) I think would introduce problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Their best known line-up consisted of lead singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist Pete Townshend, bassist John Entwistle and drummer Keith Moon: this wording might best fit a band that had a revolving door of members that went through a "classic" period (think Yes). This lineup is not just the "best known", though---it's the canonical one
-
- Have you met the Best known for IP? Somebody's changed to "classic" but I'm not really comfortable with that, classic to whom? What does classic mean? Is it something to do with classical music? Can anyone think of a better word? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours, before stabilising around a line-up of Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon.: I might drop this from the lead, or at lest shorten it to the first half as we've just been told Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon were the classic lineup.
-
- Yes, let's drop it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- all written by Townshend: it's not clear from the wording that Townshend also wrote "I Can't Explain". Since we're shortly after given "lead songwriter and visionary Townshend" I might drop "all written by Townshend" anyways
-
- Dropped Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- from a hit-singles band into a respected rock act: it's not clear why "hit-singles band" and "respected rock act" would be mutally exclusive
-
- I'm not sure what you mean, but to give you some examples, Herman's Hermits are a "hit-singles band" while Jethro Tull are a "respected rock act" (deliberately picking bands the Who have toured with). Does that clarify things? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can see how a band may be classidied as one or the other, but I'm not convinced they're mutually exclusive. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- This might need more context. Certainly "pop" and "rock" became quite different during the late 60s. I'm not sure what to suggest though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- There were singles-oriented artists and album-oriented ones, but those don't correlate with being "respected". The Animals, The Young Rascals, and Creedence Clearwater Revival were all singles-oriented artists from this era. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fletcher's Moon biography has quite a good comment on this circa .p152, talking about the 1965 NME Poll Winners Concert - "a temporary coming together of every notable act in the country before they diverged, some progressing into rock bands that would give the music the depth required .... others to tread water as pop groups ... until they eventually faded" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- We're going off-track a bit - what changes need to be made to the article here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- There were singles-oriented artists and album-oriented ones, but those don't correlate with being "respected". The Animals, The Young Rascals, and Creedence Clearwater Revival were all singles-oriented artists from this era. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- This might need more context. Certainly "pop" and "rock" became quite different during the late 60s. I'm not sure what to suggest though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can see how a band may be classidied as one or the other, but I'm not convinced they're mutually exclusive. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean, but to give you some examples, Herman's Hermits are a "hit-singles band" while Jethro Tull are a "respected rock act" (deliberately picking bands the Who have toured with). Does that clarify things? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- 1969's rock opera Tommy: from this wording it comes off as "just another rock opera"; probably want ot mention the "rock opera" as a Who thang
-
- I'm not sure what you mean? I'm concerned anything more than just saying it was a rock opera would be POV Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Even if there are proposed precursors, the Who are still the band credited with the first successful rock opera[10][11][12][13][14][15] Might want to mention the Tommy influence on Jesus Christ Superstar as well.[16] Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- But what about S.F. Sorrow? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- And S. F. Sorrow was preceded by The Story of Simon Simopath Tommy popularized the term, and the term is associated largely with the Who. Who else put out rock operas with the impact of Tommy or Quadrophenia? Notice how everyone compares Zen Arcade to Tommy or Quadrophenia or---oh, nothing else. It sure ain't because the album sounds like the Who—it's because the Who virtually own the term. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Curly Turkey here - it doesn't matter exactly which came first, mention "rock opera" to any general rock fan and the two they will first mention are these two. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- So what changes should be made? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't go as far as Britannica, which opens their oarticle ont he band with "the Who, Who, the [Credit: Jim Summaria (http://www.jimsummariaphoto.com/)British rock group that was among the most popular and influential bands of the 1960s and ’70s and that originated the rock opera.]"—but I'd definitely throw in a line (say in "Legacy") that they are credited with popularizing the rock opera and that the term is strongly associated with the band. Then I'd mention that in passing in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- So what changes should be made? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Curly Turkey here - it doesn't matter exactly which came first, mention "rock opera" to any general rock fan and the two they will first mention are these two. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- And S. F. Sorrow was preceded by The Story of Simon Simopath Tommy popularized the term, and the term is associated largely with the Who. Who else put out rock operas with the impact of Tommy or Quadrophenia? Notice how everyone compares Zen Arcade to Tommy or Quadrophenia or---oh, nothing else. It sure ain't because the album sounds like the Who—it's because the Who virtually own the term. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- But what about S.F. Sorrow? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Even if there are proposed precursors, the Who are still the band credited with the first successful rock opera[10][11][12][13][14][15] Might want to mention the Tommy influence on Jesus Christ Superstar as well.[16] Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean? I'm concerned anything more than just saying it was a rock opera would be POV Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- abandoned in favour of 1971's Who's Next: Who's Next was made up of material left over from Lifehouse, wasn't it? From the wording it sounds like they tossed and Lifehouse and took on a separate project instead.
-
- Well My Wife was nothing to do with it, the key track, "Pure And Easy" wasn't on the album, and Lifehouse itself was supposed to be much more than just an album. Anyway, I've reworded things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- You might want to mention it when albums are doubles
-
- I'm concerned this would add too much information to the lead that is already quite big - I'm more in favour of removing things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but it does give the impression of just how big these projects were. It's surprising that it's not even mentioned in the body, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mention in the body, not the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Something about album length would be useful. I've added that to Tommy but not for Quadrophenia until I can find a source that talks about the relevance of its length. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here's such a source that talks about the significance of there being four sides to the album, thus it needed to be a double. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's the Richie Unterberger source. He's using quotations that are also in Marsh's book, documenting the decision to drop Rock is Dead - Long Live Rock due to it being too close to "Who's Next Part II" and Townshend deciding to do something else. That's not actually talking about Quadrophenia as such. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here's such a source that talks about the significance of there being four sides to the album, thus it needed to be a double. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Something about album length would be useful. I've added that to Tommy but not for Quadrophenia until I can find a source that talks about the relevance of its length. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mention in the body, not the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but it does give the impression of just how big these projects were. It's surprising that it's not even mentioned in the body, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm concerned this would add too much information to the lead that is already quite big - I'm more in favour of removing things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The group continued to play live regularly, including the Quadrophenia and More tour in 2012 and the Who Hits 50 tour in 2014.: fine for the body, but naming these tours in the lead I think is RECENTISM and UNDUE
-
- Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- They have been cited as an influence by several punk rock and mod bands: and hard rock and heavy metal in general
-
- That will need to go in the body and cited to reliable sources, though Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I gave you a bunch of sources on the talk page. This is something the article really needs—as it stands it gives the impression that their main legacy is the impact they had on punk, which is seriously unbalanced. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Probably the best thing to do here is be bold and add to the article, then I can check the sources and the context and make a balanced opinion on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I think someone else mentioned it above, but something should be said about their sound, and something about power chords
-
- I'm really not sure what exactly can be said here, plus their sound is quite varied when you listen to all of it (eg: I Can't Explain vs The Song Is Over vs "Guitar and Pen" vs "Underture" on Tommy vs Sunrise on The Who Sell Out). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure there's variety, but the great big, extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords of "I Can See For Miles", "Pinball Wizard", "Baba O'Reilly", and "Who Are You" are about the first thing that comes to many people's heads when you mention the Who, and a central part of their legacy. That would be a major oversight if left out of the lead. You could always mention that there was a variety while noting the sounds typically associated with them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there are "extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords" on "I Can See For Miles". Of the four songs you mention, for me the first is the psychedelic-fused guitar and drums, the second is the acoustic, the third is the synthesizer and the fourth is also the synthesizer. So I'm sorry, but this sounds just like expressing a POV which we can't use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- The verses of "I Can See for Miles" are all power chords—great big crashing power chords that are great fun to windmill to—and Townsend promoted the song as the loudest single ever.[17][18][19] (and here's a great quote: "The loudest record I know is certainly The Who's original single of 'I Can See For Miles', which is so overpowering that my dog buries her head in her paws if I take it out of the sleeve"
- I've come across the June 1994 issue of Guitar World, which proclaims "'I Can See For Miles' was pivotal in makin the power chord a central part of the rock guitar vocbulary" (p 47). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- And on p 57 "these rot/fifth, root/fifth/root chords are known as 'power chords'. As the Who grew in popularity, power chords became synonymous with the name Pete Townshend". There's some other good stuff in there. I'll come back with a few suggestions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- The verses of "I Can See for Miles" are all power chords—great big crashing power chords that are great fun to windmill to—and Townsend promoted the song as the loudest single ever.[17][18][19] (and here's a great quote: "The loudest record I know is certainly The Who's original single of 'I Can See For Miles', which is so overpowering that my dog buries her head in her paws if I take it out of the sleeve"
- I don't think there are "extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords" on "I Can See For Miles". Of the four songs you mention, for me the first is the psychedelic-fused guitar and drums, the second is the acoustic, the third is the synthesizer and the fourth is also the synthesizer. So I'm sorry, but this sounds just like expressing a POV which we can't use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure there's variety, but the great big, extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords of "I Can See For Miles", "Pinball Wizard", "Baba O'Reilly", and "Who Are You" are about the first thing that comes to many people's heads when you mention the Who, and a central part of their legacy. That would be a major oversight if left out of the lead. You could always mention that there was a variety while noting the sounds typically associated with them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure what exactly can be said here, plus their sound is quite varied when you listen to all of it (eg: I Can't Explain vs The Song Is Over vs "Guitar and Pen" vs "Underture" on Tommy vs Sunrise on The Who Sell Out). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Need to mention something about their stage show: Daltrey swinging his mic, Townshend doing his windmills
-
- I think this would make the lead too long. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- It could hardly be less important than the fact that one of their hit singles was used as a TV show theme. I think a lot of people would be surprised to see nothing about it—this is a band with a reputation, and their stage show is a central part of that reputation. I could see dropping "The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours", "a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996," and ", thwarting plans for a new album" in its favour. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree, sorry. Can anyone else express an opinion on this? There is a bit more about the mic cable stuff in the body now, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can see leaving out the mic cable stuff, but windmilling? I see that at far more leadworthy than any of the three snippets I mentioned above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- What specific changes do you think should go in? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can see leaving out the mic cable stuff, but windmilling? I see that at far more leadworthy than any of the three snippets I mentioned above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree, sorry. Can anyone else express an opinion on this? There is a bit more about the mic cable stuff in the body now, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- It could hardly be less important than the fact that one of their hit singles was used as a TV show theme. I think a lot of people would be surprised to see nothing about it—this is a band with a reputation, and their stage show is a central part of that reputation. I could see dropping "The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours", "a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996," and ", thwarting plans for a new album" in its favour. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think this would make the lead too long. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- including the theme music for the television series CSI: recentism and UNDUE again; ten years from now readers will be thinking "CS-What?"
-
- I'm afraid you're showing your age there! CSI has been around for 14 years and is described on "the most popular dramatic series internationally". I did some market research amongst peers off-wiki to ask them what songs by the Who they recognised and a common theme from under 30s was the CSI themes. Plus this article is linked from the lead of CSI's main article, so do you consider mention of the Who there to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE? For a younger generation, it's important enough to add as a footnote to the lead in order to jog their memory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm showing more my lack of interest in TV (though my wife does watch CSI). I'll admit I'm perhaps not qualified in that particular area and let others decide if this point is really lead-worthy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like it was taken out, so I'll take that as a consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm showing more my lack of interest in TV (though my wife does watch CSI). I'll admit I'm perhaps not qualified in that particular area and let others decide if this point is really lead-worthy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're showing your age there! CSI has been around for 14 years and is described on "the most popular dramatic series internationally". I did some market research amongst peers off-wiki to ask them what songs by the Who they recognised and a common theme from under 30s was the CSI themes. Plus this article is linked from the lead of CSI's main article, so do you consider mention of the Who there to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE? For a younger generation, it's important enough to add as a footnote to the lead in order to jog their memory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
All said and done, I think the problem now is a balance between FA criteria 1b ("neglects no major facts or details") and 4 ("focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") which I think will require consensus. Plus any new prose will need to be checked against the rest of the FA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not necessarily suggesting it as a source, but you may be amused to read this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Just in general, I think including a comprehensive depiction of what made The Who different and so highly valued is more important than worrying about the article length. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- We just need to make sure whatever content is added meets the FA criteria and is closely copyedited for flow and sources checked over - jus' saying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just in general, I think including a comprehensive depiction of what made The Who different and so highly valued is more important than worrying about the article length. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Did the development of the Marshall stack somehow get cut from the body? I could've sworn it was there before, but now the first mention of Marshalls is Hendrix's stack at Monterey.Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)- Okay, I see it comes late in the article. Something about this needs to be mentioned in the general history of the band---it almost comes across as if Hendrix invented the Marshall stack the way it's introduced. Curly Turkey ¡gobble!
- Okay, I've been WP:BOLD and added I pile of stuff, though I understand your concerns about length. I don't think any of the stuff I've added is fluff, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nope, your additions all look good and exactly what we need to get out of the logjam - thanks! I've expanded on a few things. I want to add a bit more to the "relationships" section per the comment in there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]
- See WP:DATEOTHER-- typically the final year in a date range is abbreviated to two digits.
- Prose
-
- The Who occasionally re-formed for live appearances such as Live Aid in 1985, a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996, before resuming regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey.
- Drummer feels stuck on to the end of an unrelated thought.
-
- I wonder if we should simply take Starkey out of the lead altogether. Although Starkey gets the most coverage in sources, no other touring members are mentioned, including Rabbit who's been touring keyboardist for the majority of shows since 1979. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- WP:NBSP reviewed needed throughout (sample 100 million in lead, top 50, 32 tablets, etc.)
-
- I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- He was expelled from school aged 15 ... expelled from school at age 15, or when he was 15?
-
- Doesn't that mean the same thing? I'm confused Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dawson later left after frequently arguing with Daltrey. ... later ... after ... awkward
-
- Yes that should simply be "left" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:MOSLQ errors, sample was "so much better than the Who it was embarrassing." ... please review throughout.
-
- That's a verbatim quotation from Tony Fletcher's book - what's the issue? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- In addition, Jones' consistent and precise drumming was very different from Moon's wild and unpredictable playing. Is that a fact, or an opinion that should be attributed to the author who holds it?
-
- Changed to " Jones' drumming style was very different from Moon's and this drew criticism within the band." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SIZE: the article has almost 12,000 words of readable prose, and there do seem to be areas where some trimming might be possible. As one example, the "Guitars" section discusses Townshend in depth, when he has his own article. "Bass", on the other hand, is shorter and focused on the the group.
-
- I think unfortunately this is a deal breaker; a majority of edits since the FA review started have been requests to add content (specifically against criteria 1b), largely from Curly Turkey and from a lesser extent Wasted Time R. As you can see, I have expressed concern over WP:SIZE but consensus is that had not been an issue. John has done a fairly substantial copyedit on the article already and removed some fat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read most of the article (just a MOS flyover), but overall I suggest MOS attention and some prose tightening with an eye towards trimming the article. I also quite a few samples of statements that are positioned as fact when they may be the opinion of a given source; a runthrough with an eye towards attribution of opinions would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, I can't get behind MOS stuff, in all honesty it just give me a feeling to me to walk away and find something else to edit. Can you recommend some scripts, or can somebody else tackle this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you get everything else worked out, and only MOS issues are holding you up, then please ping me and I will run through. Of course, I'll keep my fingers crossed that maybe someone else will first, since it's time consuming :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I can't get behind MOS stuff, in all honesty it just give me a feeling to me to walk away and find something else to edit. Can you recommend some scripts, or can somebody else tackle this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)[edit]
"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the last review in September, the article underwent a copyediting treatment (I'm not a native English speaker) and I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you, Earthh (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Image check - all OK (issues fixed)
File:Thirty_Seconds_to_Mars_-_"City_of_Angels"_(Promotional_Single).png - fair-use rationale needs last parameter filled, "n.a." is no valid NFCC-argument (see other single lead images for usable example phrases).
-
- Fixed.
File:City_of_Angels_music_video.jpg - fair-use for such a collage doesn't work. Most persons in this collage have their own article and simply showing their portrait photos doesn't significantly increase a reader's understanding. A crucial scene screenshot, widely discussed in reviews, could be shown as "fair-use", or a collage of free images (if available).
-
- A collage of free images is not available and the music video basically shows people telling to the camera what LA means to them (it is not a narrative piece). What should I do?
-
- You'll have to remove the collage image, sorry - it doesn't meet our fair-use policy. Maybe another reviewer has a better idea for a suitable replacement. GermanJoe (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- What if a collage were effected through free-use images of the celebrities, a la Frozen (2013 film)#Voice cast? Tezero (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- All other images are CC or valid fair-use, with sufficient source and author information.
(Not relevant for this FA) As side note, the song sample is OK here, but has a rather weak FUR in its second article usage. Showing "variety and experimentation" is no valid fair-use reason in an article, which doesn't even mention the song and includes 3 other samples.GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support per last nomination. Everything still looks to be in order, although I find it curious that "experimental rock" is now listed as the sole genre when it generated so much bickering back then. Tezero (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Marvel Science Stories[edit]
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Marvel Science Stories was part of two booms in science fiction magazine publishing, in 1939 and again in 1950. It was unusual in that it carried more sexual content than most science fiction magazines of the time, partly because it came from a publishing house that emphasized "sex and sadism" in its magazines. The content would barely raise an eyebrow these days, but "aliens lusting after unclothed Earth women" was enough to bring irate letters from the readers. The article is on the short side for a featured article; my personal guideline is that an article with less than 1000 words prose goes to GAN instead of FAC, and this is a little over that mark. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Image check - all OK
- Both images have sufficient source and author information.
- Both images are "PD-US-not renewed", no renewals. GermanJoe (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN4 should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Dang it, thought I might get a clean bill of health from you this time! This is the closest I've gotten so far. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support tried my hardest to find a nit-pick though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a Jamaican teenager, Dwayne Jones, who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013. The event attracted press attention both domestically and in a number of foreign countries, bringing about international scrutiny and condemnation of the state of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Having achieved GA status in December 2013, further improvements have been made to this article, and I believe that it is now ready to undergo FAC. I'd particularly recommend it to any editors interested in LGBT issues, crime, Jamaica, and human rights. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Image check[edit]
- For File:Dwayne Jones, Jamaican murder victim.jpg you'll need to give the source from where you got it (like a like—it says ©AP, so I image you could link to wherever it is at AP—is there really no other attribution?).
- I have traced the picture to the Associated Press, and updated the image file on Wikipedia with the information that I obtained there. I hope that does the trick, Curly Turkey ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, looks fine now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have traced the picture to the Associated Press, and updated the image file on Wikipedia with the information that I obtained there. I hope that does the trick, Curly Turkey ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Other images are properly tagged and under Creative Commons licenses. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
I just glanced at the article and was left confused as to what Jones' biological sex was. It's implied that he was biologically male, but the article doesn't explicitly mention that in the lead or the "Early life" section. In the lead something like "Jones was born biologically male but was gender non-conforming" would be a lot clearer to the reader. I'd like to see something similar in the "Early life" section as well. While gender is not always so clear-cut, sex (biologically male or female) is generally pretty straightforward, and being very clear about the latter would help the reader understand why Jones was killed, I think. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- You raise a very interesting point. The problem is that we don't have a source that explicitly states that "Dwayne Jones was biologically male". I assume that he was, but without confirmation would hesitate to state it in the article; it is possible that he was intersex or even biologically female, although I thin it unlikely given the information available to us. It seems more obviously clear that he was of the male gender; his two friends (both of whom were transgender women) referred to him using male pronouns and called him Dwayne, so I think that that is a fairly obvious point, which I hope is reflected in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- AP is an agency or publisher, not a work
- Could you clarify what needs to be changed here, Nikkimaria; I am afraid that I am a little perplexed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Associated Press, footnote 2 - it shouldn't be italicized, it's likely in the wrong parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the clarification; for some reason I thought that you were talking about the image. I have corrected the reference. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Associated Press, footnote 2 - it shouldn't be italicized, it's likely in the wrong parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Could you clarify what needs to be changed here, Nikkimaria; I am afraid that I am a little perplexed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- QCJM is a publisher, not an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- As above, apologies but I have no idea what QCJM is, or what requires changing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Quality of Citizenship Jamaica - again, this value is in the wrong parameter in the citation template. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, thanks for the clarification; I have made the required correction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Quality of Citizenship Jamaica - again, this value is in the wrong parameter in the citation template. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- As above, apologies but I have no idea what QCJM is, or what requires changing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Freedom Planet[edit]
I created this article in early June, let it languish for a while, then quickly scurried it up to GA, making further improvements after it passed and then waiting for a while for Tony Hawk's Underground 's FAC to close, which would finally happen earlier this morning. Two more notes: every image used in the article is free, and because of the title's relative obscurity, there really aren't any more reliable reviews than those listed in the table and, where they didn't give a score, summarized in the prose. (However, if more are released during this FAC, please be sure to tell me.) If passed, this article would earn me my second Four Award, which, while certainly not the be-all-and-end-all of editing, would be nice. Tezero (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]
Article's been languishing awhile, so I'll take it on. Won't have time for a day or two, though. Opening comment: why does an American game need a {{nihongo}} title? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Because the Japanese title is used in the official cover art (all versions) and title screen and a couple critics have mentioned it as part of larger points about the game's East Asian influences. Thanks for reviewing, though! Tezero (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about the delay; off-wiki stuff has been keeping me busy lately. I'll try to get to this tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Starting:
- "a 2D platform/action video game" — From what I know, 2D must be introduced via "two-dimensional (2D)" before it may be used alone. Also, "platform/action" is vague to non-gamers, on top of being an informal construction.
-
- Done the 2D part. What would you suggest for the genre? Neither action nor platforming really dominates or was purported to by the sources, so I can't really remove one; would you prefer a hyphen or en-dash as a separator? Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- It might be better simply to call it a "platform game", for the sake of clarity. It would make sense, too—most games considered action-platformers are in the vein of Gunstar Heroes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- "an ad hoc studio headed by Stephen DiDuro." — I don't know what an "ad hoc studio" is, and no wikilink to the concept is provided. Should be rephrased in clearer terms.
-
- "Ad hoc" is used without explanation in the lead of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, an FA. I really don't know much more, though, about the context; none of the sources even mention individual members of GalaxyTrail other than DiDuro. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- That FA is over six years old, and the phrase "ad hoc" did not appear in the version that passed FAC. The sentence needs to be changed in some way—preferably by cutting "ad hoc" and leaving the details for the article body. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- A rewrite:
-
- "It
features a cast of primarilyfollows three anthropomorphic animals; the three playable characters are—the dragon Lilac, the wildcat Carol, and the basset hound Milla. Along with their duck-like friend Torque,—as theyembark on a questattempt to defeat the evil Lord Brevon, who plans towants to drain energy from the planet to rebuild his starship andconquer the galaxy."
-
- Partially done. I want to keep it as two separate sentences since your suggestion is a bit of a run-on, and Torque is a major character so I don't think it'd be right to leave him out. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I don't see how the emdashed section makes it a run-on, but so be it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- "It
- "The gameplay is fast-paced and involves unique attacks for all three characters." — I get no sense of the game from this sentence. It needs to be replaced with something more meaningful.
-
- It doesn't really offer anything either way, so I've removed it. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- The problem now is that the gameplay is not described at all, which doesn't work. Something needs to be there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- "starring Lilac in the form of a hedgehog" — This is hard to follow. If it means that the protagonist was originally a hedgehog named Lilac, then the sentence should be rephrased to make that more obvious.
- "disillusioned with this task" — What made him become disillusioned? Alternatively, if this is just a roundabout way of saying that he lost interest, then it should be rewritten along those lines.
- "seeking to create something more original" — This clause doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. Also, what does "more original" mean here?
- A rewrite:
-
- "She designed
thenew characters and DiDuro reworked the game based onfans gavefan suggestionsfor more changes,thereby allowing the game towhich transformed the game into its own intellectual property."
- "She designed
- "East Asia-influenced in its art style; the title is written in katakana" — The art of East Asia is, by Wikipedia's own assessment, insanely diverse. Needs clarification. Also, the semicolon is not correct and should be replaced with a simple "and".
-
- Reworded. I chose to link both China and Japan, but I can change that if you'd like. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- This doesn't really fix the problem. A skim of the Chinese art article alone should explain why: the label contains everything from 13th century scroll paintings to that famous portrait of Mao. Japanese art has the same issue. You have to get specific, as in, "The game's art direction was influenced by medieval Chinese and Japanese art". It appears that the article body confirms as much, so there's no need for vagueness. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- A rewrite:
-
- "The game was released for Microsoft Windows first as a
Microsoft Windowsdemo in August 2012, and then—after a few delays—as a full gamefor Windowsvia Steam on July 21, 2014."
- "The game was released for Microsoft Windows first as a
- Another rewrite:
-
- "
Both before and after the game's full release, critics have universallyFreedom Planet has been widely compareditto the Sega Genesis Sonic games.,Critics praisedgiving positive comments toits gameplay, aesthetics, andmodulationbalance of Sonic elements with original content,but werethough they were moremixed on its pacing and length."
- "
That's it for now. The article's a bit rough in the prose department—it could have used an outside copyedit before being sent to FAC. I'll plug away at this review however long it takes, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, the GOCE certainly does keep itself busy, and I was getting impatient. I'll fix these when I'm at my real computer. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Responded above. I'll be back to continue the review ASAP. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
A bit more; I only have a short time to squeeze this in:
- "Freedom Planet is a 2D platform/action game." — Same problem as before.
- "The player controls any of the three playable characters—Lilac, Carol, or Milla—while running and jumping through levels and destroying robotic enemies." — This suggests that the player is running and jumping in real life. I can't think of a way to fix it without rewriting the sentence from scratch, but perhaps you have an idea.
- "involve environmental features" — Excessively abstract. Perhaps, "contain obstacles".
- "followed by cutscenes that advance the story" — Placement suggests that the player fights the cutscenes. Maybe, "after which the story is advanced by cutscenes".
- "As a result of wide-ranging similarities in the" —> "Because of its".
- The first screenshot's caption is a tedious, hard-to-follow list of terms. Strip it down to something that the average reader would find interesting.
- A rewrite:
-
- "
One significant difference fromUnlike in Sonic,is thatthe player character has astandard healthhit point meter instead ofSonic 'sa ring-based health system."
- "
I'll be back later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, cool. I've been busy lately and will continue to be for a few more days with finals and projects, but I'll edit when I can. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar[edit]
Going to be taking care of the prose side of things first:
- "created by indie developer GalaxyTrail, an ad hoc studio" - Ad hoc? Best make this more clear for unfamiliar readers
-
- Linked. Probably don't need to explain it, though, per Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Freedom Planet began development as a Sonic the Hedgehog fangame" - was it still a Sonic the Hedgehog fangame upon release or did it change to be more independent along the way? The development section states that "DiDuro felt that the Sonic affiliation would hold the game back"
- "The game will be released on the website GOG.com in late 2014" - any updates for this? It's almost the end of the year!
- Why does "Post-release" have a hyphen and "Prerelease" doesn't?
-
- czar claimed that "prerelease" is a word and "postrelease" isn't, which matches up with the red lines my phone's giving me. Personally, though, I'd prefer hyphens for both. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I'm really not sure on that, Oxford dictionary uses the hyphen for 'pre-release' and the hyphen can also apply for words that sometimes don't need it, for example 'over-rated' and 'build-up', but I think some of that lies down to ENGVAR. If you like, use them for both! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Similarly, Jeffrey Matulef from Eurogamer" - needs to be italicised, again with "Jonatan Allin from the Danish Eurogamer thought similarly"
- Did the game receive any aggregate scores?
- The reception section is large, have you thought about expanding more on what the critics said in the lead section? I feel like the lead could summarise the article better
- The lead, nor the infobox, does not mention anything about a Steam release
Now a less comprehensive reference check. I can guarantee that someone else will make a more extensive review for the references, but a few things are clear:
- No dab links
- All the references in the article appear to be working properly and the citations are all in the correct places, so no problems here.
Those are all of the pressing prose issues out of the way, and also a minor reference check (references aren't my field). Everything seems to be in good shape. I'll support this transition from GA to FA as I'm satisfied with the way the article is written. Hope this isn't too premature, but I really like this article. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
St Helen's, Ashby-de-la-Zouch[edit]
- Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
My last ancient building was a Derbyshire castle, so it must be time for a Leicestershire church. This quiet market town church was once a hotbed of Puritanism under the patronage of Henry Hastings. It doesn't face east, the nave is wider than it is long, and it has a finger pillory.
I've tried to avoid technical terms and not go into too much detail of the architecture to keep the length of the page reasonable, but if there are glaring omissions, I'll remedy if I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Image check[edit]
- All good. All the images are properly tagged and are either in the Public Domain or are under Creative Commons licenses—including several by Jimfbleak himself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if File:Sthelenscolor-02final.jpg could be centred or something. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for review. Good idea with the plan, I've uploaded a trimed and centred version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nice—looks much better, especially since it's bigger now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for review. Good idea with the plan, I've uploaded a trimed and centred version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Aa77zz[edit]
I've personally struggled with sources for articles on local history - all I could find were self-published books by amateur historians who don't cite their sources. For this church one has a choice of four books - but verification is difficult as the books can be tricky to find. The article uses Williams (1980) but the only library listed as having a copy on Worldcat is Pitts Theology Library in Atlanta. Why didn't the British Library keep its copy?
-
- I agree up to a point, and although much of the descriptive stuff is obvious, I've tried to double check where I have doubts. Williamson, for example, gets the name of one of the Victorian glassmakers wrong. If I have doubts about the facts and can't verify (or if they are challenged) I'll remove them. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Pevsner et al. (1985) cited but not in sources.
-
-
- Oops, added now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Most short cites end with periods but a few don't.
-
-
- I though I'd checked these, I think I've got them all now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Is Braddick 2008 or 2009?
-
-
- 2009, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- oclc numbers are nice for books without a isbn
- Scott - published by George Brown in 1907 and White Lion Publishers, 1975. Which is it?
-
-
- Copy is so battered I hadn't spotted it was the later facsimile Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Ref 6 "British Listed Buildings" in spite of its name appears to be a commercial site with adverts. The same information appears to be available from the English Heritage site - currently Ref 20.
-
-
- changed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Starkey, Julia. St Helen's Church... a short tour Ashby-de-la-Zouch:St Helen's Church What sort of publication is this? What makes this reliable?
-
-
- It's the current official church guide, sold in the church. I accept that it may not be totally reliable , and I'll double-check her claims
-
- the core of the present building mainly dates from 1474 - surely it took more than a year to build.
-
-
- tweaked as start of Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- "Domesday records that a priest was resident in Ashby," Not sure about this construction - Domesday isn't a person.
-
-
- tweaked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- "An inspection at the end of the eighteenth century commented on the dirty transept walls" - Can an "inspection" comment?
-
-
- Added "report" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- "and is aligned at 25° north of east.[12][13]" Reference 12, Thompson (1927–1928), contains a detailed plan with a compass rose indicating that the church is only 10 degrees from an EW alignment.
-
-
- The two refs were each referencing one half of the sentence, it's Starkey that says 25 degrees. In the interests of OR, I took alignments at several points inside and outside the church. None were less than 25, and most were nearer 30. I just copied the arrow direction in Williams without measuring it, but it looks as if his draughtswoman got it bang on with the angle you measured. I've separated the two refs, but given the OR and possible errors of my estimates, I'm inclined to keep both the referenced 25 (near enough) and the depicted angle in my plan. Even if the LAHS plan was correct, it would still be an exceptional deviation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- OK - I've done my own OR - screen capture of google earth and then measure angle in Photoshop. The result is 27.5 (+/- 0.5) degree. Thus Thompson is wrong and 25 degree is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- A heretical thought: I think one could say that the church axis is almost 30 degrees from EW without a reference. It is not too dissimilar to saying that Ashby lies 18 miles from Leicester - and is obvious from a cursory glance at a map. Aa77zz (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Sorry about long delay, I'm back now. I accept what you say,but since there is a source that 25, I'm reluctant to contradict that with a measurement, but I'm open to persuasion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- A heretical thought: I think one could say that the church axis is almost 30 degrees from EW without a reference. It is not too dissimilar to saying that Ashby lies 18 miles from Leicester - and is obvious from a cursory glance at a map. Aa77zz (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK - I've done my own OR - screen capture of google earth and then measure angle in Photoshop. The result is 27.5 (+/- 0.5) degree. Thus Thompson is wrong and 25 degree is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- "the same time as that part of the tower, making it the oldest of its kind in the UK" - Starkey. What sources does Starkey cite?
-
- I've struggled with this. I'm pretty sure she's right, but I'm still looking for a RS source. Similarly, I know what the type is, but struggling to RS that as well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Removed claim of oldest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've struggled with this. I'm pretty sure she's right, but I'm still looking for a RS source. Similarly, I know what the type is, but struggling to RS that as well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- "The arch gateway at the western end of the churchyard bears a skull and crossbones, warning of a plague pit nearby in which the victims of the 1645 outbreak were interred." - What are Starkey's sources? How does she know the age and the significance of the skull and crossbones? (How old is the gateway?)
-
- removed claim as to meaning. Visually, the gate is of mixed age, but the deaths heads look to be of the right age (OR) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "The chancel east window contains arms of Richard I and Edward I which are among the earliest stained glass in existence." This needs a good source. English Heritage don't claim this.
-
- Removed claim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Kirkland of Huddersfield." Organ manufacturers are well documented. There was an organ manufacturer of this name in Wakefield (14 miles away) from around 1875. The firm made a large number of organs - see Kirkland on the National Pipe Organ Register.
-
- Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "It was first repaired in 1824,[26]" Ref 26 is National Pipe Organ Register. I cannot see the 1824 date.
-
- You need to click on the link in "buildings found" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There appears to be a problem with the dates. According to the NPOR website Kirkland was only active from around 1874 ie 50 years after the 1824 repair. The NPOR do not specify the maker or the date of the St Helen's organ - but the "Buildings found" box has a cryptic mention of Kirkland:
- "Gatward notebooks Gatward, Willson Bradley Vol=05 Page=102 Kirkland; 3m/p [MusSt 1880 /08]".
- I haven't tried to decode this. Perhaps Kirkland repaired the organ. I assume some of this refers to the British Organ Archive records. Also, how do we know that 1824 was the "first" repair? First recorded repair? What does your source, Williams (1980) pp. 7–9 have to say? Aa77zz (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Given the uncertainty about the organ's date, I've removed the 1824 date and stuck with the more recent restorations, verified by Williams and a brass plate on the organ itself. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- There appears to be a problem with the dates. According to the NPOR website Kirkland was only active from around 1874 ie 50 years after the 1824 repair. The NPOR do not specify the maker or the date of the St Helen's organ - but the "Buildings found" box has a cryptic mention of Kirkland:
- You need to click on the link in "buildings found" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "the earliest glass is German, Swiss and Flemish work" Specify roundels in modern windows? English Heritage are more careful with "that are said to have been brought from Farleigh Hungerford (Somerset)"
-
-
- qualified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- "living" - needs a link?
-
- linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "The new, larger church included a nave with tower and aisles, and chapels adjoining the chancel.[6]" with tower?
-
- Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Interior views - iPhones are not ideal for photographing the interior of churches. I've lightened the shadows (but one can't polish a turd). User:Diliff has taken a number of impressive church interiors but lives in London.
-
- The lighting is invariably awful in this church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- File:Sthelenscolor-02final.jpg appears very slightly crooked - the north wall appears to drop to the right. The plan in the Thompson article indicates that the walls should be square. The direction of the North arrow in the sketch is 30 degrees from vertical - rather than 25 degrees mentioned in the text and 10 degrees in the Thompson plan. I also notice that the buttresses mid-way along the walls to the north and south of the tower are denoted as modern in Thompson but as 14-15th century in your plan. Is this a change in Williams 1980?
-
- The misalignment at least shows that I didn't copy it. I'm reluctant to redo to fix a minor error. I think we have dealt with the angle above. Yes, and William's draughtswoman shows more detail on this feature so I'm inclined to follow her unless you feel that's the wrong decision Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Aa77zz (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio's comments[edit]
- See the churches website. It looks like it is officially called "St Helen's Church" or the "Parish Church of St. Helens". I think that "St Helen's Church, AdlZ" should be the name of the page. A number of churches have this name (not abbreviated), see St. Helen's Church. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I'm no sure that you are right, Snow. The offical name is presumably that on the C of E website, and I used the same style for the St Nicholas, Blakeney FA without comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- See File:St Helens (8062003931).jpg. It has got an aerial or flagpole on the top. This would look like a prominent feature that should be included. Also, I am interested in physics, so I usually look for lightning conductors on tall buildings and this image shows one. Should the lightning conductor be part of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- It's normal for churches and other tall buildings to have lightning conductors, but they are not of historical or architectural interest, so the one at St Helen's isn't actually mentioned in any of the texts. I think it is probably something that would be assumed to be present, like gutters to carry away rain water Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "... and is aligned at 25° north of east.[13]". Is the tower at the west end or the east end? I am finding it difficult to workout which side of the tower is which. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- My plan shows a compass arrow, and the tower is clearly at the west end of the church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Crisco comments[edit]
- I am sorely hoping that, upon reading the article, I find out that the church is home to a brood of rare Pyroclastic Pigeons or something like that. A Jimfbleak nomination without birds? *gasp* (yes, this is humor) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- well, I do have [[St Nicholas, Blakeney|previous form (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Image comment: If WMUK is willing to fund it, I think Diliff would be willing to work his magic here as well (I mean, check out his work).
-
- They look great, he's obviously got all the right gear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Standardize: St Helens or St Helen's
-
- fixed two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Link Victorian?
-
- done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Lead feels long, as this article is only 14k characters total
-
- trimmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- deanery of North West Leicestershire, the Diocese of Leicester - link on first mention?
-
- Not sure what you are after, all are linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- It has an entry in the Domesday Book, which suggests that it then had about 100 inhabitants, - year/century?
-
- 1086 added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- La Zouch - is there an article on the family?
-
- No, there are a couple on individual members outside the period relevant to this article, and there is little I can find directly relevant to the church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Parts of the nave and chancel date from the fourteenth century, - perhaps make it clear that this is parts of the current nave
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The tower, Hastings Chapel, and some buttresses and windows still remain from the fifteenth century works. - Is "works" adding anything? I think losing it would make the sentence clearer
-
- removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Royalist stronghold - anything to link Royalist to?
-
- linked cavalier Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Royal coat of arms - correct caps?
-
- I think so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The increasing congregation - would including an adjective (large, for instance) work better?
-
- added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- added during this period, along with the removal of the galleries, conversion of a chapel to a vestry and improvements to the Hastings Chapel. - to keep this parallel, I think "added during this period" needs to be changed to something with a noun
-
- rejigged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- to combat deathwatch beetle found during rewiring, - beetles? (not beatles, though it's the right period)
-
- It's often used as singular when referring to an infestation, but pluralised anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Holy Trinity, Ashby-de-la-Zouch,The Priory Church of Saint Mary and Saint Hardulph, Breedon on the Hill, St Mary the Virgin, Coleorton, St John's Chapel, Coleorton, All Saints Church, Isley Walton and St Matthew's Church, Worthington. - could use some semi-colons to split up churches and towns
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- for weekly lectures in the church. - on what sorts of topics?
-
- added "godly, orthodox and ordained minister", which I think gives the idea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- to a John G. Shields and his descendants.- What does "a" add?
-
- removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- 25 spent preaching and pamphleteering. - missing a word, I dare say
-
- oops! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mark James Monk, organist from 1880–1883, fulfilled the same role from 1890 at Truro Cathedral. - is this really worth its own paragraph? Anything more on other organists?
-
- removed, although I have a long list of organists, none are notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- both Elizabeths - both named Elizabeth?
-
- done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The chancel east window - the eastern chancel window, the east chancel window? I think chancel goes after east
-
- I'm not sure about that. the chancel has two windows to the east and south, changed to "chancel's east window" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- including a fine "The last Supper". - whose opinion?
-
- removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Link Font?
-
- done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The nave is significantly wider than it is long, - any hard numbers?
-
- Not really, although I could do an approxinmate measure from the plans if that's not too OR
- Safe not to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, although I could do an approxinmate measure from the plans if that's not too OR
- Link Dorset?
-
- done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Duplicate link: Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Fixed, many thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Very good work, I'm pleased to see the branching out. Wouldn't want any editors to feel like they need to roost in a certain place
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for support. I'd do a greater variety, but access to sources is a problem, so mainly birds and nature reserves with a few old buildings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I Never Liked You[edit]
- Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
An impressionistic cartoon story of Chester Brown's painfully awkward adolescence. A quick read, and one that I reread frequently. the book demonstrate's its creator's mastery of his medium without resorting to pyrotechnics—superficially the reverse of a Maus, Watchmen, or Jimmy Corrigan, which is likely why this quiet masterpiece gets less press. Real comics connoisseurs know that this thing is the real deal, though, and fully the equal of those headline-snatchers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- File:INeverLikedYouCover.jpg: could the FUR be a bit more expansive? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment Reading through, but this is mostly there. Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
William F. Raynolds[edit]
- Nominator(s): MONGO 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Raynolds was a man of many achievements. A West Point grad and member of the U.S. Topographical Engineers, he was a decorated U.S. Army Colonel upon retirement and temporarily breveted to General for meritorious service during the American Civil War....was the first to climb Pico de Orizaba, the tallest mountain in Mexico, and led the first U. S. Government sponsored expedition into the region that later became the world's first National Park; Yellowstone. Raynolds was a renowned civil engineer who oversaw the construction of many lighthouses... some of which are still in use and are on the National Register of Historic Places. This article is currently rated as a Good Article after being well reviewed by Nikkimaria and copyedited by Bishonen. Tell me what else I can do to get this article to Featured level. Thanks! MONGO 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "described by Raynolds as "a small band compared to their neighbors, but are famous warriors ..."": Rewrite that, please, so that it makes sense as a sentence.
- Adjusted this but may still alter it for flow MONGO 12:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- "A combination of failure to reach the fabled sights of the Yellowstone region as well as the outbreak of the war relegated the Raynold's Expedition to near obscurity, but his map was in high demand and was published in 1864.": I don't know what that means; people must have known that he went there if they knew about the map.
- Reworded that and eliminated some redundant wording. MONGO 16:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Appreciate your input, Dank. Many thanks. MONGO 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment:
- In the expedition section, discussion of the Wind River and Bighorn River needs a bit of clairification so that the reader knows they are not different rivers, just different parts of the same river. (I know it still confuses me at times).--Mike Cline (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think I wordsmithed something that works...feel free to check MONGO 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Heading east, the reunited expedition recrossed the Rocky Mountains and traveled via steamboat downstream to Omaha, Nebraska where the expedition members were disbanded in October 1860. Not accurate as once at Three Forks, the expedition was already on the Missouri river and East of the Rockies. Did they travel via the Yellowstone or Missouri east?? Where did they catch the boat--Fort Benton, Bighorn, Fort Union?? --Mike Cline (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Adjusted and added a source, albeit an ancient one from 1906 but likely accurate--MONGO 01:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments: interesting article. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- are there any details that can be provided to flesh out the Early life section a little more? For instance, who were his parents? Do we know where he went to school, etc?
- Found further details on his ancestry but I confess it might be hard to adequately reference even though the details are neither surprising nor sensational enough to warrant much indignation due to mediocre referencing. In other words no claim to being descended from royalty or other famous persons is made. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- a widow is mentioned, are there any details about her? When did they marry? What was her name? Did they have any children?
- As above, same detail enhancement but mediocre referencing and I won't dare use findagrave as a reference. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- What you've added looks great and satisfies my request for more information, but now it appears unreferenced. For instance there are two unreferenced senteces in the Early life section: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died. William and Mary had no offspring." And another later, "William and his wife Mary, who died in 1898, were interred together in West Lawn Cemetery in Canton, Ohio." If you can't find a reliable source for these details, I think it would be best not to include it. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed his wife's name since it cannot be referenced. The information I have read states he was married "early in life" which I altered to "at a young age", that his wife outlived him and that they had no children. I've adjusted the various passages in the article to reflect this information and added a citation to reflect his place of burial which that source says is "Westlawn Cemetery", but the modern spelling is "West Lawn Cemetery" which is wikilinked.--MONGO 06:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- What you've added looks great and satisfies my request for more information, but now it appears unreferenced. For instance there are two unreferenced senteces in the Early life section: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died. William and Mary had no offspring." And another later, "William and his wife Mary, who died in 1898, were interred together in West Lawn Cemetery in Canton, Ohio." If you can't find a reliable source for these details, I think it would be best not to include it. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- As above, same detail enhancement but mediocre referencing and I won't dare use findagrave as a reference. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- "File:William F. Raynolds.jpg": this might look more visually appealing if it were rotated to face into the article. Is this possible, at all? (note, this is not required by policy, just a suggestion)
- I have seen that as a MOS suggestion before and its a good one...maybe I can download then reupload a reversed image and see what it looks like. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done
- watch capitalisation "Brevet Second Lieutenant" probably should be "brevet second lieutenant" (same for "Brevet Brigadier General") per MOS:MILTERMS;
- Done
- year range format, constructions such as "1859–1860" should be "1859–60" per WP:DATERANGE (except birth-death parentheticals);
- Done
- not sure about the comma here: "named Raynolds Pass, (44°42′40″N 111°28′11″W)"...I don't think commas are necessary before brackets;
- Done
- not sure about the comma here: "Raynolds stated that the Crow were a, "small band...";
- Done
- this seems a bit repetitious: "Raynold's immediate participation in the American Civil War..." followed closely by "With the outbreak of the American Civil War almost immediately after the conclusion of the expedition..."
- Wordsmithed this so the redundancy is eliminated I hope! Good point. MONGO 17:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- "May, 1848" --> "May 1848" per WP:DATESNO;
- Done
- same as above for "July, 1861". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done
- Thank you and I will attend to your wise points in the next few days. MONGO 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- not sure about these parameters in the cite book template: "author1=Raynolds|authorlink1=William" in Reference 20. Currently the link points to a dab page for "William", which doesn't seem right. Perhaps "authorlink" isn't the correct paramater to use?
- I simply removed the authorlink issue...its an edited version and condensed portion from Raynolds's diaries and trip report, so I just mentioned the editors.--MONGO 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest a slight tweak to this sentence: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died." There is probably no need to use the subject's full name again, particularly given that most sentences in the paragraph already begin with his name. Secondly, I'd tweak the punctuation. For instance, I suggest something like this: "Raynolds married Mary Hanchett (January 24, 1822 – January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Will do. Your suggestion looks better anyway.--MONGO 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I've added my support as all of my concerns have been dealt with. Good luck with the rest of the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Truly appreciate you taking time out of your day, reviewing the article and offering wise suggestions. Much appreciated!--MONGO 04:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment - There is inconsistent use of the possessive apostrophe for Raynolds. It appears as Raynolds's (acceptable) and Raynold's (not correct), I couldn't find a Raynolds' which would also be acceptable. Just need a correct and consistent use. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think I have this taken care of now. MONGO 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment - A map of the expedition from the Raynolds reports might liven this up. I've uploaded 4 different maps that came out of the expedition for you to chose from if you decide to use them. Raynolds Expedition --Mike Cline (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good finds Mike and much appreciated. Added one map to the article and a link to the Commons category as well. MONGO 17:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Great_Falls_of_the_Missouri_by_J._D._Hutton.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done
Support --Mike Cline (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your review and suggestions.--MONGO 04:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments -- recusing myself from FAC coord duties on this occasion:
- Completed my habitual copyedit, pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or you disagree with the new wording.
- I think most of the queries I had on points of detail have been raised and resolved above. In light of that, I think structure and level of detail are fine.
- I haven't done a source review but always happy to go with Nikki's image checks.
- One thing, is the estimate of his estate in today's money?
Other than that I think we're looking pretty good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Hi Ian....thank you. The printed source for the 50-100k amount is dated at 1895, so I assume that was the worth then. Would it be better to clarify that and let the reader compute the difference or do as I have done and made the calculations? Depending on the source that's 1.3-2.7 million which I rounded out some. Do we have a desired format for these sorts of things and or sources that do a reliable conversion?--MONGO 16:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Sega Saturn[edit]
- Nominator(s): TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the Sega Saturn, a video game console that has been the object of intense Internet speculation and rumors, yet which I believe Wikipedia covers as accurately and impartially as the available reliable sources allow. Improvements have been made since the previous FAC, which included a thorough source review, and I will add a few more tweaks in a moment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Red Phoenix let's talk...:
TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm so glad you've decided to bring this back to FAC. I am declaring my intention to review this article and will be doing so in the next few days. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Any progress, Red Phoenix?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tezero[edit]
As a Sonic fan I've learned to accept projects not quite being finished before their deadlines, but I don't want this to experience the same fate like last time. I thought it looked great before, but a further look can't hurt... and I am too tired to give one now. Be back in short order. Tezero (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I know the page is on the large side already, but I'd prefer the second paragraph of the intro to be cut down. As a rule of thumb, if an article's intro, including only the actual text, doesn't fit entirely on my laptop screen, I consider it to be too long. In this case, I'd trim this paragraph something like so, only keeping the bold information and wording, and possibly also trim a little of the first and third:
Development of the Saturn began in 1992, the same year Sega's groundbreaking 3D Model 1 arcade hardware debuted. The system adopted parallel processors before the end of 1993, and was designed around a new CPU specially commissioned by Sega from Japanese electronics company Hitachi. When Sega learned the full capabilities of the forthcoming Sony PlayStation console in early 1994, the company responded by incorporating an additional video display processor into the Saturn's design. Successful on launch in Japan due to the popularity of a port of the arcade game Virtua Fighter, the system debuted in the United States in a surprise launch four months before its scheduled release date, but failed to sell in large numbers. After the launch, Sega's upper management structure changed with the departures of chairman David Rosen and Sega of Japan CEO Hayao Nakayama from their roles in the American division, and Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske from the company altogether. This led to the additions of Shoichiro Irimajiri and Bernie Stolar to Sega of America, who guided the Saturn to its discontinuation in 1998 in North America, three years after its release. Although the system is remembered for several well-regarded games, including Nights into Dreams..., the Panzer Dragoon series, and the Virtua Fighter series, the Saturn's complex system architecture resulted in the console receiving limited third-party support, which inhibited commercial success. The failure of Sega's development teams to finish and release a game in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, known in development as Sonic X-treme, has also been attributed as a factor in the console's poor performance.
- "Prior to development of the Saturn, the Sega Genesis was Sega's entry into the fourth generation of video game consoles. It was released in Japan as the Mega Drive in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe as the Mega Drive in 1990." - Awkward organization. I'd simply say that the Genesis, known in Europe and Japan as the Mega Drive, was...
- Development looks fine from a skim, but the technical aspects of consoles and computers bore me to tears so I couldn't give it more than that.
- "1:1 ratio" - using Arabic numerals seems a little informal
- "Sony subsequently unveiled the retail price for the PlayStation, with speaker Steve Race taking the stage, saying "$299", and walking away to applause" - the "with [pres-prog.-verb]" form is awkward; try "Sony subsequently ... PlayStation: speaker Steve Race took the stage, ..."
- "at Sony Computer Entertainment of America" - why hasn't SCA been linked or mentioned earlier, given how much the PS1's already been talked about?
- "in "a series of outlandish TV commercials" starting in 1997" - why quote this? The wording doesn't seem important; we don't even know whom it's from.
- "including Virtua Fighter RPG" - First of all, the link should be to Role-playing video game. Second, introduce it like the person hasn't heard of it before, more like "including a role-playing game in the Virtua Fighter series".
Read everything until the Sonic X-treme section. Tezero (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I will incorporate every one of your changes, except your proposed lead. I appreciate a short lead, as seen in Dreamcast, and may try to trim this one even more than I already have. However, I believe that dropping off mid-sentence after "visual display processor", removing the names of the Sega executives, and compounding the skewed weight towards the unreleased Sonic X-Treme by removing well-regarded games that were actually released would be a mistake.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- TheTimesAreAChanging, have you incorporated my changes yet? I haven't checked. Tezero (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, on the 18th.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- "and by the time the Saturn was discontinued had sold 2 million consoles in the region" - Um... how should I parse this? Sega sold 2 million or the Saturn had? Or the PlayStation had?
- "Lack of distribution" - ???
- "installed base" - I know what you mean, but that's a confusing choice of wording.
- "The decision to abandon the Saturn effectively left the Western market without Sega games for over a year" - Effectively? How many were released? Could you name a few that were?
- Why is "Sega Pluto" bolded?
I'll look at the rest later. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sega sold 2 million Saturn units. Is "Sega announced its final games for the North American market on March 14, 1998, and by the time the system was discontinued had sold 2 million Saturn units in the region, compared to 10.75 million PlayStation consoles sold by Sony at that time" any more clear?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- You may check the source on Google Scholar, but it doesn't provide much additional detail. As discussed in the "Launch" section, only four retailers carried the Saturn during its surprise launch, and this prompted others to drop Sega from their lineup. Whether or not the author is overstating the significance of this problem is difficult to assess, because few sources discuss it, but anecdotally it does seem the PlayStation and N64 were easier to find in the U.S. at least. In addition, Sega themselves (or Sega of America) infamously released Saturn games from Burning Rangers to Panzer Dragoon Saga in extremely limited quantities in their rush to make way for the Dreamcast (or because they thought such games could appeal to no more than a small, niche group of Westerners). On an unrelated note, this is also something that should have been considered for the Sega Genesis article, as Sega's aggressive advertising was largely an attempt to break Nintendo's "monopoly" by raising enough of a stink to get retailers like Wal-Mart to carry the Genesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I wasn't asking for detail, only for clarification about the vague wording. You might change this to something more specific about lack of stores carrying it, since "lack of distribution" could imply, among other things, that plenty of stores carried Saturns but didn't have many units in stock at any given time, or that not a lot of them got sold-through. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I don't think the latter interpretation is tenable, but I have revised the sentence: "Lack of distribution has been cited as a significant factor contributing to the Saturn's limited installation base, as the system's surprise launch damaged Sega's reputation with key retailers." In the hope that this may aid the reader, I have also added a little more detail to "Launch" and provided a quote from the source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- What should I change it to?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Player base? Owner base? Installation base? Either of the first two with "pool" instead of "base"? I'm not picky. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Changed to "installation base".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support for the Saturn dried up by early- to mid-1998. There was The House of the Dead (March 1998), Panzer Dragoon Saga (April 1998), Shining Force 3 and Burning Rangers (May 1998), and not a whole lot else. Offhand, I can't think of any first-party Saturn games from 1999 leading up to the Dreamcast's September 9th launch. The language used echoes the source exactly, so I don't see what the issue is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- We're not chained to the language used in any particular source - if we were, plagiarism wouldn't be an issue. You might want to include a few of those for context. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Remember, in the preceding paragraph the reader has already learned that "Sega announced its final games for the North American market on March 14, 1998". According to the source, those games were The House of the Dead, Shining Force III, and Burning Rangers. They were not the final first-party Saturn games (parts 2 and 3 of Shining Force III, for example, were released in the following months in Japan), and this announcement does not sync up precisely with IGN's vague reference to "the Western market", because the Saturn lasted somewhat longer in Europe. However, if the reader already knows that the final North American games were announced in March 1998 and that the Dreamcast would not reach the West until late 1999, I'm not sure further explanation is required. Launch games, last games, ect., are not necessarily notable on their own terms (if they are, they might be better covered in "Game library"); and it's not our job to question a reliable source for using terms like "Western market" or "effectively", unless we can prove they are mistaken.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can't be sure, but there may have been a stub article about the Pluto, which would have been deleted. At the moment, there is an anchor ensuring that any search for "Sega Pluto" leads to the brief mention here, hence the bolding. I unbolded for now, as it may put unnecessary emphasis on the alleged prototype.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- "a port of Sonic 3D Blast" - might be worth saying that it was an enhanced port, with better graphics, different music, and new special stages
- Also, Sonic 3D Blast has an article, and Sonic Jam at least has a section in a larger article. Bug! should also be linked.
- "failed to catch on with audiences in the way Sonic had" - ambiguous: the Sonic series as a whole, X-treme from what the public knew of it, Sonic R, 3D Blast, or Jam?
- "and retrospective coverage of the game has been less positive" - a brief explanation of why (even just an extra clause caboosed on) would be nice
- "Some of the games that made the Saturn popular in Japan, such as Grandia[18] and the Sakura Wars series" - Put a comma after "series", and consider mentioning that these were RPGs, not 3D platformers.
- "At the time of its release, Famicom Tsūshin scored the Saturn console 24 out of 40 possible points, higher than the PlayStation's 19 out of 40" - Any fuller review?
- The first paragraph of Reception and legacy is seeded throughout with the word "score" and variations thereof; I suggest rewording a few.
- Also, I have no idea how well the Saturn stacked up in review scores compared to the N64 and very little compared to the PS1.
- Did any of these so effusive critics explain what was so gilded about the Saturn's library?
- I'd prefer the categories to be alphabetized, but not a big deal.
And that's it! I'm trusting that the sourcing hasn't changed much, so I won't be doing a source review or spotchecks. Tezero (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't have access to more period-specific system reviews from the gaming press, certainly not Famitsu (which has been there since this article included only about three dozen citations), but I have done my best to address most of your concerns. BTW, if you want a good contemporary review of Bug!, try this blog. I distinctly recall trying to track down a critique of comparable quality in reliable sources, to no avail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Huh. Seems like no matter whether a reviewer does or doesn't let a game's "classic" age blind them when reviewing it, I'm unsatisfied. Ah, whatever, that's too bad that more detailed reviews weren't available. I can support this article's candidacy now, at any rate; nice work. Tezero (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from hahnchen[edit]
- Comment - Too much weight is placed upon the cancellation of Sonic X-Treme, a title's whose importance is mostly justified by wishful conjecture. You spend more time on Sonic X-Treme than the entirety of the Saturn game library. - hahnchen 17:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Using File:NiGHTs_into_Dreams_Spring_Valley.jpg - a screenshot of the HD remake of Nights, even if labelled, is misleading. - hahnchen 18:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll change the screenshot; I have a better one in mind. While you raise a valid point about X-Treme, I trimmed over 2,000 characters from that section around the time of the GA Review (and hid Naka's relief over the cancellation, one of the best parts of the story, in a citation), but was instructed to add the fourth paragraph during the previous FAC. I can look into trimming it, and no-one is more skeptical about the way X-Treme was shaping up than me, but it is worth noting that some of the wild speculation comes from RS like IGN--and Wikipedia is based on RS, unless they can be proven wrong, which they cannot because the game was never released.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- On reflection, I agree that this section--originally copied from the GA Sonic X-treme--needs to be cut substantially.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Satisfactory?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment (citations)[edit]
The article looks comprehensive and generally well-structured, but it is overcited in many sections; multiple citations should be considerably trimmed (improved, see below):
- Simple statements of fact should only have 1 source. If multiple sources exist, the most reliable one covering the whole statement should be used.
- Several review or critic summaries include up to 7 citations, but actually lack factual details. It would be a lot better - and informative for the reader - to limit such overviews to the 2-3 most comprehensive reviews and include some details from those sources.
- If multiple citations are used to source a possibly controversial fact, 2-3 of the most reliable sources should suffice. Any more citations will actually weaken the sourced claim.
- In general, single statements should not be pasted together from multiple sources, whenever possible (sometimes it's unavoidable). See WP:SYNTHESIS for a possible risk of such sourcing.
Please check the whole text and remove redundant citations; the current usage is jarring for readers (and makes verifying the content difficult for reviewers). I'll leave detailed reviews to the game experts, and will strike out my oppose, when the handling of citations has been improved. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- GermanJoe, I have trimmed dozens of citations. Does the article now meet your expectations, or are further cuts needed? On the reviews front, I have emphasized the common criticism that Daytona was not accurate to the arcade version, expounded on the short length and limited availability of Burning Rangers, and consolidated several reviews into single citations (the esoteric and mostly 2D nature of Nights was already discussed). (I would love to go even further and explain that Daytona ran at 20 FPS versus the 60 FPS arcade game, whereas a few months later Virtua Fighter 2 ran at 60 FPS with better than arcade resolution, but the reviews I found weren't that informative. Moreover, its hard to get too detailed without crossing into WP:UNDUE territory.) No more than three citations are currently used for any statement, and there are specific reasons in each case why I used the citations I did. Many of them lead simply to a "cf." or additional note that provides further context to the narrative covered in the body.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Caldas da Rainha[edit]
- Nominator(s): Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a city in Portugal. It was promoted to Good Article less than a month ago. A request for Peer Review received zero feedback. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- As GA reviewer, I'm not sure I'm allowed to do this, but I can't find anywhere that says I can't so... Support. The article is well-written, well-sourced, neutral, stable, has relevant images, a good lead etc. I gave it a pretty thorough review at GA and I can't see any problems with the article. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adam! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: It is perfectly OK for an article's GA reviewer to support its promotion to FA, provided that judgement is made on the basis of meeting the featured article criteria, which are rather tougher than those for GA. I haven't read through the article, but being a fan of most things Portuguese, I've skimmed through and found a few issues:
- The lead is not, at the moment, an overview of the whole article, as required by WP:LEAD. At present it reads more as a collection of general facts about the city, without any real order or structure.
- "Place" articles normally have substantial "climate" sections, including temperature and rainfall information – see, for example, Belgrade, Minneapolis, Seville etc. This information seems to be absent from this article.
- Although most of the article is well referenced, the penultimate paragraph of the Arts and culture section has no citations at all. There are paragraphs elsewhere in the article that end with uncited statements – see, for example, "Attractions" and "Sports" sections
- The wording that opens the Attractions section: "Attractions not mentioning a civil parish are found in Nossa Senhora do Pópulo, the eastern half of city proper, containing the historical centre" is not clear as to purpose or meaning.
- What criteria were used to decide who should be listed as the "notable people"? It is not always clear what their connection with the town was. Also note: "bares his name" → "bears his name".
- My skim-reading gave me the impression that there was rather a lot of small detail. Example: "The ceramics are available for purchase at stands in the daily market at Praça da República (Praça da Fruta) and shops in the vicinity. They are available in stores outside Portugal, including a number of up-market housewares stores." These reads more like promotional material than a summary encyclopedia article. There may well be other similar instances.
I see that the promotion to GA happened on 21 October, since when there has been virtually no editing activity on the article. In other words, there has been no specific preparation for this FAC. I don't honestly think the article is ready at present (preparing the Climate details is a fairly big job on its own). Your best bet in my view would be to withdraw and resubmit, after the necessary work has been done, and after the completed article has been reviewed against the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I will work on improving the article based on your suggestions. I have added a few comments below yours.—Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- The lead is not...
- The lead is organized as follows: 1) intro, notability, claim to fame; 2) history and origin of name, 3) culture, education, and sports; 4) population, geography, and transportation. Question, do you prefer the lead before or after this change: [20]?
- Done I have reworked the intro, making it more targeted and concise, and undoing some of the additions that brought it to Good Article status. Is this better?
- "Place" articles normally have substantial "climate" sections...
- Done
I do not believe that this is a requirement, nor do I know of a source for this information. I do agree that there's an air of incompleteness without the info. I'll dig to see what I can find.
- Done
- Although most of the article is well referenced...
- I will search for and add references. (Or excise info. for which refs. cannot be found.)
- Done Unreferenced paragraphs no longer exist.
- The wording that opens the Attractions section...
- Done I reworded for clarity.
- What criteria were used...
- Answered and Done The criteria are notable individuals who were born in, lived in, or worked in Caldas who have Wikipedia articles. Three were born in Caldas (Alvorninha being a civil parish of the municipality, as mentioned earlier in the article), and one built his famous ceramics factory in Caldas. Thank you for catching the typo.
- My skim-reading gave me the impression...
- The sentences are not intended to be promotional. Rather, they are intended to demonstrate the global popularity of ceramics from Caldas. Question: would it be preferable to mention stores selling the ceramics in text or just as refs.?
- Done I have rewritten the entire ceramics paragraph, eliminating this concern.
I see that the promotion to GA happened on 21 October...
- @Brianboulton: Thank you for your feedback. Your suggestions have been very helpful in improving the article. I believe that I have addressed your concerns. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- These improvements are welcome. One further point you might address is to clarify what connection your notables had with the town, for example whether they were born there, or settled there later, etc. I don't know whether I will find further review time for the article, but I wish you well with it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the well wishes. For each of the notable people, the dates and places of birth and death are given in parentheses directly after their name. For the one individual not born in the municipality, the text mentions the ceramics factory that he founded in Caldas. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- These improvements are welcome. One further point you might address is to clarify what connection your notables had with the town, for example whether they were born there, or settled there later, etc. I don't know whether I will find further review time for the article, but I wish you well with it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Pt-cld1.png: what is the copyright status of the original design? Same with File:CLD.png
- File:Leonor_de_Viseu_-_José_Malhoa.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
- File:Caldas_da_Rainha_Pottery.jpg: what is the copyright status of the pottery itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The coat of arms was granted by Queen Leonor (source https://web.archive.org/web/20140428030333/http://www.oesteonline.pt/noticias/noticia.asp?nid=19496), who died in 1525, so public domain in the US at least; I'll have to investigate the status in Portugal. The flag is just the public domain coat of arms placed upon a simple geometric shape, which is not itself copyrightable. I have added {{PD-1923}} and have written to the municipal council inquiring about the copyright status of these symbols.
- I'm unable to untangle the proper US PD tag. The artist died in 1933 (source: http://www.infopedia.pt/apoio/artigos/9325600). The painting was "published' in Portugal in 1926 (source: http://mjosemalhoa.drcc.pt/site/show.php?inf=40&rec=47&recd=43, a frame accessible from the "ver mais" button under the "História section of http://mjosemalhoa.drcc.pt/site/index.php). I upadted from {{PD-old}} to {{PD-art-life-70|1=PD-old-auto|deathyear=1933|country=Portugal}}.
- The cabbage tureen is a design of Rafael Bordalo Pinheiro, who died in 1905, so it would be public domain. I do not know the provenance of the other two pieces. If I cannot claim fair use, I can photograph the tureen by itself.
- Nikkimaria, thank you for taking the time to review and help me improve. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Battle of Schliengen[edit]
- Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the Battle of Schliengen, in October 1796, between elements of the French Republican Army and the Habsburg and royalist French armies. It has been through reviews in the MIL Hist wikiproject and recently passed A-class. I'd appreciate constructive criticism. It is at least comparable with other articles of similar type that I have brought to FA review.. auntieruth (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "the Prince Condé", "the Condé": There's no requirement for consistency in titles within Wikipedia, but I think it would help. I see from a link below that this is Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé (it would be better to move the link to first occurrence); I don't see "the Prince Condé" in that article, looking quickly. There are lots of ways to write titles, and I don't know a lot about the subject, but many of them sound jargony to a wide readership.
-
- fixed
- "on Freiburg": "assigned to Freiburg" or "at Freiburg" might be a little clearer.
- "))": MOS frowns on this.
-
- Yes, I do too. However, the template assigns a parens. What do I do?
- The convert template used to handle this, but I don't see it in the list of parameters now. Do it without the convert template, using "or" instead of parens. - Dank (push to talk)
-
- done auntieruth (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do too. However, the template assigns a parens. What do I do?
- "His position on the heights gave him the advantage in any approach; his troops would be firing downhill on the Habsburg troops, which would have to not only look up into the fire but also would have to march uphill. The French position, in the chain of abrupt and woody heights, seemed nearly impregnable.": There's overlap between this and the next paragraph: "... Moreau had chosen an almost unassailable position, especially for his center. Any Habsburg force would have to cross the Kandern; in most cases, it would have to advance uphill into withering fire."
-
- fixed
- "1700": See the first sentence at WP:MOSTIME.
-
- fixed in both instances.
- "Feldberg, his column moved with the corps": ?
-
- fixed
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Excellent writing. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- thanks for your comments, Dank. I think I've addressed these. Let me know if I missed something, or you think of something else. auntieruth (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks (but I haven't checked the new material). - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh wait ... two potential problems with "Neither the Condé’s troops on Freiburg". - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
*I don't see it.....auntieruth (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- thanks for your comments, Dank. I think I've addressed these. Let me know if I missed something, or you think of something else. auntieruth (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Image check[edit]
- File:Archdukecharles1.jpg is missing author information
- File:Duc d'enghien.jpg: author is User:Balthazar? Not likely.
- File:Gouvion-saint-cyr.jpg: there's no source information—where did the file come from? Who made it & when?
-
- swapped it and duc d'enghien for files that I can verify source info. No sure what to do about the portrait of charles. Perhaps I should eliminate this section. I have other images of the battle or battle field. auntieruth (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is this the same Charles? Also, it would be really nice of the two new images could be cropped—they look awful the way they are. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- yes it is the same charles. I'm not sure it's the same picture, though. the images have the copyright information on them. am I permitted to crop that off? auntieruth (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- okay, found one of Charles from the centenary album. That has proper notation on it. YAY! Swapped it, and they all look better. I cropped the others, too. Hope it' allowed to do that. auntieruth (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Had to tweak the licence, but everything looks fine now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- okay, found one of Charles from the centenary album. That has proper notation on it. YAY! Swapped it, and they all look better. I cropped the others, too. Hope it' allowed to do that. auntieruth (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- yes it is the same charles. I'm not sure it's the same picture, though. the images have the copyright information on them. am I permitted to crop that off? auntieruth (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is this the same Charles? Also, it would be really nice of the two new images could be cropped—they look awful the way they are. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- swapped it and duc d'enghien for files that I can verify source info. No sure what to do about the portrait of charles. Perhaps I should eliminate this section. I have other images of the battle or battle field. auntieruth (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- The other files are fine—either Creative Commons or Public Domain & properly tagged. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Longer quotes (more than 40 words) should be blockquoted
- fixed, although I think it makes the spacing awkward.
- Why do some resources have full citations in both Citations and Sources, but others have only one?
- I think these are fixed now.
- Databook or Data Book for Smith?
- fixed
- Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
- some of the publishing locations are self evident, but now they are included. In other case, there was no publishing location, esp on the old books.
- Why do some short cites include title while others don't?
- fixed
- Kepner or Keppner?
- fixed
- Some general inconsistencies in how citations are punctuated.
-
- should be fixed now. auntieruth (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]
- Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the American Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady, and once and possibly future presidential candidate. It's been GA for a long time, it had a couple of runs at FA a number of years ago, and has been kept in an FAC-ready state ever since then. Now I'd like to try for FA again. I think it meets all the criteria and it's been very stable in terms of content. I thank in advance any reviewers for their comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]
- File:Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop.jpg: source link is dead
-
- Now modified to the current State Department source.
- File:Hrcraad.jpg: do we have an approximate date for this image?
-
- Did some digging, found the date and circumstances, updated the image description accordingly and also updated the caption in the article under review to give the date and a better description of the event.
- File:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg: source link is dead
-
- Now modified to an archived link.
- File:2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png: is there any merit to the complaint of the IP? If not, it should be removed from the image description
-
- "Primaries" is used by people in two senses, one to cover the whole nomination campaign, which includes caucuses, and the other to mean the specific kind of nomination contest known as a primary. I've removed the IP's addition but have modified the image description text to discuss that caucuses are included. There is no need to modify the article under review because the image caption already mentions caucuses and the article text already indicates that Obama did much better than Clinton in them.
- File:2009_0121_clinton_290_1.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Now modified to an archive link.
- Thanks very much for reviewing these and pointing out where they needed fixes or improvements. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Source review from Curly Turkey[edit]
- (Just checking formatting)
- Can we get accessdates for some of these web sources, such as Ref#123, #129?
-
- I've added the original accessdate for ref #123, somehow it got lost along the way. Not sure what you mean regarding ref #129, that's a news source with a published date.
- Should that be "Teachers College Press" rahter than "Teacher's College Press"?
-
- Yes, now corrected.
- I wonder why the issue about her maiden name is shunted to a footnote
-
- It is in the article text: "During her husband's campaign, Rodham began to use the name Hillary Clinton, or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters;[nb 1]" The Note is to further expand upon the detail of how this came to be and give a quote from her, without derailing the narrative thrust in the article text.
- In the "Notes" section there's a lot of external linking without explaining what the sources are (and which is also susceptible to link rot)
-
- When I originally created the Notes section, there was no way of doing nested references, so the cites were all inline. Once there was a way, I started using it for new Notes, but didn't change the older ones. I have now done so. I did leave two Notes, 4 and 16, in the inline form, because those Notes are about the sources themsleves and read better that way.
- What is the logic behind putting some things in "Notes" and others in "Footnotes". I'mn thinking of statements such as ref#6: "Her father was an outspoken Republican, while her mother kept quiet but was "basically a Democrat". and #16: " The teacher, Paul Carlson, and the minister, Donald Jones, came into conflict in Park Ridge; Clinton would later see that "as an early indication of the cultural, political and religious fault lines that developed across America in the [next] forty years""
-
- Basically, longer asides or explanatory descriptions got put into Notes while shorter ones stay in footnotes. The #16 one is kind of borderline, but I felt it was tangential enough not to merit a Note.
- Ref#52: "This Google Scholar search result produces nearly one hundred hits showing citations of her paper in academic literature.": This likely constitutes WP:OR
-
- Source changed to a journal article by other academics which explicitly states that the paper has been frequently cited.
- Ref#s 74 & 75: ditto
-
- Not sure what you mean on these. The cites to these two of her articles are just to identify them; all the commentary on them follows and is from third-party sources.
- Ref#211: this is a primary source---is there not another that can be used to cite this statement?
-
- I've looked but there is nothing that is good as a replacement. I think it is appropriate here because the article text has Clinton "saying" what the source supports.
- Ref#383: see for example Franklin, op. cit.: I think we're supposed to avoid things like op. cit.
-
- Actually, WP:IBID seems to allow op. cit. It's only used this once, it's to avoid creating a Note just to get a nested reference, and the referent of the op. cit. is just three references above it.
- Can we get pages for:
- Ref#31 "The Class of '69"
-
- Pages now added, as well as a url that is now available.
-
- Ref#54 "Adults Urge Children's Rights"
-
- News source replaced by a book cite with page number.
-
- Ref#122 "First Lady President?"
-
- I couldn't find page numbers for this but I did add a url for the full article which is now online.
-
- Ref#128 "St. Hillary"
-
- I couldn't find page numbers for this but I did add a url for the full article and fixed the title which was slightly off before.
- otherwise sources appear correctly formatted. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much for doing these source reviews and for your direct edits to the article. Some responses are above, more to follow. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have now responded to all of the source review comments. Thanks again for making them. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for doing these source reviews and for your direct edits to the article. Some responses are above, more to follow. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Casliber[edit]
- am reading now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
-
In para 2 of early life, there are 3 consecutive sentences starting, "She..." - and htey are a bit short. I think we could combine two to make them flow more smoothly- I've reworded this and combined two sentences, in combination with one of SNUGGUMS's comments.
-
Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation but she declined. - no idea why?- I've added "..., uncertain if she wanted to tie her future to his." This is elaborated on in the next section, when she eventually decides to follow Bill to Arkansas rather than stay in DC where here career prospects were better.
-
Once there, she pushed successfully for Wal-Mart to adopt more environmentally friendly practices - hyphen needed in there?- I don't think so, based upon the notion that adverbs ending in "ly" don't get hyphens when in compound modifiers. I know there are some exceptions to that, but this Google Books search doesn't show others using a hyphen.
- ok
- I don't think so, based upon the notion that adverbs ending in "ly" don't get hyphens when in compound modifiers. I know there are some exceptions to that, but this Google Books search doesn't show others using a hyphen.
-
and was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices - ...undecided about the adverb - wondered whether "notoriously" was more apt (but as a left-leaner I would say that)...then wondered whether we need an adverb at all......- I think it's important to indicate Walmart's attitude towards unions has had a lot of visibility, and 'famously' is more neutral than 'notoriously'.
- ok - wondered if "famously" was too positive a word but pratice speak for itself, so yeah point taken.
- I think it's important to indicate Walmart's attitude towards unions has had a lot of visibility, and 'famously' is more neutral than 'notoriously'.
-
- The last 4 paras of the Early Arkansas years section are a bit small. I though maybe some more details about chelsea's pregnancy and birth but became mindful of the overall size of the article. I recommend making into 2-3 paras for flow here
- Hmm. The paragraphs are each on a different topic, and while working on a different article in the past with another editor I got converted to the school of thought that having differently sized paragraphs is a good thing and helps prevent visual tedium. As for Chelsea, I've never been sure of what to add here. Hillary said it was the "most miraculous and awe-inspiring event in my life" but plenty of mothers say the same thing. I could say she was named after the song "Chelsea Morning" but that's better in her article, where it already is.
- Agree neither of those facts add anything here.
- Hmm. The paragraphs are each on a different topic, and while working on a different article in the past with another editor I got converted to the school of thought that having differently sized paragraphs is a good thing and helps prevent visual tedium. As for Chelsea, I've never been sure of what to add here. Hillary said it was the "most miraculous and awe-inspiring event in my life" but plenty of mothers say the same thing. I could say she was named after the song "Chelsea Morning" but that's better in her article, where it already is.
- The last 4 paras of the Early Arkansas years section are a bit small. I though maybe some more details about chelsea's pregnancy and birth but became mindful of the overall size of the article. I recommend making into 2-3 paras for flow here
-
She earned less than the other partners, as she billed fewer hours,[100] but still made more than $200,000 in her final year there.- given the size of the article, I'd recommend losing this, or just saying she worked a bit less as a subordiante clause if need be as I don't think it adds a huge deal...- I get what you are saying, but I put financial details like this in the article because the Clintons have often said they didn't have much money and that was the rationale for the Whitewater investment, her cattle futures trading, and the high-priced speaking engagements they both did after leaving office. Indeed there was a flap earlier this year when during a book promotional interview Hillary said they had been 'dead broke' when they left the White House. I also thinks this helps describe what her legal career was like.
-
The firm considered her a "rainmaker" because she brought in clients, partly thanks to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections - be good if you could remove the need for a second "firm" in this sentence.- Used a pronoun instead. Also added a link for this meaning of "rainmaker".
-
the Clintons deflected the charge - I'd say "countered" as "deflect" suggest "obfuscate" or fubb a reply, where as their counter seems coherent.- Changed to 'countered'.
-
baking cookies and having teas,- having "teas"? not "tea"?
-
Unenthusiastic.. (ungainly) --> skeptical? unconvinced? dubious? doubting..?- Changed to 'Unconvinced', which is supported by the source.
-
I'd link caucus at first instance.- I've reworded a couple of places to try to get the first reference to where it talks about how Obama dominated them, since that's an important point, and I've added the link there.
To sum, my queries are pretty minor quibbles really. The article is balanced, comprehensive, well-written and neutral. If anyone does complain about the length, the only section that I think could be trimmed would be the 2008 presidential campaign. It is a little blow-by-blow and maybe some of the detail could be sent to the daughter article. But I am not fussed myself. Well done! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your comments and kind words. Responses are above. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Right then, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your support. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]
Not too bad, Wasted. Here's my review.....
- "She participated in swimming, baseball, and other sports"..... be more specific in "other sports", or perhaps say "She participated in sports such as swimming and baseball"
-
- Reworded per your suggestion.
- Is it necessary to say her father was "otherwise a traditionalist"?
-
- Yes, I think so. As stated in the following paragraph and a footnote, he was an outspoken conservative and did not have an easy personality in general. But he did want his daughter's life not to be limited by her gender, and that may have made a difference in her becoming what she has.
- "was of the opinion" is quite a mouthful, try thought or felt
-
- Changed to 'felt'.
- "Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation but she declined"..... any particular reason she declined?
-
- Now added, see same comment from Casliber above.
- "Other segments of the public focused on her appearance, which had evolved over time from inattention to fashion during her days in Arkansas, to a popular site in the early days of the World Wide Web devoted to showing her many different, and frequently analyzed, hairstyles as First Lady, to an appearance on the cover of Vogue magazine in 1998"..... not sure if this is really needed
-
- I feel strongly that it is. She talks several times in her Living History memoir about all the attention her different hairstyles got, much to her surprise. One of the early 'viral' websites was about all her different hairstyles. And there's been plenty of commentary about what she looked like in her student or Arkansas days. The article needs to reflect all this.
- Yes, there was actually a notable amount of coverage on the her hairstyle. This sounds superficial on the face of it, but is only documenting the public reaction.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I feel strongly that it is. She talks several times in her Living History memoir about all the attention her different hairstyles got, much to her surprise. One of the early 'viral' websites was about all her different hairstyles. And there's been plenty of commentary about what she looked like in her student or Arkansas days. The article needs to reflect all this.
- "privately was reported to be furious at him and was unsure if she wanted to stay in the marriage"..... give a more definitive statement than "reportedly"
-
- Almost by definition, no one knows how she reacted in private. But we have to say something in a case like this, because for sure her public reaction wasn't the whole story. So I used the Bernstein biography as a source, which seemed the best and fairest in this matter. Nevertheless I think it warrants a 'reported'.
- It would help to include what made her decide to stay with Bill after finding out about his affair with Monica Lewinsky
-
- There are many theories, some of which are alluded to in the 'public reactions' paragraph. Readers can consult the various biographies used as sources for in-depth psychoanalyzing on this question. But at the end of the day, only she knows why she stayed. I included her quote on this, about still loving Bill and how fully alive he is, which I'm sure is part of the reason but I'm also sure is not all.
- "There was a variety of public reactions to Hillary Clinton after this" isn't really needed
-
- I shortened it to 'Public reaction varied:'.
- The following statements are missing citations:
-
- "She was sworn in as United States Senator on January 3, 2001."
-
- Cite added from existing source elsewhere.
- "which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts"
-
- Simplified description and moved it under the prior source. The article on the resolution should be the one to describe its complexities.
- "It passed the Senate 74–25."
-
- Prior source covers this, so indicated.
- "Her last day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013."
-
- Cite added from existing source elsewhere.
- Is "finally" really needed in "The debt was finally paid off by the beginning of 2013"?
-
- Yes, I think so, because it took so long and constituted a burden hanging over her.
- That could actually be "eventually" as 'finally' does have an air of POV in that it suggest it was almost an impossibility.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so, because it took so long and constituted a burden hanging over her.
- "In September 2014, she became a grandmother when daughter Chelsea gave birth to a baby girl" is completely unnecessary, Charlotte belongs in Chelsea's article rather than here
-
- Have to disagree on this. There has been lots of news coverage of Hillary as a grandmother, what it might mean for her politically, etc. It merits a brief mention here.
- If so, may as well mention Charlotte by name here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have now done so. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- If so, may as well mention Charlotte by name here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Have to disagree on this. There has been lots of news coverage of Hillary as a grandmother, what it might mean for her politically, etc. It merits a brief mention here.
- Why does "political positions" consist of public rankings of her political affiliations and not what Clinton herself identifies as?
-
- I don't think she's ever self-identified to an ideological label like that - she and Bill generally tried to avoid that. And even if political figures do self-identify, it is often inaccurate and/or pandering, such as when Mitt Romney characterized himself as 'severely conservative' in front of CPAC.
- May as well remove this section altogether, then. It doesn't seem appropriate to include political labels when she doesn't describe herself as such.
- The largest paragraph in this section uses various metrics that political scientists and analytical journalists have devised to measure members of Congress in their voting patterns. That's a useful and completely legitimate thing for this article to include. And the best of those break the analysis down by economic, social, and foreign policy issues, which helps avoid some of the oversimplifications of single-axis left vs right spectrum. Another paragraph gives ADA and ACU ratings, which is a shorthand for liberal vs conservative that many observers have made reference to in this past. The third paragraph, about how the public views her ideological position, is interesting but not as compelling as the other two, so I've now moved it to last in the order. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- May as well remove this section altogether, then. It doesn't seem appropriate to include political labels when she doesn't describe herself as such.
- I don't think she's ever self-identified to an ideological label like that - she and Bill generally tried to avoid that. And even if political figures do self-identify, it is often inaccurate and/or pandering, such as when Mitt Romney characterized himself as 'severely conservative' in front of CPAC.
- "New York Times writer" → "The New York Times writer"
- Having 7 citations for "Clinton has often been described in the popular media as a polarizing figure" seems excessive per WP:OVERCITE
-
- There was a whole hoorah about including her being polarizing this in the article back in the 2007-08 timeframe, and the eventual resolution was to show six cites in favor of that characterization and two cites against. My philosophy is to honor such agreements even if many of the participants have moved on. I'd fold the sources into one footnote each except that many of them are used in other places as well and thus can't easily be shared.
- Putting multiple sources within footnotes would be a good idea. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have now combined all the sources for this into one footnote (the sharing issue wasn't as bad as I first thought). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Putting multiple sources within footnotes would be a good idea. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- There was a whole hoorah about including her being polarizing this in the article back in the 2007-08 timeframe, and the eventual resolution was to show six cites in favor of that characterization and two cites against. My philosophy is to honor such agreements even if many of the participants have moved on. I'd fold the sources into one footnote each except that many of them are used in other places as well and thus can't easily be shared.
- "Memorable" in "A memorable 2012 Internet meme" seems like WP:PEACOCK
-
- I've taken out the 'memorable', since it's redundant to 'viral popularity'.
- "Its viral popularity illustrated the public's interest in the more human side of Clinton"..... I'm skeptical about the tone of this
-
- Well, there's two book sources that say this. There was something about it that caught people's attention - there are still news stories about it now, two years after the fact.
- I meant the phrasing, particularly the "human side" bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've changed it to "It achieved viral popularity among younger, technically adept followers of politics." This is directly supported by the existing sources given. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I meant the phrasing, particularly the "human side" bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there's two book sources that say this. There was something about it that caught people's attention - there are still news stories about it now, two years after the fact.
I've done a bit of tweaking myself, and can definitely see this becoming FA. Just needs some touching up first. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your comments. I did have a concern about one of your direct edits, which removed 'French Canadian' from her ancestory. The source involved, this NEGHS piece, seems to treat it as a separate ancestry from either French or Canadian, as does the existence of Category:American people of French-Canadian descent, which you also removed her from. I don't have strong feelings about the ancestry parts of articles, but other editors do, so are you sure this removal fits in with usual WP practice? Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Yes, I'm sure my edit fits practice, and that category is very misleading as it is based off of a common misconception. The piece you've given actually at one point says Antoine Martin was born in Ontario to French natives, easy misunderstanding. Just a few more things and this is good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm alright with no French Canadian. I believe I've now responded to all your other points. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much for your support! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I'm alright with no French Canadian. I believe I've now responded to all your other points. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Yes, I'm sure my edit fits practice, and that category is very misleading as it is based off of a common misconception. The piece you've given actually at one point says Antoine Martin was born in Ontario to French natives, easy misunderstanding. Just a few more things and this is good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggestions from MONGO[edit]
- Please add her DOB to the early life section.
-
- Now done, that was an oversight on my part.
- Break up her 2008 Presidential Run and her Sec of State section with more Level 3 headings. [16:16, November 30, 2014 MONGO]
-
- I've done that for the Secretary of State section, as it can be divided into two halves. I haven't done it for the 2008 presidential campaign section because it doesn't divide easily (almost all of it is the primaries and caucuses during 2008) and because I don't see any other examples of campaign sections being divided and because I don't want the Table of Contents to become too overwhelming.
- Thank you very much for your suggestions and please let me know if you have any more. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll read it over this coming weekend and get back to you. If I don't then ping me. Right now I'm leaning no opinion but that is based on my belief that she may have the next POTUS and if so then this current article will be greatly superseded by new events.--MONGO 02:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks in advance for reviewing the article. Of course you are entitled to view this aspect as you like, but for what's it's worth, the FA precedent is that looming presidential elections are no barrier to FA promotion. John McCain made FA in August 2008, three months before the general election that he was in, and Mitt Romney made FA in early November 2012, four days before the general election that he was in. And here we are still two years out from the 2016 presidential election. There is no guarantee that she will run - several recent pieces in the political press have been to this point - and certainly no guarantee that she will win if she does. And if she does become president, we'll deal with it in the article when that time comes. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll read it over this coming weekend and get back to you. If I don't then ping me. Right now I'm leaning no opinion but that is based on my belief that she may have the next POTUS and if so then this current article will be greatly superseded by new events.--MONGO 02:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support promotion to Featured Article. Let me say that I am no fan of the subject, so I deliberately looked to see if there was white-washing of those things that Hillary Rodham Clinton is considered controversial for. I did not see any omissions regarding those issues. I will say that the image selection does show the subject in a mainly positive light, but we are limited by what is available due to licensing issues. With over 2200 edits to this article, Wasted Time R has obviously been a dedicated editor on the subject matter of this article and deserves commendation for that dedication which has ensured we have a neutral, expansive, complete and comprehensive article as of this date and time.--MONGO 19:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much for your support and your praise. I understand your concern about the photo selection and it's true that much of what is available are official photos of her meeting with world leaders while Secretary of State, which tend to be staged as to make the participants look good. However, I was able to find and add one of the "reset button" photo op with Sergey Lavrov, which is an example of one of these meetings that didn't turn out as desired in the long run. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Mark Miller[edit]
I have worked with Wasted Time R on this article so I hope I am able to still support it at FAC. It is of Feature Article quality biography, neutral and very well written. Support for comprehensiveness, engaging prose, neutral, focused but still broad in coverage.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but think it depends on how involved one is with the article beforehand. If you were a frequent editor, that might be a COI, though you'd definitely be able to help address comments in an FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm obviously not a disinterested voice, but I think User:Mark Miller's 'Support' should be allowed. The contributor analysis tool seems to be down right now, but I believe that most of his activity came in 2013, with less than 20 edits and a few talk page posts when there was a discussion with another editor about how to handle a couple of things in the Secretary of State section. I don't think that counts as a "frequent editor" in the larger scheme of things. And WP:FAC doesn't say anything about striking even in that case - it says, "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." And he has indicated his prior involvement. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake. Feel free to unstrike, Mark. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I have been editing the article for some time now. Since 2009 under the username Amadsientist (but the history now shows the edits under this name beginning in August 2009 [21] showing just over 60 edits for that month). I have debated a number of issues on the talk page and made many edits including image alteration, text contributions, consensus discussions etc.. I may not be a major contributor but certainly a long term editor whose hands have been on the article for 5 years or more. I wasn't sure how the support !vote worked here and I should be more prepared. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't recognize the renaming of Amadscientist. Yes, your description of your involvement is how I would characterize it as well. And thanks for your support of the FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I have been editing the article for some time now. Since 2009 under the username Amadsientist (but the history now shows the edits under this name beginning in August 2009 [21] showing just over 60 edits for that month). I have debated a number of issues on the talk page and made many edits including image alteration, text contributions, consensus discussions etc.. I may not be a major contributor but certainly a long term editor whose hands have been on the article for 5 years or more. I wasn't sure how the support !vote worked here and I should be more prepared. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake. Feel free to unstrike, Mark. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm obviously not a disinterested voice, but I think User:Mark Miller's 'Support' should be allowed. The contributor analysis tool seems to be down right now, but I believe that most of his activity came in 2013, with less than 20 edits and a few talk page posts when there was a discussion with another editor about how to handle a couple of things in the Secretary of State section. I don't think that counts as a "frequent editor" in the larger scheme of things. And WP:FAC doesn't say anything about striking even in that case - it says, "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." And he has indicated his prior involvement. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Rationalobserver[edit]
- Support on prose and scope. This is an excellent article that I believe meets or exceeds the FA criteria. Nice work, Wasted Time R! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much for your support and kind words. The nature of the beast is that WP editors more commonly get complaints than praise, so the latter does not go unappreciated! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Older nominations[edit]
Good Girl Gone Bad[edit]
This article is about... the third studio album by Rihanna, a game changer for her and her music career. During this era, Rihanna changed her style, became more liberating and lost the good girl image, as the title suggests. As the album is third, this is the third time we nominate this article for FA. Before I nominate it I went through it, not spotting any major issues with the prose or the references, and I think it satisfied the criteria pretty well. I would left the rest to the users who comment. Special thanks to Status (talk · contribs) who also helped me to bring the article to GA status. — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Retrohead[edit]
- I believe worked with various producers on the album sounds more natural.
- It should be mentioned that 7 million copies were sold worldwide.
- Technically speaking, an album can not produce singles, it can generate them.
-
- I agree produced is not the best word, however, what about spawned?
- Why don't you write the producers with their stage names: Tricky Stewart instead of Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, L.A. Reid instead of Antonio "L.A." Reid, and so.
- When I click on "tour", I expect the link to lead to concert tour. Why don't you write the full name of Timberlake's tour or maybe delink the word?
- I think you've misinterpreted the ref describing "Umbrella". The Guardian called it an "improbable R&B summer smash" (not rock)! It further said it reminded the author of a "rock power ballad", but that's not the same as being a rock power ballad.
- Regarding the live performances, isn't there some choreography when the songs are played onstage? I haven't watched Rihanna's concerts, but there certainly are dancers, screens, or specific outfit when she performs.
- The commercial performance, as well as the charts and tables are professionally done, perhaps the strongest side of the article, so I have no complaints on that.
- Here are a few spotchecks on the references:
- ref 2—Vibe saying A Girl Like Me is a pop album→verified
- ref 3—dancehall and R&B influences on the sophomore album according to Rolling Stone→verified
- ref 8—Rihanna received singing lessons from Ne Yo→verified
- ref 15—"Umbrella" previously offered to Mary J. Blige→verified
- ref 22—no Caribbean influences on this record per Allmusic→verified
- ref 30—Metro Weekly compared "Rehab" to "Cry Me a River"→verified
- ref 44—highlights are the three Timbaland tracks according to The Village Voice journalist→verified
- ref 87—canceled concert in Malaysia because of costumes→verified
- refs 91–100—these are critics quotations, so I assume they are correct.
- ref 105—2.8 million copies sold in the US→not verified; the link is good, but the first part of the article is missing
- ref 110—1.85 million copies sold in Britain→verified
- ref 117—7 million copies sold globally→verified
- ref 121—Rolling Stone ranks "Umbrella" at 412→verified
- ref 125—not verified→link leads to unspecified entry; if you're using Chart Watch, you can credit the author, Paul Grein.
- ref 130—not verified→best selling dance/electronic album, per the article's title
- ref 131—the remix album 49,000 copies sold→verified, but you may add by July 2010, to be more specific
- You may want to check the external links in the toolbox, it appears that several are dead
- Support since all my comments were addressed, and I have no further objections.--Retrohead (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]
- We have six external links that have a connection timeout.
- I'm not sure I would title the picture set "Major writers and producers on Good Girl Gone Bad", since Tricky Stewart worked on two tracks, Ne-Yo worked on three, and Justin Timberlake worked on only one. I feel that the individual captions alone suffice because they give more specific details about their respective collaborations. The sentences for Tricky Stewart and Ne-Yo also need periods at the end of them because they are complete sentences.
- In regards to the Justin Timberlake caption, I feel like "and learned much from the sessions" is too open-ended and unclear. I would recommend just dropping this part of the sentence and leaving it at how much Rihanna enjoyed working with him.
- In "Composition", you could move the first sentence into the first full paragraph, so we don't have a little stub of a paragraph hanging out on its own in the beginning.
- How about you chunk the two audio samples into a single box so it looks a little bit less cluttered?
- In the "Singles" section, it would be helpful to either a) find a better picture of Bey and Jay where both of their faces are more clearly visible, or if that's not possible, b) make the existing image a bit larger.
- Since it is a little short on its own, I feel like "Accolades and legacy" could be merged into a couple of other sections. The first paragraph would fit well in "Critical response", and the second paragraph would flow nicely in the "Commercial performance" section.
- "Re-issue and remix album" would fit well as the third subheading beneath "Marketing and release", since both discs are undoubtedly promotional efforts to boost the performance of the original record.
- Any particular reason why "Deluxe Edition Featuring Dance Remixes" is in capitalized in the track listing?
- The release history table has a chunk of missing record labels for some countries.
- It would be helpful to link music/digital download because you link CD and LP in the table.
- What is the difference between the deluxe and limited editions? There are a variety of deluxe editions mentioned in the track listing so that for me isn't an issue, but I don't see anything about a specific limited edition.
- You might be interested in moving references into a separate column at the end of the table, although this is purely a matter of personal preference.
WikiRedactor (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for your comments @WikiRedactor:.
- No problem! I'm happy to give my support. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Support I can't seek any issue on the article. This is a comprehensive and well sourced article indeed. Well done! Simon (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Shah Rukh Khan[edit]
This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the entire world. Since it reached GA in August, I have further improved it significantly, and had it copy-edited by the GOCE. I am confident that it is now FA quality. Khan is turning fifty in about a year, and I would like to see this as TFA at that time. Please enjoy reading about this highly admired actor. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Dwaipayanc[edit]
Comments I did not read the article properly during peer review. I am giving some comments here as I read it:
the very first sentence, "... is an Indian actor, producer, television personality and philanthropist". Philanthropist is not a profession, at least not his profession. I think that word should be deleted. Other opinions are welcome.IMO, you should add "film" before "actor", as he is primarily a film actor (as opposed to theater actor). What is the usual practice for articles on film actors?" His eighth Filmfare Best Actor Award put him in a tie for the most in that category" I feel not significant enough to be in the lead."Khan later earned wide critical acclaim for his portrayal". IMO, remove the word "wide". Just "critical claim" conveys pretty much the same meaning."the family was often living in near poverty in a rented apartment" Is that what the source say? they were in poverty? I mean , living in rented apartment hardly establishes poverty in Delhi. His schooling in St Columbus also apparently goes against being poor. I am pretty sure his father was not below the poverty line (if there was one such thing at that time).
"The death of Khan's parents at an early age affected him greatly. He described these events as a motivator for his own work ethic" The first sentence sounds rather melodramatic/not having any worth. Can be removed I guess. Now, how come deaths of parents motivates work ethic? the work ethic/working style/lectures of a parent can influence work-ethic, but death?
-
- The source says "was very attached to his parents as a child and describes their early deaths as a turning point in his life and as his biggest motivation for hard work." I just report what the sources say; I am not making this up.
- Yeah, but you have to weigh the weight of each source! a photogallery in IndiaTimes is a pretty poor source in general. Plus, we don't even need this. IMO, not worth the space in this pretty big article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I agree. Done.
- Yeah, but you have to weigh the weight of each source! a photogallery in IndiaTimes is a pretty poor source in general. Plus, we don't even need this. IMO, not worth the space in this pretty big article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The source says "was very attached to his parents as a child and describes their early deaths as a turning point in his life and as his biggest motivation for hard work." I just report what the sources say; I am not making this up.
"a Punjabi Hindu" needs wikilink(s)."She never fully recovered from the shock of her parent's deaths" That sounds un-medical. The shock/grief from family member's death are normal events and last for weeks-months. Non-recovery from such grief is completely abnormal, and suggests underlying psychiatric disorder (depression, personality disorder, or whatever). Any clues on that? Otherwise, this sentence reads like emotional Bollywood movie, honestly, and can be removed.
-
- I am sure that you are correct about an underlying psychiatric disorder, but I have not yet found sources that dare to say it in that way, so again I lightly paraphrased what was written. I will look for a source with more direct language.
- Or even can remove the " never fully recovered from the shock" part and just say that she lives with SRK family.
- I added some more direct language from another source.
- Or even can remove the " never fully recovered from the shock" part and just say that she lives with SRK family.
- I am sure that you are correct about an underlying psychiatric disorder, but I have not yet found sources that dare to say it in that way, so again I lightly paraphrased what was written. I will look for a source with more direct language.
--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, all of the above has been resolved. BollyJeff | talk 19:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
*Umeed, Wagle Ki Duniya, and that English TV film needs years of release.
"Khan had travelled between Delhi and Mumbai during this period, and was not interested in film acting" Okay, this needs some background info for those who do not know that those serials were made in Mumbai, and that is why he needed to travel between his residence in Delhi and workplace in Mumbai. Otherwise, for those who do not know, the inclusion of this sentence in the biography does not make any sense. Or, you can entirely remove this sentence. The very next sentence discusses his permanent move to Mumbai anyway." Also released in 1992 were Chamatkar, and Khan's first films as the male lead, Dil Aashna Hai" But Chamatkar released before Dil Aashna Hai, and Khan was the male lead in Chamatkar." The Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema said "he defied the image of the conventional hero in both these films..." In this particular use, the year of the publication of the Encyclopedia is needed. The encyclopedia said this in 2003, ten years afterwards, which helps establish the historical significance of the comment" In a retrospective review, Sukanya Verma called it Khan's best performance" Needs year for the review."Khan's performance as a young NRI who falls" NRI needs full term.Can the description of Dil Se be slightly reduced? It occupies a large number of words, compared to other films of similar significance of the same time (say, Dil To Pagal hai)"Ironically, Khan became a romantic icon without ever actually kissing any of his co-stars" The word "Ironically" appears editorialized for an encyclopedia. You can use quotations; otherwise, this needs rephrasing."starring the handsome debutante actor..." This spelling of debutante something else."Khan's next release was Mansoor Khan's action drama Josh" Since it is a new paragraph, it's better to include the year in this sentence."The film was screened at the Venice Film Festival and the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival to a positive response, but it performed poorly in Indian box offices, and losses continued to mount for the production company, forcing him to close srkworld.com, a sub-company that he had started along with Dreamz Unlimited" A long, convoluted sentence. Please consider splitting.10 Filmfare Awards (including 'Best Scene'): Best scene is a category? Even if it is, it does not need to be mentioned."Because of Khan's spinal injury from 2001, he was in acute pain while shooting" The term acute for medical illness is used to denote time/duration, and acute means of short duration (see Pain#Duration). This needs to be changed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
All of the above has been resolved. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 17:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- "..told the story of two unhappily married couples in New York who have an extramarital affair. " Shouldn't it be "have extramarital affairs"?
- "whose love for his accidental wife Sharma" Accidental wife? This needs to be re-phrased.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. BollyJeff | talk 23:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Ssven2[edit]
Comments from Ssven2 First of all, great job on expanding and writing so much details about one of the world's and especially India's most famous persons. It is a privilege for me to read this article.
Can you empty the references from the lead section as per WP:LEAD and explain about the sentences with references in later sections. (For example: There is repeition about the Los Angeles Times refernce. You can remove the reference from the lead section and place it in "Popularity and wealth" section.)"one of the most successful leading actors of Hindi cinema" - "leading" can be removed (even though it is true, it does sound a bit like an honorific.
)"a co-owner" can be rephrased as "the co-owner"."Media often label him "Brand SRK" because" - Can you add the word "as" in-between "him" and "Brand SRK"?"Newsweek named him one of the 50 most powerful people in the world." can be rephrased as "Newsweek included him in their list of the 50 most powerful people in the world." (If it is only their list. If the list from newsweek is used by all newspapers and magazines, then leave the sentence as it is.).
"Shahnaz continues to live with the Khans in their Mumbai mansion." - Can it be rephrased as "Shahnaz continues to live with her brother and his family in their Mumbai mansion."
Can you find a better alternative word (a synonym) for "loverboy" (other than "Romantic Hero")? (Section : 1995–98: The Romantic Hero.)"top-grossing production" can be rephrased as "highest-grossing production"For the film Duplicate, the source (Box Office India) states that it is "Below Average". Just wanted to ask if "Below Average" is considered as a "commercial failure"? You can also re-write the sentence as "did not perfom well at the box office.""candyfloss romance" - Can you re-write it as simply "romantic film" and wikilink it?
"Ashoka the Great" sounds like an honorific again and can be rephrased as "King Ashoka" (even though Ashoka the Great is mentioned in the article "Ashoka".) - (1999-2003 Section)
"ensemble cast" can be wikilinked - (2004-09 Section)"It earned Khan another nomination for Best Actor at the Filmfare ceremony." can be rephrased as "It earned Khan another nomination for Best Actor at the Filmfare Awards."The source TOI doesn't say it is a "starring role" in Slumdog Millionare. It just says that it is "a role that subsequently went to Anil Kapoor". Can you rephrase it like this?
The word Filmfare is sometimes written in italics and sometimes not. Can you write it in italics? (Except in places where it says "Filmfare Award for Best Actor" or "was nominated for Best Actor at the Filmfare Awards".)
"For his performance in the film, Khan was nominated for a Filmfare Award for Best Actor." - Can you add the source for this sentence as it is unsourced. (Section : 2010-2013)- Can you add a little bit more about Happy New Year in the "2010-13" Section as it is already released. Also, I would recommend you to rename the section as "2010-Present".
Have you already wikilinked Always Kabhi Kabhi? If not please do so. If so, please state atleast a few deatils about the film in the 2010-13 Section.- In this reference for Anjaam, it doesn't show Box Office India's verdict. Can you find an alternative source that explains the film's performance?
- Ssven2 (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have not found a reliable source for Anjaam, but the fact that it's blank in the provided list means it was not good. Cameos are mostly not mentioned, but AKK is linked in off-screen work section. Except for HNY, which I will get to, the rest has been implemented where appropriate. Thank you for your kind words. BollyJeff | talk 15:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Bollyjeff: Maybe you could use this source for Anjaam? It states that it was a "below avarage". You can write the sentence, "The film was a commercial failure, but Khan's performance earned him the Filmfare Best Villain Award." as "Although the film did not do well at the box office, Khan's performance in the film earned him the Filmfare Best Villain Award." Ssven2 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash29792[edit]
I don't think I have anything much to say, but you can try rewriting the section titles (eg: "1995–98: The Romantic Hero" and "Behind the camera") more formally and neutrally. Also, do please balance the usage between "Bollywood" and "Hindi cinema". And I don't think "movie" is a very formal or encyclopedic term (use "film" instead). Kailash29792 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Master of Puppets[edit]
This article is about Metallica's third album, widely considered the best album the heavy metal genre has to offer. I followed a similar writing pattern to ...And Justice for All, featuring sections about the recording, music & lyrics, etc. I believe the sentences are concisely structured, without much unnecessary statements and closely follow the topic.--Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose on comprehensiveness issues. I'm sorry to do this to you Vic, but there are enough of these that I'd suggest withdrawing and bringing back to FAC after they're dealt with:
- This is one of the key albums in early thrash history, but we're given no context as to where it fits in—it needs a brief band history, a brief history of thrash (where it came from and how it had developed by 1986), and most shocking of all, no mention of 1986 as the magic year that thrash came into its own—the year of Reign in Blood and Peace Sells... but Who's Buying?. "1986" is one of the key memes in thrash mythology—check out how it's handled in both the Reign and Peace articles.
- No information on equipment used—what brand of guitars were they playing? This obviously isn't a RS, but it shows the info's out there. Here's a tiny bit lifted from a 1992 issue of Guitar Player. Info here from Rasmussen himself, unfortunately I don't think it'd be accepted as a RS. This appears to be a RS. Probably the best sources would be old guitar magazines. I'd try asking on the talk pages of the rock and metal WikiProjects for people who might have this stuff.
- The musical analysis is extremely thin: nothing about the odd time signatures or the acoustic intro to "Battery", etc. There's lots out there—I'd be surprised if there wasn't enough to give each song a paragraph at least.
- Sources that should be mined:
- There's plenty of good stuff to mine even from the sources you've already used—for instance, from Popoff's Metallica: The Complete Illustrated History there's this: "...the record received no airplay. None. In fact, it received no mainstream promotion of any kind. It sold a half-million copies by word of mouth and by the band busting their asses on the road. In fact, the music industry embraced Metallica because the sheer number of units the band shifted without their help meant they had to." This kind of thing is just to significant to ignore. Also stuff like alcohol and Alcoholica.
- Ulrich gave a story at Sabbath's induction into the R&R HAll of Fame about playing on the Ozzy tour, and Ozzy was pissed off because he thought Metallica was trying to "take the piss" out of Sabbath with their music. I don't see even a mention of Sabbath in the article.
- No mention of Diamond Head, Venom, Thin Lizzy, NWOBHM, Misfits?
- Sorry again. The article's fine for GA, but it's still much too far away from FA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I've read your comments at the unofficial peer review. I couldn't find a source about the comparison of the title track with Sabbath's "War Pigs", which seems limited to forum discussions. Couldn't find a thing about the Ninja Turtles either, because I only have the CD. I'll take a look at the links you've offered and see where can I expand the prose. I'm afraid that I can not extract much from the books above, because I don't own a printed copy, and Google Books only shows scarce previews. Thanks for the ideas on what needs to be improved by the way.--Retrohead (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't worried about the "War Pigs" thing---if RSes don't mention it, then forget about it. But the general Black Sabbath influence is something that sources do seem to mention. As for sources you don't have access to---again, that's fine for a GA, but not for an FA. If you can't access them, you could ask around at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange---people can share sources with you or add information using their sources themselves. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I can expand the background of the band, but mentioning Reign in Blood and Peace Sells there won't fit because they were released afterwards. I assume they would be more adequate in the commercial performance? Speaking about the Popoff quote, isn't the same information already mentioned→"Despite virtually no radio airplay and no music videos, the album sold more than 500,000 copies in its first year"?
- Sorry, I missed that "500,000 copies in its first year" thing. As for Reign in Blood and Peace Sells, I imagine there should be something like a "Legacy" section discussing its place in music history---its influence, its relation to other recordings, the direction the band followed after its release, etc. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I can expand the background of the band, but mentioning Reign in Blood and Peace Sells there won't fit because they were released afterwards. I assume they would be more adequate in the commercial performance? Speaking about the Popoff quote, isn't the same information already mentioned→"Despite virtually no radio airplay and no music videos, the album sold more than 500,000 copies in its first year"?
- Regarding the Misfits link–the book is discussing The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited and the fifth track there, but doesn't mention this record. I can do a song-by-song analysis, which I agree, it should and will be expanded. The only thing you misunderstood me was using the books above. Is there something significant there that isn't featured in the books available on Google Books? Music analysis is accessible, also the band's experience with Ozzy on tour.
- If there are entire books out there on the band that simply haven't been consulted, then it's hard to believe the article is really comprehensive: that's WP:WIAFA 1b and 1c. If the books were consulted and nothing interesting were found, then it's not an issue. Again, you can get away with that at GA, but not FA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Recording equipment–is this indispensable? I've passed six or seven biographies, but none of them seem to give any weight on what guitars were used. Is it obligatory for featured albums to have detailed description on the equipment? And lastly, can you do daily check to see if the a added sentences are properly structured?--Retrohead (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- If there's no information on equipment, then it obviously can't be included, but I think it's unlikely---guitar magazines can be pretty obsessive with these details. Master of Puppets is a prominent recording noted for the technicality of its music---it's highly unlikely these details can't be found. There's no reason you should be expected have access to all the appropriate sources yourself---ask around and people can help you. Somebody out there must have access to a stash of old guitar magazines. At the very least we should have the players' main guitars and amps, and hopefully basic info on their touring setup. I've put in a request at a few WikiProjects. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how much media attention Metallica received back in the day, but my pick would be 1986 issues of Total Guitar or Guitar Player. I've been buying these stuff and they deal pretty much with guitar tabs and gear, so they might be the thing we need. As for the suggested books, I'm not sure if a book by Chris Crocker is a wise choice. The most interesting information in Halfin's photobook was Hetfield performing on a guitar with a sticker "Kill Bon Jovi" during 1985 Monsters of Rock, but I think that would be considered trivia.--Retrohead (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure the guitar magazines would have given much detailed attention to Metallica in 1986, but I hadn't stated reading guitar magazines then yet. There was definitely a pile of stuff in the nineties after the black album hit, including retrospectives and all-Metallica specials. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how much media attention Metallica received back in the day, but my pick would be 1986 issues of Total Guitar or Guitar Player. I've been buying these stuff and they deal pretty much with guitar tabs and gear, so they might be the thing we need. As for the suggested books, I'm not sure if a book by Chris Crocker is a wise choice. The most interesting information in Halfin's photobook was Hetfield performing on a guitar with a sticker "Kill Bon Jovi" during 1985 Monsters of Rock, but I think that would be considered trivia.--Retrohead (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- If there's no information on equipment, then it obviously can't be included, but I think it's unlikely---guitar magazines can be pretty obsessive with these details. Master of Puppets is a prominent recording noted for the technicality of its music---it's highly unlikely these details can't be found. There's no reason you should be expected have access to all the appropriate sources yourself---ask around and people can help you. Somebody out there must have access to a stash of old guitar magazines. At the very least we should have the players' main guitars and amps, and hopefully basic info on their touring setup. I've put in a request at a few WikiProjects. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've begun expanding the music description. Is it done in the manner you expected ("The Thing That Should Not Be" or "Damage, Inc." for example)? I've got yet to fill half of the tracks, but I think you required concise and comprehensive sentences.
- You definitely want "concise and comprehensive sentences", but you could certainly go into more detail with the songs. "Master of Puppets" and "Sanitarium" in particular have interesting song structures and dynamics that should be covered. Also, is the middle section to "Master of Puppets" really "melodic"? It drops into a clean, arpeggiated riff with a melodic solo over it, and then gradually adds in crunch until it becomes Sabbath-heavy with the "Master, Master, where's the dreams that I've been after"---that's definitely part of the "middle section", and is hardly what you'd call "melodic", and I'm not sure the arpeggiated riff which is the key part of that section is what you'd technically call "melodic" either. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is the background done properly? I've tried to put the thrash origins and the band's background into the same context, in order to stay on the topic.
- It's much better, but I think you should throw in a bit about the emerging thrash scene as well, to provide context for why this album would be considered so important. The bits about Metallica could use a few more details: foudning year of the band, release year for Kill 'Em All, etc. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are Ozzy's anecdote and the "Alcoholica" stuff well explained? These are not much represented in the books, but I tried to extract the most important aspect.
- The Ozzy bit's good. Weren't there "Alcoholica" t-shirts at this time? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding bands such as Diamond Head, Venom, Misfits, I assume you mentioned them as part of Metallica's influences or thrash metal predecessors. I think they are more appropriate in the thrash metal article. They are given no value in encyclopedias that elaborate on this album, nor in the Reign in Blood and Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? articles, which are FA and GA respectively.--Retrohead (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- You could through the influences into the "Background" section. I'm surprised at how short and thin on details the Reign in Blood article is---there isn't even any discussion about what the music sounds like! we're told "the song 'Angel of Death' 'smokes the asses of any band playing fast and/or heavy today'" without being told what it sounds like! You should aim for a higher standard than that. You have sources---use them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Turkey, I've got a question about the latest additions I'm about to do. What do you mean by some tracks being retired and then revived for concerts in 1998/1999? As far as I know, "Battery" and "Sanitarium" were frequently performed in the early 1990s, as well as "Master of Puppets" (check setlist.fm for more details). And by revived you mean with modified arrangements, or something else?--Retrohead (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- The source says they had "not been played consistently in at least ten years". I guess that means they were played here and there, but in '98–'99 they were on the setlist? I guess perhaps "retired" is the wrong word. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Falcon's Fury[edit]
This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the second nomination; the first one was closed due to a lack of responses/feedback. The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from TheQ Editor[edit]
Correct me if I'm wrong. I did a quick look through and this is what I found. More may come: ΤheQ Editor Talk? 19:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- There should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement.- The article uses the "Convert" template so nothing can be done about this.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Dom497: In the article, there is "105 tons" and "519 tons" that doesn't have a non-breaking space and doesn't use the Convert template.
- @TheQ Editor: Sorry that it took so long to reply. I have added conversions for those units.--Dom497 (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Dom497: In the article, there is "105 tons" and "519 tons" that doesn't have a non-breaking space and doesn't use the Convert template.
- The article uses the "Convert" template so nothing can be done about this.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Could use a little more images. There's some images on commons. See this link.The infobox states that the G-force is 3.5, but the article doesn't say anything about it.The height restriction needs a citation toowikilink Gondola
- @TheQ Editor: I have addressed your comments. Thanks for reviewing!--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
FIFA Club World Cup[edit]
- Nominator(s): Hawaiifive0 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the most important club competition internationally. The quality of the article was an inspiration to start updating football articles in relation to Costa Rica's and I believe it is long overdue for a FA status. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Have the article's main editors been contacted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Yes, they have. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: To be fair to the nominator, of the three editors ahead of him in the article's edit count, two are permanently blocked and the other hasn't edited this article for five years – or Wikipedia at all since May. So I think the nomination is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Taiko[edit]
- Nominator(s): I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the set of Japanese percussion instruments called taiko. They have an ill-defined history in terms of their exact origins in addition to a mythological origin story. The usage of the instrument changed greatly through Japan's history, particularly just after WWII with the work of percussionist Daihachi Oguchi, who created a performance style involving several types of taiko and multiple players. This style is now very much the norm in taiko performance as popularized by groups such as Kodo. Construction of the drums and components of taiko performance are explored in-depth. The article also goes into detail about taiko outside of Japan (such as in Brazil) in addition to its relation to specific social movements as explored in contemporary academic literature.
As a note, when I started working on this article, someone left a long list of sources at the end in a further reading list which I have been paring down due to concerns about reliability of those sources, their accessibility (having checked worldcat.org), and relevance in an encylopedic context. There are many sources left, some of which I will be exploring at my library this month, but I believe the article is sufficiently comprehensive in its current state. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment
- Short refs #39, 43, 91, 109, 116, 122 and 124 in "Citations" do not match their full reference entries in "Bibliography" (author's last name and year must be exactly the same). Consider installing Ucucha's script to check for errors in Harvard references, it'll highlight such problems in red - makes searching and fixing them a lot easier.
- Formatting of pseudo-headers with ;header is discouraged due to accessibility problems (but I don't know how to avoid bloating the ToC here, maybe another reviewer has a good idea).
- Duplicate header titles (got "history" twice) within one article should be avoided. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Short refs #39, 43, 91, 109, 116, 122 and 124 - Done, thanks for pointing me to the script.
- Formatting of pseudo-headers - Done These psuedo-headers under the "Further reading" section will be removed, along with most of the section, in the coming week after I've made a visit to the library to check out and incorporate material into the article that is useful.
- Duplicate header titles - Done, header under the Hachijo section has been changed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you like, give me a ping, once the additions and structure cleanup are done and I'll do a more thorough read-through. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- @GermanJoe: OK, all finished. I don't think an extensive "further reading" list is necessary on the article because the range of sources directly cited is fairly broad as it is, so I've removed it with the understanding that I've tried to access as many of these sources as possible. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you like, give me a ping, once the additions and structure cleanup are done and I'll do a more thorough read-through. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- The "Zero" caption could be clearer - it's a bit hard to follow
- File:Adolfo_Farsari_-_Dancing_Girl_Playing_Taiko.JPG should be life+100 not life+70
- File:02_Taiko2.ogg: on what basis can the uploader release this file? What is the copyright status of the performance and of the composition being performed? That's a living composer and a fairly recent composition, so unless it's been explicitly released this is likely a copyright violation. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- @Nikkimaria::
- Captions that aren't complete sentences - Done
- The "Zero" caption could be clearer - Done
- File:Adolfo_Farsari_-_Dancing_Girl_Playing_Taiko.JPG should be life+100 not life+70 - Done
- File:02_Taiko2.ogg - The uploader, Teohui may have some affiliation with the group (see the infobox in this version of the ensemble's article). Scott Harding is the composer, though. I'll see if I can get in touch with the ensemble directly to verify its copyright status and if they indeed intended this to be released to the public domain. For now, I'll be removing it from the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've contacted them, and am awaiting a reply... I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments (part 1, lead)
The lead looks fine in general, but could use a bit of polishing:
- "The process of constructing taiko varies between manufacturers, [but must include the making and shaping of a drum body, choosing a skin for the drum head, and carefully stretching the skin over the drum head to create appropriate tension.]" - this info doesn't look important enough for the first lead para (isn't it true for most drums with skins anyway?). Personally, I'd find a brief mention of the traditional lengthy skin preparation more interesting (for example).
-
- Done, but I decided to depart from your suggestion to focus more on the length involved in the entire process rather than the skin specifically. (I'll be commenting in-line for my own convenience; if this is problematic, let me know.) I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- "... suggests ... influence" occurs twice in close proximity (not sure about a good synonym though).
-
- Done. It seems fine to drop it the second time in relation to the Indian instruments and just describe them as similar (with an example) in the lead. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- "historical evidence suggests that taiko ..." and "Archaeological evidence demonstrates that ..." - seem to refer to the same period, why are those periods mentioned twice? What is meant with "historical" evidence here, contrary to "archaeological"?
-
- Done. I can understand the confusion here; my intention was for one to based on written accounts (i.e. historical evidence), the other based on actual found objects (i.e. archaeological evidence). That said, you are correct that "Historical evidence" could be either of these though, so I've changed the wording to "historical records." With regard to the periods being mentioned twice, I've rephrased this to say that archaeological evidence supports the notion that taiko were used in Japan as early as the 6th century CE. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- "In contemporary times, taiko have served [as the basis] for certain social movements ..." - confusing without more detail, how can an instrument be the basis for a movement? Or is "taiko" referring to "taiko performances" here? Also a bit vague.
-
- Done. It is about performance, but only for the sansei and gender conventions sections. The burakumin section is more relevant to the nature of the construction process (because they work with leather). I've rephrased this to say that "taiko have played a central role" in social movements. If it would be helpful, I can provide examples of these in the lead. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- "...can be traced back to 1951..." - odd phrasing, events merely 60 years ago do not need to be "traced". His article simply states, he "invented" that style (source needed).
-
- Done. Agreed, and I've changed the wording. There are lots of sources that say Oguchi invented it, and they are in the body. If you think this would be particularly contentious (it doesn't appear to be, based on my reading of the sources) I can source this if you'd prefer it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- "...world-renowned ..." - a bit peacock-ish, probably better with an immediate source.
-
- Done. It's not really necessary to qualify the group in the lead now that you've mentioned it, so I've just removed it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Other performance styles have also emerged from specific communities in Japan." - unclear, are those the same communities as the previous "social movements"? Also, could you name 1-2 notable examples here to give the reader a better idea of those differing styles?
-
- Done. I've provided the examples. And no, the performance styles and social movements are not the same. Performance styles refers to the Hachijo-daiko and Miyake-daiko sections of the article, where as the social movements relate to the sansei, gender conventions, and burakumins sections. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Consider de-linking well-known countries (WP:OVERLINK), and linking Japan to "Japanese music" would be more relevant for the given topic. (Done)
Two quick non-lead points:
- "Notable groups", "Notable performers" - lists with unclear inclusion criteria are discouraged. Suggestion: Merge both sections in one section "Notable groups and performers" with 1 paragraph for each. Try to mention only the most notable (atleast Japan-wide) entries or performances with a distinctive own style. Convert the list to prose and add 1 brief detail for each mention.
-
- Done.
- "Further reading" - completely optional (I know, it can be hard to pick), but maybe keep a shortened further reading section including only 1-2 of the most significant, helpful literature for each former sub-topic in one list. If it's not possible to have a fair selection of specialist books, maybe a few general standard books could be listed.
-
- @GermanJoe: I'll need some a few days for the above two points. FYI, some of the groups currently listed there are not going to make the cut based on available sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't use graphical templates like {{done}} (see FAC-instructions) - hope you don't mind, that I fixed them. I'll need some more time to read through the main text - it's a really interesting, but somewhat foreign topic. GermanJoe (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't realize it would be a problem. And yes, this is definitely a more esoteric topic, please take your time. I'll be pretty available for the foreseeable future, so I can quickly follow-up on your comments whenever you are ready. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments (part 2, up to categorization)
- Infobox - suggest removal of the list of musicians. Without detail this is just another arbitrary list (and the huge whitespace looks ugly). The section "Notable groups and performers" should offer this kind of information as prose.
-
- Done, and agreed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Consider using {{TOC limit|3}} to hide level 4 headers from the relatively long ToC.
-
- Done. I've also combined a number of sections that could reasonably go together to reduce the length of the TOC. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mythology "[One] mythological story ..." - are there other differing myths about this?
-
- Done. There are not after some exhaustive searching for alternative interpretations or origin stories, so I've rephrased this accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- "In [one] interpretation" - again, any other notable interpretations?
-
- Done. See above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Second and third paragraph need a final citation for the narrative.
-
- Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- "The statues show one player beating one head of the drum with the stick, and the other using their hand to beat the other head." - nitpicking, but ref #13 mentions only one of the statues. Could you double-check refs #11, #12 and #13 and clarify the number and posture of those statues?
-
- Source #13 (transcript of a museum curator's talk at a conference) only mentions one, but #11 (from the book Drum: A History) and #12 (from the Tokyo National Museum) clearly discuss two figures. Based on the description in #13 (He is beating the device with a drumstick in his right hand. Judging from this figure, the drum appears to be a hip hand drum), she is probably talking about the figure on the left here in this image from the Tokyo National Museum. In any case, there do appear to be two figures relevant to the topic, one which is playing the drum with their hand, and the other with a stick. The current prose could use some clarity, so I'll fix that up. I'll wait for your response on this one in case there is anything else. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- In general, I try to copyedit a bit during reading. But it would be good, if a native English-speaker would go through the whole text aswell - my "German English" is limited and I have very likely missed some minor prose issues.
Your editor seems to add a lot of unnecessary whitespace, or it was already in an old article version. I removed most of it (afaik, such whitespace is against some obscure MOS guideline). I'll try to read a few more sections soonish. GermanJoe (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments (part 3, remaining sections)
- Drum makers " ... stating that their tradition of construction has remained the same for the past 400 years." - Is an independent source for this claim available? Unless the claim is absolutely uncontroversial, we really shouldn't use the company's own PR slogans.
-
- Done. I've changed this to reflect that the company has been making taiko for 400 years; can't find another that states that their method is the same. I've added an additional source from the Chicago Tribune. There are several such sources for the former claim, so it seems solid. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Form "Some have argued ..." - Better to name 1 specific source here or specify the group with more detail.
-
- Done. I've specified as needed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Brazil "... some have estimated ..." - See above - if possible, a specific source for this estimate should be named.
-
- Done. Specified as needed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Multiple notes at one spot should be in ascending order (fixed all, just as info).
-
- Done. Thanks for taking care of many of these. I only caught one other instance of this after reviewing it myself. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- No problems with the fixes for the previous comment sections, all Done except the open point about the statues' description.
-
- I think I've clarified the whole issue with the statues. Some sources talk about two of the statues (both have drums), one just talks about one of them (the statue of the drummer holding the stick), so that's why there appeared to be a discrepancy at first. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I copyedited several minor problems with formatting, ref order and the occasional odd phrasing. However, several sections still read a bit clunky and would benefit from more "professional" copyediting (aka not my skill level). The article contains a lot of interesting and well-researched content, but the prose needs a bit more work. GermanJoe (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment
- All above points have been addressed (Done).
I'll be glad to give the article another read, after more reviewers have taken a look for the mentioned prose improvements. @I JethroBT: - if you haven't done so already, you could try and notify some interested WikiProjects or reviewers with a neutral request for review. Unfortunately the article hasn't drawn much attention yet. GermanJoe (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- @GermanJoe: Will do. Are there any sentences that strike you as potentially needing attention? I can take a look at these, even if you're not entirely sure how best to fix them. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment
- Looks like this part "The Template:Nihongo is the lead instrument of the ensemble." has been broken in some previous edit. Could you check that please? You probably know best, where to fix it.
- Curly Turkey already improved several of the minor prose points. Such spots are really hard to find for a non-native English speaker, except for some vague gut-feeling :). The many necessary drum-related and Japanese terms certainly make it difficult in some sections to keep the prose accessible and fluent. I am sure, the remaining reviews will further polish other miniscule flaws.
- I'll keep this on my watchlist - feel free to nudge me, if I don't update after the remaining reviews are done. GermanJoe (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments (margin1522)
I will have more later, but a few quick ones.
- After using {{nihongo}} once, could you use the {{nihongo4}} template? The little question marks seem a bit distracting.
-
- Done. Thanks, I think you're right about the distraction element. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Usually we don't include the kanji for terms that have their own articles and have the kanji in the articles. Overall my impression is too many kanji.
-
- Done, I've really reduced the number of kanji in the article based on this guideline. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Mythology section seems too long. We have two articles on this story -- Ame-no-Uzume-no-Mikoto and Amano-Iwato. I think the details could be moved there, and here it could be shortened to a couple of sentences about the goddess who danced on a barrel. That way it would fit comfortably into the next section, Origins. Also the first cite for this story (to the jazz musician) seems kind of casual. Would only the second cite be enough? – Margin1522 (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Done. I had two citations there because mythology just seems like a general area where more citations of the same interpretation are better, but I've gotten rid of the first citation there. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- About Gunji Yoshu. Maybe this should be unlinked. Recently I read this article (without knowing it was up for FA review) and spent over an hour looking for the Japanese title. I looked everywhere and couldn't find anything except in Turnbull, who doesn't give the kanji. The quotes in Turnbull give the impression that it might be not a chronicle but a commentary on a chronicle. Anyway I don't know what this is, and would like to confirm it before using it. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Done at least, unlinked. Margin1522, this war chronicle seems to be referenced in a few other places ([22], [23]). The kanji for it are probably 軍事予習 or possibly 軍事豫習, but I think it is definitely a war chronicle, not a commentary. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Drive-by comments from Curly Turkey[edit]
- What WP:ENGVAR is this in? I see "archaeology" and "colored". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done. American English, and I honestly thought the term was always spelled with an ae. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's some sandwiching of images in "Categorization"—you'll want to move some of those images to other sections, or create a gallery. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
History of KFC[edit]
This article is about the history of KFC. Tom (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Can anyone explain why this article didn't pass the last time? Given that explanation, we can evaluate to see if those concerns have been dealt with. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- User:Stevietheman, User:Ceranthor had a few comments that I didn't have time to look into. but have since been addressed. Tom (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
comments by Auntieruth55[edit]
- overall this looks good. I've reached the 1990s, made a few tweaks, and have a few prose concerns:
- this sentence in particular has me boggled: PepsiCo was accused of behaving in an imperious manner towards franchisees, who it believed were holding back the firm's growth, while the franchisees believed they had been the backbone of the company during a succession of indifferent corporate owners.[76]
- there are a lot of sentences like this: was introduced at over 30 per cent of US outlets... which could be stronger.
- overall, I find few problems with the prose, other than case like those two above. I suggest that some of the very short paragraphs (2 sentences on death of Saunders, for example) be woven in elsewhere, instead of standing alone. I will get back to additional proofing tomorrow. auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The Boat Race 2003[edit]
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hot on the heels of "a man jumping in front of two boats" and "cleavers not spoons", I humbly submit to you this meagre offering. It seemed unlikely that anything would match the excitement of the 2002 race but this race took the proverbial biscuit. Dramaz beforehand with broken oars and wrists, and the closest finish in the long history of the event. The winning margin is estimated to have been approximately five hundredths of a second over the course of an 18-minute race. That's close. Anyway, as ever thanks for your time and energy should you feel the urge to review and comment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Support from SchroCat[edit]
As in the previous FAC, this is nicely put together and covers everything it should. One minor quibble first: the blades in "close contact". They are either in close proximity, or they are in contact. Close contact is a tautology.
Aside from that minor point, I happy to support as is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Reworded. Thanks for your review, updates, and everything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley[edit]
Happy to support. A really readable article (even to me for whom rowing is pronounced differently and is a domestic activity), balanced, well referenced and comprehensive. I have commented elsewhere that "The race is conducted as part of the Henley Boat Races, but in 2015 is slated to be held on the River Thames" seems geographically dubious, as Henley is on the River Thames, and a tweak there might be desirable. Also, I'm sure the nominator has an eye on WP:DATED, and will adjust the "slated for 2015" aspect next year, but I just mention the point (with a certain tentativeness, having in my time raised the same point at FACs by eminent contributors including Wehwalt and Ssilvers and being fairly robustly reassured). Otherwise, nothing but praise. This is one of the finest in a developing series of Boat Race articles that are collectively and individually a feather in Wikipedia's cap. Tim riley talk 13:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, yes, thanks for the support and I most certainly acknowledge that I'll need to update a fair few articles, around 60 or so come next Easter. Having said that, it's nothing compared to the fact that the official Boat Race website has changed from "theboatrace.org" to "theboatraces.org" (and removed /men and /women qualifiers) without bothering to add a single redirect. I've probably made 200 edits fixing that little treat! But hey ho. Thanks again for the time you've spent on my articles and your support, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I see this review is overdue some comments, so here we go:
- In the lead, "along the River Thames" is a bit vague. I would say "along the tidal stretch of the River Thames in south-west London", and I'd include the length of the race here, to give full force to the one-foot winning margin.
- Okay, have expanded a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the list of words used to describe the race, "incredible" appears in the lead, but is not in any of the quotations cited in the main text
- Have found the quote and added to reaction section. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- "In the reserve race Goldie beat Isis and Oxford won the Women's race." I don't think that this is leadworthy information, since neither of these facts is relevant to the race itself.
- But the reseve and women's race are expanded upon, albeit mildly, in the main article and I believe the lead should summarise the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the main text, Background section, rather than just saying "south-west London" you should give the starting and finishing points (Putney to Mortlake), and perhaps emphasise that the race is rowed upstream. (note "south-west" should be hyphenated)
- Added P&M, but the race hasn't alway been rowed upstream so I'm reluctant to add yet another "usually"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the term "bow-man". I may be wrong, but certainly at my (keen rowing) school we called him the "bow", and that's the term I remember from commentaries, press reports, etc. There is a linked article which seems to verify my feeling about this.
- Ok, replaced with a wikilinked bow. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- "line-up" is another word that in BritEng requires a hyphen (per Shorter OED and OD of E)
- Hyphenated. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- "The Cambridge crew had a 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member advantage" would be a little more elegant as "The Cambridge crew had an advantage of 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member."
- Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- "underdogs" – link to WP article
- really? I thought that was a common enough term. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are probably right. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- really? I thought that was a common enough term. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Link stroke
- Linked to Stroke (rowing)#Stroke seat. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the main race description I can only discern two changes in the race's lead: at Hammersmith Bridge when Oxford overtook Cambridge, and on the approach to Barnes Bridge when Oxford regained the advantage. The article lead says "The lead changed three times during the course of the race" – when did the third occur?
- Yes, this is leaning on the BBC description of the race. Both their and other wordy descriptions would imply that Oxford taking the lead from the start is included as one of the "changes", hence Oxford took the lead to start, then Cambridge overtook, then Oxford regained the lead, three lead changes... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced by this. Someone has to be the first to get their noses in front – this cannot be considered as a "change" in the lead. If Cambridge briefly took an initial lead and were then quickly passed by Oxford, OK, but did this happen? If so, it should be explicit in the race description. However, up to the Mile Post the Middlesex side has a slight advantage, before the big loop in the river starts to favour the Surrey side, so Oxford being initially in the lead is rather more likely. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, as I said, the BBC explicitly used the phrase "three times", but as you're not convinced, I've changed it to twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced by this. Someone has to be the first to get their noses in front – this cannot be considered as a "change" in the lead. If Cambridge briefly took an initial lead and were then quickly passed by Oxford, OK, but did this happen? If so, it should be explicit in the race description. However, up to the Mile Post the Middlesex side has a slight advantage, before the big loop in the river starts to favour the Surrey side, so Oxford being initially in the lead is rather more likely. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this is leaning on the BBC description of the race. Both their and other wordy descriptions would imply that Oxford taking the lead from the start is included as one of the "changes", hence Oxford took the lead to start, then Cambridge overtook, then Oxford regained the lead, three lead changes... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- The actual race description, a mere 277 words, does appear rather brief, given the crescendo of superlatives in the lead which introduces this account. Such an exciting race should surely be more fully described, and I am sure that a little more detail could be added. For example, you could point out the significance of the toss, and of Cambridge's choice of the Surrey side. Also, you mention Oxford's slightly higher stroke rate at the beginning of the race, but there is no further mention of stroke rate at other points in the rate. I would really like to know what the respective stroke rates were in the final minute or so of the race, when Cambridge closed in on Oxford's lead. There is a whole book about the race (Blood Over the Water); shouldn't this be a source?
- I will see if I can expand the race section a little without going into complete jargon meltdown (ratings etc I think are a little too dull for 99.9% of our readership, and often give a false impression in any case, a higher rating doesn't mean a faster boat as you know...) or synthesis (the heavier crews, selection of station etc are all steeped in statistics, which I can cover here, but I'm not sure how relevant any of it is to this specific race...) I can look into the book, but I guess it'll kibosh this nomination should you insist I need to get that source. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am sure you can achieve some expansion without going into "jargon meltdown"; I've read numerous sporting articles where this has been achieved (as well as others where it hasn't). My comment concerning relevant stroke rates was merely a suggestion, but it might enable you to mention what the relative rowing tactics of the two crews were – at present this is not touched on. And I do feel you need to explain the significance of the toss, which is of some importance, otherwise why mention it? Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, regarding the toss, I mention it because it forms part of the overall description of the day. I could describe the significance of the choice of station in each of the 160 boat race articles, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave that kind of generic detail to The Boat Race article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously I am not asking you to explain how the toss had impacted on all the previous 160 races. What I had in mind was something like this: "Cambridge won the coin toss and elected to start from the southern bank (the "Surrey side") of the Thames. In doing so, they yielded a slight initial advantage to Oxford, which they could hope to reverse after the first mile, when a major loop in the river's course favours the Surrey station". Personally I would find such an additional sentence helpful. I'm not insisting that you consult the Blood Over the Water source, although I think it would be interesting to do so, as it provides a perspective from the race's participants. I will not, however, oppose on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, it depends on the way the wind blows as well. There's no clear cut advantage, as the stats show. To claim such would be synthesis, and I'll leave it to the main article for a more comprehensive analysis of the 160 races to determine whether or not it makes a significant difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well I'm obviously hitting a brick wall here so I'll refrain from further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not really a brick wall, just a disagreement over the fact you want to include stuff in every one of the 160 articles which is generic; I believe this detail should go in the The Boat Race article, unless particularly relevant to a certain year's race. Thanks for your comments though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well I'm obviously hitting a brick wall here so I'll refrain from further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, it depends on the way the wind blows as well. There's no clear cut advantage, as the stats show. To claim such would be synthesis, and I'll leave it to the main article for a more comprehensive analysis of the 160 races to determine whether or not it makes a significant difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously I am not asking you to explain how the toss had impacted on all the previous 160 races. What I had in mind was something like this: "Cambridge won the coin toss and elected to start from the southern bank (the "Surrey side") of the Thames. In doing so, they yielded a slight initial advantage to Oxford, which they could hope to reverse after the first mile, when a major loop in the river's course favours the Surrey station". Personally I would find such an additional sentence helpful. I'm not insisting that you consult the Blood Over the Water source, although I think it would be interesting to do so, as it provides a perspective from the race's participants. I will not, however, oppose on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, regarding the toss, I mention it because it forms part of the overall description of the day. I could describe the significance of the choice of station in each of the 160 boat race articles, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave that kind of generic detail to The Boat Race article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am sure you can achieve some expansion without going into "jargon meltdown"; I've read numerous sporting articles where this has been achieved (as well as others where it hasn't). My comment concerning relevant stroke rates was merely a suggestion, but it might enable you to mention what the relative rowing tactics of the two crews were – at present this is not touched on. And I do feel you need to explain the significance of the toss, which is of some importance, otherwise why mention it? Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I will see if I can expand the race section a little without going into complete jargon meltdown (ratings etc I think are a little too dull for 99.9% of our readership, and often give a false impression in any case, a higher rating doesn't mean a faster boat as you know...) or synthesis (the heavier crews, selection of station etc are all steeped in statistics, which I can cover here, but I'm not sure how relevant any of it is to this specific race...) I can look into the book, but I guess it'll kibosh this nomination should you insist I need to get that source. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do we need the (albeit brief) descriptions of the reserve and women's races? The article is about the "Boat Race", not races, and we already have the results of these supporting events.
- It is, but the tradition around the event means that the reserve race and the women's blue race are considered relevant, hence the brief coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Citations to newspapers that don't have online links should have page numbers. See 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 33, 39
- Yeah, my oversight. I'll need to talk to my source source about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- All addressed now using URLs and the {{Subscription required}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel that the article needs a little further work, particularly the incorporation of material from what appears to be a highly relevant source, unused at present. I hope, however, that any additional material will retain the plain, spare prose style, which is a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the detailed review. I've fixed several of your points, one or two I'm not too sure of, one or two are still outstanding and I will address as soon as I can. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Noting that TRM (temporarily blocked) has asked on his talk page for this FAC to be withdrawn. I leave it to coordinator discretion whether to action this request (and if so how quickly), or whether this is now (thanks to the work of the reviewers above, as well as TRM) so close to the finishing post that it can be allowed to complete the course, with or without TRM's assistance in the last push. BencherliteTalk 13:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Having seen the same thing, I suggest to leave it open a bit. Perhaps it can be "rescued" in a collaborative effort? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Given some of the outstanding comments, I'm not sure if the article/review can be successfully adopted in TRM's absence (though feel free to try and convince me otherwise). I have however left a note at his talk page to say I'm happy to leave this open a bit longer if he'd consider returning to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll keep it open. However, beyond Brian's comments, some of which I don't agree with, there's nothing further to action right now... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Given some of the outstanding comments, I'm not sure if the article/review can be successfully adopted in TRM's absence (though feel free to try and convince me otherwise). I have however left a note at his talk page to say I'm happy to leave this open a bit longer if he'd consider returning to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]
- Repetive prose in the lead
-
- As a result of a collision between the Cambridge boat and a launch, a member of the Cambridge crew was replaced just two days before the race. As a result of his replacement, the race featured two sets of brothers, both on opposing sides, for the first time.
- As a result ... followed by next sentence starting with same.
Check throughout ?
- "The Boat Race is a side-by-side rowing competition ... " except according to The Boat Race, it was called that in 2003, but it is now the BNY Mellon Boat Race ... can a parenthetical be added to clarify that? All of the "Background" section is history, but the current name doesn't seem to be mentioned. (I may have missed it.)
- Cambridge's Tim Wooge, the 30-year-old stroke rowing in his third Boat Race, ... I don't know what this means? Is it rowing jargon I'm unfamiliar with, or is there a missing word? What is a "30-year-old stroke"?
- WP:NBSP check needed, eg 18 minutes.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)[edit]
- Nominator(s): JJARichardson (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC), User:Midnightblueowl.
Article about an American rocket scientist who is both recognized as a pioneer in 20th century engineering an an icon of modern occultism. The recommendations of the first FA review have been followed rigorously. We have expanded the article's reference body (including academic sources) to avoid over reliance on the Carter and Pendle sources and written more detailed descriptions of the scientific aspect of the subject's career. A copyedit by User:Chaosdruid has also significantly improved and provided a firm grounding for the clarity of its prose. I believe that this article now meets the FA standard. JJARichardson (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support per my review at the first nomination. It appears to have gotten even better since. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Note Since this review was opened I have expanded the text using two more references: this article on Parsons' scientific achievements and this article on he and Cameron's association to Kenneth Anger. JJARichardson (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent prose, it is well-referenced and meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- Usually it isn't necessary to include "(pictured)" in the caption
- File:Parsons_Kynette.jpg: why the EU template for a US image? Also, what steps have you taken to determine whether the original publication included a copyright notice? Same for File:1952_0618_parsons.jpg
- File:Marjorie_Cameron.jpg: source and licensing given are questionable. Getty Center attributes this image to the Cameron Parsons Foundation; it seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder, and unlikelier still that the image was their original creation. I have flagged this image on Commons for permissions issues, but if you have any more information about earlier publication that would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have edited the captions and deleted the problematic images outright. I think the article's formatting looks better without them. JJARichardson (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina[edit]
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I am nominating this article for FAC because it recently met the MILHIST A-Class criteria, and I believe meets the FA criteria. It was a significant revolt that preceded the communist-led uprising that occurred in Yugoslavia post the launching of Operation Barbarossa, and was in direct response to massacres of Serbs in eastern Herzegovina carried out by the fascist Ustaše regime in the Axis puppet state—the Independent State of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Independent_State_Of_Croatia_1941_Locator_Map.png: what source was used to create this map? Same with File:NezavisnaDrzavaHrvatskaDistricts.png, and the other two maps are sourced to the first one
- Hi Nikki, I think the maps are sorted now. Can you have a look? XrysD has provided the source info used to create the maps. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, those are fine now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Nikki, I think the maps are sorted now. Can you have a look? XrysD has provided the source info used to create the maps. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- File:Serbian_family_1941.jpg: direct image link is dead, and on what basis does the museum say this is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikki. The map(s) I'm following up with the creator on Commons. I've fixed the dead link on the family file, but all it says is that it is PD. The USHMM's generic copyright information is here. What do you think? On top of that, I think it would be a reasonable assumption that it would be PD-Yugoslavia/PD-SerbiaGov because Belgrade, Serbia is where the Museum is located. The former Museum of the Revolution and Nationalities of Yugoslavia has been absorbed by the Museum of Yugoslav History.
- I'm not sure I follow your argument - the Museum of Yugoslav History may hold the picture (and they might have more specific information on its original source and copyright status), but they are likely not the copyright holder, and without further information I don't know that we can conclude that this is a government work either (SerbiaGov is more limited than USGov). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, I've removed it. If I add anything in place of it, I'll run it past you first. Thanks for the image review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your argument - the Museum of Yugoslav History may hold the picture (and they might have more specific information on its original source and copyright status), but they are likely not the copyright holder, and without further information I don't know that we can conclude that this is a government work either (SerbiaGov is more limited than USGov). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited most of this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support The article is excellently written and meets the FA-criteria. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Jonas! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: G'day, the harvn script is identifying that there are no citations to Niehorster 2013. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tezero[edit]
Not a big MILHIST guy, so I reckon I'd be of some help here. A few initial comments:
- Is "NDH" a commonly known term? In English, moreover? I'd prefer simply seeing it referred to as "Croatia" if this isn't contextually ambiguous for another reason.
- G'day, thanks for your comments. The use of plain "Croatia" to refer to the NDH, a fascist puppet state that pursued genocidal policies towards the Serbs, Roma and Jews living on its territory, is considered POV, as it equates the modern state with the fascist one.
- Fair enough. I'm well aware that the former Yugoslav, Serbo-Croatian-speaking (well, in the eyes of most linguists) countries have rivalries that would make the rap world jealous, and I'm not trying to support one side or the other... or the other other, so please point out if anything I suggest leans that way. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- G'day, thanks for your comments. The use of plain "Croatia" to refer to the NDH, a fascist puppet state that pursued genocidal policies towards the Serbs, Roma and Jews living on its territory, is considered POV, as it equates the modern state with the fascist one.
- What's the Ustaše?
- What's a gendarmerie?
- a paramilitary police. I've added a link to the lead.
- The intro ought to cover the uprising's aftermath a little, especially considering its decent detail of the other sections.
- "ambushed a truckload of Italians" - I'm not sure I see the significance. Were they Italian soldiers? Diplomats? Reporters? Accordionists? Pizza chefs?
- soldiers, fixed.
- And by "the Italians", do you mean Italy as a nation, the group this small band was a part of, or just the small band itself?
- The Italian quasi-occupation forces, I've tweaked it.
- The intro also doesn't give a single mention of what kinds of weapons were used. I'm an American; I need guns and blood with everything - and with the gory details, if ya don't mind! It is rather odd, though, to explain this much about the logistics of the skirmish and nothing about what it was actually like down there.
Tezero (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand the motivation, but I'm not sure that specifying the actual weapons used is necessary or even desirable in this case. The frontline WWII Yugoslav rifle was the 7.92mm Mauser bolt-action M24 series made under licence in Yugoslavia, and the reservists were issued a locally-converted Austrian 7.92mm Mannlicher M95 series rifle of WWI vintage. Nearly all the troops that just went home after the April war would have been equipped with one of those rifles. Also, Yugoslav society was pretty weaponised at this stage, and there would have been a lot of civilian weapon types used by the rebels, from shotguns to single-shot rifles. So far as machine guns were concerned, the Yugoslavs had a huge range of automatic weapons they had acquired from available sources between the wars. I have never seen a source that specified the weapons that were used in the June revolt. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, at least you can specify that they were using rifles, as opposed to, I don't know, machine guns or tanks. I'm sure some source specifies that much. Tezero (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, moving on:
- Does battalion need to be linked?
- I think so, not everyone knows what one is.
- I'd prefer if Background and Prelude were split up into at least a couple of subsections each, especially as Background contains a few gargantuan paragraphs.
- Done.
- "threw their bodies into a nearby pit" - either simply state "sinkhole" or delink
- Done.
- Please link "Muslims" somewhere, perhaps to an article like "Islam in Bosnia" (haven't checked to see if that exists).
- Bosniaks, done.
- The section 27-28 June doesn't have the best flow imaginable; the first paragraph is hugely larger than the second, and every one of them except the last starts with "On such and such a day/time, such and such happened."
- Para split.
- Also split the paragraph beginning with "After the relief of Nevesinje".
- Done.
- Same with the single paragraph in Aftermath, especially because that constitutes the entire section.
- Done.
I'll be honest, the subject matter is very dry to me so I wasn't reading this in depth. I'll try to give a few more detailed comments later. Tezero (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments so far. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- "military command areas" - ???
- Added link
- "urged to Italians" - awkward phrasing
- absolutely, bizarre. Fixed.
- "a similar committee was formed in eastern Herzegovina" - what ethnic group? More Montenegrins? Eastern Herzegovinans? All Herzegovinans? And would they have been okay with joining the other pan-Montenegrin movement? Basically, similar in what way?
- in that they were separatists, have expanded on it. Let me know what you think?
- "link the region to that city" - ???
- have tried to clarify.
- "This was a measure that had already been implemented against Serbs by the Germans" - This doesn't necessarily have to go, but why is it relevant?
- establishes precedent, have expanded slightly
- "Professor Alija Šuljak" - Professor of what? Why is his occupation notable?
- University academic, PhD. Goes to the fact that the Ustase were not just uneducated peasants.
- "the newly raised" - awkward
- have changed to "recently formed"
- "platoon-strength" - ???
- added link and de-hyphenated.
- "velike župe" - It may well be both, but is this in Bosnian or Croatian? Probably worth a mention.
- templates added.
- "The NDH implemented genocidal policies against the Serb, Jewish and Romani populations" - Well, that escalated quickly. Any more details? Were any actually killed under these policies? If so, how many, and in what way? How long did it go on?
- Absolutely, have considered deleting that sentence before, as it essentially summarises the following section. Deleted now.
- "In response, Serbs attacked not only Ustaše officials and facilities, but also conducted raids themselves, killing Muslim villagers" - placing "attacked" before "not only" implies that the next clause will simply list another group they attacked. Either switch these phrases around or reword the second clause.
- reworded.
- "including some Montenegrins" - link earlier
Not done yet; will return with more. Tezero (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- "was beaten off" - I'm sure the rebels practiced a fair amount of metaphorical circle-jerking, but this wording is informal.
- "the balance of the battalion" (2 locations) - ???
- "finding a very unclear and serious situation" - placement implies that this situation will be immediately expounded on, but it doesn't look to be
- Merged a two-line paragraph into previous one; revert if noxious
- "who killed three and wounded 17 soldiers" - killed 3 civilians or 3 soldiers? If the former, specify; if the latter, change to "who killed three soldiers and wounded 17".
- "After the relief of Nevesinje" - awkward
- "the Ustaše sustained three dead" - awkward
- "(Serbo-Croatian: Narodni pokret za oslobođenje Nevesinja)" - Same in all varieties? Linguistic distinctions are an extremely sensitive issue here.
- "co-operation" - why the hyphen?
- Australian English generally hyphenates when there are two vowels.
- "and news of Operation Barbarossa" - ???
- "was "in the tradition" of the" - why does this need to be quoted?
- Is this all that can be said for the attempted uprising's aftermath? No more of a historical legacy?
- Consider alphabetizing categories
Anyway, those are all the concerns that stuck out to me. Ping when you've done or addressed them all. Tezero (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, are you planning to fix or otherwise address these? Tezero (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. Starting on it today, have been busy reviewing GAs for GA Cup. I'll ping you when I'm done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Olympic marmot[edit]
- Nominator(s): —innotata 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a rodent endemic to the Olympic Mountains of Washington state. I helped a little with getting it to GA a couple years ago. Revisiting the page, I think it is comprehensive enough and otherwise meets the FA criteria, and any issues with it can be dealt with in this featured article candidacy. —innotata 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim[edit]
- Usual thorough work, just a few queries before I formally support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- terrestrial animals and avian raptors, x2—context suggests "mammals" would be more accurate than "animals"
- Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps link coyotes, cougars, bobcats, black bears, golden eagle, Seattle
- Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Colonies of burrows—Colonies refers to animals not structures; if this is a specialised use, as it appears to be from later in the article, needs to be explained at first occurrence
- Rewritten. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- They are known for being very sociable—I'd lose "known for being"
- Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- large shape of its mandible—surely "size" rather than "shape"?
- Both shape and large size, it seems. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Olympic marmot is a folivorous... They—Singular subject, but plural pronoun in rest of paragraph
- Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- dominant male if the existing dominant male dies—perhaps something like "incumbent" to avoid repetition.
- Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- answered legislators' questions to overcome bipartisan opposition—How did it get through if both parties were united in opposing?
- Added 'initial'. Thanks for your comments! —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- No further concerns, changed to support above, god luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]
Being currently in a rodent frame of mind, I propose to review this article. In general it looks well-written and comprehensive. Here are a few points I noticed:
- "They enter hibernation in September, during which time they are in a deep sleep and do not eat" - "hibernation" is not a time but a state of inactivity.
- Done. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- "The significant difference of the Olympic marmot's jawbone from the typical Petramarmota is also evident in the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis), which evolved separately, but also occurs in a restricted range with a small population. - I'm unclear what this sentence means.
- Clarified. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the colour of adults. You mention various moults and various colours but I struggle to follow what colour the animal is at different ages and times of year.
- The two parts of the sentence starting "In the fall" are mutually inconsistent. If the colour change is the result of a moult, the colour is unlikely to further fade after surfacing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Think I clarified this. —innotata 03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Olympic marmots are folivorous (leaf-eaters) ..." - If they are folivores, should not their diet consist entirely of leaves?
- Leaves are clearly stated to be the main part of their diet. Typically when people say an animal is an x-vore they don't mean it never eats anything else. I'll address the rest of the comments later. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Passing thought - If they emerge from hibernation in May, mate 10 to 20 days later and gestate for a month the pups are born in about late June. They are weaned 10 weeks later which brings us to early September, just about time for them to start hibernating. How can the pups have built up enough body reserves in this time to survive a nine month period without food?
- Since writing the last comment I have read the Edelman source, #2, and see that the reproductive cycle is not as stated in the article, but is 10 weeks from mating to weaning and the juveniles enter into hibernation later than the adults. The National Park Service source, #12, to which some of this part of the article is referenced, is inaccessible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've clarified when they enter hibernation, and corrected the part on weaning. I think this is resolved. —innotata 05:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- At the moment I am tending to oppose this candidacy. Looking specifically at the Description and Feeding sections I see too many instances of the article text not correctly summarising the source text. Here are some examples but there are many more and I think the article should be gone through carefully comparing its content to its sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Hopefully I can fix this, soon. (Note that while I'm responsible for fixing the article if I want to get it to featured status, I didn't write most of it.) —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- The middle paragraph of the description section is confusing and still does not reflect the source in connection with the second moult. The part about the adult coat should be rewritten in a more coherent fashion. The final paragraph of the section needs to be consistent with the middle one.
-
- Rephrased. —innotata 20:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- The use of the word "folivorous". Neither source uses with this word and one of the sources states "The inflorescences and upper 6-10 cm of new growth are typically eaten." A folivore is a herbivore that specializes in eating leaves and this marmot does not.
-
- Removed folivore; someone just added it to increase links to the article anyway… —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Uses of the National Park Service source at #12 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg. " Marmots have a sharp, piercing whistle that warns others of intruders or potential predators, and notifies hikers that they are in marmot territory." has become "... in order both to alert other marmots and to tell the hiker that he or she is in the marmots' territory." The emphasized phrase is not the purpose of the call.)
-
- Removed these parts, will look through more of the article. —innotata 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Uses of the National Park Service source at #20 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg "... a longer growing season may allow marmots to grow more quickly, mature earlier, and breed more often" has become "... a longer growing season in which marmots could grow quickly and mature earlier, and thus breed more frequently throughout the year.")
-
- Removed "throughout the year" and rephrased a bit. —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- I couldn't find any more of the article that is inconsistent with this ref. (The section on young I changed somewhat, but it didn't have actual inaccuracies.) —innotata 17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Uses of the Edelman source at #2 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg The article states: "Olympic marmots also communicate through the sense of smell to mark their territory. A gland located in their cheek exudes chemicals which they rub on scenting points, such as shrubs and rocks, to indicate possession." This is not borne out by the source, in fact, as per this source, these marmots are not territorial within the colony, and the scent markings are social in nature.)
-
- I see this article was expanded/worked on as a class project which probably explains some of its deficiencies.
- In the feeding section it states that the marmot may kill late-hibernating chipmunks, but as far as I can see in snippet view, the source states "On two different occasions in the spring, I saw an Olympic marmot carrying a dead chipmunk in its mouth." I couldn't see the rest of the page, but it doesn't seem likely that it stated that the marmot had killed the chipmunks.
- Well, a number of the article's other sources simply say that Olympic marmots kill chipmunks; I think an earlier paper mentions this behavior, so I'll see if I can find it. If I can't find any more specific information, I suppose I should change the text to reflect that Barash only provided anecdotal accounts of them carrying dead chipmunks. As for whether they killed the chipmunks, Barash says marmots can't kill chipmunks above ground, but probably do kill them while they are hibernating. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Changed it: they definitely scavenge for carrion, as many marmots do, and possibly they kill hibernating chipmunks as well. —innotata 06:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, a number of the article's other sources simply say that Olympic marmots kill chipmunks; I think an earlier paper mentions this behavior, so I'll see if I can find it. If I can't find any more specific information, I suppose I should change the text to reflect that Barash only provided anecdotal accounts of them carrying dead chipmunks. As for whether they killed the chipmunks, Barash says marmots can't kill chipmunks above ground, but probably do kill them while they are hibernating. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- The second paragraph in the lead has the animal's weight mentioned at both the beginning and end. This duplication seems excessive.
- Eh? There's no duplication, as it mentions the typical weight, and then sexual dimorphism. I brought these sentences together. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- The third paragraph in the lead mentions dried grasses, but these are not mentioned in the same way in the feeding section.
- Rewritten. —innotata 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- "During a study in the Olympic Mountains, 36 droppings were compiled and two of them contained marmot hairs." - I don't think "compiled" is the right word here.
- Collected is better. Done. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Bears probably rarely prey on marmots, as their presence close to colonies generally does not raise alarm calls unless the bear advances up to 6 m (20 ft) from the colony." - The first part of this statement is borne out by the source but not the second part, as far as I can see.
- Specified the ref for that. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Cestodes and fleas use the Olympic marmot as a host, showing a secondary role for the marmot within its ecosystem." - It is difficult to view having parasites as a "role" and this is certainly not mentioned in the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is a role, eh… but that does not need to be included in this article. Removed. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think I've resolved all the issues raised, apart from the chipmunk-eating one (and see my response; will get around to looking presently). —innotata 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is a role, eh… but that does not need to be included in this article. Removed. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's looking better. I did a little copyediting. A few more points:
- Thanks. Fixed one of your copyedits. —innotata 14:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- The final paragraph of the Colonies section does not read very smoothly.
- Improved it, somewhat, anyway. —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- "... because they have more weight to gain." --> "because they need to gain more weight.
- Done. —innotata 14:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- The sentences in the first paragraph of the section Hibernation are a bit disordered and could benefit from being re-ordered chronologically.
- Done. —innotata 15:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- "... when colonies stabilized and survival rates rose to around 4,000." - A survival rate is a percentage figure. Do you mean the total population increased to 4,000? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am having another look through the article and in general I think it much improved: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- One image caption states "Clinton Hart Merriam, the discoverer of the Olympic marmot". He didn't discover it (I'm sure the native Americans knew it was there), he was the first to describe it.
-
- I think you can still say he discovered it, but sure, changed it. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Bears probably rarely prey on marmots" - Are these the black bears mentioned earlier in this paragraph? If they are grizzly bears you could mention that and wikilink them.
-
- No they're black bears, so I tweaked the section. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good! I am now supporting this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Image check - all OK[edit]
- File:OlympicMarmotImageFromNPSFlipped.jpg - added archive links (make sure, images have valid, active source links) - OK.
- File:Olympic_Marmot_Range_Map.svg -
needs a source for the depicted distribution range. Unfortunately the original map lacks this info too. - (optional) the map has 2 SVG-internal errors. If you know someone fluent in SVG, it would be nice to fix those.
- Flickr-images show no signs of problems or Flickr-washing - OK.
Except 1 minor point (#2) all files have sufficient source and author information, and are CC. GermanJoe (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The range map was based on information in the IUCN Red List. It would be easier for me to me to make new maps, so I'll do that if I get the time. —innotata 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from FunkMonk[edit]
I'll give this a read soon. I overlooked this nomination because it started with "olympic", and I hate sports articles, so only noticed it was about an animal today... FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article doens't have any image that shows the entire animal. The ones that are available are not very good,but I think we should have at least one until a replacement can be found. Here are the "best" ones:[24][25][26][27][28] FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also, these images are probably on par with, if not better, than what's in the article: [29][30] Here's a pretty bad one showing dark parts:[31] FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, replaced a couple images. —innotata 07:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- "treated as a distinct species, a treatment" Sounds a bit repetitive, could the last treatment become "position" or some such?
- Changed to 'classification'. —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Shouldn't hoary marmot and other species (as well as everything else linked in the lead) be linked at first mention after the lead?
- Done —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- A cladogram could perhaps be nice under taxonomy?
- I don't think so. There's not much confidence to branching within Petramarmota, so all that can be said is that the species could be the most basal Petramarmota (ie, it is the sister taxa to all the others). —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- How do they identify predators, by smell, sight, or both?
- Definitely mostly sight, in common with other ground-dwelling squirrels. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- "and interact with other marmots only in the morning and evening. In between these times, Olympic marmots can sometimes be found lying on rocks where they sun themselves for warmth, grooming each other, playing, chirping, and feeding together." Doesn't this contradict itself?
- I removed the first part, since it seems like that's the mistake. —innotata 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- "On some occasions, the other marmots in the colony will make a trip over to the satellite male's burrow since he cannot leave that area, often about two times an hour." For what purposes?
- The source doesn't explicity say, so I hesitate to change this. To keep tabs on him in some way, for the respective reasons of the dominant male and the females. —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- "By 2006, numbers had dropped to 1,000 individuals" From what? The earlier estimate is explained as inaccurate.
- Some unknown number higher than 2,000; as stated in the article, conservationists knew the old counts were underestimates, but that more accurate new ones were even lower. That's how it looks, at least. —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- "to overcome initial bipartisan opposition to a new state symbol" What was the former?
- No, the opposition was to adding a state symbol, a "state endemic mammal" as well as a "state bird" and "state flower" and so on. This is a common thing here, some states have a couple dozen symbols, and mine has a state photograph and state muffin. I think this makes sense in context, but I suppose it could be changed to "another" or "an additional". —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Only one issue to be addressed before I support. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support - everything addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Cas Liber[edit]
taking a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- 3 consecutive paras in Description section all begin ,"The Olympic marnot..." - mix it up a little?
-
- About 90% of Olympic marmots' total habitat is located.. --> would change to "their" - alot of "Olympic's in this segment of prose...
Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note -- Was there a source review for formatting and reliability above? Pls seek one on WT:FAC if not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Dudley Miles[edit]
- "with adult males weighing on average 2.2 kg (4.9 lb) more than females". Sexual dimorphism is the proportional difference, and I think it should be stated here as percentage or ratio rather than absolute difference.
- I would expect average life expentancy in the lead.
- "Zoologist R. L. Rausch classified the Olympic marmot and other North American species as subspecies olympus of Marmota marmota (which now only includes the Eurasian Alpine marmot)" It might be my ignorance of taxonomic classification, but I cannot make sense of this. North American marmots are sub-species of a genus of which the only member is a Eurasian marmot?
- "Continuing alarm calls indicate that a predator is close, and thus increase vigilance in the marmots; a single alarm call results in the marmots still curiously looking around for the predator." This appears to say that the single call is the first when a predator is distant, so why "still" looking around, not "start" looking?
- " a burrow is often home to a newly born litter and a year-old litter." Presumably as a female gives birth every second year, these would have different mothers?
- "they have four different types of whistles,[26] differing in this from their close relatives, the hoary marmot and the Vancouver Island marmot." What is the difference?
- A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from SandyGeorgia
I tried my hardest to find nitpicks, but it looks like the animal reviewers still have it. I did find a WP:NUMERAL issue ("until they reach 2 years of age" should be two). And since the long citations end in a period, would it be more visually pleasing for the short citations to also end in a period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Typhoon Karen[edit]
- Nominator(s):
Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Typhoon Karen in 1962 is regarded as one of the wost natural disasters in the history of Guam. A powerful Category 5-equivalent storm, Karen battered the island with winds estimated at 285 km/h (185 mph), destroying the majority Guam's infrastructure and devastating the environment. Some referred to the wasteland left behind as "hell" with almost nothing left standing in the storm's wake. Despite the ferocity of Karen, relatively few people lost their lives. In the years following Karen, a massive change in how the United States handled Guam took place. Formerly an area of military occupation, Karen paved the way for military security to disbanded and allowed the economy to flourish.
From a mighty disaster came a new beginning for Guam. Both the economy and infrastructure of the island were overhauled due to the typhoon and Karen is the key catalyst that has made Guam what it is today. I hope you all enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it! Regards,
Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Support as GA reviewer. That being said, I have just a few tiny nitpicks.
- You should explicitly mention SSHS in the lead if you're gonna say Category 5.
- Link maximum sustained winds in the lead?
- " Total losses on the island amounted to $250 million" - are losses and damages the same?
- "either California, Hawaii, or Wake Island" - either implies only two. I'd drop that word.
- " it was later attributed with improving" - change "with" to "to"
- Maybe indicate where Truk is in the MH? Otherwise, if you started upon reading the MH, there is no indication which ocean or continent the storm formed near.
- "The lowest verified pressure was 931.9 mb (hPa; 27.52 inHg) at the Agana Naval Air Station." how is this the lowest if the one after it was lower?
- The lead says that Karen reached peak intensity after Guam, but the MH doesn't mesh with that. How come?
- "Wind gusts over the southern tip of Guam were estimated to have peaked around 185 km/h (115 mph)." ... " Based on this measurement, a study in 1996 estimated that gusts peaked between 280 and 295 km/h (175 and 185 mph) over southern areas of the island." = see the problem?
- "The ROK Han Ra San and RPS Negros Oriental sunk" --> "sank"
Just those few little things. I'm still happy to support :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- Just noting ... several of those were fixed, "sank" wasn't. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Now I've checked all of them and fixed "sank". All were fixed except possibly the one about "wind gusts". - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Image check - all OK
- File:Radar_image_of_Typhoon_Karen_on_November_8,_1962_at_1405Z.jpg - added courtesy info to image description - OK.
All images have sufficient source and author information and are either CC or work of the US military. GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- Per WP:MOSTIME: "Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used; in both, colons separate hours, minutes and seconds". I put in colons in half of the article already; please do the rest.
- "The damage across Guam was described as "'much more serious than that of 1944' when [United States] troops liberated the island."[1]": That's more of a spotcheck problem: you're representing material quoted from two sources as if it came from one source.
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Going through the article again, I'll finish tomorrow morning, looking good so far. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, went through it again, found and fixed some instances of the problems Andy points out. Still supporting on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, 1a. I started reading at Aftermath and didn't make it far.
-
- Very good to see you back, Andy. I'm frustrated by some of your suggestions below, but I know from experience that you're a good copyeditor. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "they were delayed due to the inoperable airstrips" is ungrammatical; "due to" is only appropriate when it can be replaced by "attributable to" or "caused by", i.e. used as an adjective.
- m-w.com, usage note: "Due to is as grammatically sound as owing to, which is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognized as standard for decades. There is no solid reason to avoid due to."
- dictionary.com (from the Random House Dictionary), usage note: "due to occurs commonly as a compound preposition and is standard in all varieties of speech and writing."
- Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style, p. 264: "both [meanings] are fine".
- American Heritage Dictionary, usage note: "the tide has turned toward accepting due to as a full-fledged preposition". - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Despite damage at the Guam Memorial Hospital, other civilian and military installations were able to handle injured persons as many were transferred to the Navy's hospital" I can't parse this sentence. Why would people be transferred to the Navy hospital "despite damage"?
- Thanks. I've improved readability with: "Guam Memorial Hospital was damaged, but other civilian ...".
- "Additionally, he instituted a curfew between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m." lacks clarity. The curfew was from 8 to 6, but why write it to introduce the ambiguity that he performed the action during that time frame?
- Andy, tell 10 people that someone set a curfew between 8 and 6, and ask them if they thought that you meant that the person chose a time between 8 and 6 to say that they were setting a curfew for some other time. If any of them understood the sentence that way, I'll rewrite it. If none of them do, then the sentence isn't ambiguous.
- "At schools, teachers were called in to guard supplies and equipment" Again, ambiguous writing. The calling was done at the schools? Better: "Teachers were called into schools to guard supplies and equipment."
- I see what you're saying, but for me, the outside possibility that someone will misread it is more than compensated by the better flow of the text as it is: it establishes the setting with the very first noun.
- "Additionally, a 15-man team ... were deployed" Normal for British English, not elsewhere.. are we going there, and being consistent?
- Thanks for catching that, but I don't like your fix. It was "Additionally, a 15-man team of United States Air Force communications technicians were deployed"; the "was" would grate after all those plurals. I changed it to "Additionally, 15 United States Air Force communications technicians were deployed ...".
- "It was also estimated that schools on the island would be closed for six months." Here and elsewhere you use the passive tense and avoid stating a subject. Is the subject unknown, or unimportant? In the previous sentence it was Guerrero doing the estimating.
- The source says "Officials estimated that schools would be closed for six months." Why is that better than "It was also estimated that schools on the island would be closed for six months"? Who cares who the officials were? I'll read through checking for passive voice to see if the writers are misusing it, but they aren't misusing it in this case.
- Photo caption uses the "massive junkyard" quotation; it's in quotation marks earlier in the prose but not here?
- Fixed.
- There is some error ("chapter=ignored") in the References section.
- Cyclonebiskit, can you have a look?
Looks like it needs a once-over. --Laser brain (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- I'll go through it again. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Checking on passive voice ... none of these are a problem for me, are they a problem for you?
- "Typhoon Karen was the most powerful tropical cyclone to strike Guam and was regarded as one of the most destructive events in the island's history.[1] Karen was first identified as a tropical disturbance on November 6, 1962, well to the southeast of Truk."
- "It was regarded as the worst typhoon to ever strike the island."
- "only 11 people were killed"
- "Thousands more were sheltered in public buildings and later tent villages for many months."
- "More than $60 million in relief funds were sent to Guam over the following years to aid in rehabilitation."
- "On November 6, 1962, a tropical disturbance was identified over the Pacific Ocean ..." - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the responses. I don't have a problem with any of these, nor a problem with any of your responses—I fully recognize that many items in grammar are subjective. I think you misinterpreted some of my comments as requests for changes when I was really just asking the author to check his assumptions against mine. For example, no person would misunderstand the curfew sentence but ambiguous writing is just a poor practice to be in, and it often confuses ESL readers. Re: passive vocie, when one reads a sentence in the passive voice, the assumption is that the subject is either unknown or unimportant. I'm just asking to make sure that assumption is correct. Oh, and the "due to" item is widely discussed and disputed—I happen to consider it clunky and there are much more elegant ways of stating the point. Will read through again tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Going through again. I also look for "due to" when I'm copyediting, mostly because of WP:Checklist#because, and because "due to" will sometimes force what would have been a verb to turn into a flabby noun. I just found one of these objectionable due tos and rewrote it ... I also found a case of passive voice that shouldn't have been passive (we know that Guerrero said it, and we should say that). Let me know if you see anything else that needs fixing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. And, I'm sorry but I keep getting delayed in finishing my read-through. Will do my best to finish up within the next 24h. Do we know where the nominator is? They haven't edited this page since it opened. Are you the proxy? --Laser brain (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
-
- No rush. I'm helping out. I'll start off with a message on the nom's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
-
Additional comments
- "Karen underwent a period of explosive intensification as its eye became small and increasingly defined." I'm having a lot of trouble relating things like this to the source provided. On what page does this information appear?
- All the constructions similar to "35 km (22 mi) wide eye" are odd to me as they are all missing the necessary hyphen. It's ungainly and needs rewriting. Curiously, I clicked through several other Typhoon FAs and didn't notice this construction in use at all. Most of them mention the eye or the eyewall but don't provide measurements.
- I agree. I allowed it because a variety of other writers like it, and I haven't been able to win the fight to get rid of it, but "35 km (22 mi) wide eye" is just clunky. - Dank (push to talk)
- "After attaining this initial peak intensity on November 9" Is there another peak intensity?
- Later, "Continuing west-northwestward, Karen attained its peak intensity on November 13" This is confusing to me, the lay reader. How many peaks are there?
- He's using the term sources use in general, but I agree with you that that usage is jargony. I'll raise this issue over at WT:TROP in my current thread there. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Closest to the eye was Naval Magazine where a pressure of 907.6 mb (hPa; 26.80 inHg) was estimated but never verified." This (among other things) are sourced to a letter to the editor of a magazine. Why is that a reliable source? Doesn't it matter who wrote the letter? What's implied is that someone at Naval Magazine wrote a letter claiming they made this measurement, but this needs a lot more clarity.
- I personally consider the Mariners Weather Log a reliable source since it has been held in high regard by the meterological community for a long time and was even saved from being put out of existance in 1995 after several letters/phone calls testifyed as to the value of the magazine. This is backed up by meterological services from all around the world, who have contributed various reports and letters into it for publication etc. Having been given digital copies of all of the issues last year i have gone and read the letter in question and can state that the letter was written by the Meterologist in Charge of the Guam Weather Station. However, all of the pressure readngs were contained within an editors comment on the letter, but i do not see any comments on if they were verified.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Damage to vegetation was total across central areas of the island, with complete defoliation taking place." Just not well-written. "Damage was total" sits very oddly.
- Changed to "Vegetation was completely defoliated across central areas of the island". - Dank (push to talk)
- "Military structures suffered the most from this phenomenon as the buildings were designed in a way that pressure differences between the interior and exterior would not equal out." No, the source doesn't really say that.
- "like being 'shrapnel or artillery missiles.'" Again, just awkward phrasing.
- Crap, that was a typo I introduced yesterday when I fixed something else. Fixed now. - Dank (push to talk)
- I'm not too comfortable going much further with this due to the absentee nominator, but I'm pretty readily finding glitches everywhere I look. I don't think it's ready. --Laser brain (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The sourcing problems could be quite significant, but odds are someone over at WT:TROP will fix them, in this FAC or the next one. I'll ask. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note -- This has been open a long time but I'm loathe to archive it when you guys are actively reviewing/editing. If the nominator has left, however, we may not have many options -- will check back in a day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I left a msg yesterday at the nom's talk page, and today at WT:TROP. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- As a friend of Cyclonebiskits on Facebook - i have dropped him a PM today but it would not surprise me if hes rather busy in real life.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, this article slipped my mind. I'm busy this weekend with family but I'll try to read through what I can when time allows. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- As a friend of Cyclonebiskits on Facebook - i have dropped him a PM today but it would not surprise me if hes rather busy in real life.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2010 Sylvania 300[edit]
- Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the 2010 running of the Sylvania 300, a NASCAR race at New Hampshire Motor Speedway. Nascar1996 originally brought this article to GA status on November 2010, almost four years ago. Shortly thereafter, the article was taken to peer review. The goal was for this to be taken to FAC; however, for whatever reason, that never happened. After doing some additional copyediting and addressing all of the peer review comments, I now believe the article is complete and meets the criteria. I'll also add that this is pretty much uncharted territory as there are no other NASCAR related articles currently at FA status. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey:, thank you for your comments. I am going to be quite busy over the next few days and am unsure how much I'll be able to accomplish, but I'll try to address these concerns by the end of the weekend at the latest. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, I may be around a bit tonight, but I cannot promise that I'll be able to anything before the weekend. But I promise I WILL get to it as soon as I can. Thanks! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, I think I've got everything taken care of with the exception of double-checking the quotes, which I will get to before the day is over. Thanks for your review; I have to head out for a bit now, but I'll finish addressing the concerns as soon as I can. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]
- Please note that I know nothing about racing—I didn't even know what a stock car was before clicking through to find out. I'll assume the level of play-by-play detail is appropriate. Feel free to disagree with any of my comments or revert any of my copyedits.
- Not necessary for FA, but you might want to consider alt text for the images
- Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a good idea to set image sizes, as it overrides user settings
- Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not necessary, but you could add a {{Portal|Motorsport}}
- Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
- was a [[NASCAR]] [[Sprint Cup Series]] [[stock car]] race: when links appear side-by-side they appear as a single link; can this be recast so that the three links appear separate? Also, you might want to link all of "stock car race", as the target is "stock car racing" rather than "stock car"
-
- Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- which ends the season: "ends" and not "ended"? As the rest of the sentence is in th epast tense, if this is really supposed to be "ends", perhaps it could be qualified (e.g. with "normally", "regularly", whatever) so it doesn't appear to be switching between tenses.
-
- Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- leading the most laps with 176: this doesn't appear to be in the body anywhere—it's only mentioned in an image caption. Also, I had no idea what it meant until I read that caption—maybe rewrite it here the way it is in the caption?
-
- Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- after suffering a post-race penalty: "suffering" almost makes it sound undeserved
-
- Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Report[edit]
- one of ten intermediate tracks to hold NASCAR races: maybe "that hold" or "for holding"?
-
- Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- The third and final session lasted 60 minutes.: this is just excess verbiage when you could just say ", and the (third|last) 60 minutes."
-
- Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Forty-five drivers were entered for qualifying: is "were entered for qualifying" somehow different from simply "qualified"?
-
- Tweaked. Is this better? Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- The two drivers who failed to qualify for the race were Jeff Green and Johnny Sauter.: you might want to bump this back to the bit about the qualifying procedure
-
- Not done. If you insist this is better wording, then I will fix; however, the drivers who failed to qualify are usually mentioned last in qualifying reports. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Once qualifying concluded Keselowski said, "I felt I got a shot at the pole before I qualified but you never really know. When I ran the lap I knew I gave up a little bit of time right in the middle of both corners but I had a plan going into it and stuck to it and it worked. I’m really proud of that lap.": I'm not sure what this quote adds to the article.
-
- Again, if you insist, I'll remove it, but to me, it's the pole winner describing his lap, just as the winner would describe the race. While it may not be necessary, I don't think it hurts the article or falls under anything such as WP:TRIVIA. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Other Chase drivers were farther down the scoring list,: Well, obviously, unless there's a zeroeth position.
-
- Removed. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Allmendinger fell to twenty-fifth after pit stops due to having run out of fuel on his way in: on his way in where?
-
- The pits, Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Martin's car suffered a flat tire and the fourth caution was given: due to the flat tire?
-
- Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Clint Bowyer appeared in victory lane: should this be "the victory lane"?
-
- "Victory lane" is the term used for where the winner celebrates, receives the trophy, gives interviews, etc. Therefore, it stays as is.
- how many cars on the lead lap: is this quote correct? If it is, you might want to add a {{sic}}
- The biggest thing is going to be going to the race track: is "to the race track" in the original?
- is going to have to have trouble: is "to have to have" in the original?
-
- I'll get to the quotes later. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I double-checked, and all the quotes appear to be correct as stated in the sources. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll get to the quotes later. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Results[edit]
- In "Standings after the race", you might want to consider {{div col}} with "|colwidth=<something appropriate>" instead of {{col-start}} with a hard number of columns. Setting a colwidth allows the browser to choose whether to put the tables side-by-side or one after the other based on the size of the screen; using a hard number of columns will force the second column off-screen on small screens or screens that are taller than they are wide (say, on smartphones).
-
- I apologize for what could be seen as a "dumb" question, but as my 7th grade teacher once said, "The only dumb question is the one you don't ask." How exactly do you do this? I've tried altering this and can't seem to come out with something that looks good. Do you mind doing the honors and fixing it yourself or at least giving me text that I can copy and paste into the article? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I tried to handle it with this edit---I forgot to add MOS:DTAB formatting to those tables before, so I've done that too. For some reason the tables won't align---I've looked at the html produced and can't see why. Do they align in your browser? If it's an issue, just revert it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it still doesn't look right (the exact same thing happened when I was testing it out), but thanks for your efforts! I hope you don't mind, but since it seems to be an issue for both of us, I've reverted it back to where it was after your first edit seems to have gone through fine, though. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that's unfortunate, but I don't see a fix, other than simply dropping the columns entirely (which is an option). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it still doesn't look right (the exact same thing happened when I was testing it out), but thanks for your efforts! I hope you don't mind, but since it seems to be an issue for both of us, I've reverted it back to where it was after your first edit seems to have gone through fine, though. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I tried to handle it with this edit---I forgot to add MOS:DTAB formatting to those tables before, so I've done that too. For some reason the tables won't align---I've looked at the html produced and can't see why. Do they align in your browser? If it's an issue, just revert it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize for what could be seen as a "dumb" question, but as my 7th grade teacher once said, "The only dumb question is the one you don't ask." How exactly do you do this? I've tried altering this and can't seem to come out with something that looks good. Do you mind doing the honors and fixing it yourself or at least giving me text that I can copy and paste into the article? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- You might want to replace the semicolon syntax for pseudo-headers (e.g. ";Drivers' Championship standings") with bolding (i.e. "'''Drivers' Championship standings'''") or even actual headers (i.e. "===Drivers' Championship standings==="), as it would be more semantic—the semicolon syntax is meant to create a definition list, the bolding of which is incidental (somebody someday might decide it's better for definition list terms to appear in italics, in pink, or as a marquee). Using unsemantic markup can affect, for example, screenreaders, which may tell their users that a definition list is about to begin—and then it doesn't.
-
- This is how it is done on almost every other article like this. I'd very strongly prefer to leave it this way for consistency's sake, but if you want it changed that badly, I'll give in. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not to imply that you're "foolish" or anything, but I think this is "foolish consistency" territory. Using the semicolon for bolding is so persistent because it's easy, not because it's appropriate. Anyways, in this case the headers would be best as "|+" captions rather than what I suggested above. If you undo the div cols I added, I'd suggest retaining the captions at least.
- This is how it is done on almost every other article like this. I'd very strongly prefer to leave it this way for consistency's sake, but if you want it changed that badly, I'll give in. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- One more thing here---the in the "Drivers' Championship standings" the "Points" are centred, but in the "Manufacturers' Championship standings" they are right aligned. Any reason for that? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed the alignment issue, and hopefully the header issue as well, let me know if it still looks off to you. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm ready to support. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie[edit]
Support. The article is in good shape. A couple of minor comments below.
I was surprised by the level of detail on lead changes; can you confirm that this is normal detail for an article about a NASCAR race?- There is no "normal detail for an article about a NASCAR race" because the quality of the articles can be vastly different from one race to the next. Some pre-2007 races don't even have articles yet. However, the other articles that are at GA status put this much detail into the race summary; I can try to trim if you insist it is too much, but there are other articles that go into this much detail. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's fine; I guess I should have asked if this level of detail is what an aficionado would expect, and it seems the answer is yes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "normal detail for an article about a NASCAR race" because the quality of the articles can be vastly different from one race to the next. Some pre-2007 races don't even have articles yet. However, the other articles that are at GA status put this much detail into the race summary; I can try to trim if you insist it is too much, but there are other articles that go into this much detail. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence says the race is "a stock car racing competition involving the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series". "Involving" doesn't seem quite right -- it's a part of the series, so the series includes it, but I don't see why one would say it "involves" the series. I'd suggest cutting the reference completely as the best way to fix it, because the next line explains that it's part of the 2010 series. As it stands it's a little repetitious, and I don't think the reader loses any information if you cut it.- Done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
"Bowyer appeared in victory lane": shouldn't this be "in the victory lane"?- See above. "Victory lane" is the term used for where the winner celebrates; similarly, "pit road" is not "the pit road" because it is the actual name for the area of the track where the pit crews service the cars. If one "the" is going to keep this from reaching FA, I'll change it, but the above reasoning is why the "the" is not currently included. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- No longer an issue as the phrase has been removed entirely. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- If that's the standard terminology, I see no problem with keeping it, unless you had other reasons to change it. I've struck my comment, but I think it would be fine to go back to your original terminology, which I assume is what a NASCAR fan would expect, and link it to victory lane. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tweaked again, let me know if it's still an issue. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- If that's the standard terminology, I see no problem with keeping it, unless you had other reasons to change it. I've struck my comment, but I think it would be fine to go back to your original terminology, which I assume is what a NASCAR fan would expect, and link it to victory lane. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No longer an issue as the phrase has been removed entirely. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- See above. "Victory lane" is the term used for where the winner celebrates; similarly, "pit road" is not "the pit road" because it is the actual name for the area of the track where the pit crews service the cars. If one "the" is going to keep this from reaching FA, I'll change it, but the above reasoning is why the "the" is not currently included. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll look at the issues below later. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
How does the given reference support the comment about Bowyer appearing in [the] victory lane?- Done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Footnote 27 is used to support the comment about Bowyer's car's rear bodywork being the cause of the problem, but it looks like it should be citing 28 instead.- Done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Any reason not to mention the team's plan to appeal? Did they appeal, and if so what was the outcome?- I did not mention the team's plan to appeal because the team did not plan to appeal. Most NASCAR penalties, even ones as severe as this one, are simply accepted by the teams if it is clear the acknowledged their mistakes. That appears to be the case here, as I can't find anything that confirms the team ever appealed the penalty. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- In this article Childress is quoted as saying he would appeal; of course that doesn't mean he actually did appeal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I admit I missed that. I'll try to research that; of course, if they did appeal, the penalties were not overturned, but I'll take a look. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I messed up. The team apparently did appeal, as seen here. I'll make an addition discussing the appeal and the results.
- I did not mention the team's plan to appeal because the team did not plan to appeal. Most NASCAR penalties, even ones as severe as this one, are simply accepted by the teams if it is clear the acknowledged their mistakes. That appears to be the case here, as I can't find anything that confirms the team ever appealed the penalty. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Okay, I believe this is now resolved. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- That looks good. I think it would be even better to mention Childress's argument about the wrecker pushing the car; the tolerance error was tiny, and his explanation seemed plausible to me and I'm sure would interest most readers. Could we add a few more details about the appeal? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I added some more details. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I added some more details. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- That looks good. I think it would be even better to mention Childress's argument about the wrecker pushing the car; the tolerance error was tiny, and his explanation seemed plausible to me and I'm sure would interest most readers. Could we add a few more details about the appeal? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I believe this is now resolved. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for your comments, Mike. I'm currently driving home from New York, but I'll be home by the end of the night and will try to address these issues over the weekend. Thanks, again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
William Wurtenburg[edit]
- Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I present William Wurtenburg, a very obscure 19th century American football coach. Born and raised in New York, going to Yale and playing on its football team appear to be the climax in Wurtenburg's life. He was a college football coach for six years, then spent the rest of his life giving people ear exams. Prior to my work on this article, the most comprehensive biography of Wurtenburg was a two-paragraph mention in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography. After a few months of hard work, I now believe this article will be the most comprehensive work ever made about this man. I received some help from Jweiss11 on fixing some of the mistakes I had made, and this now appears to be some of Wikipedia's best work (definitely its best on a random, obscure college football coach). - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments – I have to say that I'm disappointed nobody has given this a review, nearly a month into the FAC. When I went through the article, I found it to be well worth my time. There are a few issues detailed below, but I think this is solid overall and deserves more attention than it's getting.
Early life and college: Do either of the sources provided explain why Wurtenburg was ejected from the Princeton game? That is a point that caught my interest, and it may explain why Barbour replaced him.
-
- Unfortunately not. The New York Times source is citing the fact that Barbour was the replacement quarterback, while Whitney (1891), which cites his ejection, simply states "[...] when Wurtenburg was disqualified in the Yale-Princeton game".
1890s: Whether the Quakers' name is Penn or Pennsylvania should be made consistent throughout.
-
- Done. Changed the one Pennsylvania to "Penn".
Who was Navy's third rival in 1894? I see Penn and Penn State, with no Army game, and the lead says they played three rivalry games that year.
-
- The third is Navy's "friendly rival" Georgetown. Added that to the article.
In the bibliography, the last book citation has a nasty red error message. Not sure why, but the year range could be the cause.Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I think its probably due to both the date range and the c. Considering the range is all that is available, I don't know what to do with this.
-
- You could try removing the circa and just leaving the date range, which would be accurate in a sense since he wrote the content in different years. I don't know offhand if that would fix it, but the idea may be worth a shot. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Alright, I removed the circa and it appears to have fixed the problem. Thanks for following up. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, I believe I have dealt with them to the best of my ability. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 02:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support – All of my comments are now resolved and I'm satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. Again, I hope other reviewers decide to spend some time with this one; I'd hate to see the FAC be archived due to a lack of reviews. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- The word "shutout" is overused.
- Your edits have dealt with this concern. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie[edit]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I'll add comments here as I go through the article. I've completed a pass through; this looks like a solid article, but I have a few questions and comments below.
"His final contribution to football was publishing a book about Yale football": is the title known? If so, it should be included.- It seems to be this, which appears to be a scrapbook of clippings he put together and deposited in the Yale library rather than a published book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Struck; sorry, didn't realize this was covered in more detail further below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to be this, which appears to be a scrapbook of clippings he put together and deposited in the Yale library rather than a published book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
"Sometime around then": a little colloquial. I'd suggest "At about that time" instead.
-
- Changed it to your suggestion.
"Wurtenburg began taking medical classes in his freshman year. Later that year, he joined the school's football team." Two short sentences makes for a jerky rhythm. How about "Wurtenburg began taking medical classes on his arrival at Yale, and joined the football team partway through his freshman year."?
-
- Done.
- "was named national champions": I don't know whether in U.S. usage it's more usual to say describe a team as "national champion" or "national champions", but if it's the latter, shouldn't it be "were named", not "was named"?
-
- I honestly have no clue what the proper wording should be. I never really gave it any thought. I'll raise a question on the WP:CFB talk page in the morning, because I'm too exhausted to do it right now.
-
- Alright, now I'm just waiting on a reply.
Do we know when he graduated from Yale?
-
- Yes. It was in 1893, which I added at the end of the "Early life and college" section.
It appears he didn't play football for Yale in 1890; is that correct?
-
- Yes, it appears so. None of the sources I found mentioned anything about him playing in 1890.
I don't quite follow the sequence of events at the end of his time at Yale. He gave up his position at quarterback after 1889, but after being thrown out of his final game (in 1891, it seems) he was "replaced at quarterback". Can you clarify?
-
- I tried to word it a little better in the article. Basically, rules in early college football were not very well established or enforced. Unlike with today's 4-year playing limit, an athlete back then could, in theory, play on a team for as long as they were good enough, iff they had some sort of connection to the college (Paul Dashiell spent a year at St. John's College as a player, six years at Johns Hopkins as a player and grad student, and two years at Lehigh as a professor). In the case of Wurtenburg, he played his four years, apparently took a break in 1890, and attempted to return in 1891 as a grad student, but was ejected and never played again. I have no clue how many games Wurtenburg played in during 1891 (probably not very many, since he is not listed in any of the team's official rosters) but he definitely was thrown out of the last game and his spot was given to someone new (Barbour). I hope this helps. Sorry for the long explanation and for possibly any unnecessary details.
- I think what's confusing me is the phrase "gave up his position at quarterback". I assumed it meant he switched to another position, but I think you meant he quit playing for a while, so of course another quarterback came in. Do we know if he played at quarterback in 1891? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I think I now understand your confusion. We do not know what position he played at in 1891, and he did leave the team following 1889. I tried rewording that part to make it seem clearer. Is it better now?
-
- I tried to word it a little better in the article. Basically, rules in early college football were not very well established or enforced. Unlike with today's 4-year playing limit, an athlete back then could, in theory, play on a team for as long as they were good enough, iff they had some sort of connection to the college (Paul Dashiell spent a year at St. John's College as a player, six years at Johns Hopkins as a player and grad student, and two years at Lehigh as a professor). In the case of Wurtenburg, he played his four years, apparently took a break in 1890, and attempted to return in 1891 as a grad student, but was ejected and never played again. I have no clue how many games Wurtenburg played in during 1891 (probably not very many, since he is not listed in any of the team's official rosters) but he definitely was thrown out of the last game and his spot was given to someone new (Barbour). I hope this helps. Sorry for the long explanation and for possibly any unnecessary details.
"Wurtenburg began his coaching career on October 6 of that year": the last year mentioned prior to this sentence was 1893, so I think some rephrasing is in order since he apparently wasn't hired till 1894.
-
- Simply took out "that year" and put in "1894". Is that better?
"He instead accepted a position as the head coach of the Dartmouth team": we haven't had a date for several sentences at this point so I would suggest "as the head coach of the Dartmouth team, starting in the fall of 1895".
-
- Changed.
"After concluding his football career, Wurtenburg opened up his first medical office in 1889": should this be 1899? It comes after the events of 1898.
-
- Whoops! Yes, it should be 1899. Nice catch.
"At some point around 1904, Wurtenburg began pursuing a career as a physician. He set up his office not far from his residence...": doesn't this conflict with the comment that he opened his first medical office in 1889, even if that's actually a typo for 1899?
-
- I attempted to clarify this. It was more he started to dedicate himself to his medical career. Poor wording on my part.
"Sometime between 1902 and 1925, Wurtenburg collected a series of newspaper articles": the Worldcat link above gives the title as including the date range 1902 to 1915, so I think you can change this to "between 1915 and 1925".
-
- Changed to 1915.
Not knowing much about American football, I don't know what the difference is between the roles of the umpire and referee, so I don't know whether this is relevant, but via newspapers.com I found three accounts of games Wurtenburg refereed for Yale in October 1904, one of which (the Oct 9 issue of the Washington Times) you include in your list of sources. Does this contradict what you have about his role changing?
-
- Unfortunately, I do not (yet) have Newspapers.com access, so I cannot access the articles, but it seems like they would probably make me need to do a little rewriting. Any chance I could get the links or something?
- I'll make clippings of them this morning and post the links here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here are the two you don't have:
- -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll make clippings of them this morning and post the links here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks for the clippings. Yes, this information does affect what I have in the article, and I changed it to include these games. I don't know how well it works grammatically, thought. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 06:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Unfortunately, I do not (yet) have Newspapers.com access, so I cannot access the articles, but it seems like they would probably make me need to do a little rewriting. Any chance I could get the links or something?
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- --Thanks for the review so far. I hope that I have addressed most of your concerns. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've supported above; I saw your post about the remaining issue, which is minor and doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Image check - 2 questions
- File:William_Wurtenburg.png - most likely OK, but could you clarify the publication a bit? Is "1888 Yale football portrait" a yearly journal? We just should be sure, when the image was first published (the source is a collection from 2006).
- File:Frank Barbour.jpg - "University of Michigan Football Coaches: Frank E. Barbour" - same here, is that a journal? Most likely OK, but could the source be clarified a bit? (year, author, any kind of bibliographical info)
- 2 other images are OK (PD with active source links).
First 2 images should be OK as well with some clarification. GermanJoe (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from SandyGeorgia
Exeter is not the kind of place one wanders in to after bouncing around or "eventually ends up at" :) :) Can this please be rephrased? It gives a funny impression of what it takes to get in to Exeter.
- Wurtenburg attended a number of schools as a child, eventually ending up at Phillips Exeter Academy, ...
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Spokane, Washington[edit]
This article is about...Spokane, Washington, a medium-sized city in eastern Washington. This former railroad, mining, and timber town is Washington's second largest city and is the county seat of Spokane County as well as the metropolitan center of the Inland Northwest region. I hope you enjoy reading and learning about Spokane! G755648 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, suggest quick withdrawal—The nominator is not a major contributor and has made less than ten edits on Wikipedia, enough to assume that he is not familiar with the FA criteria and how the entire process works.--Retrohead (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have edited this article and Wikipedia for years as an IP. Anyway, I do hope you come around, reconsider, and critique the article. That would be very helpful and I would like your opinion. I did read and was aware of the criteria before I nominated it. I know your concern is over this passage: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."
- I dont think you should worry though. I think that is just a recommendation. I am familiar with the topic, editing, and the criteria that has to be met. I dont think that can apply to this case anyway because it doesnt look like there are any significant named Users to inform before I nominated it. I hope you and other users can be open-minded and less distracted by how recent the nominators account was created and judge it by the content of the article. A lot of people have worked hard on it and it shows. I believe if it doesnt meet the criteria that we can easily work it out so that it does. Thank youG755648 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments - hmm,read this through while at the gym earlier tonight on my smartphone. I think it is pretty good comprehensiveness- and balance-wise (though I concede I don't know the city well enough to stake my life on that), but the prose needs some tightening. I will try and find and either fix straightforward stuff or list queries below, though sometimes if it is this loose it might need more than one extra set of eyes. Anyway..if you know the subject and can help with factual fixes or clarifications this might be a goer.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
-
The word "city" is mentioned four times in the first para of lead. Also, the fourth para should be merged into first para as content is similar - will also allow removal of repeated fact that it is the second largest city in Washington.David Thompson explored the Spokane area and began European settlement - the "and began European Settlement" is redundant - repeated in next sentence. I was going to remove it but left it to you to figure how to rephrase the sentence.The last para of American settlement section is a bit laboured with the three sentences on railroads - surely this can be streamlined?
-
- In the new century, Spokane is still reinventing itself to a more service-oriented economy in the face of a less prominent manufacturing sector - hmm, needs rephrasing, why not just "promoting" or "developing" a "more service-oriented economy"....?
- I wouldnt mind that. I do like it the way it is currently worded with 'reinventing' though because I think it conveys more of a sense and reality that Spokane's transition hasnt been easy and it's struggling from losses. The recession that the last paragraph in the 20th century section was talking about saw the shutting down of the 2 aluminum plants from WWII and the loss of many jobs in the manufacturing sector (which isnt mentioned). They briefly mention the loss of those jobs a HistoryLink article, I think Ill put it in there. Let me know what you think.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- In the new century, Spokane is still reinventing itself to a more service-oriented economy in the face of a less prominent manufacturing sector - hmm, needs rephrasing, why not just "promoting" or "developing" a "more service-oriented economy"....?
Right, I've done this so far to trim some flab off the writing. There is more - look for repeated words in sentences or adjacent clauses. I have to sleep now - back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I never noticed the redundancy, Ill keep an eye out for some more parts like the ones you mentioned. Right now Ive been working on the refs, looking for dead links and page migrations. Thank you for your help!G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You'll get better at it - one of the best things I've read since editing here is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Note that I don't mean make it too dry, there is a fine balance here.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- See, here are some more examples. The danger is that if an article is really flabby, I will stop seeing them after a while as I become used to the article. Still, I think we are making progress and will get some other folks to review the prose when I am done. I think the prose is tighter further down the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of Spokane's history is reflected in its large variety of neighborhoods and districts. - see, I'd say this is true of any city and that nothing is lost by this sentence's removal - let the facts of the following sentences speak for themselves.Spokane experiences a four-season climate,... - I'd remove this as redundant in the culture sectionIn the fires' aftermath, 32 blocks of Spokane's downtown were destroyed and one person was killed - err, it was the fire, not its aftermath, which did these things.....- Fixed
A more active way to see natural sites in the Spokane area include travelling the Spokane River Centennial Trail, which features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails....- sounds a bit like a tourism brochure. Can trim to "The Spokane River Centennial Trail features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails....."Spokane is served by a variety of print media.- pointless sentence. Would be true of all but the smallest towns. suggest removalCrime rates in Spokane can vary greatly and differ depending on neighborhood.- true of just about all cities. what would be more notable is a homogeneous city. suggest removalHostilities between the natives ceased and this opened the inter-mountain valley of the Pacific Northwest to the safe settlement of white people- "between" or "against" the natives?Property crime is of particular concern in Spokane- let fact speak for themselves...I'd remove it.In regard to the most common property crime in the nation, auto theft, Spokane had the fourth highest rate in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011- why not just, "Spokane had the fourth highest rate of auto theft in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011"Local and regional law enforcement agencies continually try new strategies, techniques, and technologies to address this issue.- I'd remove - sure this is going on in every city in the world about all sorts of crime....The Spokane area offers an abundance of outdoor activities that can be enjoyed in outlying natural areas that may cater to a variety of interests.- I'd remove this - sounds like a tourism brochure. Let following sentences speak for themselves. No meaning is lost by this sentence's removal.The various neighborhoods and districts of Spokane contain a patchwork of architectural styles and landmarks, - I'd truncate this to "The various neighborhoods of Spokane contain a patchwork of architectural styles,..." - otherwise sounds laboured....The phrase "cutting edge".....I'd change. Bit....hmmm.......I hate to use the term "unencyclopedic" but I reckon it is apt here.Another hotel with the intention of bringing convention business to Spokane is the new 721-room convention hotel across from the INB Performing Arts Center.- jumps 100 years in two sentences? This seems weird coming after the sentence with 1914 in it...- Done Never thought about that, it is a bit weird. That was included because Dr. Blofeld wanted some info on hotels, and that one will be by far the largest in town once opened. It was also a nice transition since they had the same intentions and the new hotel is owned by the same developer that saved the Davenport. I have taken it out for now since I think a mention of the Davenport as the most notable and well known hotel will suffice for now. If Blofeld has concerns, we can always add it back. If we do add it back, Ill try to make it less weirdG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Spokane has a vibrant art scene...- I'd chop this out. I suspect there are many many cities that'd say this....just let the sentences speak for themselvesSpokane is large enough to have many amenities of a larger city, but small enough to support annual events and traditions with a small town atmosphere.- ditto.....
- You'll get better at it - one of the best things I've read since editing here is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Note that I don't mean make it too dry, there is a fine balance here.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Provisional impression- within striking distance I think. The sourcing looks ok and the article strikes me as comprehensive and balanced. I found quite a bit of fluff to trim in the prose and it's looking better, and I can't see any clangers outstanding. However I am cautious as once I read through a few times I too start missing things, so will ping another prose-analyser to take a look.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for helping out Cas Liber! You have a tremendous eye for detail and have done a great deal to clean up this article and make it better. :)G755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I think we're over the line now and prose is tighter...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Crime rates- the figures in the table are derived from an FBI table of total crimes, not crimes per 100,000 as shown, e.g. 1,369 violent crimes in a population of 212,163= 645 per 100,000. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- I see what youre talking about, but Im at a loss on how to fix it. If I could I would just take that note out but it looks like its embedded in the template. Is there something we can do to the template? I could change the source to the state UCR data for crime rates per 100,000, which is cited in the prose, but I would prefer not to since that template and source is sort of standardized on many city articles with a Crime section, including the Tulsa, Oklahoma and Hillsboro, Oregon featured articles which have the same issue. Let me know what you think is bestG755648 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Same here- I don't know. It does seem a template problem. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see what youre talking about, but Im at a loss on how to fix it. If I could I would just take that note out but it looks like its embedded in the template. Is there something we can do to the template? I could change the source to the state UCR data for crime rates per 100,000, which is cited in the prose, but I would prefer not to since that template and source is sort of standardized on many city articles with a Crime section, including the Tulsa, Oklahoma and Hillsboro, Oregon featured articles which have the same issue. Let me know what you think is bestG755648 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- Per WP:ALT, alt text and captions shouldn't be the same
- File:Riverfront_Park_Carousel.JPG: don't think this would be covered by freedom of panorama in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Changed the alt so it isnt the same as any of the captions. Tell me if it still needs work or if I missed one. Took out the carousel pic.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments – I'll read properly over the next day or so, but meanwhile two quick points on spelling: I've never seen "deaconess" with a double "n" (perhaps a UK-v-US thing) and "orthopaedic" rather than "orthopedic" looks more like BrEng than AmEng to me. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. More from me shortly. Tim riley talk 20:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done You are absolutely right about the spelling of 'Deaconess', it is supposed to have only one 'n' and if you find one with two, it is a mistake and feel free to take it out; I took out the one instance I found in there. I dont know about BrEng vs AmEng on this, but the Shriners website uses "orthopaedic" so I just went with it. I do think "orthopedic" is more common and looks less of a mouthful though so Im going to change that too. Thanks for reading!G755648 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- The nominator has gently reminded me that I have not honoured my undertaking to look in again. I hereby promise faithfully to re-read the article and comment further here in the next day or two. Tim riley talk 14:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good to have you Tim! Take your time and thank you!!G755648 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment on the prose, and I am happy to say I think it meets the FA criterion 1a – I find the text engaging, clear and well put together – in short, a pleasure to read. As to the content I defer to Dr. Blofeld's wide expertise, but noting the nominator's reply to Dr. B's comments I incline to provisional support. A few points for the nominator to consider:
- Hyphenation: I am no expert, but I see some phrases that I think could do with a hyphen, and I suggest you ask User:Chris the speller to look in: he has helped me greatly and often with hyphenation and countless other fixes.
- Done. The kind sir gave it a nice look over.
- Name of nation: "United States" is used 28 times and "U.S." 21 times. As far as I can see, as a European outsider, the preferred form seems to be "U.S.", and so perhaps some or all incidences of the two-word version might be trimmed to initials.
- WP:OVERLINK: Wikipedia's rules are clear: a maximum of two links from any article to another: one link from the lead, and one from the main text. You have quite a few triplicated and quadrupled links. There is an invaluable and simple tool here that will help you fix this, and I'd say it definitely must be fixed before the article is judged fit for promotion to FA.
- That's all from me pro tem but I shall watch the review and will contribute further if wanted. Tim riley talk 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment on the prose, and I am happy to say I think it meets the FA criterion 1a – I find the text engaging, clear and well put together – in short, a pleasure to read. As to the content I defer to Dr. Blofeld's wide expertise, but noting the nominator's reply to Dr. B's comments I incline to provisional support. A few points for the nominator to consider:
- Good to have you Tim! Take your time and thank you!!G755648 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- The nominator has gently reminded me that I have not honoured my undertaking to look in again. I hereby promise faithfully to re-read the article and comment further here in the next day or two. Tim riley talk 14:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments This is my first stab at a review, so please be patient. In reviewing the lead, I think you might want to take the historical information from the last two paragraphs and combine them into one, and put the resources and notable institutions into its own paragraph at the end. Currently it seems a little disjointed to see the history start and move on to a new topic only to return later.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 19:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed Good point. I shuffled some sentences around and now all the history comes before the other facts about its name and nickname and colleges. Hope you like itG755648 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Pretty good article but I can't support an article which has such a poor coverage of architecture and landmarks. Cityscape should contain the bulk of the architecture and notable landmarks and be a separate section. It should be one of the longest sections in the article, yet it missing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thats a good idea, I will start working on this as soon as possible. However, I never thought to put that in there partly because I dont recall seeing many FAs with a section dedicating a whole lot to landmarks and architecture, could you show me some examples I can use as a model?? I know the Tulsa article talks a fair amount about it but I havent seen a whole lot of others.
- Information about many of Spokane's landmarks are sort of dispersed throughout the article but most of it is in the Neighborhoods section, it should be very easy to bring this info all together and supplement that with some new content and put them into a nice section. Spokane has plenty to talk about on the matter and I look forward to making this section. A lot of the downtown is Romanesque Revival style architecture and a lot those buildings are Spokane landmarks. Im already brainstorming some ideas. I can also talk about Kirtland Cutter, an architect who started practicing in the city and holds the majority of his famous works as well. Again, if you could give me some examples of what youre looking for that would address the issue, that would be very helpful. Thank you!G755648 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- See Copenhagen for an example. Now, naturally I wouldn't expect a similar coverage for Spokane, Copenhagen being a capital city, but I would like to see a sizable section covering the most prominent buildings in the city and coverage of the more notable registry places. I'd add a sizable Architecture sub section to the Cityscape section I've now created. You could discuss the Romanesque architecture downtown, when certain buildings were built and their architects. Then mention a few of the most notable mansions/houses in the area etc. In fact a separate article Landmarks of Spokane, Washington covering it in detail and a condensed summary in the main would be good. When wanting to learn about cities for me personally having quick access to the most notable features of a city architecturally is one of the main things I look for. I think having a solid section on Landmarks discussing most of them in one section instead of throughout the article is more convenient for those looking for a concise summary of the most notable buildings and features. There's nothing wrong with mentioning things like theatres and museums in Culture but I'd think the bulk of the main admin buildings, prominent hotels/houses etc and a general overview of architecture should go in a chunky section itself.
-
- My first observation aside from the architecture is that the lede is poorly balanced and focused and tells me little actually about the city; it wouldn't even meet GA standards. Cut out all the info about population in the wider county, it's not relevant. You only really need to say something like "As of 2014 the city had a population of xxx with xxx in the wider metropolitan area" in one sentence, not a whole paragraph! Cut back a lot on the history and etymology and try to make sure something from each section of the article is mentioned in the lede. The reader will want an overview of the contents of the article, so you need to mention some of the landmarks, top sports teams etc. My feeling though is that this needs way too much polishing and improvement to really be a viable candidate right now. I'd withdraw it and get some experienced editors to look and it and try to improve it further and then nominate when we're all positive about it. I think it would benefit from some copyediting and a general polish which would result from several pairs of eyes reading and editing it. I may give this a full look later in the week and help you out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I do like the idea of an architecture and landmarks section, Im surprised you dont see a section like that more often. Im glad that you pointed that out to me because that is one of the most interesting parts of any city or town that I like to know about too if I were to visit, knowing what the sites are important, even if its not a tourist hotspot. Ive made good progress on the section that is dedicated to landmarks and architecture and Im going to more or less talk about the architecture of notable neighborhoods in Spokane with emphasis on the downtown core, which is obviously the most relevant as well as talking identifying of the landmarks in other neighborhoods that stand out and are worth a mention. Also, I have created a paragraph that tells of the types of architecture that is most commonplace and listing some of the notable buildings that are of a particular style etc. I think I will briefly delve into city layout and its grid system, mention of the citys extensive skywalk network, and Spokane's very good record in saving and preserving historic buildings and its architectural heritage. I have dedicated a paragraph about Spokane's only real architect of note, Kirtland Cutter, and I talk about how he started out in architecture, rose to prominence, and the buildings hes done in town. I will put it in the article when Ive made it into a somewhat coherent piece, I will be trying to dedicate as much time as I can to get this done this week.
- I will chop down the lead a bit, I do think it can be more lean without taking anything away. We can experiment with the Lead, its just a summary so nothing will be lost by doing some cutting. That is something easy to fix and we just need to find the right balance. As for the copyediting, I been working quite a bit on that lately as well some other reviewers here, I think we have cleaned it up real nice. If more copyediting is needed, this is the best place for it. I think that working on copyediting is the most commonplace issue here at the FACs and that is mainly what were doing here, sprucing up the article and trying to put the finishing touches on it so it can be brought up to spec. That being said, I welcome any help I can get and Im happy youre being proactive about it and going to take a look into it yourself. Thanks so much for reading!G755648 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- My first observation aside from the architecture is that the lede is poorly balanced and focused and tells me little actually about the city; it wouldn't even meet GA standards. Cut out all the info about population in the wider county, it's not relevant. You only really need to say something like "As of 2014 the city had a population of xxx with xxx in the wider metropolitan area" in one sentence, not a whole paragraph! Cut back a lot on the history and etymology and try to make sure something from each section of the article is mentioned in the lede. The reader will want an overview of the contents of the article, so you need to mention some of the landmarks, top sports teams etc. My feeling though is that this needs way too much polishing and improvement to really be a viable candidate right now. I'd withdraw it and get some experienced editors to look and it and try to improve it further and then nominate when we're all positive about it. I think it would benefit from some copyediting and a general polish which would result from several pairs of eyes reading and editing it. I may give this a full look later in the week and help you out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks pretty much what I was looking for, good job. Perhaps a few sentences on hotels and restaurants/cafes at the end of other notable landmarks would be good too. I have visited the city a while back and I must admit that the "Spokane's crime rate is also higher than average in both violent and property crime, having a rate higher than 98% of communities in the United States" really felt like it at the time, although walking through parts of NYC felt about the same. Walking through the downtown at dusk past gangs hanging out on the corners and the night in the motel was probably the most threatened I've ever felt in terms of personal safety and remember putting a heavy chair up against the door! The park I remember was quite pleasant though. Seems as Tim doesn't see any major issues with the prose perhaps it's best to keep this running then, but I can see some areas needing sourcing improvement. I've already added two sources. I'll try to give it my full attention tomorrow. I really need to take a careful look and read each aspect of it before I'm ready to change to support. Can you try to balance out the lede as I suggested in the meantime, I'm surprised Tim didn't pick up on that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thats an unfortunate experience at the motel and Im sorry to hear it. Good thing you didnt die, that would have sucked. The crime is supposed to be getting better, we can only hope. In the mean time, I suggest packing an Ak 47 for your next trip to Spokane lol.
- Ive put off doing the Lead to work on the Cityscape section, Ive started working on that now, let me know what you think of it in the coming days. I will add a section about Cutter's Davenport Hotel, its been called "Spokane's livingroom" and Ill mention the convention hotel thats being constructed too right now. Ill try to think of a at least one other talking point to put in there to make it complete. Thanks for the work youve put in on the article. Im liking your changes. I do think the 'Walkability' section looks a bit oddly placed under the Dams section, but Ill get used to it I guess. Thanks again!G755648 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Agreed on the walkability, but I didn't think it belonged where you put it so moved it during the edit. I'd be tempted to remove it all, or in passing just mention it somewhere. Hopefully I can take a good look at this over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Can you replace historylink.org and some of the other sources in the history section to that site which appear to be essays and replace with some more solid primary book sources where possiblr? Just look in google books, should turn up plenty of replacements like this. I know the historylink site says "with a few noted exceptions, all essays and features on this site are original works prepared exclusively for HistoryLink.org by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts. All essays and features are vetted by professional staff" but I think it would look better with a wider range of sources from books, like you've done more research. They just look more solid as sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think I have either added a book source to accompany a HL cite or replaced it completely with a book about 4 or 5 times throughout the article. The vast majority of the historylink cites are at the end of 20th century and 21st century sections and parts of the history section that deal with a very narrow topic (The Great Fire, Hillyard). G755648 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Did you research this using google books? I think in quite a few places the sourcing could be strengthened and replace with books, there's quite a few places I can see where third-party reliable books etc could replace web based primary sources. Can you try to strengthen the sourcing using google books? I can help you with that if you like.
- The Sports I think is one of the weakest and tells me little about sports in the city. I'm aware that several other American cities have tables like this but I think it would be best written in prose and you elaborate on some of them. When were they founded? What recent successes etc have they had? I'd make it look like more like the Education section and it'll look much better for it without the table and more information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Parks and recreation is way too long, needs to be trimmed by roughly 50%. If you don't want to lose any material consider creating a main article Parks and recreation in Spokane, Washington and chop it right down.
- Fixed I think Chopped some off. let me know if its not enoughG755648 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- "The close proximity of the hospitals, doctors' offices, and specialized clinics scattered around this area form what is known as the "Medical District" of Spokane." -citation needed, looks like OR.
OK, I think with a fair bit of polishing work and sourcing and content reinforcement this has the potential to pass. The basic material is there but it still needs a copyedit and that something extra to improve flow and avoid repetition in parts and improve the general quality.I've made a good start this evening, it's shaping up. If you're editing it in the meantime can you try to begin strengthening the sourcing to the best of your ability with quality book sources and replace a lot of those web sources, cut parks down and begin writing a nice section on sports without that ugly table? You can save time by pasting google book url into here. I'll resume tomorrow. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Im liking what youve done and how its turning out. I like how you split up the Housing and the public buildings section, nice. I might fiddle with the Lead a little bit, if you have concerns, just let me know.
- I absolutely share your view on book sources vs web sources and I like traditional book sources better. Im happy to see this article uses a lot of books throughout, and uses more than most featured articles about cities, the biblio lists 13 books now with the addition of that Ware book you just put in there. Compare that to 2 on the Providence, Rhode Island FA, 1 that I see cited in the Erie, Pennsylvania FA, and a whopping 0 on the Tulsa FA. But, even so, I did try to find resources that I could use to replace some of them, but came up empty handed. The majority of the History section uses books, and the ones that dont are sections that are narrow in scope or use the Thumbnail article for the more recent events in the 21st century section. Thats the beauty of HistoryLink there, filling in the spaces between the books. That being said, HistoryLink is a really good resource on a broad range of Washington state-related topics and a wealth of information, its a state government supported Washington state encyclopedia and its been put to good use on this article as well as the Seattle FA article too. Since HistorLink is a solid source, this seems sort of like a cosmetic issue, especially since the encyclopedia lists all of their sources for each essay at the bottom. I do have to say that I like the idea of keeping at least one instance of most of the articles on there so the reader has the option to learn more if they wish to. We want the readers to learn as much as they want and I dont think it hurts to keep one in there so they can have access to it. I think that strikes a nice balance.
- I didnt do most of the history section, Ill see what books I can find as some alternatives. I only added in recent years editing irregularly as an nonstatic IP the Kensel sources. and I will see what I can do to get some more book sources to replace the HLs if I can. I own the Stratton book, Ill see what I can scrounge up and yes, feel free to help if you can :).
- I see what you mean about the Parks and Rec section and the Sports section. Ill start working on those real soon. I think the Parks section goes into too much detail, and I think I can cut it back a good deal. Ill take your advice and ditch the table, its not important and if someone wanted to know about it, they will take the time to scan the section for what they want. Its a work in progress but it looks like its getting better! Thank you again.G755648 (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Definitely much improved thanks to our combined efforts! The balance now I think is perfect. Let me give this my full attention again on Monday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to have you back! look forward to working on this with you again. Thank you for your continued interest and your contributions, they are very much appreciated.G755648 (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Crisco comments[edit]
- The local economy has traditionally been based on natural resources, being a center for mining, timber, and agriculture; however, the city's economy has diversified. - should have a time frame
- Fixed Put a date on when the diversification seemed to have happened, by the 1980s according to Schmeltzer.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Great Fire of 1889 - worth a redlink?
- The first humans to live in the Spokane area arrived between 12,000 to 8,000 years ago and were hunter-gatherer societies that lived off the plentiful game in the area. - A summarized version of this would have been really useful in the lead, rather than keep a Euro-centric view
- What's the Spokane tribe's (or other Native American tribes') view of Wright and the battles?
- The first American settlers in the present-day city" - perhaps "The first American settlers in what is now Spokane"
- Make sure that terms are linked on first mention, and not otherwise.
- Is this a MoS rule? Since we can only use one link due to the MoS, its important to use it where people would most expect to see it I think, so Ive been linking some of the links in the section that talks most about the subject matter. I didnt want to assume that people will read each section sequentially. Sometimes people only want to read a certain section. For instance, we mention Kirtland Cutter in the History section, but the link to his article is in the Architecture section, where we talk about him at length and where most people will probably gain enough interest to jump into his article. Let me know what you think about thatG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- and 36,848 in 1900 with the arrival of the railroads. - Didn't the NPR reach Spokane in 1881?
- Yeah it did, but it was followed by the Union Pacific, Great Northern, and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific railroads too.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- So "arrival of the railroads" can't be correct, as there was at least railroad there for several years (and another followed before 1900, right?)
- Inland Empire - This doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic term
- The "Inland Empire" isnt a contrived term, it is what the region centered around Spokane was commonly called and the term still isnt too uncommon today. Youre more likely to hear Inland Northwest though. The article defines this term in the Topography section. The term is used in the source material and I think using period terms brings the history more to life and makes for more interesting reading. Let me know if using it is a problemG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but the only other time you use this term beforehand, it is in quotes. Losing the quotes gives a different impression. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- a dramatic building boom - Dramatic feels a little weasely and POV. "boom" is already giving the same impressions.
- Done
- Spokane's growth continued unabated until August 4, 1889, - why are we jumping around, from 1900 to 1910 to 1889 to...?
- Done Relocated those sentences to a place that makes more sense.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- the West - might want to be more explicit, for non-American readership
- Yeah, we get it, the rates were really high. We shouldn't push a POV with so many adjectives.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed I think I took one out- if youre talking about the rail freight rates. I see what you mean, it is a significant point though. According to what Ive read, it really hurt the economy for decades.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- After decades of stagnation and slow growth, Spokane businessmen formed Spokane Unlimited, an organization that sought to revitalize downtown Spokane. - When?
- FixedStratton doesnt list a specific date for the formation of Spokane Unlimited, the book says it happened in the 'early 60s' so I put that down to be faithful to the source.G755648 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- becoming the smallest city yet to host a World's Fair - as of?
- FixedSentence and language was a bit confusing. It was the smallest city when it hosted the Fair in 1974, thats what the sentence is supposed to get across. As for being the smallest city today to host a Worlds Fair...Spokane isnt the smallest anymore.G755648 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- The success seen in the late 1970s and early 1980s once again was interrupted by another U.S. recession, in which silver, timber, and farm prices dropped. - again, when?
- Im not quite sure what I can do on this one and I have to say I dont have the book with me. But, I personally thought that 'late 1970s and early 1980s' was pretty specific (in my mind this would narrow it down to 1977-1983ish- a 6 year period)...the whole US suffered from that recession in the late 1970s, would you like me to put the dates the slump occurred nationally? I think it would probably simply amount to us explicitly saying what most of us are probably already thinking though...that it occurred from 1977-1983, which would be the late 1970s and early 1980s... Let me know what you think is best for the article and Ill see what I can doG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not worried about that part of the sentence, but rather the recession which interrupted the growth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done Whoops, I got a bit confused. Again, I dont have the book in front of me, but the recession that is mentioned would be the Early 1980s recession that apparently started in July of 1981, I will put that date in the sentence.G755648 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Last several paragraphs of #History gets pretty POV (sounds like promotional copy). This is particularly true of the 21st century section — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did find one thing that stuck out, and that I took out ...there is an air of optimism for the city's future- I can see how you might think that is promotional, but Im not seeing any others sentences that would be promotional too much of a concern, could you show me an example of what you are seeing and why you think its promotional?
- What I see are examples of this 'downtown rebirth' that the article talks about and that has been happening since 1999. The 21st century section is about what has been happening over the last 15 years, pretty recent history, and I (and HistoryLink, the source for most of this section) would say reversing the deteriorating downtown is the most notable thing to talk about in Spokane today. This downtown renewal is still happening and relevant today, with the current building of a 721-room convention hotel and yet another expansion of the convention center. We can only wait and see what the events of today will have on the overarching history of Spokane, but for now, we can only report what we see.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sentences such as "Although a tough period, Spokane's economy had begun to benefit from economic diversification; being the home to growing companies such as Key Tronic and having research, marketing, and assembly plants for other technology companies helped lessen Spokane's dependency on natural resources." strike me as very marketese, for lack of a better term (like what I'd see from a commercial press release). Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but I'm not too sure this and similar wordings are encyclopedic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- OH, I thought you were talking about the 21st century section.
- Although Im having a hard time seeing the problem, Ill see what I can do to try and fix it. It might be a matter of picking the right words, but the section doesnt use any POV and opinion describing words that are typical of things that would bring up promotional and POV flags to me. I thought that section was actually gloomy if anything (with the exception of the one sentence you brought up about diversification that you pointed out), its talking about losing family wage jobs and further down talks about scarcity of high-paying jobs, pockets of poverty, areas of high crime, and a sense of doubt regarding aspects of city government. Strikes me as very honest and NPOV for the most part.
- Fixed I thinkChanged sentence to: Although this was a tough period, Spokane's economy had started to benefit from some measure of economic diversification; growing companies such as Key Tronic and other research, marketing, and assembly plants for other technology companies helped lessen Spokane's dependency on natural resources.
Thank you for reading and helping out!G755648 (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- G755648 I think though that the 20th century to present has way too much on economy and general development. I think it would look better with reinforcement in the history with some actual events. Perhaps you could get hold of some books like "Early Spokane". A great place to start would be the timeline here. Try to cover as much of it as you can. I'll resume tomorrow with that if you don't make a start on it. The history section for me is the weakest now. If we can try to report more events and improve the balance from just economic development we should get there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think we can do a bit better on that. Ill see what else I can think of in the the coming week or so. It would make it seem a bit less mechanical and all business. The economic history is comprehensive and well covered and that is the meat and potatoes of any history section. With any settlement, history and economy go hand in hand and that is what all the books focus on so it can be tougher to find those nice little side notes that happen along the way, but Ill try to remember to look through some stuff and see if I can find something worth noting. I think you've done a good deal of addressing the issue so far. If there is any event in particular that you think is worth mentioning, let me know and Ill make a write something up about it. For the time though, I am working on the recommendations in the list above. Thanks again and glad to have ya back.G755648 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- G755648 I think though that the 20th century to present has way too much on economy and general development. I think it would look better with reinforcement in the history with some actual events. Perhaps you could get hold of some books like "Early Spokane". A great place to start would be the timeline here. Try to cover as much of it as you can. I'll resume tomorrow with that if you don't make a start on it. The history section for me is the weakest now. If we can try to report more events and improve the balance from just economic development we should get there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- More coming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- 47.39 North latitude and 117.25 West longitude - Is this necessary in-text? We've got templates for putting this information at the top of the article and in the infobox. If we do keep this in-text, can we lose the latitude and longitude? It's already clear from the degrees North construction.
- The lowest elevation in the city of Spokane is the northernmost point of the Spokane River within city limits (in Riverside State Park) at 1,608 feet (490 m); the highest elevation is on the northeast side, near the community of Hillyard (though closer to Beacon Hill and the North Hill Reservoir) at 2,591 feet (790 m). - I think this should be with the other information about the elevation
- Done Moved the sentence so it is right after the sentence that lists the elevation of the city.G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Columbia Plateau ecoregion ... basaltic Channeled Scablands steppe ... Rocky Mountain foothills - Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, we should have some plain text in between these links (this is an issue elsewhere too)winningest
- DoneDelinked ecoregion, basaltic, foothills and steppe..G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do we need all this information on Spokane county?
- DoneGood point, TMI. Im getting rid of the info about the nearby townsG755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Duplicate links: Oregon, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Coeur d'Alene, Palouse, Key Tronic, Expo '74, Riverside State Park, Spokane Falls, Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park, Mukogawa Women's University, Mead, Spokane Valley,
- Im having a hard time trying to find some of these duplicates. Tim told me about some script to use, but I dont know how to use it and I didnt want to mess anything up. If you find a duplicate feel free to remove it and do what you want.G755648 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- a full-power radio station that provides its service area with progressive perspectives, providing programming to diverse communities and unserved or under-served groups. - Another very POV-y sentence (marketese)
- state and county government documents or state- and county-government documents?
- FixedIm not sure what the difference is so Ill just put "government documents"G755648 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Spokane County Library District - why no further information, if you mention it?
- ReasonMentioned so you know its there and it exists. Only mentioned because the Spokane County libraries are all outside the city itself and I didnt want to diverge from the main topic. I think in depth coverage of the county libraries should be mentioned in the side articles.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Spokane is home to many higher education institutions. - how many?
- Concern The answer to this question really depends on what you consider 'higher education'-which is a sort of a slippery slope with the many options you have nowadays-can we really definitively answer this question? I dont want to pick and choose and frame the context of discussion based on my views for the readers. Id rather name the notables and show them some of the variety that is offered.G755648 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mukogawa Fort Wright Institute - I don't think we should link to Fort Wright in the middle of an organization's name
- winningest - I know some people stand by this term, but I'm sure there's something else that we can use, a more standard English word
- A lot of the information on the Spokane Indians would be better for an article on the team itself. We don't need to know about the 1946 crash, for instance. The #Sports section should be much more recent in its focus
- Done Deleted sentence and reference
- af2 - What is this?
- Done arenafootball2 league.
- Sports Travel Magazine worth a redlink? Then again, if it's a really minor or local publication, this shouldn't be mentioned.
- Its OK I thinkI dont think we need a redlink here. Its not local and nobody reading this article will know much about it. The magazine is from Los Angeles.G755648 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Interstate 90 - should be linked above, when you mention I-90
- Over the past decade, - beginning when? This is a relative time modifier, and would work better as "Since 2004" or something which does not change over time
- Done I took out the text and slightly changed the sentence, its not really needed.G755648 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Today, - which is...? See WP:PRECISELANG, as this seems to be a common issue.
- Through service is a legacy of BNSF Railway's old Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway trackage.- I've read this four times and not gotten your meaning. Is it meant to be related to Amtrak?
- Fixed I think its clear now. Yes, The tracks that lead to Seattle and Portland were built by the SPS Railway, which was then bought by the Great Northern and then BNSF-which is what Amtraks uses.
- 4,800-acre airport - give hectares too?
- Felts Field is a general aviation airport serving the Spokane area and is located in east Spokane along the Spokane River. Felts Field served as Spokane's primary airport until commercial air traffic was redirected to Geiger Field after World War II. - expand a little, rather than have a two-sentence paragraph? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done Went into a bit more detail.
- Still working through
- a position which it wrested from Cheney in 1886. - if the people of Spokane were armed when doing this, "wrested" may be an understatement
- ClarificationAccording to the article, it was actually the Cheney citizens who were armed. It says in 1881, after a close recount of the votes to determine the county seat, the Spokanites claimed the county seat, but then the armed Cheneyites came to take it back. It wasnt until 1886 that it was permanently transferred to Spokane, in a peaceful manner.
- The most prominent politician in Spokane, and arguably Washington, - I'd quote someone here. This is an opinion, which means it should not be in Wikipedia's voice
- Done I think it is a matter of fact when seen in terms of rank in Congress, nobody from Washington comes even close to Speaker of the House and third in line to the Presidency, but I have rephrased it.G755648 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Spokane operates Washington's only waste-to-energy plant, as well as two solid waste transfer stations in the Spokane area as part of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, a collaboration between the City of Spokane and Spokane County. - Do you need "in the Spokane area"? I think it's implicit
- The Monroe Street Hydroelectric Development site has the distinction of being the oldest hydroelectric generation facility in Washington. = this should have a reference that is not related to the city
- Fixed Couldnt find one after a brief search so Ill just take it out.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- there were 208,916 people, 87,271 households, and 49,204 families residing in the city. - sounds almost as if they were separate
- Those are just relevant facts and figures from the census that most any city article has, I dont think we are really supposed to find relationships between the figures.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- 34.2% of all households were made up of individuals, and 11% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. - sentences shouldn't start with numerals. Several further examples under this one
- Fixed
- Link the different religious branches/movements?
- Done
- in recent decades. - again, a more concrete term would be preferable
- DoneI think someone else got to it before me, Im not finding those words in the article.
- Russian and Ukrainian - are they combined in the source? Considering recent events, I feel wary combing them here.
- Justification The source used and any other source would talk and lump them in as a single group (in this case as "Russians-Ukrainians"). I dont think we should concern ourselves with the politics and troubles between the two countries in Europe, these are just facts; they both would identify as being part of the Spokane Slavic community. I dont think the tensions in Europe spill over into the communities in Spokane anyway, the communities are pretty integrated by now.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- urban blight and the preparations leading up to Expo '74 led to its eventual demolition - the Chinatown or the Asian community? One does not demolish communities, after all
- Fixed Clarified. Noticed and fixed the source link, it was going to the wrong encyclopedia article.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- For newspapers, you can use the work= parameter to avoid having to force italics with single quote marks (it's formatted automatically)
- Good tipCant use it in this instance because looks like it automatically creates a link to whatever is in there and we already used up our one S-R link.
- That's odd... the template shouldn't do that — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- a sizable area downtown - how sizeable?
Done The article roughly describes the triangle area, I included it in the sentence.G755648 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's it for today. I'll do the remaining two sections (Culture and Cityscape) tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- the Victorian-era style - would the Victorian-style be simpler? Link?
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, link on first mention
Done I thinkG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Queen Anne and early Craftsman styles - Link?
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- strategically placed outside Spokane city limits to avoid "burdensome taxes." - I think this conveys the same information even if we lose "strategically"
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Many of the former town's houses were built to house railroad workers, many immigrant laborers working in the local yard, who gave Hillyard an independent, blue-collar character. Hillyard still caters to new arrivals, becoming a popular home for Spokane's growing Russian, Ukrainian, and Southeast Asian communities. - another case of what looks like marketese
Question Am I allowed to talk about the character of the neighborhood or are you concerned mostly with the second part of the sentence?? Im thinking you might want that sourced, so I have put the Hillyard thumbnail reference there just in case, despite my concerns of citation bombardment. Second part now reads: Hillyard has become a home for much of Spokane's growing Russian, Ukrainian, and Southeast Asian communities. Let me know if that is a still 'marketese'.G755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Built in renaissance and Spanish revival style, the Davenport Hotel cost two million dollars to complete, and was state of the art at the time of opening in September of 1914 with its opulent interior, chilled water, elevators, and air cooling. - again, the marketese is seeping through
Fixed I thinkG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also of note is the Spokane County Courthouse in West Central (the logo of Spokane County) - What about the Monroe St. Bridge?
- Addressed We mention its in the City of Spokane seal when we talk about Cutters worksG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also of note is the Spokane County Courthouse in West Central (the logo of Spokane County), the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist in Rockwood, Benewah Milk Bottles in Riverside and Garland, Mount Saint Michael in Hillyard, and the Cambern Dutch Shop Windmill in South Perry, which was built in 1929. - for the sake of consistency, I'd lose the "which was built in 1929"
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the most notable parks in Spokane's system are Riverfront Park, Manito Park and Botanical Gardens, Riverside State Park, Mount Spokane State Park, Saint Michael's Mission State Park, John A. Finch Arboretum, and the Dishman Hills Conservation Area, a 530-acre (210 ha) protected area established in 1966 immediately to the southeast of Spokane, which contains a mixture pine and fir forest and aspen groves. - Two things: if they are all "the most notable", why are some not linked? Also, why is the Dishman Hills Conservation Area given so much weight (in the same sentence as a list of others?)
- 1)It used to but I delinked it because "Mount Spokane State Park" doesnt have its own article so its in the Mount Spokane article, we already used up our one link for it in the Topography section.
- 2)Done I dont know. Took out the elaboration for DishmanG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- including a Skyride that is a rebuilt gondola lift that carries visitors across the falls from high above the river gorge. - a skyride or a Skyride?
- the most notable of which is the Spokane River Centennial Trail, which features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails running along the Spokane River from Spokane to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. - of course the source is going to say that, as it's related to the trail. Alternative source?
- There are also many natural areas where outdoors activities can be enjoyed close by. - more marketese.
- The closest of these is the Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park, operated by a non-profit organization. - what does the NPO have to do with the city? It's irrelevant in an article on the city itself, except to give a positive impression of the park.
- considered somewhat lacking by some, - By some is not good
- Done I included the organization that holds the viewpoint. Switched out archived link to the new siteG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Spokane Jazz Orchestra is a non-profit organization formed in 1962 that claims to be the nation's "oldest, continually performing, professional, and community-supported 17-piece big band." - again, promotional
- seek to provide the public with new and innovative ways to learn about science, technology, engineering, and math- marketese
- Fixed I think now reads: seek to generate interest in science, technology, engineering, and math among the youth in a hands-on experience
- the Bing Crosby Memorabilia Room at the Crosby Student Center of Gonzaga University, - by all rights Crosby should be linked on first mention
Done G755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- are also of note. - more POV
- Spokane was once home to a sizable Japanese community centered in what was once Spokane's "Chinatown." - irrelevant here, as you've discussed it already above
- I do not mean to assume bad faith, but it would be a good idea to declare if you have a conflict of interest in regards to this article. The constant positive POV suggests that this is very likely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I didnt write most of the article. I am working to try to fix the issues just as you are-thats why I am taking your suggestions to tweak these sentences. The issue is being resolved, please be patient while I work through these edits. I will say I do live in Spokane, I am not being paid to edit this article and I am trying to use reliable NPOV sources.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Opposefor now owing to the constant, sometimes glaring, positive POV in this article. The crime section is barely remembered by the time one gets to the glowing "Culture" and other sections. This POV needs to be purged before I support. For instance, Robert Lee Yates and the Death of Otto Zehm are both fairly recent and reached national prominence (there are several books about Yates), yet are not in the article. I'm not saying they should be, but there is the possibility that negative aspects of the city have been left out or downplayed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- A couple additional points: I'm not convinced by the quality of the sourcing (several sentences were unreferenced, and many others are cited to less stellar sources), and if I'm not mistaken a previous review found issues with close paraphrasing. I'd like to be sure these are dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
DoneCrime section has been supplemented with information about Spokane's most notorious serial killer and about recent incidents of officer involved shootings.G755648 (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your thorough review. I will try to dedicate as much time as I can to work on the issues above over the weekend, since I might be getting more busy next week. The bulk of the POV/marketese sentences were always most likely to be in the Culture section, and Ill comb that whole section looking specifically for those POV sentences and tweaking the language so it sounds less promotional. I see most of the POV sentences that you listed are clear, but the reasons behind others not so much..Ill elaborate on the questions I have as I go through them in the coming days.
- As for the Crime section, I thought that was pretty NPOV, and gave a good overview of the overall situation. I didnt know that coverage some cases of individual crimes would be necessary. I will expand the section talking about the officer involved shootings (using Otto Zehm as the talking point) and probably mention what is being done to try to prevent them in the future (body cameras, etc). I might briefly mention some of the serial killers that have garnered attention in Spokane such as the South Hill rapist and Yates. When I looked at the Youngstown, Ohio, Providence, Rhode Island and Tulsa featured articles, I saw they dont go into that kind of detail, but I do see that the San Francisco, California article does mention some notable cases and it might not be as unusual as I think. In regard to the sourcing, I need some additional information to act on and fix the problem. If you could give me examples of what you are seeing and list some of the ones you would like re-sourced to something else with a brief reason why you think the source isnt ideal, that would be great. Some of the sentences that you tagged as 'citation needed' I thought would fall into the realm of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but I think what I saw is probably only for the good article criteria:"direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Ill grab a source and put them in there. As for the citations that were there at the start of the FAC process, I got a chance to look at many of those as I was updating the refs looking for linkrot and double checking the book pages to see if its the right one, and I havent seen many significant issues with the references so far; almost all the sources are there for all to see, so if you see one let me know. Thank you again for critiquing and helping the article!G755648 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- A good rule of thumb might be to avoid using local newspapers when RSes from outside Spokane are available, and I'd really like to see "History link" replaced with something a bit more solid. Still concerned about that fairly minor magazine award. Stuff like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- What magazine award? The Sports event of the year?? If you are concerned with it I can take it out if you likeG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- That would be nice, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Historylink seems fine to me. HistoryLink.org according to the website is an "evolving online encyclopedia of Washington state and local history. It provides a free, authoritative, and easily accessible history reference for the benefit of students, teachers, journalists, scholars, researchers, and the general public." It is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation that "With a few exceptions, HistoryLink essays are fully sourced, bylined, and dated to provide authoritative references for legal, journalistic, and scholastic use...With a few noted exceptions, all essays and features on this site are original works prepared exclusively for HistoryLink.org by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts. All essays and features are vetted by professional staff" The website originally only covered the Seattle area but was expanded state-wide and is one of the primary sources for the Seattle featured article. Each essay has their sources are listed at the bottom of each essay in great detail. You can see these above the essay's author [32]. All the text is licensed under the Creative Commons license. HistoryLink is one of the primary sources used in the Seattle featured article.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's nice, and you're right: the website isn't as bad as I thought it may be. However, it is still predominantly a local (and thus possibly COI) resource. For instance, the article you link to is by Laura Arksey, a member of the Spokane historical society, whom you appear to cite predominantly for general information, information which may be found in more traditionally reliable sources that are not related to the city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- As a side note: HistoryLink has been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard twice (1, 2) but the feedback is contradictory. I'd prefer stronger sourcing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I quite agree with you on the sourcing to the local history site, I always prefer solid book sources (which are available) for a lot of them. Overall now I think the coverage is getting there but as you say the tone in parts and sourcing lets it down. My gut feeling on this was to withdraw and to get a few pairs of eyes on the prose and try to overhaul the sourcing and then renominate after a peer review in which we're all fairly content with it for FA. It's achievable, but I think there is too much needing doing and overhauling to make this worth keeping open. It's definitely improved a fair bit from when it was nominated though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see your concerns about HistoryLink since it isnt a slick website and might look amateurish compared to other sites and since it is on that noticeboard, but that first time I dont see anybody raising too much of an issue over it and the second one shows someone not opposed to using it. I would like to you to be open minded and take a further look at it though. Also, I dont think I would consider it a "local" source, although some of the authors are local historians-Jim and Laura it looks like, not all of them are (David Wilma, Kit Oldham, Cassandra Tate are historians from Seattle [33], which is where Historylink is based), and their sources come from solid sources such as books etc are cited at the bottom of the essays they write for HistoryLink, so location isnt too relevant. Arkseys Great Fire article cites 4 books and a periodical [34]. Jim Kershner (born in Denver if that matters) is an accomplished author who has written a few books and has won national awards in journalism, and Arksey is a published author as well. The reviewers of the Seattle featured article must have determined it was a reliable and reputable source even though HistoryLink is a local to Seattle. Im not sure if being from a local organization would completely discredit that organization as having a conflict of interest, these people are professionals (they arent armchair historians from Wikipedia); for instance, if it was a California encyclopedia and staff historians from UC Berkeley were writing an article for HistoryLink on San Francisco, I dont think anyone would have a problem with that. Simply being local shouldnt mean there is a conflict of interest or discredit a person or organization or book, we are dealing with professionals here. The writers of that area are almost always going to be locally or regionally based, thats natural since the topic is relevant to them. I havent seen any POV issues with HistoryLink and that makes sense because it deals only with history (Washington state history), and doesnt make comment on things such as culture, which can naturally lends itself to some POV issues if not done by a professional. Luckily, Historylink is written by qualified and professional staff authors and historians, some which hold PhDs and for their works, All essays and features are vetted by professional staff. HistoryLink has been reviewed in the past by the people who did the Seattle FAC and FAR, and they thought it acceptable, Im not sure why its receiving so much scrutiny here.
If you have any questions about them I encourage you to contact them with the information below from their site: Research Inquiries: admin@historylink.org Education Team: education@historylink.org Office: eleanor@historylink.org
- As for the tone, that has been much improved since Crisco scoured the whole article. I think I have completed every one of those suggestions Crisco recommended and I am keeping an eye out for other tone issues if there are some left. I dont think it should be too much of a problem now since Crisco did sweep through the whole article. The tone issues were for the most part easy to spot and primarily confined to the Culture section, which like I said is naturally the place its going to occur. Although a problem, those issues are by far the easiest to fix, most of them take only a second to lop off a part of a sentence or take out a word, etc. I am inclined to keep this open for the time being for us to look things over. If you see any more tone issues, tell me about them, but unless you see a lot more of these marketese sentences, I would say its sort of a non issue now-but Like I said, Im keeping an eye out for them.
- Would like to again thank you both and the others who have taken the time to look at this article. Its getting better thanks to our efforts!G755648 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- It's starting to look better, but I'm still concerned about HistoryLink. You cite its essays 33 times, a solid 12% of your citations are to the website. It's still a local history society, and thus may have a COI for things related to the city (including their position on urban renewal). Hence why I've asked several times for more independent sources, at least for FAC. On individual features in the city, HL would probably be fine, even at the FAC, but I'm doubtful if it should be relied on as heavily in an article on the city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Ok, thanks for keeping an open mind. I really dont think HistoryLink is a bad reference though, and I think it would be a huge detriment to the article if we lose that resource needlessly so Im going to try to address as many issues with this as I can. I think you are missing the point of some of what I said up there. This seems like a straw man fallacy, everyone keeps saying its a local source like a broken record, but it isnt.
- HistoryLink is not a local organization, it says where they are located at the bottom of the site: 1411 4th Ave. Suite 803, Seattle WA 98101. I was also saying that even if it was I dont think it should matter because it is unaffiliated with the community (HistoryLink lists its sponsors at the bottom of the page as well-its very transparent like that.). Not that I hold such a mistrust of this organization that I believe they are concerned with the civic pride of the communities they are writing about It also has professional historians and authors that are reputable people and would be considered in their own right a respectable source. Dr. Blofeld added one of Jim Kershners books (hes one of their staff historians) in the article, and now I see he is questioning the reliability of the source's (Jim Kershner) essay he wrote on behalf of HistoryLink. Whether he knows it or not, he has been adding references to the article that he himself has spoken against. He also sourced the Whitman Massacre section to the City of Spokane, which I definitely take issue with because it is not a reputable source for things related to history. This doesnt make sense to me.
- I would also like to highlight again that although these reputable staff historians are writing these essays, they themselves are not the source of the information. They have consulted works from other historians and academics to write these essays. I will list a sample of what we can all see since I dont think anybody has really given this much of a chance and bothers to look at the links I provided before...Now, if we go to Kirtland Cutter's article titled Cutter, Kirtland Kelsey (1860-1939), Architect: HistoryLink.org Essay 115 by Kit Oldham (I looked him up, hes an attorney and historian from the Seattle area if that matters to you), go to bottom of the page, and you can see under "Sources", the materials that he has consulted to write the information that WE are going to use for the wikipedia article. This is what I see:
-
Sources: Henry Matthews, “Kirtland Kelsey Cutter,” in Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects ed. by Jeffrey Karl Ochsner (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994), 78-83; Henry Matthews, “Kirtland Cutter: Spokane’s Architect,” in Spokane & the Inland Empire: An Interior Pacific Northwest Anthology ed. by David H. Stratton (Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1991), 142-177; Henry Matthews, Kirtland Cutter: Architect in the Land of Promise (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998); Edward W. Nolan, A Guide to the Cutter Collection (Spokane: Eastern Washington State Historical Society, 1984); ); Larry Schoonover, email to Laura Arksey, April 4, 2009, in possession of Laura Arksey, Spokane, Washington; Tony and Suzanne Bamonte, Spokane, Our Early History (Spokane: Tornado Creek Publications, 2011), 250-251. Note: This essay replaces an earlier essay on the same subject. It was expanded slightly on October 27, 2011.
-
-
-
- As you can see, there are several books in there. If you like traditional book sources, this essay includes information from them. Some of those books are cited in the article, Stratton in particular. Now I will say that when Blofeld asked me to try to get some of those HLs to books, I did so for the ones that I had access to-some of the HistoryLink references are actually doubled up to a book source to provide the reader the ability to learn more about the topic, which I think is important for verifiability-they can actually see it themselves. But, some of those I dont have access to and almost nobody but a historian with the resources that HistoryLink has can access them. I would say those books are solid sources, even though some of them are published locally...problem? I dont think so, were dealing with professional historians here, not a tourism board.
- I would like to point out, that HistoryLink not only writes online essays, they have themselves published many books as well with UW Press if you look at their website[35]...they are writing about the community that they live in, Seattle, Washington. I will just list some here:
-
-
- Power for the People: A History of Seattle City Light David Wilma, Walt Crowley and the HistoryLink Staff (2010 History Ink with UW Press)
- Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition: Washington’s First World’s Fair (2009, History Ink)
- The Fairmont: The Story of a San Francisco Landmark (2006, for Fairmont Hotels & Resorts)
- Moving Washington Timeline: The First Century of the Washington State Department of Transportation, 1905-2005 (2005, WSDOT with UW Press)
- Bellevue Timeline, 1863-2003 (2004, City of Bellevue with UW Press)
- The Story of Union Station in Seattle (1999, for Sound Transit) The War Years: A Chronicle of Washington State in World War II (2000 in association with the University of Washington Press)
-
-
-
- I think HistoryLink has been utilized to that extent that it has because it seems to be deemed by many of the people in the wikipedia community as a reliable source. It is utilized even more so on the Seattle featured article which has gone through 3 FAC/FARs and not once do I see any issue of this being brought up and it seems like an injustice in terms of consistency in the wikipedia community that one article can utilize this source as reliable for almost a decade, but here in this one instance, one reviewer deems it so inadequate it cannot be used for a FA. It has been on the noticeboard twice, but neither time did anybody say it was unacceptable and not OK.. HistoryLink as an organization is independent, hires professional staff historians from a variety of fields, has access to a wealth of information, and is verifiable, vetted and fact checked by staff, transparent, and they even have given their essays a Creative Commons license. I really dont know what there is not to like about that. Its like they made it for wikipedia. I believe it is a reliable source by wikipedia standards. Now, I have not seen any issue with HistoryLink as it pertains to POV (the main issue that you have with Historylink it seems, since you believe it is "local"), but according to what ive been looking at on wikipedia it says:
-
-
Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. and this A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.[36]
-
-
-
- I have some other questions, if a local source is not to be trusted, why dont you arent you scrutinizing the Spokesman-Review, or Strattons book (not published in Spokane-but still in the region...Meinig is from Palouse, WA-is what he writes POV and suspect too?) These are the questions that are popping up. If you cannot use anything that is local because of a potential conflict of interest, then writing a comprehensive article for something as significant as a whole city would be almost impossible unless its maybe New York City or a place that truly has global significance. This discussion has gotten way longer than I ever expected it to go, and Im sorry for writing a book in here..but I wanted to state my case for HistoryLinks inclusion. I believe it is an excellent resource.
- I would like to know how you feel about the sourcing of the rest of the article. Do you like the Crime section now? I added info about Yates and Zehm. I have also been reviewing the Culture section for POV sentences and I found a couple more, but I think it rights right now. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for your input!G755648 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- A local press is a bit more trustworthy than a local website, IMHO. Either way, I'll strike my "oppose" above, but I cannot in good faith support with such an (over)reliance on the source which may or may not be reliable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re: the noticeboard. One of the two discussions consisted of negative feedback; it's not like the source has never been questioned. Also, the Seattle article was promoted in 2005. Things have changed quite a bit since then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Although I dont understand the insecurities since it is again not a local website, I respect your view on HistoryLink and I am thankful that your are not going to kill the FAC because of a single source. I still want to address your issues to the best of my ability and work with you on this; I value your opinion. I hope the HistoryLink discussion hasnt turned you off to your participation here. I am like you, I would rather cite the book that HistoryLink uses rather than HistoryLink itself, but its hard to use 100% books. I wish I had all the books available to me so I can write this whole thing with books, but I dont have the resources, time, or money to gather all those materials...but luckily the 40 staff historians at HistoryLink do. The sections that we use it for in the history section are mainly in the sections that have an extremely narrow focus and subject matter or are in fairly recent history, so recent that I dont think many books have been published about those events. Its filling the sections that we cant find a book for basically. You said you didnt mind using it in all cases, if you tell me which ones you have the most issues with, I will do my best to source them to something else.
- Also, Just as a note, it is true the Seattle article was promoted in 2005, but its last of 2 featured article reviews was in 2009 and I dont think wikipedias policy that I pointed out above on using sources with a POV has ever changed. Anyway, you said you were worried about the sentence about the recent downtown renewal in particular before, I found a book through Google called 'Urban Tourism and Urban Change: Cities in a Global Economy' By Costas Spirou to source that sentence to now. I will include it. Thanks for your insight CriscoG755648 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good start (for the other thing, though, I should note five years is still quite a while in Wiki-time). If the source reviewer approves the use of HistoryLink, I'll support, but until then I'll wait on the fence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
-
-
G755648, can you mention some of the actual notable houses which might be registry buildings in the residential section?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, that sounds like good idea since we talk about the Davenport in the Commercial section, it will give it some balance. I think Ill probably talk about the Campbell House, it is part of the Museum of Arts and Culture. Ill try to get working on that after I get done working on the fixes Crisco is recommending. Nice job with the edits!
- Ill probably be using these sources for the section unless I find something better when I get to it. [37] and [38]
G755648 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"known at the time as "Spokan [sic] Falls".": Drop the [sic]. Per the article, "the "e" was added in 1883".[I got that one - Dank (push to talk)]
- The [sic] was put in because people reading it often see that its missing the 'e' and think that its a typo. Hopefully that doesnt keep happening..G755648 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Spokane tribe": Spokane People uses the word "tribe" exactly once in the text, preferring "the Spokanes". We don't have to walk on eggshells over the name, but if the Spokanes prefer not to be called a tribe, then they aren't a tribe. The word can be ambiguous, because many readers think of a "tribe" as a group of not more than around 150 people, but even so, I have no problem with the word if the Spokanes want to be known that way.
-
- DoneWhatever the reason, if they use 'the Spokanes', I will use that terminology to. It may not have much significance, but I want the article to be agreeable to the most people as possible and its an easy fix. Ill try to switch the language to 'The Spokanes' wherever possible.G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- "white people": Some think the phrase isn't idiomatic. White men is, but that is seen by some as sexist, and sometimes it's just wrong. You use "Europeans" in this sense ... but is a person whose family has been in North America for 300 years a European? How about a white person whose family was never in Europe? I don't know. I'll throw this into the pile of things I don't know to handle, yet.
- "1883 to the late 19th century": 1883 is the late 19th century, so this could mean anything from a month to 17 years.
- "subject to mass migration by blacks": This wouldn't be my choice of language. Was it primarily black men or black families, at that time?
- I've made it down to
20th century21st century, so far. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Continuing. You have dealt with my comments so far. "a sense of doubt regarding aspects of city government": Per WP:WORDS, either leave it out or say something specific. A specific problem should illustrate the general problem.
- "it will blend residential and retail space with plazas and walking trails": WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kendall Yards is cited to ref 67, retrieved 2008, but a search on that page gives no hits for Kendall. Assuming the cited source supported this sentence back in 2008 ... okay, did those things happen?
- FixedI will take out the sentence on city government since, Im not exactly sure what its referring to-I think it might be a loss of confidence in the police but I cant say for sure. I found a different reference that supports the Kendall Yards sentence, a 2010 Journal of Business article. The Kendall Yards project is still happening and I think it will take decades before its fully complete.G755648 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- "of which, 59.25 square miles": I changed it to of which 59.25 square miles
- I got down to Crime. There was a lot to do, so I'm not going to have time to finish, I hope someone else can pick it up from there. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- One more thing: the general rule at FAC on
expandablecollapsed boxes and scrollboxes in the main text is: don't do it. I know that climate data tables are sometimes hidden in articles, but I just had a look at some other geography articles that are FAs (I stopped after Ann Arbor, Michigan, Antarctica, Australia, Bath, Somerset, Belgrade, and Biscayne National Park), and none of them hide any table in the text by default, including the climate data table. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done Well, if it is allowed, I would like to keep the table. It has useful info on it that many people would be interested in. I will definitely expand it like the Ann Arbor article. Thanks for your time Dank!G755648 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, it looks fine, and the other edits are fine too ... as long as the Kendall Yards sentence is accurate. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Continuing. The cite to the 2012 figure in Crime was "retrieved in 2011". (Also, check my edit there, I guessed that the date on the first sentence was also 2012, and I guessed a date of 2010 after that.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- This time I got down to Economy. I don't get the sense that anyone read the text closely before this was submitted to FAC (there were a lot of mistakes), which is one of the FAC requirements. I won't oppose, but this nomination will probably fail this time around without some help by reviewers. Look over my edits to make sure they're right, and try proofreading the text starting at Economy. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Not really, no. Nominating the article was sort of an impulse, I originally registered just to nominate a featured picture, and that all. Thought doing the article might be worth a shot and my effort and I dont really plan on using this account after this FAC closes. If it passes, thats fantastic, if it doesnt then maybe someone else will finish it some day down the road.
- The prose is probably the toughest and most common issue in the FACs and if the article can use a more thorough copy edit, maybe I will tap someone to look into it. I dont think I have the expertise to do it well enough, Im not a grammar and punctuation whiz. There has been some new content that has sort of been hastily integrated in the article. Ill do what I can though. Thanks again DankG755648 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Continuing. I haven't checked the sources, but the last paragraph in Economy feels tacked on and promotional, and it restates (and to some extent contradicts) earlier material.
-
-
-
- Fixed I thinkTook out the information about the two companies that relocated to the area (one isnt even operating anymore) and the info about the 'Terabyte Triangle'. Kept the info about what industries are trying to be developed and about the business incubator.G755648 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- "rated by Forbes as one of "10 Transformed Neighborhoods" of note in the U.S.": When?
-
- Fixed Deleted. Forbes doesnt have a date for it that I could find, its just one of those lists that they always do. I Dont know why thats there, it sort of stops the flow and distracts from the purpose of the sentence. I dont like using Forbes for much, the website is poorly designed, slow, and is chock full of ads.G755648 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- "the Hillyard neighborhood came about due to James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway yard": it replaced the rail yard? It sprang up next to it? When?
-
- Done 1892. Clarified; the railyard he created was Hillyard, it was a sort of a company town.G755648 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- "West Central (the seal of Spokane County)": I'm thinking that should be "seat", but better would be to delete it since you've already said that.
-
- DoneActually its supposed to read 'seal'. The section focuses on landmarks and architecture and the distinctive building is the symbol of Spokane County.G755648 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Changed it to "the building on the seal of Spokane County". - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- DoneActually its supposed to read 'seal'. The section focuses on landmarks and architecture and the distinctive building is the symbol of Spokane County.G755648 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Restaurants of note in Spokane include the Asian Ming Wah Restaurant, Ginger Asian Bistro and Sushi.Com, Atilano's Mexican Food, the Italia Trattoria, The Elk Public House and the Palm Court Grill Restaurant at the Davenport, which serves "North-West inspired cuisine".": What makes any of these restaurants "of note"?
- "six neighborhood aquatic centers": I moved that up one sentence, so please check that the ref covers it. I couldn't combine refs myself because ... there's no ref at the end of that paragraph, which is usually a problem at FAC.
- "The Spokane Pride Parade held each June draws gays, lesbians, and others in celebration of the value of diversity.": I went with: The gay and lesbian Spokane Pride Parade is held each June. I'm as pro-diversity as you're likely to get in a copyeditor, but there are several things wrong here from a copyeditor's viewpoint, including the tone. Since I'm axing the occasional promotional tone above, I need to be consistent and do it here, too. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- "in the vicinity of the Thor/Freya interchange": Almost all external links go in one of the end sections, not in the main text.
- Assuming you'll attend to those things: Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for supporting and the time youve put in here Dank!G755648 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for supporting and the time youve put in here Dank!G755648 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- WELL! Hi there. User:G755648 asked me to give the article a look-see and pick up where User:Dank had left off— I suppose because I'm in the Guild of Copy Editors— so I did that. But I forgot to look at this page till just now, when I finished my editing.
- Though I've gone beyond simple copy-editing, in looking for some better references and so on, I haven't tried to clear everything up. In particular, there's an apparent contradiction that I've written up on the talk page, and asked WikiProject Washington and the Eastern Washington Task Force to help with.
- Anyhow, please take a look at the article now. Here's the cumulative diff. --Thnidu (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Thnidu, I noticed that contradiction too and was going to look into that before I took a little break. Im glad you mentioned it because I might have forgotten. I saw Blofeld added that in by replacing a Schmeltzer citation that said the economy stagnated in the 1910s and and improved very little in the 20s (which the Demographics chart seems to indicate-10.6% growth from 1920 to 1930), I checked out that page that its referenced to (Creighton p 83) to see what to make of it and I think it is talking about construction specifically since the book is titled 'Bridges of Spokane' and less about economic growth in the town. Ill put the original sentence and reference back in so its consistent. Might be able to find another reference in Stratton for that information too.G755648 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- DoneOk, I looked at it and I think it looks fixed now. It was actually a Stratton citation, so I just put it back and I added a bit more content just for FYI I guess to explain the situation at the time.
- Thanks Thnidu, I noticed that contradiction too and was going to look into that before I took a little break. Im glad you mentioned it because I might have forgotten. I saw Blofeld added that in by replacing a Schmeltzer citation that said the economy stagnated in the 1910s and and improved very little in the 20s (which the Demographics chart seems to indicate-10.6% growth from 1920 to 1930), I checked out that page that its referenced to (Creighton p 83) to see what to make of it and I think it is talking about construction specifically since the book is titled 'Bridges of Spokane' and less about economic growth in the town. Ill put the original sentence and reference back in so its consistent. Might be able to find another reference in Stratton for that information too.G755648 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- @G755648, Dank: One more thing. I'm a linguist (language scientist), and this sentence in the lede section ran up a red flag for me:
- (Spokane means "children of the sun" in [[Salishan languages|Salishan]].)
- As I wrote to an old grad school friend from U.C.Berkeley:
- The link is to the "Salishan languages" article, so this is like saying "Gare du Nord means "north station" in Romance" [instead of specifying French], if not even "... Indo-European". No source was cited. I found two and added one of them, https://beta.spokanecity.org/about/history/; the other is http://spokanetribalenterprises.com/history/ .
- Neither was particularly specific or scholarly. So I figured I'd ask somebody more likely to know.
- ... that "somebody" being my friend, who lives in Vancouver, Washington, and did his graduate work on Salishan languages. And he wrote back:
- I'm in Panama right now.
- But every single so-called meaning of a Salish place name, every single one that I've heard or seen, is total fabrication on the part of some white man who was quoted because he was there before the quoter.
- I'm forwarding your message to a friend of mine in Seattle who's done a lot of research on place names.
- I haven't heard from the Seattle friend yet, but I expect far more reliable information on "Children of the Sun" than anything we can find on the Net. (Although the fact that spokanetribalenterprises.com/history/ is one of the sources I found for the name is rather encouraging.) --Thnidu (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thats interesting stuff, let us know what you find out about the placenames. I will link the 'Salishan languages' to Montana Salish language, the specific dialect I think. Do whatever you think is best with those sentences on 'children of the sun', youre in your element there. Right now the sentence that we have is this in the History section:
-
The [[Spokane people|Spokane]] tribe, after which the city is named (the name meaning "children of the sun" or "sun people" in [[Salishan languages|Salishan]]),<ref name="Phillips">
-
-
- If you or your friend can point us to a better resource for that sentence, thats great. I am going to move the reference that you put in the Lead so it is next to the Phillips reference though. The Margin of Style says that youre not supposed to have any references in the Lead since its just meant to be an executive summary of the entire article. Thanks Thnidu!G755648 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- As I mentioned on your talk page, I've looked through all your edits, and you did really great work, I've just made a few tweaks, with explanations in the edit summaries and on your talk page. I've started up copyediting again where I left off, at Economy. I won't be long. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I took a little break for the holidays but Im back and Ill be trying to work on the issues you guys have been looking into. Thank you the help you guys and thanks for joining us, Thnidu.G755648 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thnidu, about the 3 Jewish congregations: there probably are only 3, but the 3 refs you give (on their main pages, at least) only establish that 3 congregations exist, not that others don't, so I added "at least". I also added "2014", since readers would be likely to think the information comes from 2010 otherwise, and per one of our guidelines, WP:DATED. Thanks for looking that up and adding it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]
A FAC running for two months? I am loathe to get sucked in to extensive reviewing on such a long FAC, but there are clear problems. One sample:
- Spokane is still trying to make the transition to a more service-oriented economy in the face of a less prominent manufacturing sector.[1]
We have "still" with no as of date, and the source is a 2005 article, last accessed in 2008. So, that information has been in the article for six years? Another as of date missing on dated info:
- The top five employers in Spokane ...
Another sample, from a 2008 source:
- Economic development in the Spokane area primarily focuses on promoting six industries: manufacturing, aerospace manufacturing, health sciences, information technology, clean technology, and digital media.
That is six years old. Another 2009 source:
- Spokane Public Schools (District 81) is the largest public school system in Spokane and the second largest in the state, serving roughly 30,000 students in six high schools, six middle schools, and thirty-four elementary schools.
No "as of date", and an old source already.
The problem with city, state and country FAs is how fast they become outdated, so this sort of thing should be carefully checked before promotion. These are samples only. I suggest withdrawing the FAC, and carefully reworking everything to update, is the fastest way forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Smyth Report[edit]
This article is about the Smyth Report, the first official administrative history written on the development of the first atomic weapons. The image of the book is that of my own copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN13: this is formatted with the title as a second author
- FN5: think it would make more sense to cite the Grove foreword specifically here, rather than the report generally
- Can you double-check publication details for Coleman and Smith? You've given the two the same page range in the same publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Wiki-Gnomes tried to use the sfn template for web pages, which doesn't work too well. Fixed.
- I'm not sure what you mean here. Groves's forward is on p. v of Smyth, just like it says.
- Coleman had the wrong page range. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- Re point 2: yes, I don't doubt that. What I'm suggesting is something along these lines:
- Groves, Leslie (1945). "Foreword". In Smyth, Henry DeWolf. Atomic Energy for Military Purposes; the Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1722-9.
- simply for precision. If you'd prefer not to that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Re point 2: yes, I don't doubt that. What I'm suggesting is something along these lines:
- Done. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- In leads in my articles, I've copied a sentence or two from the text without any hesitation ... but I think the following probably won't fly at FAC, with the part in the text coming just three paragraphs after the lead:
- In the lead: "The Smyth Report served two functions. First, it was to be the official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons. Second, it served as an indicator for other scientists as to what information was declassified. Anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available, such as the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
- In the text: "The Report was to serve two functions. First, it was to be the public official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs ... and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons, in particular nuclear fission and the nuclear chain reaction. Second, it served as a barometer for other scientists as to what information was declassified—anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available in declassified literature, such as much of the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
- "British Scientific Mission to Manhattan Project": Is that the official title, without the "the"?
- "easier to imagine unexpected printing problems resulting in himself and his workers returning from summer vacation to find themselves locked out of a plant filled with top secret material": Give that one another shot, please.
- "had text added paragraph 12.18": not sure what's missing
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support
- Read and tweaked prose per request by Hawk.
- Sources look good. I did not do a spot check. auntieruth (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Image check - 2 images with problems all OK (fixed Russian cover info)
File:Richard_Tolman_and_Henry_D._Smyth.jpg - do you have a page number for the source here? The PDF has 650+ pages and loads with like 1 page per minute. Also, author is "US Army", but PD is "United States Department of Energy". Is one of it wrong?- The Russian cover (last image) - this one has several problems:
-
Date should be date of the book (1946).- T
he author field should name the original author and possibly the editor of the translation: G. Ivanova (unless Google translate screwed something up here), the full Russian publication info from Wikisource is "Г. Д. Смит. Атомная энергия для военных целей. Официальный отчёт о разработке атомной бомбы под наблюдением правительства США. Перевод с английского под редакцией Г. Н. Иванова. Государственное транспортное железнодорожное издательство. Москва — 1946", translated as: "original title" plus "Translation from English, edited by G. Ivanova. Public transport rail publishing. Moscow - 1946". The cover is not "own work" and can't be released under CC, neither by Russian Wikisource nor by us (unless the copyright owner would have released it first). A possible license could be Commons:template:PD-text for non-original texts with simple geometric shapes.Optional, upload date to Russian Wikisource and original uploader should be mentioned (similar to en-Wiki -> Commons transfers).- Optional, but an English filename (like Smyth_Report_Russian_translation_cover.jpg) would be a lot easier to handle (and to link).
- Other images are OK (PD) and have sufficient source and author info. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Support Comments -- recusing myself from FAC coord duties, copyedited as usual, other points:
- I think the first sentence would read better as "The Smyth Report is the common name of an administrative history written by physicist Henry DeWolf Smyth about the Manhattan Project, the Allies' effort to develop the atomic bomb during World War II."
- Also in the lead, the third para follows so naturally from the second that I feel they could easily be merged into one -- just a thought though, I feel less strongly about this than about rewriting the first sentence.
- "In the fall of 1943..." -- I don't have an issue with seasonal references in ancient or medieval histories but can we not avoid them here?
- "The stated purpose of the Smyth Report was to provide sufficient information to citizens to permit them to make sensible policy decisions regarding the new atomic weapons." -- the only citation following this is Smyth, after the quote from his preface that follows, so I presume this is just to summarise the quote. Perhaps it's pedantic but I'd prefer to see a secondary source cited for the purpose, otherwise why not just quote Smyth without editorialising and let the readers make up their minds?
- Similarly, "This contrasted somewhat with what Groves wrote in the foreword" -- the only citation that follows is Groves himself after the quote so I assume it's your interpretation of Groves' words. Again, unless a secondary source highlights the discrepancy, I'd expect to just see Groves' words stand by themselves, introduced by simply "Groves wrote in the foreword:".
- "Smyth passed security clearances necessary to visit project sites, access documents and to discuss the work with the research personnel. He also approved Smyth's request to hire another Princeton physicist, Lincoln G. Smith, as a research assistant." -- something missing here; the first sentence mentions Smyth alone, so who approved Smyth's request for Smith?
- Aside from the above, structure and level of detail seem fine.
- No duplicate or dab links.
- Happy to go with Nikki's and Joe's source and image checks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
AI Mk. IV radar[edit]
The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar system. Its development took almost five years and is a story full of false starts, lucky breaks and bureaucratic infighting.
I'm not exactly sure what happened to the last FA process on this. Everything seemed to be going fine, then all the reviewers wandered off and then it was closed.
- Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is about... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Referencing errors
There are lots of errors in the format of the references. Refs 28, 31, 34, 36, 40, 46, 47, 50, 57, 58, 50, 92 and 103 are not linked to the bibliography correctly. Also ref 46 says "Bowen 1991", ref 34 "Brown 1999" and some refs have "Hanbury Brown". Can you check them.User:Graham Beards (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- @Maury, if you install Ucucha's script to check for errors in Harvard references, it'll highlight such problems in red - makes searching and fixing them a lot easier. GermanJoe (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- All fixed.Another useful script! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Image review
- Captions need copyediting
- File:Hugh_Dowding.jpg: date link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nikkimaria, can you please be specific what captions need what copyediting? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Lead caption needs a hyphen; Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion; RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated; generally overusing the word "ample" in captions; Mk III is a bit clunky, as is Dowdy; magnetron needs conversion; Mk VI and the first Displays image have grammar issues; generally inconsistent in the use of "wingtip" vs "wing tip". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, can you please be specific what captions need what copyediting? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Lead caption needs a hyphen" - it does? Where?
- "Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion" - hyphen where? 6.7m is not an actual measure, its referring to the frequency band.
- "RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated" - how so.
- Maybe you should just make these changes? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewers are not required or expected to edit candidate articles. At the moment there are 49 articles on the list, often there are more. There is a shortage of editors prepared to review FACs and there would be fewer if we asked them to do this. Sometimes reviewers will be generous with their time and talents and copy edit candidates. But this is a bonus that should not be requested. User:Graham Beards (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- But I am honestly at a loss as to how to address these issues. Most of them I don't really understand. What should I do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- For conversions see Template:Convert which is already used in the article. Generally, the image legends are way too wordy and are causing some problems such as the redundant "This image shows...". Check for compound adjectives like "Mk. IV equipped Beaufighter" which should be "Mk. IV-equipped Beaufighter". User:Graham Beards (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- You don't convert wavelengths; they are like boat classes, 5.5 meter boats are not 5.5 meters long nor is a 5.5 meter boat an 18 foot boat. Even US sources measure them in metric units. The other two are completed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- For conversions see Template:Convert which is already used in the article. Generally, the image legends are way too wordy and are causing some problems such as the redundant "This image shows...". Check for compound adjectives like "Mk. IV equipped Beaufighter" which should be "Mk. IV-equipped Beaufighter". User:Graham Beards (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- But I am honestly at a loss as to how to address these issues. Most of them I don't really understand. What should I do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewers are not required or expected to edit candidate articles. At the moment there are 49 articles on the list, often there are more. There is a shortage of editors prepared to review FACs and there would be fewer if we asked them to do this. Sometimes reviewers will be generous with their time and talents and copy edit candidates. But this is a bonus that should not be requested. User:Graham Beards (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you should just make these changes? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: I've not received any specific input on the captions, so I've edited every-but-one for brevity. I left the physical layout description as-is because I think it's key to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Support
- I've reviewed all of the changes that Maury's made since the last nomination and am satisfied that the article meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Note - Please check that the use of bold type as in "This led to Hanbury Brown's work on the Mark IVA" conforms with the manual of style. And, I'm still concerned about the image captions; as they stand some will require citations. I was alluding to this above when I commented on the length of the captions. User:Graham Beards (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I bold terms if they are the titles objects of the sub-section they appear in, or alternate names for the same. This is so that links to those sub-sections appear as fully-formed sub-articles. Is this not correct? As to the captions, can you be super-specific as to the ones you'd like to see addressed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- A large article with many technical aspects and units, difficult to get right. I've read most of the way through and found it fairly heavy going.
- Frankly I'm not sure all the convert tags add or hinder clarity.
- Unit conversions are a requirement, they were not the problem. Lots of figures in a technical article is unavoidable but they can be controlled (does the reader need to know the exact values?).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Frankly I'm not sure all the convert tags add or hinder clarity.
*Lead, word repetition, 'development' used twice in the second sentence, 'Early development'? Perhaps just 'development would be better.
-
- Indeed, fixed.
*'On the "Beau"' seems too informal.
-
- Fair enough, fixed.
*Luftwaffe is not linked (first instance), also 'altitude'.
-
- Fixed and fixed.
- '1.5 m wavelength (~193 MHz)', what is 'm'? Metres? What is MHz?
-
- Yes and yes...
- Great, though looking at it again wavelength or metre wavelength would be a better link.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I went with option 2, simply because I think it looks better.
- Wavelength has been unlinked?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I went with option 2, simply because I think it looks better.
- Great, though looking at it again wavelength or metre wavelength would be a better link.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and yes...
*None of the many persons and establishments mentioned in this article feature in the lead. There is room for a fourth paragraph.
-
- Hmmm, that's an interesting thought! Ok, let me know what you think of the addition.
- Much better, there is a grammar problem (missing 'to'?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Took me a while to find that! Fixed.
- Much better, there is a grammar problem (missing 'to'?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm, that's an interesting thought! Ok, let me know what you think of the addition.
*The image captions are lengthy and would benefit from wikilinking the objects and people in them (Hurricane, Heyford, Bawdsey Manor, Dowding etc).
-
- Done, but I did not do the wikilinking because that's better in the body imho.
- It's very common practise in Featured Articles to repeat wikilinks of objects, people and places in image captions, it is encouraged. Moon is a good example. With a long article people tend to read the lead (which should summarise the whole article), the infobox and wikilinked captions. Looking for the object links in the body text is inconvenient and frustrating, especially if there is no link there. Your call. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough, I've never liked it but who am I to argue with the MOS?! I'll work these in over the next couple of days. Actually, done!
-
- It's very common practise in Featured Articles to repeat wikilinks of objects, people and places in image captions, it is encouraged. Moon is a good example. With a long article people tend to read the lead (which should summarise the whole article), the infobox and wikilinked captions. Looking for the object links in the body text is inconvenient and frustrating, especially if there is no link there. Your call. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done, but I did not do the wikilinking because that's better in the body imho.
*More word repetition, 'Henry Tizard, whose Tizard Committee... How about Henry Tizard, whose Committee...?
-
- Fixed.
- Could 'had to be moved from aircraft to aircraft for testing' become 'had to be moved between aircraft for testing'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed.
*Mixed tenses 'its Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines had a well-insulated ignition system which give off minimal electrical noise.' 'Gave off' perhaps?
-
- Fixed - that one was aggressive auto-correct.
*Aircraft serial numbers should be italicised as it is effectively their name (MOS:ITALIC), aviation project convention which follows the ship examples.
-
- Fixed.
- Still a few remaining in the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looking... can you point them out? I must be blind... ok I think I got them all now.
- Still a few remaining in the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- None of the footnotes are cited, some refer to pages in used references but they need citations as used in the text.
-
-
-
- Sorry, I missed this first time around. Actually you cannot use linked FN's in notes, at least I'be never managed it. The template-in-the-ref appears to drive the parser nuts.
- A technical problem that could probably be resolved with help, I avoid all templated referencing formats myself. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- One footnote appears to refer to images (formatted with external links), images can not be used for citations (even though we know that London buses are indeed red!). Other footnotes still unsourced (apparent editor synthesis). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- A technical problem that could probably be resolved with help, I avoid all templated referencing formats myself. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this first time around. Actually you cannot use linked FN's in notes, at least I'be never managed it. The template-in-the-ref appears to drive the parser nuts.
-
-
- There is no 'See also' section or navbox for related subjects.
-
- Any suggestions? I rarely add these to my articles - laziness, not any dislike of them.
- Yes, Air warfare of World War II, History of Radar, Radar in World War II and European theatre of World War II are four subjects that readers might like to visit. A navbox could be produced linking World War II airborne radar types from Category:World War II radars, divided into nationality groups.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done!
- Still no radar navbox. Castles in the sky is related surely? Does this article not come within the scope of WP:AVIATION? Template:Aviation lists is used in every article as a jumping point for readers who might want to find out more. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done!
- Yes, Air warfare of World War II, History of Radar, Radar in World War II and European theatre of World War II are four subjects that readers might like to visit. A navbox could be produced linking World War II airborne radar types from Category:World War II radars, divided into nationality groups.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Any suggestions? I rarely add these to my articles - laziness, not any dislike of them.
- Is there any mention of this system or the development of AI in the Flight magazine online archives (exhaustion of sources)?
-
- I'll never know... at least until Flight changes their search engine to something created this century. Try a search on the topic, and you'll see what I mean. The ones that are in here are generally the most complete histories, written by the people actually involved. Some of these required me to contact the original authors as copies were not available on this side of the pond. I also had to develop an algo to convert Bowen's page numbers for Google Books, because mine is a different copy and I want to make sure I was pointing people to an available source. Although here are some "review" sources, like White and Zimmerman, I've found that every other source I looked at (there were dozens) were essentially clipped versions of these. White, for instance, largely follows Bowen, while Zimmerman does more compare-and-contrast. Generally I'm not sure there is much more out there, I spent maybe two months collecting resources and discarded the majority during the process. Consider this for instance, which is largely content-free, yet uses many of the same images!
-
- I found the same page and a few others, it is laden with facts, is a reliable source and can be cited (provides another source that readers can read online).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- I'll never know... at least until Flight changes their search engine to something created this century. Try a search on the topic, and you'll see what I mean. The ones that are in here are generally the most complete histories, written by the people actually involved. Some of these required me to contact the original authors as copies were not available on this side of the pond. I also had to develop an algo to convert Bowen's page numbers for Google Books, because mine is a different copy and I want to make sure I was pointing people to an available source. Although here are some "review" sources, like White and Zimmerman, I've found that every other source I looked at (there were dozens) were essentially clipped versions of these. White, for instance, largely follows Bowen, while Zimmerman does more compare-and-contrast. Generally I'm not sure there is much more out there, I spent maybe two months collecting resources and discarded the majority during the process. Consider this for instance, which is largely content-free, yet uses many of the same images!
- There is an oversize image of a DH Mosquito to illustrate its antenna, could it be edited to crop and highlight this feature and show it at normal thumb size?
-
- I was convinced to leave this one larger specifically because a previous reviewer complained that there was no reason for all images to be thumb size and that making this one larger would improve the article. I think I agree with the logic, so I'm inclined to leave this one as is.
- Disagree with that logic and it remains your call, it looks odd to me apart from not clearly illustrating the detail it is supposed to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was convinced to leave this one larger specifically because a previous reviewer complained that there was no reason for all images to be thumb size and that making this one larger would improve the article. I think I agree with the logic, so I'm inclined to leave this one as is.
*Why were the large windows of the Avro Anson a benefit for testing? I couldn't immediately find it in the adjacent text, just curious.
-
- Because the Anson found itself mostly used for ASV development and testing minimum range of the AI sets. Both tasks required the operators to look out once the radar's minimum range had been reached, and large windows always help in that regard.
- Struck as the claim has been removed, appeared to be editor opinion without cited mention in the text. Surely the crews would be squinting out of the windscreen looking dead ahead for their tracked target? Perhaps that aspect needs clarifying. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because the Anson found itself mostly used for ASV development and testing minimum range of the AI sets. Both tasks required the operators to look out once the radar's minimum range had been reached, and large windows always help in that regard.
Lots of points and questions but all aimed at improving the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Does any of this equipment exist in physical form in museums? Are there images available (or a Commons link to an airborne radar equipment category)? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
(let me know if I missed any... maybe re-start the list for clarity?) Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
All fixed Nimbus! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, my replies are missing, I still have the edit conflict window open and will leave the PC on overnight! WP software could do with an upgrade to show that the other person is typing as Facebook does in live chat. I will try to sort it out tomorrow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- Added missing edit conflict comments. If you sign with four tildes after each comment we will know who is commenting. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
For clarity I'm going to restart the list. I think I have addressed everything except:
- Still looking for advice on cites-in-notes.
- The Flight example has a single mention of AI, in passing. I see nothing in this article that suggests it should be included for any reason. I'm hesitant to add links for the sake of adding links. Am I missing you intension here?
- As to images, I have discussed the matter with several people. The only person that had a good image of the Pye strip refused to release under a CC-ish licence. Norman Groom released all his images under CC-by-SA, but because he didn't use the specific terminology "CC-by-SA" it has been refused, and now he won't have anything more to do with the Wiki Commons as a result. The RAF Museum does not appear to have a Mk IV, nor the Duxford Radio Society.
- Anything else I missed?
Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment (point 1)
- Check out the notes in Death on the Rock. I have no experience with this particular style, but seems like this article uses your reference style with slightly reformatted footnotes. GermanJoe (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- The gurus on the Village Pump sent me in the right direction. All the notes are now properly reffed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Note I believe all the issues raised in this and previous FACs have now been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Comments. Temporary oppose It's likely we'll get enough copyediting help to push this over the hump, but we've got a ways to go. I make a suggestion below for the next step. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Watt", "Watson-Watt": the argument can be made either way, since he adopted the hyphenated name in 1942, but be consistent.
- "Type 316A "giant acorn" vacuum tubes": I changed this to "Type 316A large acorn vacuum tubes", after doing some Google searching, but I'm just guessing ... if Western Electric called their product a Giant Acorn, then capitalize it. While we're on the subject ... someone has steered you wrong on quote marks, and it's getting tedious fixing them all. Some are ambiguous: for instance, does "Taffy" Bowen have quote marks because he picked up that nickname in the military but wasn't generally known that way? (Then use his real name.) Did people generally know him that way? (Then drop the quote marks.) Are these the kind of quote marks that postmodern writers liberally scatter in their prose, to avoid the impression that they take themselves or anything they write too seriously? (Take responsibility for your word choices.) Generally, so-called scare quotes suggest that some people, but not everyone, used the given name or concept ... but how is the reader to know how many people used it, or why some people didn't? One rule of thumb: use capitals, not scare quotes, for proper nouns. Fixing scare quotes is hard for a copyeditor to do ... I don't have access to most of the sources ... so please get to work on those, and I'll keep this page watch listed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I had no idea I was a post-modernest! I feed the need to purchase a beret. In any event, I removed almost all the scare quotes, leaving those around nicknames, direct quotes and references. As to nicknames, I looked over the MoS and several other sources, and could not find anything one way or the other, so I went with the most common format on the wiki, to quote them. I believe everything else has been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm afraid there's more here than I'm going to have time to do, but I made a good start and I'm hoping that will allow someone to finish up. I got down to ASV emerges, and it's looking good so far. The writing is lively. Below where I left off, I believe there's more quoted text than just nicknames, direct quotes and references (although maybe some of those are direct quotes, and I can't tell). For instance, "all hell broke loose" was a cliché (unless I misunderstood and it was a direct quote ... but clichés don't serve as particularly memorable quotes). I went with something blander, but you may want to play around with it. And there's still a problem with the nicknames. Bowen is one of your sources, and skimming the text at books.google.com, he uses a lot of nicknames. For instance, the only mention of Walters in your article is sourced to Bowen: "... the Yagi antenna design, which had been brought to the UK when the Japanese patents were sold to the Marconi Company. "Yagi" Walters developed a system for AI use using five Yagi antennas." What are the odds that a guy who was nicknamed after an antenna kept the nickname throughout his life? If you want to mention Walters, please find out the name he actually used, the one that would go at the top of his Wikipedia article if he had one. He's owed that much if his contribution is important enough to mention.
-
- Believe it or not, "all hell broke loose" is a direct quote - IIRC its quoted that way in the book (ie, in quotes). I'll try to find Walter's full name, I have failed to do so to date. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll give this another look after you get another one or two reviewers here. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Replying to a request; I've struck my "temporary oppose". Comment: one change I made was reverted after I stopped working on this. This edit reintroduced two mistakes (one has been fixed by another editor), and also reverted "when they closed the distance, the ships mistook them for the enemy and launched" to "and then closed the distance to see "all hell broke loose" as the ships launched". The edit summary was correct, and one fix would have been to change "the enemy" to "an enemy" ... but it failed to mention that it was reverting on the point I had just been discussing (see above). When you revert on the point under discussion, please say you're reverting in the edit summary ... at a minimum, don't say only that you're fixing something else. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I am confused... I did say I was reverting (didn't I) and I only reverted that single edit (I think). Am I missing something here? I'm happy to change this again, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- You've fixed it, not a problem now. I've checked the new edits, everything is still good down to where I stopped, ASV emerges. I've also checked the quoted material in the rest of it ... that all looks good too, except don't put quote marks around a block quote, per WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I await your return! Ironically that fancy blue-background version of the BLOCK does put in quotes even if you don't... Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- You've fixed it, not a problem now. I've checked the new edits, everything is still good down to where I stopped, ASV emerges. I've also checked the quoted material in the rest of it ... that all looks good too, except don't put quote marks around a block quote, per WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am confused... I did say I was reverting (didn't I) and I only reverted that single edit (I think). Am I missing something here? I'm happy to change this again, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've pinged Nimbus227; with or without a response, I'll do more work on this soon. - Dank (push to talk) 05:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I've checked the changes since I copyedited, and I got a little farther this time, to Working design. Hopefully another copyeditor will pick it up from there. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie[edit]
I've read through the article twice and my comments are below. It's a long list, but the great majority of the points are very minor and are easily fixable. My main concern about the article is the length, and I've put that first on this list. I think the article should be split, using summary style. I'd also like to add that the long list of minor points does not detract from my very high opinion of the article and the work that has gone into it. It's a great piece of work.
- I have now supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
| Resolved issues |
|---|
Adding one or two more points on another read through.
|
- "and this 200 MHz setting would be common to many radar systems of this era" is uncited; I wouldn't withhold support for this, since I don't think it's controversial, but if you have a citation to hand I'd suggest adding it.
-
- Would a note linking to the other systems using it suffice? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it would. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done, re-worded intro and added a ref for other uses.
- Yes, it would. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would a note linking to the other systems using it suffice? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- More generally, why do we have so much information about GCI in this article? Does it bear directly on the Mk. IV? I can see it's a critical part of the development of radar and of the British war effort, but what's the relevance here?
-
- Ahhh. Well to boil it right down, AI was essentially useless without GCI radar. Using CH the radar operators had to engage in a lengthy process to convert range and bearing to grid coordinates, and then call those into the filter room. By they time they had done this, the aircraft had moved. This is one of the reasons that CH was only good to about 5 miles. Now add to this a similar limitation measuring and reporting the location of the fighter. So you ended up with two five-mile wide circles, and had to have them overlap in space to within maybe 3 miles. And since they're coming from different radars, or even huff-duff, the five mile error isn't even the same five miles. Operators had to look at the map, try to guess the actual locations, and then tell the pilots how to turn to close the distance. Good luck with that!
- With GCI both aircraft appear on the same screen. There is no need to report the locations to anyone, and the intercept angle is right there on the screen. There is an error in measure, but it's always the same error for both. And since much of the error is due to time delays, the fact that GCI measures both every few seconds basically eliminates that as well.
- Very basically, AI simply didn't work without GCI as well. And that didn't change until the 1960s when you had things like AIRPASS that so greatly extended the range of the AI that the fighter could hunt on their own.
- I thought the article explained this, but if its unclear, certainly I'm open to suggestions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I follow this now. There's a statement at the start of the "End of the Blitz" section that says this; I guess I didn't understand this the first time through. I think it would be good to make clearer the importance of the combination of "AI Mk. IV, the Beau and GCI". I'll think about it and see if I can suggest anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- The more I think about this the more important this sentence seems. Can a version of it be put into the lead? The story of the article is not just of the technical development of the radar, but of its operational implementation, and if its true that this combination was what finally made the radar a valuable weapons system, then that needs to be in the lead. I'm not sure it shouldn't be given more prominence in the body, too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I follow this now. There's a statement at the start of the "End of the Blitz" section that says this; I guess I didn't understand this the first time through. I think it would be good to make clearer the importance of the combination of "AI Mk. IV, the Beau and GCI". I'll think about it and see if I can suggest anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh, yes I think that is an excellent idea! I have added a statement that seems to fit in nicely.Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- What you've added to the lead works very well. Could we also add a strengthening sentence to the GCI section? I think part of my original problem with the GCI section was the sentence "Their effect on the battle was as profound as AI itself", which implies that AI had a big impact, and so too, independently, did GCI, making me wonder why it was in this article. Could we make this something like you said above: "The combination of GCI, the Mk. IV AI radar, and the more powerful night fighters enabled AI to have a profound effect on the battle"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't exactly sure what to do here, but I have re-worded this a bit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- "To ensure continued supply, in 1940 a destroyer was sent on a secret mission to pick up 25,000 more EF50's and another 250,000 bases, onto which Mullard could build complete tubes": this is a flash-forward, and I think a bit of rephrasing might be good. The timing in relation to the German invasion of Holland also seems relevant. How about something like: "The EF50s became key components of ..., and to ensure continued supply, the following year a destroyer was sent on a secret mission to pick up 25,000 more EF50s and another 250,000 bases, onto which Mullard could build complete tubes. The shipment left the Netherlands just days before the German invasion on 15 May 1940."?
-
- Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Can we make it "and left the Netherlands only days before"?Also, I suspect that should be "Princess Beatrix" in the related footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- That one is done already. As to the spelling, this one is actually not Safari being aggressive... "Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid Prinses Beatrix". Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, but then shouldn't it be "Prinses" instead of "Princes"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I looked into this with a little google-fu, and it seems all variations are seen. I can find Prinses, Princes and Princess for the same ship. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Uhhh, I don't know. I do know I copy-n-pasted it from this, which I consider reliable for this particular note. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I'll let it go; I suspect it should be either "Prinses" or "Princess" but I don't know, so let's leave it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Uhhh, I don't know. I do know I copy-n-pasted it from this, which I consider reliable for this particular note. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the timing of events in the Mk. III section. It seems the minimum range controversy came to head after the experimental fitting to 20 Blenheim IFs in April 1940, and the IIIA and IIIB efforts were presumably begun at about that time. Then the team at St Athan "heard of this". What exactly did they hear of that upset them? That other researchers were working on the same gear, cutting them out of the research work and leaving them working on production? Tizard hears of complaints and visits Dundee, and the memo dated 29 March 1940 is after that -- so that's before any aircraft have been fitted with the Mk. III. The only way this makes sense is that the minimum range controversy blew up well before testing in the aircraft. If that's correct, then I think some rewording is needed so the timeline is clearer.
-
- Installations of the earlier Mks took place starting around October and continued as the sets arrived, right through the winter into 1940. The range issue came up in the middle of this and proceeded in parallel. The memo in question is after all of this - as is typical for the slow grinding of bureaucracy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, but that doesn't quite address the point I meant to raise. The complaints are before the memo, of course; but the events in the prior paragraph are given explicit dates, and are after the memo (and hence after the complaints). So starting the paragraph with "When the team at St Athan heard of these developments" is confusing; the referent for "these events" is evidently not "everything that happened in the prior paragraph", but the reader is not clear what the referent is, so some clarification is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Installations of the earlier Mks took place starting around October and continued as the sets arrived, right through the winter into 1940. The range issue came up in the middle of this and proceeded in parallel. The memo in question is after all of this - as is typical for the slow grinding of bureaucracy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I've nailed it now. The basic issue is Lewis started work on the problem while Bowen was still too busy installing to fix it himself, never told Bowen he was doing it, and (according to Bowen) basically oversold the problem to Lardner and others specifically to create a tempest in a teapot. So read it over again with that in mind and see if this version runs more smoothly now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- more cleanup here. But what do you think about "production version arriving in February" -> "production version not arriving until February "Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- That does it, so I've struck the point that started this conversation.
Re your question: does the "extended period of installation development and testing" come before or after February 1942? Depending on the answer, how about "with the first production version requiring an extended period of installation development and testing and hence not arriving until February 1942", or "with the first production version arriving in February 1942, and subsequently requiring an extended period of installation development and testing"?Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)- Oh yes, that is better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK I think we've at least touched on every point. Let me know if I missed any. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- That does it, so I've struck the point that started this conversation.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Great work, Mike, much more thorough than my light copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I appreciate the compliment (as I also appreciate your copyediting of my own nominations). There are times when being OCD has its uses, but mostly I find the better the articles are, the easier it is to motivate myself to do a really thorough review -- and this is an outstandingly good article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
-- I think I've now caught up. Everything left unstruck above is because I don't think it's been addressed; if it has, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. This is a terrific piece of work, integrating a long and complicated story over an extended period, including the human, technical and military history. I have not looked at the images or done a source check, and I'm not really qualified to judge the comprehensiveness of the article, but I see no gaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Mirokado[edit]
I've started to look at this, but got distracted following wikilinks and tweaking Dowding system :). I hope to comment tomorrow. --Mirokado (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- The last thing I want to do is distract you from looking at a FAC (I say "fack", some say "F.A.C.") that you're interested in ... but when a nominator hasn't had a chance to respond yet to a wall-full of requests, piling on more requests might reduce their enthusiasm. So, you may want to go easy (or even help with some of Mike's requests above, if you like, I'm sure it will be appreciated). - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Arksey, Laura (September 4, 2005). "Spokane – Thumbnail History". Essay 7462. HistoryLink. Retrieved December 16, 2008.