Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2008

October 2008

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [1].

---

Amazing Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk), Swtpc6800 (talk)

This article is about the first magazine devoted to science fiction, founded in 1926. The article has had a substantial amount of work put in, and recently achieved GA status. We hope to make it an FA. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• ref #48 needs a publisher.
• Ref #90 needs a last accessdate.
• http://paizo.com/amazing/blog is a blog, and is thus most likely not reliable.
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the references. This is a corporate blog and the contributors all appear to be employed by Paizo Publishing. Such as Jeff Berkwits, Editor-in-Chief and Vic Wertz, Technical Director. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The blog is only used to support the statement that Paizo ran a blog for the magazine, so I think even if the fact that it's limited to Paizo staff doesn't make it reliable, it's still sufficient for the use to which it's put. Mike Christie (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but it would still be nice to see a third-party source to back it up. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other ref on that sentence does support it too, naming and linking the blog. Do you think the blog link needs to be removed? It seems harmless and somewhat informative in context, supported as it is by the other cite. Mike Christie (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support for the prose, but I've read only the first few sections. There's room for careful scrutiny by a diffferent copy-editor during this nomination process. Here are random examples.

I'll see if I can locate a new copyeditor. Mike Christie (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead: "However, Amazing was rarely an influential magazine within science fiction in any creative sense." Unsure what this means.

  I struggled with this statement, and evidently I have not yet made it clear. The magazine is legendary within sf for having founded the genre. However, it has never been a leader in creativity, or style, or originality. The Golden Age of science fiction, for example, was entirely a phenomenon of John W. Campbell's Astounding from 1939 through the mid 1940s; in the 1950s Galaxy and F&SF were starting trends and changing the field; and in the 1960s it was Michael Moorcock's New Worlds. Amazing was never an important magazine in this sense. It was simply the first one; moderately successful at times, and occasionally noteworthy, if only for debacles such as the Shaver mystery, but never critically significant. I will have another think about how to express this. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've deleted "in any creative sense" as being confusing. I think the word "influential" does the work needed here. Mike Christie (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• "were appearing with some regularity"—make the last three words one.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The market for short stories naturally lent itself to tales of invention"—Is "naturally" WP's opinion, or if repeating what is in ref 1, what does it mean? Possibly just remove the word as troublesome?

  If you baulked, it's troublesome; removed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Change of case at start of quote: "[t]he ..."—MoS says the square brackets are unnecessary. Just use the lower case as an accepted nicety in quotation practice.

  Aha. A nice nicety; thanks. Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• "done many illustrations"—bit ungainly. "produced"?

  Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Space the multiplication sign (see MOSNUM).
• "fairly regular"—it's overtly vague and could be slightly opinionated ... can you find another way of detracting from "regular"? Even "largely regular" would be better; unsure. Do you mean that he missed some deadlines among the 22 issues? Tony (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what is meant. Take a look here and you'll see what I was trying to get at; I don't know if he had deadlines and missed them but the schedule was clearly not completely regular. How about "slightly irregular"? Or "initially slightly irregular"? Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

• I did the GA review. Among various improvements since then the best is the breakdown of the single "issues and editors" chart, which had too much detail for a single visual, into the series of sub-charts which punctuate the article. I would suggest one further possible improvement to these charts: identify each editor in the captions with their colour. You could actually simplify the captions; thus, for the first chart the caption could read: "Issues of Amazing to 1939 identifying volume and issue numbers, indicating editors: Gernsback (yellow), Lynch (red), Sloane (blue), Palmer (purple)".

  Good suggestion; done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• However, two of these charts, and the circulation chart for 1960-93, and the "Slime God" issue image, are left-aligned under level-3 headings, which I have been taught is a wikicrime. Perhaps charts don't count as images? (but what about the Slime God?) If there is some exception clause, please tell me what it is so that I can use it in future.

  Darn. I'd forgotten about that; not the first time. I dug out the MOS section and it does allow for exceptions; the guideline should be followed "in the absence of a compelling reason" to diverge from it. I have moved most of the offending images, but I now have two consecutive images on the right side. If I were to rigidly alternate left and right, it would be difficult to place the 1980s-2000s chart accurately, so I'm going to assert that that's a compelling reason. Mike Christie (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quite apart from that, I wonder if the circulation chart is in the right place. Where it is kind of disturbs the continuity of the series of issues charts. Perhaps it could be placed later?

  I wondered about that at the time, and took the image-shuffling as an opportunity to move it to the chronologically correct place in the second half of the article, out of the sequence of issue grids. Mike Christie (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These points do not detract from my view that this is an article worthy of FA status. No doubt (per Tony, above) it would benefit from some neutral copyediting, but I've yet to find an article that wouldn't, even after the attentions of the best copyeditors in the business. So I'm not withholding support, but perhaps my suggestions, above, could be considered? Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 3, the author is given as Peter Nicholls, and the rest of your refs it's last name first. Might want to make that align.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. As for the blog citation, it's fine in my book. Using the blog itself as a citation for it's existence is an excellent use of primary sourcing. Hopefully, I'll get home in time to review this. In case anyone wonders about Locus, it's pretty much "the" magazine for SF/Fantasy publishing, and very reliable in this context. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the third reference to Last, First. This citation is free form so Mike should check it. Almost all of the others used the cite templates. There were several that used the author= parameter, I changed those to last= and first= parameters. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support after issues below were dealt with. Very slight oppose mainly due to some prose glitches and need for explanations.

• Okay, you LINK to science fiction, but surely a brief description of what exactly it is would be of service to our readers. (If I have to explain all sorts of linked things in my articles, I'm going to get my revenge...)

  Ho ho ho. This gave me quite a hard time (see Definitions of science fiction to see just how thorny a question this is) but I think I found a way to do this: I added "stories centered on scientific inventions, and stories set in the future" to the first sentence of the body. I don't want to really "define" science fiction at this point, for two reasons: one is that doing it concisely and accurately is very hard, and the other is that at this point in history there was no such thing as science fiction in the modern sense of a genre. I think it's better to give the reader direct examples of what was happening then rather than trying to define the abstract genre that sf ultimately became. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Need to explain what "upmarket" and "slick" mean in the publishing business.

  Done; I added another ref for the explanation. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'd move the explanation of the fact that the term science fiction hadn't been coined to the first paragraph of origins, where you're dealing with background.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Early years section, second paragraph, shouldn't it be "...but Gernsback and his brother Sidney..." since you everywhere else refer to him as Gernsback? (as an aside, are the Hugo's named for Gernsback?)

  I think it's better as "Hugo", since we're talking about his brother, who is also a Gernsback, so "Gernsback" isn't sufficiently precise. I know in context a reader would probably parse it automatically, but I also think that it's better to use both first names; the lack of parallelism in "Gernsback and Sidney" would bother me. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gernsback's Amazing... should it be "The Skylark of Space" or The Skylark of Space?

  The latter; done.

• Sloane... shouldn't it be "... to one pulp writer sums up his approach."?

  This has been the most troublesome sentence in the article. It's been revised again since your comment, in response to another editor; see if this version works. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Every article has to have a pain in the behind sentence, congrats on having yours! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest explaining what a Hugo award is as well as a Nebula.

  Done, for both. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• You have Hugo award linked in the After Ted White section, but it appears earlier in the Reprint era and Ted White section (last sentence, third paragraph)

  Unlinked. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Did Pazio give a reason for cancelation?

  Not really. Here is the announcement, which is remarkably generic. Nothing about circulation, advertising support, costs, ... nothing I can see worth quoting. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Need a citation on the Knight quotation in Influence.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Need to link and explain fanzine (Influence section).

  Done. I was torn between linking to fanzine or science fiction fanzine but went with the former because it's a better article and actually has more about sf fanzines than the latter article does. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess you know what your next article to work on is! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• You've got Asimov linked three times ... probably a bit of overkill.

  Actually it was four times! Delinked three of them. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

YIKES! While he's certainly important, four times everyone else is a bit much... (I'm not an Asimov fan, btw...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Influence section, last sentence ... "Despite it's long history, the magazine has rarely contributed..." since it's no longer being published, the "has" is misleading.

  Yes, poor phrasing. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to support after some of the above is dealt with. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Switched to support above. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• The lead section seems to be a tad on the long side. It doesn't fit on one screen. Any chance of chipping a few lines off? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've cut a little; how does that look? It's quite a long article, so I feel a long lead isn't too unreasonable. Mike Christie (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I did a review of this article on the talk page first and I am happy to say that my concerns have been largely met. The one remaining issue - just how important was Amazing Stories - is being dealt with as we collect opinions from SF scholars and I have no doubt that we will refine the article's language even further. However, it is clear from the responses that we have received already from these scholars that the article covers the major research in the field and is comprehensive (for once, we don't have to guess on that front!). In my opinion, it is also well-written and the illustrations are informative. Thanks for your diligence on this Mike! Awadewit (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "SF"?

Will "sci-fi" not be better (and clearer)? SF (capitals) can be San Francisco... Furthermore, there is inconsistency. For the entire article, "sf" is used two times, once in the lead and once in the body; "SF", aside from its declaration, is only used once later. Judging from these sporadic use, the whole abbreviation usage can be dropped and the full name used instead.

The term "sci-fi" is widely regarded as pejorative within the science fiction community; there was an extended discussion on the science fiction talk page about this and the conclusion there was that "SF" should be used as an abbreviation if one is warranted. I think it's OK to do without an abbreviation of any kind here though, so I've removed it. Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is unclear how reprints can cause a conflict between it and the writer's guild. The body mentions the articles were reprinted without payment to their authors; this should also be mentioned in the lead.

  Reworded to clarify; it now says "Under Cohen Amazing was filled almost entirely with reprinted stories. Cohen did not pay a reprint fee to the authors of these stories, and this brought him into conflict with the newly-formed Science Fiction Writers of America." Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1940s

• "he soon began to plan to leave"

Suggestion: "he soon began planning to leave"

Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "dummy issue"

What is this (a red-link as well)?

This came up on the talk page too; Awadewit asked what it was. Here's what I said there: "What he did (I haven't seen it, but I've seen similar things) would have been to create a small version of the magazine, with a cover, artwork, ads or dummy ads, and one or two real stories. This would have been to show the Ziff-Davis management to make it clear what would be published, and also to show to potential advertisers so they would understand the vehicle. I believe some copies may still exist but I've never seen one or heard of one available." I can't really cite this directly since my description is drawn more from my knowledge of publishing, and I don't have any sources that get specific about what was in this dummy issue or why it was done. The red-link was added at Awadewit's suggestion as the term does appear in multiple other articles. Can you tell me what a useful clarification would be here? Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Explain it with a footnote, preferably with a source. It seems an object that would likely be deleted if an article is made of it since it would be a dictionary definition (I hardly see how such issues can be notable). Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1960s

• "but in the event he immediately came into conflict"

I think "in the event he" should be taken out. Read in the original manner, it reads like "but if he immediately come into conflict" which sounds weird, considering the later clauses.

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1970s

• "Cohen's wife filled the subscriptions at home"

What does "filled the subscriptions" mean?

I've rephrased this to "Cohen's wife mailed out the subscription copies from home"; is that clearer? She was responsible for filling the subscription orders -- she may have stuffed and labelled envelopes, or the labels may have gone straight onto the magazines. I doubt they had a computer mailing label list, so it could have been very time-consuming.

Sheesh, did Cohen not have employees to do this? That is some cost-cutting measure! Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "with Amazing's circulation (at nearly 26,000) as good as it had been for several years, Cohen announced that Amazing and Fantastic had lost $15,000."

It sounds a bit funny in this structure with "as good as" in the first clause and "lost" in the second without any contradictory conjunction.

I reversed the order of the clauses to allow a "though" in the middle. Mike Christie (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Bernhard denied that this was so."

This can be simplified to "Bernhard denied it."

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gernsback's Amazing

• "with a first prize of $250."

I would think $250 is a lot of money ($3,000 in 2007 on adjustment for inflation) for a 25 cents magazine. It is surprising only 350 entered the contest. Just to be certain, are those figures correct?

Yes, I double-checked the source and that's what it says. Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

People must really hate SF then... Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gernsback offered a $500 prize for a title to this November 1926 Radio News cover. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sloane, Palmer, Browne and Fairman

• "The first "Shaver Mystery" story"

Shaver Mystery is enclosed in quotes in the lead, here, and an image caption. It is not elsewhere. Is it supposed to be so, or should it be standardized?

Those are scare quotes. There's really no mystery -- Shaver was delusional and his stories were just paranoid nonsense; Palmer presented it as a mystery to boost circulation. I used to scare quotes to avoid seeming to endorse Palmer's apparent credulity. However, I think the scare quotes are not really needed so I've dropped them. Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cele Goldsmith

• Who is Frank Paul? He is suddenly mentioned here.

  He painted all the covers for Gernsback in the late 1920s. He's mentioned several times at the top of the article, but not for some time by the time we get to this section. I added a brief clarifying note. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ahhh... Frank R. Paul... Sorry, my mind shorted out without the middle "R". Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Philip K. Dick, whose magazine sales had dropped, began to appear in Amazing"

I am uncertain, but I do not see "publisher" in Dick's portfolio (Wikipedia article). Furthermore, was it his articles that appeared in Amazing, or did he appear via profile, editorial column, or interview?

I've changed this to "whose sales to magazines"; I think this eliminates the implication he was a publisher. He was selling stories, just as the other writers mentioned were. Does that solve the problem? Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that clarifies that; still I have some uncertainties. Ignoring the descriptive, is it correct to say "He appeared in Playboy" to describe the publishing of a writer's article in a magazine? Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reprint era and Ted White

• "White's ability to attract new writers suffered because of the ongoing SFWA boycott, which had been in place for five years when he began his editorship."

This is strange. Earlier, we are told that the SFWA will boycott, starting 1965, unless Cohen pays up, which he did in 1967. With no further mention then over the boycott, we would assume it was settled with Cohen's payout. Now we are told the boycott lasted through White's tenure. Furthermore, it is only now the SFWA's boycott is introduced again. Should it not be mentioned earlier along with Cohen's licensing in this sub-section?

Good catch. This appears to be an error in the source. Ashley definitely says the boycott hurt White, but elsewhere gives August 1967 as the formal end date of the boycott. I think Ashley may have meant to say that lingering bad feeling from the boycott hurt White's ability to get stories, but it seemed better to just cut all reference to the boycott and only mention the low rates of pay. As far as mentioning the boycott again, the intended structure for the article is for the "Publishing history" section to cover financial and corporate information, and the "Contents and reception" section to deal strictly with the fiction, art, and relationships with writers. Now I've cut the reference to the boycott, is it still necessary to mention it earlier? Mike Christie (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so. Cutting out the boycott works, since it is supposedly resolved. Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Amazing's reputation had been for formula science fiction"

What does this mean? Is "formula" supposed to be "formulaic"?

In writing about the field I see "formula" used attributively in this way far more often than I see "formulaic", but I think the latter is unambiguous and, judging by your reaction, clearer to someone not familiar with the field. I've changed it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

After Ted White

• "After the merger with Fantastic Mavor continued to draw well-known writers to the magazine, including Orson Scott Card, George R. R. Martin, and Roger Zelazny."

I would suggest placing a comma between "Fantastic" and "Mavor".

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "of any of the science fiction magazines."

This can be simplified to "of any science fiction magazine."

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A long, informative article on the run of a science fiction magazine that set the standards and sparked an industry. Some parts might be a tad over-detailed, and there are some curiosities as I mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [2].

---

Operation Epsom

Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I really believe it largely meets all FA criteria, especially considering the fact that it passed an A-class review within the Military history WikiProject last month and we made major improvements since then. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Support—I commented during the A-class review, and supported the article there. In my opinion, the article meets the requirements to be promoted to a featured article. The article went through a major transformation, and I don't believe it's missing in comprehensiveness. It is also very well written, and very well cited. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I'm dizzy from looking through the footnotes. Incredibly well-cited, all the footnotes check out alright in terms of format. Links all check out as well. Cam ^(Chat) 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor comments - I have only two minor comments in relation to this article: the Battle of Normandy links redirect into a Normandy Campaign disambiguation, and should probably be directed into the appropriate article instead. Also, under the "Commanders" section in the infobox, Richard O'Connor's prefix of "Sir" is added, yet this is not done for Montgomery or Dempsey who were also knights at this stage. The "Sir" prefix should be added to all three or removed entirely. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I believe this article meets the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is that extra infobox there below the main one? I've never seen one like that before. Not a complaint so much as a query.
  • I spotted a few of these on other WW2 articles (i think Operation Charnwood was one of them) and included it here.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• 'To stop the British offensive, during the evening Field Marshal Rommel ordered that all available units from II SS Panzer Corps were to be thrown into the fight.' - I don't like 'thrown into the fight', seems too casual.

Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• 'The failure of II SS Panzer Corps to significantly reduce the British salient was of great concern to Willi Bittrich, and he ordered a resumption of the offensive during the night of 29–30 June, hoping to negate Allied air support' - Wouldn't mind a citation there.
  • Citation 125 covers that area, a duplicate could be placed at the end of that sentance if deemed nescessary?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see D'Este and Decision in Normandy cited anywhere; I know, I know, he's about as anti-Montgomery as you can get, but he does make some good points about the campaign. Skinny87 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We have spoke at length in the discussion area regarding the inclusion of comments from Max Hastings and Carlo D'Este and have sort of planned out a slightly more indepth conclusion to the article then there is now, which would hopefully include some comments from the latter to balance things out a little further.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't this be withdrawn until that conclusion is added? Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean withdrawing a FAC which gained three supports in one day? --Eurocopter (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that the information is as heavily cited as it is, I don't think leaving out one source is a particular issue in this case. Cam ^(Chat) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Skinny's comment has more to do with the fact that the conclusion will be expanded at a later date (or may be). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It was only a minor point, and D'Este isn't vital considering the other historians you have there. I won't oppose over this! Skinny87 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Most of your references are listed last name first, but there is Ashley Hart, which is alphabetized as H, but has Ashley first. Probably need to regularize that.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note that the analysis section has now been considerably expanded. There are one or two missing books in the reference section, but these will be added shortly ;) Regards, EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please follow query atWikipedia talk:Accessibility#Operation Epsom. Also, the dab finder in the toolbox at the top of the FAC shows several dab links that need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • sorted out disamb links. Just to note after reading your post via the link provided - technically there is only 2 info boxes and a campaign box - the later i have seen on practically every ww2 article inc FAC.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment about Tiger tank; the article states that production of the Tiger tank ceased in August 1944. This is theoretically inaccurate. The Tiger B started production in January 1944, and continued well after the end of production of the Tiger E. Although known as the "Tiger II", it's still technically a Panzerkampfwagen VI. Perhaps the footnote should specify that you are referring to the Ausf. E model, and not to the series as a whole. For further information, and a source, please see: Green, Michael & Brown, James, Tiger Tanks at War, p. 114 JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, cheers. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

• Image:Epsom map.jpg needs a fair use rationale explaining why fair use is justified in this article; see WP:FURG for general information
  • Used correct template - should be ok now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is Image:Jupiterpanzergrenadiers.jpg really necessary? It doesn't seem to add significantly to the article.
• Same for Image:German 80mm Mortar.jpgGiggy (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I can live with getting rid of the panzergrenadiers on Hill 112 however, other than attempting to "balanace" the article out photo wise, it is noted in the text that both sides threw in heavy arty barrages before attacks and we have a source that illustrates that the tenacious German resistance was not the sole cause for the high British losses - mortars where. That is a key piece of information. Imo that is why its jusitifed to use something to highlight that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • If you do keep the mortar image you'll need to expand on its FURG. Giggy (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • To be honest i had forgotten about those templates. I have now added it to the mortar photo - personally i feel it should be kept as its a decent medium to illustrate how lethal they were, while not distracting somewhere in the main text to make the point. As for the other photo if you feel it doesnt add anything i can live with that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
        • All concerns here are resolved. Giggy (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [3].

---

Anglo-Zanzibar War

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

This article has recently been granted A-class status by WP:MILHIST and I feel that it meets all of the requirements for FA status - Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments - This looks like an article that could be upto FA standards, but there are a few Prose issues that need dealing with:

Sorry about that, I realise my prose writing is quite poor. I'll try to sort these out - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'The British government preferred a more pro-British candidate for Sultan: Hamud bin Muhammed' - Rewording this to remove the colon seems like a better idea, less awkward this way.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'In accordance with a treaty signed in 1886, a condition for accession to the sultancy was that the candidate obtain the permission of the British Consul and Khalid had not fulfilled this requirement.' - Needs a comma after 'Consul'

Done - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'The British considered this a casus belli ' - I know what cassus belli means, perhaps keeping the wikilink but rephrasing it to a more well-known phrase might be a better idea for other readers

'Hostilities opened with the expiry of the ultimatum at 9:00 am EAT on 27 August, when the British attacked the palace' - This needs rewording as well, seems a bit strange. Also, the following sentence introduces 'The force' rather abruptly without stating why it was present or how it got there.

I have made quite large changes to this section which should solve both of the above - Dumelow (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'Around 2800 Zanzibaris defended the palace; most recruited from the civilian population, but they also included the Sultan's palace guard and several hundred of his servants and slaves.' - 'Most were recruited' sounds better

Done - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'A brisk bombardment of the palace and defending artillery was opened at 9:02 am and soon the palace was on fire and the artillery had been disabled' - Sorry to sound like a broken record, but this doesn't sound quite right - lack of punctuation as well. In fact, checking punctuation throughout the article sounds like a good idea. 'Brisk' also needs replacing, a bit odd to me.

Done, I'll check the rest for punctuation - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'The war marked the end of Zanzibar as a sovereign state and the start of a period of heavy British influence.' - Don't think 'heavy' is quite the right word there.

Well, that's just the lead. It's a good article, just needs some polishing in terms of prose. Skinny87 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Image:Zanzibar_palace_after_low.JPG doesn't seem all that necessary as a fair use image considering the image in the infobox at the top of the page. But then again I'm no expert on photos, so I might be wrong. Skinny87 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the image was useful to the reader as it was the only one that I could find which showed how the entire palace complex fared (with the palace and harem almost destroyed whilst the House of Wonders remained almost intact} whilst the image at the top just showed the harem. The painting is obviously just an artistic impression of this but I haven't seen any photographs of the scene. My understanding of the image guidelines is far from complete though so I will, of course, defer to anyone with a better knowledge of them - Dumelow (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work. I'll look at the rest of the article today and make some more comments. Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, so I don't clog this nom up with lots of sentence that can easily be fixed, I'll give the article a copy-edit and just highlight anything specific. Skinny87 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Further Comments:

'The British were particularly interested in prohibiting slavery, and their desire to do so in Zanzibar is sometimes cited as a driving force behind the treaty with Germany' - Needs to be cited, then please.

I agree, don't know how I missed that. I'll take a look through my sources and cite or remove it as necessary - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced this sentence with one which I have a ref for. I couldn't find any refs for the original one (I am not sure that I added it in the first place) but this one serves much the same purpose. I'll try to sort the other concerns mentioned later (no time now) - Dumelow (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be a bit vague, but the whole 'Origins' section is a bit scattered. Lots of short sentences that don't quite match up or lead into each other. I understand you're trying to trace Anglo-German land swapping and how this caused problems, but it needs to be rewritten to make it flow better - it's really this bit that needs rewording: 'The Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty of 1890 saw Germany cede its rights in Zanzibar to the United Kingdom and pledge not to interfere with British interests there.[12] Earlier, Sultan Khalifah had granted land in East Africa to Britain which later became Kenya and Germany received Tanganyika. This upset some sections of the Arab ruling class, whose wealth was built upon slavery, which had been outlawed in the European-held lands.[8] The British were particularly interested in prohibiting slavery, and their desire to do so in Zanzibar is sometimes cited as a driving force behind the treaty with Germany.'

Yep, I'll take a look over that as well and try to make it flow better - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote this whole section, hopefully should read better (and more chronologically) now - Dumelow (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph on describing the palace seems out of place, disrupting the narrative.

I have now integrated this section with the improved Origins section. Hopefully it fits better in there. I think it is important to keep it in as it describes the rather unusual layout of the palace and its construction (which resulted in the high death count from the bombardment) - Dumelow (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

'Mathews and Cave also began to muster their forces, already commanding 900 Zanzibari askaris under Brigadier-General Arthur Edward Harington Raikes, a Lieutenant of the Wiltshire Regiment.[19]' - How can he be a Brigadier-General and a Lieutenant?

Raikes was a lieutenant in the British Army when he was seconded to Zanzibar to serve as a Brigadier General in their army. I agree that this needs more clarification and will get onto it - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This should now be clearer - Dumelow (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

'In return Glasgow was sunk at her moorings, her crew hoisted the British flag as a token of surrender and all were rescued by British sailors in launches.' - How can the ship sink and then hoist a flag?

The ship settled to the bottom but her masts remained out of the water. Again this needs clarifying and I'll look it over - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified this now - Dumelow (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

'Sultan Hamud was loyal to the British that installed him' - Don't think you need the last three words

OK, a nice easy one! Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 7 (Guiness Book) needs a page number

I do not have access to this book but have requested that the user who added it now adds a page number - Dumelow (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the adder of the cite, and have provided a page Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 12 (Text of the treaty) needs a publisher

Added - Dumelow (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments. The article is very close to FA-standard. A couple of points:

• The flag of the sultanate worries me; the description of the image says it was drawn based on a description. What confidence do you have that it's an accurate reflection of the real flag of the day?

  I cannot be sure but the uploader says it was based on "a drawing and description" which I took to mean a black and white drawing with some text explaining the colours. If it is a problem then the flags for both countries can simply be removed from the infobox - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'd suggest removing them. If you can get confirmation from the uploader that the description was sufficiently precise for us to be confident this is the flag, then I think that would work too; it would be best if that comment were then added to the image. Mike Christie (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  OK I have removed the flags from the infobox and posted a comment of the flag's page at commons - Dumelow (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Raccoon" is mis-spelt "Racoon" throughout.

  Racoon seems to be the Royal Navy's preferred spelling. Some sources refer to them as HMS Raccoon but Racoon seems more popular (compare 2480 ghits for "HMS Racoon" to 173 for "HMS Raccoon"). - 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fair enough. If both spellings really are legitimate, you might consider using the one that won't surprise readers. Not required for FA, though, so I'm striking this. Mike Christie (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Khalid's men fired on pro-British Askaris": these are Raikes' askaris, I assume; you mention them specifically earlier in the article, so "pro-British" isn't specific enough here. I think you can make this "Raikes' askaris", or perhaps "Raikes' pro-British askaris".

  Fixed, now reads Raikes' askaris - 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to see at least one more map. Ideally a reader who has never heard of Zanzibar and who is innocent of African geography should understand at the end of the article where Zanzibar is in the world, and where the battle was fought on Zanzibar, without having to click through links. At a minimum I'd suggest a map of Zanzibar with the location of Zanzibar Town marked; if that map can also show the coast of Tanzania, and (perhaps via an inset) the location of Tanzania in Africa, that would be even better. (Or Tanganyika, as it was then.)

  I agree, I'll look around for a PD one (The Zanzibar article has a couple which may be suitable) - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  I was thinking of something like the map at this page. If you can't find anything suitable, let me know; I might be able to create one with DMIS. Mike Christie (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, that would be great if you could. Commons doesn't seem to have much and my map drawing skills are terrible. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this and see what you think. I used what I think are the contemporary names for the territories. If there are other locations named in the article that you'd like marked (such as Mombasa) let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great Mike. Yeah perhaps marking Mombasa would be a good idea and maybe Tanga (roughly opposite Pemba), Ketwa (in northern Zanzibar) and Bagamoyo (Opposite Zanzibar), which are also mentioned. This may be too many labels on one map but might be worth a try as the article refers to all of these (rather unknown) places. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've uploaded a new version. Let me know if this works. Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The map looks good. I have added it to the article in the origins sections (where I think it fits best). Feel free to change the position or whatever. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I shortened the caption a little; and I've switched to support, above. It's a fine article. Mike Christie (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support As someone who worked with Dumelow on helping the article satisfy our referencing, MoS and image policies, I believe the article currently meets the FA criteria. I do believe that some areas of prose can be polished up a bit, so I will be copyediting the article soon. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment – Reverse dash alert: as a prefix (and thus not lexically independent), Anglo should be followed by a hyphen (a rule also applying on Franco, Russo, Sino, Greco, etc.). The article and this nomination should be, erm, relocated. Waltham, The Duke of 09:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was originally spelt with a hyphen but it was recommended to be moved as the result of its peer review. I am increasingly baffled by some parts of the MoS but as the other "dashed" wars seem to have a hyphen I have no problems moving it back and will do so now - Dumelow (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for that, it was me. I am also increasingly baffled by dash warriors so I think I will just ignore it now. Woody (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images - why is Image:Zanzibar palace after low.JPG nonfree? And you're going to have to come up with a better Fair Use Rationale if you want to keep it, then. All other images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When I uploaded it I couldn't find any relevant tags but I have just looked again and think it may be covered here. As it was drawn by a newspaper artist and published in 1896 I think it may become Template:PD-1923 (I originally though this was only for the USA). Any ideas? - Dumelow (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Should also add that if it is PD I will upload a larger version of the file - Dumelow (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PD-1923 is only for works published in the US before '23. Otherwise its public domain after 70 years past the author's death (in the United States only, which would mean it would stay on Wikipedia unless its pd in the source country too.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean on the wikicommons public domain information page that I linked when it says that if date of publication is before 1 July 1909 then all works are public domain (in the Published outside the United States section)? Does that mean its OK? It doesn't have a template though. Sorry for my rather poor knowledge of this area - Dumelow (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think I have solved this problem. Template:PD-US-1923-abroad seems to be the required template that I had missed. This means that it stays on wikipedia but can be used fully in articles. I have gone ahead and changed the tag on the image. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellant work - my only question is if the most cited duration of the war was 38 minutes, why does it say it in the lead that it lasted around 40, and 40 in the aftermath. I know that there is some uncertainty here, but shouldn't you use the most cited duration? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The 40 in the aftermath section was my fault, should have read "around 40" to match the lead. I settled at an approximate figure to give the reader a rough idea of the duration whilst directing them to the footnote which has a more in depth discussion of the duration. I didn't want to state that the war lasted exactly 38 minutes due to the conflicting durations between the sources and even between the ships' log books (which give a range between 33 to 43 mins). Though, of course, I will defer to any consensus on this issue - Dumelow (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [4].

---

Half-Life 2: Episode One

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk)

Gary King (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• http://palgn.com.au/?sid=539ae0606915a7148a3707f345ee6757 what makes this a reliable source? (I tried to get to the "about page" but it wouldn't work.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PALGN's editorial process Gary King (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"PALGN acts as a forum for our writers to present their opinions on game related information. We do our best to make sure all the information we present on our main site is accurate - all information posted must be reviewed and validated by at least one other member of the staff. However, ultimately the information posted on the site is entirely reflects the understanding of the writer who posted it and PALGN takes no responsibility for any inaccuracies in information. The opinions of individual writers do not represent the opinion of PALGN." This isn't quite the same as a newspaper/magazine editorial process. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Referenced replaced with GameSpot. Gary King (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - went through images and prose at peer review, and I couldn't see any more issues against the criteria. Just make sure that you keep consistent tense in the reception (The reviewers should be past tense, while game elements can remain present, i.e. "So and so of Publication X said that...") --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support: Is it really necessary to have a requirements box separate to the infobox? It's the only Valve article to do so, and the graphic advancements for the game aren't so major as to draw note to it in such a way. I'd prefer to see it rolled back into the infobox, as with other articles in the series. I could understand it if it was used in Half-Life 2's article, because that's the engine's flagship game, but here it doesn't really enhance the reader's understanding. -- Sabre (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you do that, could you please use a collapsible header so it doesn't take up massive amounts of room? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • If done as in Half-Life 2, it would barely take up any room. Certainly would take up a heck of a lot less room than the box currently there. -- Sabre (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      • How's it look now? Gary King (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Looks fine to me, I've addressed all other issues I had with the article myself, and given the screenshot a caption commenting on the few new graphical effects, so I'm giving my support to promotion -- Sabre (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Episode One sold for $19.95 in the United States and was available over Valve's Steam content delivery platform for $9.95. needs a reference
• a very large portion of the "references" (8 through 16) are in fact notes. I would strongly suggest moving those pseudo-references into a separate categpry by using <ref group=note>...</ref>

Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done for references. Those notes are references; they reference quotes from the game. Gary King (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's comments

• "In the later parts of the game, the player gains a gravity gun that allows them to use physics to manipulate objects at a distance in both combat and puzzle-solving scenarios" - the paragraph thus far has been general, it's a bit odd to throw in a specific example here.
• "As is usual policy with Valve" - I'm not sure if saying this adds anything... just say there was (extensive) play testing.
• "Combine soldiers were given the ability to crouch while being fired upon in order to duck underneath the player's line of fire" - is this the only new ability? If not then say "for example" or something like that
• In the reception section when saying "reviewer's' said blah blah blah" you need more than one reference to justify the plural.

Giggy (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The first point isn't really resolved; see diff. It's still a specific example thrown in to a paragraph that ideally would give a very broad summary of gameplay (and indeed, does that for the rest of the paragraph). Giggy (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where else to place it; I commented it out. Gary King (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as all comments addressed. Giggy (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Guyinblack25:
Over this is good article, and is close to FA quality. The article is well sourced and fairly well writtern, especially the "Synopsis" section, very well balanced. There are some issues that stood out to me I believe should be addressed though.

• "Gameplay" section
  • Seems a bit short. I realize the link will provide the necessary information, but I think the bare essentials should still be present.
  • Reiterate that the game is a first person shooter. Mention that the player can use different weapons (maybe that can help segue into the gravity gun content).
  • Add in anything else you think is particularly special.
• "Reception" section
  • The first paragraph seems out of place. Maybe move it to the end of the "Development" section
  • I would remove the prices per WP:NOPRICES. I don't think the prices are anything special in this case. I would, however, mention the lower/discounted price via Steam. "It was available for pre-load and pre-purchase through Steam at a lower price..."
  • It seems redundant to list the review score in the table and the prose. I would remove them from prose, but still reference the score.
    • "PC Gamer UK rated the game higher than its US counterpart, and directed particular praise..."
    • "...PC Powerplay awarded the game a perfect score."
  • Not that big of a deal, but there are quite a bit of lengthy quotes. I would summarize and paraphrase most of them.
  • I'm not entirely comfortable supporting without any sales information. Any luck finding any such content?
• Sources
  • Not thrilled to see a Game Revolution reference, but it's usage here looks suitable.
  • Any issue and/or page numbers for the magazine references? Authors would hurt either. What you have is fine, but more would of course be better.

Hope these help. The article has improved since it's first FAC and is shaping up nicely. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi, sorry for taking so long to respond. I have resolved some of the issues; I am still continuing to do so. Gary King (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've gotten everything that I've been able to fix (some of the things I haven't been; I don't have access to all of the publications, for instance.) Gary King (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are certainly improvements. However, I still think the gameplay and reception sections need some work.

• The mention of it being a FPS seems kind of tacked on.
• I haven't played the game so I don't know if there is more to the gameplay or not, but the section seems too brief. That may just be my interpretation though.
• Still some lengthy quotes in the reception section. Particularly the PC Gamer and IGN award ones, that's all the information we get from them. I would summarize their quotes.
• Still not comfortable supporting without any sales information.

I'm fairly certain that Valve haven't released sales figures for copies of Episode One sold over Steam. I don't know about retail sales, but this does mean that any sales information included would not be the complete figure. Qjuad (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is clarified which venue the copies were sold at, I don't think this is an issue. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

• The external links from the gaming network sites don't seem to provide much more than the article already does. Also, I believe such links are normally discouraged to avoid promotion of a commercial site.

The article has made some great progress. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

• Images meet criteria; nonfree images are low resolution, with appropriate and detailed fair use rationales, sources, and licenses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [5].

---

Haumea (dwarf planet)

Nominator(s): Serendipodous, Kwamikagami, Nergaal, Iridia

Here comes "Santa"! This article shows that it really exists. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• very funny. Zginder 2008-10-12T23:22Z (UTC)
• Support ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I do generally support, but would like to see the prose massaged throughout. Here are a few points from the top, not all of which concern right/wrong.

• I know it's done sometimes in AmEng, but no one can tell me why you'd write "one-third" intead of the plain unhyphenated "a third".

To me, "one-third" sound more precise than "a third", rather as "twelve" is more precise than "a dozen". Haumea is almost exactly one-third the mass of Pluto, not just approximately a third. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that MOSLINK says not to link common geographical terms such as "United States".
• "Haumea is very unusual among the known trans-Neptunian objects especially due to its extreme elongation." Don't really like "very" and "especially" and "extreme"; they do perform different amplifications, but is it possible to remove the second? More elegant: "... objects for its".

Yes, very awkwardnessfull. Requires more massaging. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "due to"—repetition, although if you use my previous suggestion, that's fixed.
• "This elongation, along with other characteristics such as its unusually rapid rotation, high density, and ..." Can't it be "This elongation, along with its unusually rapid rotation, high density, and ...". We know they're characteristics, and the sentence is quite long enough without.
• "Have resulted from" ... a little more idiomatic, perhaps.
• "Haumea is classified as a dwarf planet, meaning that it is believed to be massive enough to"—please audit the whole text for repetitions. This is the second proximate "is believed to" (the first ellided), and also comes just after "is thought to". Why do we need it here, anyway, when you've said it's classified: "dwarf planet, thus massive enough ...".

Well, cause and effect are the opposite: it's a dwarf planet because it's massive enough, not massive enough because it's a dwarf planet. But you're right, the prose is awkwardnessfull. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please remove the bolding from the "Name" section; do that only in the lead. Tony (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, I think.Serendi^podous 11:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Made a few additional minor wording fixes. Restored "is believed" (as "presumed"), since Haumea has not been demonstrated to be a dwarf planet. kwami (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Query Thanks that was an interesting read.

• Is Pluto the most appropriate comparator for mass, would the Moon or the Earth not be more familiar to our intended audience?
• Towards the end it refers to a 0.1% chance, is that per year or per million years? ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Pluto is well-known enough. Everybody likes Pluto :-). The time is over the age of the Solar System. Added. Serendi^podous 11:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the timescale, I'll concede that Pluto is familiar in that everyone will have heard of it, but I'm not sure it's mass is well enough known to use as a scale - and elsewhere we use AU for distance so comparing to Earth has precedent. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Pluto is a KBO, like Haumea. In that sense, it's best to compare like with like. Earth is in a totally different league to either Pluto or Haumea; people don't often grasp just how tiny KBOs are. Earth is five hundred times more massive than Pluto and 1500 times more massive than Haumea; such a comparison would be too rough to be particularly useful. Serendi^podous 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK that gives me a sense of the size of the thing, would it be possible to say something like "it is a third the mass of Pluto, and 1500 times smaller than the Earth." instead of "a third the mass of Pluto." ϢereSpielChequers 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in a footnote. Serendi^podous 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A comparison to our moon would also be worthwhile. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the footnote, I agree with Kwami that the moon might also be useful. May I suggest that the footnote could be expanded to contain both the relative size of the moon and Pluto and if its been worked out the minimum/maximum size of dwarf planets? My reading of the article is that "Nonetheless, its gravity is believed sufficient for it to have relaxed into hydrostatic equilibrium, thereby meeting the definition of a dwarf planet." means that it is close to the minimum size of a dwarf planet - it would be nice if the footnote said how close. ϢereSpielChequers 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no maximum size for a dwarf planet. A dwarf planet could be as large as Jupiter if it was surrounded by other Jupiter-sized objects. Nor is Haumea near the minimum size; it is stretched out by its rapid rotation. Serendi^podous 11:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In that case if there is a minimum size for a dwarf planet it would be relevant to add to that footnote - something like "Haumea is x times the minimum size for a dwarf planet" - but maybe we should shift this discussion to the article talk page as it is way too pedantic to affect the FAC ϢereSpielChequers 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The minimum size for a dwarf planet is when it has enough mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium. There are some issues with this; hydrostatic equilibrium relies on more than just mass. Composition plays a role (icy objects reach hydrostatic equilibrium at a lower mass than rocky objects) as does temperature (warmer objects achieve hydrostatic equilibrium a lot more easily than colder ones). So for right now the IAU is simply saying that if an object's absolute magnitude is less than 1, it's a dwarf planet, because that means it HAS to be above the threshold. This leaves out a lot of really large objects, but we'll have to wait until we can develop telescopes powerful enough to resolve the discs of objects the size of Texas 3 billion miles away. Serendi^podous 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Thanks for answering my pedanticisms, and good luck for the FAC. I've learned a lot from this article and I'm sure our readers will as well. ϢereSpielChequers 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as JPL, IAU, USGS, ABC-CLIO, etc. in the references.

• Okay, what makes http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/05/moon-shadow-monday-fixed.html a reliable source? I realise this is the discoverers website, but it looks like a blog entry.

• What makes http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/index.html a reliable source? Also, this is ref 38 and it's lacking a publisher.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ABC-CLIO is the name of a publisher. They don't appear to use their full name professionally. There is more than one reference to Brown's blog in this article; if that one's a bad source, then they all are. But, since this is the blog of the person who actually discovered the object, I think it can be considered a valid primary source. Serendi^podous 18:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Brown is top in his field, and has tons of published material in refereed journals. As such, his blog can by Wiki standards also be considered a reliable reference. We just need to be careful of areas where he does not have expertise, such as his suspicions of the Spanish team, which we should always be sure are represented as his opinion.

As for Johnston's Archive, that's just a compilation of published data. We can cite the original sources, and provide Johnston's Archive as a convenient place for readers to see it in more detail. I don't know how notable Johnston himself is. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone with access to the originals should do this, and verify that they match. kwami (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I never liked the line the ref was citing anyway, so I removed it. Serendi^podous 07:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the Brown site out for other reviewers to decide on their own. The main concern is that it's not a peer-reviewed source, so it can't really back up anything contentious. It's certainly an EXCELLENT source for his own opinions and feelings, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images: they pretty much check out, however Image:EightTNOs.png uses images not found in the basis image; where did these images come from? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they were added by Wiki users. Serendi^podous 21:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The individual images are used in their respective articles. kwami (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This image issue still needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. kwami (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, how? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the Commons images it was compiled from. kwami (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm severely copy editing the section of physical characteristics, which therefore needs to be re-reviewed. In the second paragraph of Determining Haumea's size, shape, and composition, we say that we calculate its density from its shape. In the third paragraph, we say that we calculate its shape from its density. Needs a fix or at least clarification. kwami (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also more citation notes added. Iridia (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - this is very well done. I read the entire article, checked some of the sources and made a couple of minor wording corrections. I was very impressed with the prose, length, layout, tables and wikilinks to daughter pages which I felt were also well done. The only issue I was not completely happy with was reference number 13 which is a blog. WP:RS does not consider blogs a reliable source. Is there some other source where you can find that info besides that one? NancyHeise ^talk 04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Brown's blog is used to discuss his recent occultation experiments, which haven't been included in official literature as yet. Serendi^podous 06:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Informal comments by acknowledged experts in the field are considered acceptably reliable refs when the info is not otherwise available. Brown doesn't publish until he can really lay out the data, so up-to-date info will most often be informal. kwami (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically it is a trade between comprehensiveness and reliability. It that source would be removed, the article would lose some important information and I personally would prefer more when not that much is known anyways. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know we can use self published cites in articles about themselves but I'm not sure they are OK to use in an article about something else. I agree the information is very interesting and makes the article a good read. I would like for it to stay there personally but if there is some way to get a different source it would be better. Isn't there a news interview or some scientific journal that covered that subject? NancyHeise ^talk 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean what is now ref 15? That was used once for a quote, which is appropriate, and once for a description of the composition, which was also covered in the following ref, so I simply deleted the second blog cite. kwami (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a blog; it's Mike Brown's personal website at CalTech. I've used it before without complaint. I don't think it should be an issue here. And anyway, the structure of Haumea should be referenced. Serendi^podous 21:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From the abstract, it looks like the current ref covers the composition. Am I mistaken? kwami (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a conference proceeding (from 4 days ago!) mentioning the mutual occultation events and their timing, so I will change the reference. Iridia (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool! kwami (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Very weak oppose for now, on prose. I couldn't even get through the Classifications paragraph because I was being hit on the head with equivocation and wordiness: "is presumed..."; "is considered..."; "Since it is not demonstrated to be...". (That last construction is really ugly.) You don't have to say it is considered to be a dwarf planet. It is a dwarf planet; it's been listed as such. Further, the dwarf planet status is raised and answered in the first sentence and then raised and answered again in the fourth sentence. The two mentions should be combined and the section split into two paras. And the article as a whole should be audited for wordiness of this sort.

This is a very weak oppose because I haven't gone through the whole thing. I'll do my best to give an independent c/e. Marskell (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not known to be a dwarf planet. It has been assumed to be one for naming purposes, which is not the same thing. It probably is a DP, and for all practical purposes we can treat it as one, but we do need to equivocate in the classification. Being listed as a DP does not mean it fits the IAU definition of a DP. kwami (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be vague; the body that defines dwarf planets has declared it is a dwarf planet. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we need to redefine DP as anything that the IAU declares to be a DP, not a body in hydrostatic equilibrium. Or instead of saying it's presumed to be a DP, we could say that it's been declared to be a DP. Haumea is different from the cases of Ceres and Pluto, which we know from direct observation to fit the physical definition. In the case of Haumea, the IAU declared that anything beyond a certain magnitude will be taken as a DP for naming purposes, then after they named it, they declared it was a DP. But it has not been shown to meet their definition for a DP. kwami (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I guess "Its status as a dwarf planet means it is presumed ...", as you now have it, is good enough. kwami (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need an epistemological argument to break out here, but Ckatz is quite right. It's been listed by the IAU as a dwarf planet, therefore it is a dwarf planet. The section has improved. Marskell (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I just agree? kwami (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So is this still an oppose vote? Nergaal (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just asked Marskell on his talk page if he wanted to follow up on this, since we've attempted to address his objection. kwami (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Quite the interesting nom. Anyhowz, Serendi seems to have tightened up the prose as usual, seems pretty good. Great collaborative work, guys! —Ceranthor^(Sing) 01:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Marskell (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments—It's mostly decent, with a couple of minor concerns.
  • "Other large TNOs such as [what?] appear" (markup typo- fixed Serendi^podous 18:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC))
  • "Haumea is the largest member of a TNO collisional family, similar to asteroid families: a group of objects with similar orbital parameters and common physical characteristics, presumably with a common origin in a disruptive impact of the progenitor object of Haumea." To me this sentence seems mangled and ambiguous. (For example, is Haumea the largest member of any collisional family?) It switches back and forth between a general discussion and a focus on Haumea. Can this sentence be copy-edited? (Reworded and shortened. Serendi^podous 18:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)}
  • I'm not real happy about the Dimensions entry in the infobox, as the multiple entries may be confusing. But I don't see a better alternative. (Added origins of separate measurements Serendi^podous 18:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

  Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Looks good now.—RJH (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: please check the dabs in the dab link finder in the toolbox. Author names in citations are inconsistent. Some are first name last name, some are last name, first name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Checked and fixed. Serendi^podous 04:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack. One thing I forgot to mention last night: Classification section suggests there is no orbital resonance with Neptune. Orbit section goes on to say there might be one. Some sentence clarifying this is needed. Perhaps: "Should a resonance be proven, Haumea would qualify as a resonant trans-Neptunian object rather than a classic KBO." Marskell (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

added. Serendi^podous 10:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack withdrawn :). Marskell (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's comprehensive, well written. Some minor points though: in ref 20, the language is indicated twice and external links need a better presentation/description. Cenarium ^Talk 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1st point: done. 2nd point: pls explain. kwami (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been addressed now. The Johnston's Archive seems reputed in the field so it shouldn't require more description. Thanks, Cenarium ^Talk 15:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments—Again, I'm generally supportive, and admiring of the expertise of whoever the author is (I don't look). But a spot-check revealed that polishing is in order throughout.

• "The size of an object can be determined from its measured optical magnitude, its distance, and its albedo." So the size has to be measured, but the others don't? Isn't measurement implied?clarified
• "not known" --> "unknown"fixed
• "the alternation of side-view–end-view–side-view as seen from Earth"—oh, the en dashes and hyphens are correct, but it is clumsy all the same. Is the third compound item necessary? I'd almost be inclined to use a slash to contrast better with the hyphens.fixed
• "Haumea. If Haumea"fixed
• Snake sentence: "This range covers the values of silicate minerals such as olivine and pyroxene, which dominate the rocky objects of the Solar System, suggesting that the bulk of Haumea is rock, covered with a relatively thin layer of ice." At the very least, can the comma after "rock" go? And can we have "... System; this suggests ..."?fixed Tony (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:2003 EL61.jpg - I'm wondering how necessary this non-free image is - how much does the reader gain from it that they do not get from the free images? I think that the rationale could be more explicit about the value of this image.
• Image:EightTNOs.png - As far as I can tell, the issue identified by Fuchs above has not been solved. The source images do not cover all of the planets/moons in the constructed chart.

These should be relatively easy to solve. Awadewit (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been addressed. (1) There is no free image of the Haumean system. Therefore it is required for all of the information obtained from it. (2) Yes, the composite is completely sourced. If you think the sources do not cover all of the objects, please specify. kwami (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I think that perhaps my objection to the non-free image has been misunderstood. I understand that there is no free image. However, I'm not sure that the reader gains anything in particular from seeing this image that cannot be gained from the other images in the article and the text in the article itself. That is, I am unconvinced that we need to use this non-free image. What information does it convey that is not conveyed anywhere else in the article? Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

2) Eris, Makemake, Haumea - These objects have different names in the source file. As someone who is totally unfamiliar with this field, how can I be sure that they have been labeled correctly? Can we get a reference for the names? Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the Keck image, my feeling is that it is very important to include "real" images wherever possible. This discussion has come up many times before, such as with the best-quality-available image at Pluto. It is directly related to the fact that modern science is severely limited in terms of visuals of distant astronomical objects. "Artist's impressions" are useful, but they are also "best guesses" as to how things are, and can inadvertently suggest a greater knowledge of the subject than we actually have. While the "real" images may be lower quality, they do help to demonstrate the challenge in obtaining visuals - and thus in some small way help to illustrate the vast distances (and difficulties) involved in astronomical studies, even in the Solar System. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I would actually suggest that the "real" image - despite its resolution - should replace the "artist's impression" in the infobox, as with all other planets and dwarf planets (except Makemake, which does not appear to have one at all.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz, this is really an issue for the talk page, but we have two conflicting agenda here. For reliability, we should stick to actual images and educated schematics (as opposed to artistic guesswork). However, for general accessibility, we should have an aesthetically pleasing image at the top of the page. Therefore I think the artistic guesswork in the info boxes is a good thing over all. kwami (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You can visually verify that the names and former designations of Eris, former designation 2003 UB313, Makemake, former designation 2005 FY9, and Haumea, former designation 2003 EL61, match up on the image. The references for the names can all be found here, at the Minor Planets Center: just type Eris, Makemake, and Haumea in the box and click "get ephemerides", and beside each one is the link "show naming citation". (I had the direct links here before, but it seems they aren't accessible except through this longer way). Iridia (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the explanation about "real" vs. "artistic" images is excellent - a condensed version of that should be placed at Image:2003 EL61.jpg - that is clearly the primary reason we need this non-free image. Awadewit (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also add the links that show the former designations and new names to the image description of Image:EightTNOs.png, along with the instructions. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:EightTNOs.png amended. Iridia (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:2003 EL61.jpg amended. Serendi^podous 09:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The "purpose of use" at Image:2003 EL61.jpg has not been amended. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All right. How about now? Serendi^podous 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks good - all image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [6].

---

LaRouche criminal trials

Nominator(s): ·:· Will Beback ·:·

This article is comprehensive, fully sourced, and neutral. It has passed PR and GA reviews. I've just finished converting (almost) all of the citations to templates. I think it's ready for FAC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cap resolved sourcing discussion, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Elbow grease needed to clean up the citations including a failure to use named refs (see WP:FN), plurals on singular page numbers, *The* New York Times, *The* Boston Globe, and the article mixes {{citation}} and cite xxx templates (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools). I also corrected image layout issues (see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images); there may be more. Also WP:ALLCAPS. I left sample edits to help get you started.[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've used named refs on every duplicated ref I can find.
• removed plurals for singular page refs (a big in Zoteroa, apparently)
• removed "the" from newspaper titles

• Backwards :-)) The New York Times, The Boston Globe, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Half of them were that way before. Sigh. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, they were the ones I had already corrected as samples :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• changed all {citation} templates to {cite xxx} templates
• fixed remaining caps. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review. Those are fairly easy to fix. (Though I'm astonished to learn, as I did a few hours ago, that the two citation template "familes" are incompatible, and that there is no conversion tool. The templates are more trouble than the researcing and writing!) And thanks for fixing the images. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • They give inconsistent results, or so I'm told. Personally, I use templates because I never could be bothered to figure out where all the punctuation goes in a footnote, this way I don't gotta learn! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This handy script User talk:Dr pda/editrefs.js will help a bunch with editing refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. It makes a huge difference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Multiple problems still throughout the citations: I left sample edits. Several things would make your citation easier. See Ima Hogg for a sample of how to separate the book sources only, and then use short citations for the page numbers (example, all the Spanous refs). Also, cite book and cite news handle page numbers differently; you've lost many page numbers, and need to carefully scrutizine your refs for accuracy. And, you need to check on and use the correct newspaper names (example, The New York Times). Finally, if you will use a consistent citation style (last name, first name, etc ... ), once you're done, you can go to the printable version, edit copy edit paste the refs to Excel, remove/replace the gobbledy gook before each citation, and easily spot refs that you missed for named refs. If you get the citations cleaned up, I can do that final part for you; in the current state, I can't do anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm kind of fed up with these templates. These mostly aren't problems with the citations, they're problems with the fricking templates and the template fillers. Are these minor issues enough to derail a FAC? I'll work on these, but none of them affect the article itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not aware that they are derailing the FAC :-) They are just common things that need to be fixed; once you get used to using the templates, they aren't much of a big deal. Once all of that cleanup is done, we can cap this section off if you're concerned about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
            • (Sorry for my impatience - it's just that I've already spent over a dozen hours re-researching and formatting these citations. It's hard to fix the citations in a mature with so many refs.) OK, I've changed some cites as a test to see if I understand what you're looking for. The idea would be to move all of the books to a "reference" section. Please see refs 8 and 59 and let me know if that's right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Will, just a note to say you don't need to use citation templates at all. It's a lot easier and faster just to write them out manually. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Except for the missing space in p.xxx, it looks good (also, is it Spannous or Spannaus?). You don't have to use this method, but you will find that it makes your text less clunky to edit, your citations easier to read, and your article probably easier to load without all those templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
                1. I've moved all of the books (only four) to the "referecnes" seciton and replaced them in the "notes" section with the quasi-Harvard style citations.
                2. I've checked to make sure there are no duplicated references that aren't named. There is no easy way I can see to regularize the order of fields. It would be a monumental effort to do it by hand, with no visible benefit since the templates order them anyway. The random order is an artifact of trying to bring together so many sources using (what I found are) incompatible reference/template tools. I just copied and pasted the material into a text processor and sorted the lines.
                   • I checked them in a spreadsheet and found only one. Is it Spannaos or Spannaus? I'm not sure what you're referring to at all by "regularizing the order of the fields". The templates do that automatically; inconsistencies occur when the editor uses the wrong field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
                     • Re; "regularizing": I thought you were asking if I could makes sure each field appeared in the same order in the raw citation. (OT: Why do you suppose that {cite news} and {cite book} handle pages differently? I can't imagine a benefit.) Thanks for catching that extra duplicate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
                3. Another problem is that many of the references were added by a banned editor using a book that is not easily available. I don't doubt that he reported the contents accurately, but I have no way of obtaining page numbers, for example. Several of the references for that work are briefs and transcripts whose lengthy and arcane titles are given. For example United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of R. David Pembroke et al., Amici Curiea, No. 89-5518, published in Spannaus (1989). Is that what you mean "gobbledy gook"? Does anyone see a way around it?
                4. I've checked to make sure there is now a space after every "p." in page numbers.
                5. Spannaus" is now spelled correctly throughout (a stupid mistake copied over and over).
                   • Still one there, I left an inline highlighting it. Since it's to a news report rather than the book, I'm unsure if it's a different person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
                     • Ah, I didn't look for that misspelling. Thanks for highlighitng it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I also opened a window to get some fresh air. That helps! Thanks for the input. You were right when you said this needed some elbow grease. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
                • It becomes second nature after a few FACs and FARs :-) You have inconsistent date formatting throughout the citations, but since the changes to MoS about delinking dates are still rather recent, most FACs are getting off the hook on that one, although I may go in and fix them myself if I find the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • I'm glad there's an allowance on date formats. Getting those consistent is not a fun job. You'd think someone would have a program for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Regarding this comment: If there's no URL, there can't be an accessdate
                1. A majority of these citations were obtained through the Proquest archive, which I have free access to courtesy of my library system. The URLs all include a reference to the library that routes browsers to a library-specific log-in screen. So only readers in this library system can use those URLS. For that and another reason I removed all of them. Anyone with Proquest can easily search for the headlines. If an accesdate without a URL is bothersome I can remove those too, but I think they have value. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 6 needs the publsher broken out from the link title.
  • Fixed
• Current re 9 has a numbered link in it, you need to format the link with a link title. Do you really need the link? I'm not sure who is the publisher (or republisher) of the stuff on the link... I'm not sure it's reliable or not a copyright violation there (Do they have the right to reprint the work?)
  • Fixed (see below for copyright & reliability)
• Current ref 52 (It's Time for Truth-in-Justice..) doesn't give a publisher
  • Fixed
• Same for current ref 69 (The Summary of Relevant..)
  • Fixed
• As Sandy said above, even when the original gives a title in all capitals, we don't put it in all capitals.
  • Fixed
• Current ref 86 (Murphy, Carlye...) is lacking a publisher
  • Fixed
• Current ref 97 (http://www.subgenius.com/subg-digest/v0/0088.html Volume0 SubGenius) is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
  • Fixed (see below for reliability)
• What makes http://american_almanac.tripod.com/index.htm a reliable source?
  • See below for reliability
    • This is really strange. It appears as if it's a magazine that is published in hard print (in which case it should be using cite news, not cite web), and yet they have a tripod website ??? What kind of publication is this? Can we access this periodical in a library or does it fall under WP:SPS ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, strange. If I understand correctly, the American Almanac is or was an occasional insert into Executive Intelligence Review, the flagship periodical of the LaRouche movement. I don't know if it's carried in any libraries - it's not in the large library system to which I have best access. To the extent that the entire movement is an entity, I've presumed that it falls under WP:SPS. Other than a few quotes in newspapers, the movement publicaitons are the only source for the movement's viewpoint. Now in many articles, newspapers are considered sufficient sources for all viewpoints. But in this case the movement considers the major newspapers to be part of a conspiracy agasint them. As I noted below, we should probably double check to make sure that none of the SPSes are used to make contentious assertions about 3rd parties. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 139 (Schiller Institute -- LaRouche -- Bad Guy...) needs the publisehr outside the link title
  • Fixed
• Same for current ref 141 (Schiller Institute --INtroduction)
  • Fixed
• Current ref 146 (The Curtis Clark ...) needs a publisher
  • Fixed
• Same for current re 147 (Statement of Mann=Chestnut..)
  • Fixed
• and for Current ref 148 (Exonerate LaRouche...)
  • Fixed

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Almost all of these that lack a publisher or are of questionable reliability are LaRouche sources, and have been accepted as essentially self-published works talking about themselves. I'll go through and add the relevant entity as publisher. Likewise, it can be assumed that movement publications have permission to republish materials from other movement publications. It occurs to me though that some of the self-published sources make assertions about 3rd-parties, and those assertions should probably be removed. I'll go through these one by one and check them off as I do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if I'm asking for a publisher, but don't question the reliablity of the source, it is just a "housekeeping" thing that needs a publisher. I don't have time to read every source and compare them against every citation, I just try to make sure we catch the obviously self-published/non-reliable sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In an absolute sense, the LaRouche-related publications aren't reliable. However they are the only source for the LaRouche movement's viewpoint on the matter, except for a few quotations in news accounts. While I've addressed the technical citing issues listed above, I haven't deleted cases where they make claims about 3rd-parties because that is a more delicate operation. I believe that many of them have been at least quoted in reliable sources so that may not be an urgent problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, when all of yours and mine is resolved, you can add mine to your cap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cap through here, including Ealdgyth's comments, per her note on my talk page.[8] There is still some minor date delinking work to be completed in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the only concern is the American-Almanac things, and even there, as far as using it for LR positions, it should be fine. It would only be on third-party type things that it would be questionable, and it sounds like Will is checking those? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two statements about 3rd parties that are of concern:

• According to Barbara Boyd, Billington's attorney had not prepared a defense, assuming that Billington would "cop a plea," and the judge refused to permit Billington to substitute a different attorney, despite the fact that one stood ready.

While the shading may be a bit biased, I have read another account that more or less agrees with this. Plus the attorney is unnamed, making it less personal (though I gather the attorney in question is fairly prominent now). I think it's probably OK. Any other thoughts? Another statement from an SPS stood out for a different reason:

• Bostetter said the government's actions amounted to bad faith regardless of whether government agents and attorneys had intended this outcome. He found that the government's actions and representations in obtaining the bankruptcy had the effect of misleading the court as to the status of the organization, leading to a "constructive fraud on the court."

I happened to read over one of the appeals court opinions last night and saw this footnote:

• We also note that the Defendants have greatly distorted the character of much of the evidence presented in support of these claims. They assert, for example, that the bankruptcy court found that the bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith when in fact the bankruptcy court expressly rejected the contention that the petition was improperly motivated. In re: Caucus Distribs., Inc., 106 B.R. at 928. Much of the other evidence presented in support of these claims is equally lacking [9]

Since this assertion is directly contradicted by the appeals court, the best thing may be to simply remove it. Sorry for not finding this earlier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On the first one, my best advice would be to back it up with the other source, if possible. The second, I'm afraid that removing is probalby the best option, or another option would be the "attribution" option, maybe something like "American Almanac says that (blah) occured, but the appeals court found (opposite of blah), which contradicts AA." or similar. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed both, more or less as you've suggested.[10][11] I deleted the part about not being prepared to make a defense, as that only appears in the SPS, and is somewhat contradicted by a statement from another LaRouche spokesman. The article does name the lawyer, so extra care is needed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1. The lead contains many statements without sources. Per WP:LEAD: The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. ;
2. The section named "State trials" contains a cover of a book, in violation of WP:FAIR;
3. The title of section named "Claims of LaRouche supporters" could be changed to something more neutral and factually accurate, and contains unsourced material such as "The convictions of LaRouche and his associates were a defining moment in the history of the LaRouche network." Surely there must be sources that make that assertion. The section title "Attempts at exoneration" could also be changed to something more neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi, I didn't know you reviewed FACs. This is a rare honor.
  • Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. - WP:LEAD#Citations
  1. The current lead was discussed on the talk page and all requests for citations have been met.
  2. WP:FAIR sets out ten criteria for inclusion of images. I believe it meets all ten. The title (pictured on the cover) makes the assertion of having been a "political prisoner" and serves as the source for the assertion in the text. Is there a specific citerion that it fails?
  3. "Claim" has a legal meaning which is not prohibited. However it could be replaced by a word like "argument". I'm not sure how "attempts" is non-neutral. Would "efforts" be better? I'm not sure why, but if it is then that's fine too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAIR for a book cover requires does not apply in this case. A book cover can only be used in an article about the book, or in an article that discusses the book critically. As for the section titles, I am sure you can find a more neutral presentation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAIR, the policy you cited, doesn't mention book covers. Are you thinking of some guideline? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the way "claim" is being used here is completely different than the legal meaning of the word "claim", so the normal rule should apply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Would "arguments" be better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Leads don't require citations as long as facts are cited in the body, except in the case of direct quotes. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not what WP:LEAD says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I quoted WP:LEAD above, and that seems to be exactly what it says. Have you read WP:LEAD#Citations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have, have you? (my highlight) The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody has pointed to any contentious material or anything else in need of a cite. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations Are you asserting that the material in the lead is neither complex, current, or controversial? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

May. If there is anything there that you think needs a special citation, above and beyond what's already in the body of the article, please point it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All material in the lead needs to be cited, given the controversial aspects that it treats. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no requirement for that. The lead is just a summary of the sourced material in the article. If you see something specific that needs a cite please point it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As requested [12] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't gone through the article that thoroughly yet, but the refs to legal documents are still kind of a mess. "Appeal, United States v. LaRouche, No. 89-5518, published in Spannaus (1989)" is probably the worst - is this a motion? a decision? what year was it filed in? what court wrote it (or what court was it filed in? what case does it pertain to? It appears to be the motion for an appeal filed by LaRouche in the 4th circuit but it's really hard to say. I know that these documents are reprinted in that Spannaus book, but really we should have sufficient citations for readers to find the original documents if need be. Hopefully there is enough info in Spannaus that can be added to make it so. Any court filing should have the name of the filing, the name of the case it relates to, the volume/reporter/page # of the case it relates to (or at least the docket number, but hopefully we can avoid that), the court it was filed in, and the year it was filed. (Court filings include normal briefs, amicus briefs, motions, etc.) Do you have access to that book? It appears that my law library has it but I don't know if I'll have time to go get it or not. Another big-picture issue with the article is how it mushes up all the appeals for what appear to be separate cases at the end. As a legal reader I find this extremely confusing, because each case surely deals with different issues on appeal, so it makes no sense to group appeals with each other rather than with the cases they pertain to. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to Railroad!, the Spannaus book, and the nearest library that has it is a hundred miles away. I tried to get an interlibary load without success. There is a law library near me that should have some of the actual appellate decisions. See also the list of appeals on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I went back and supplemented the list at Talk:LaRouche conspiracy trials#Related appeals. (Many of the others were appeals concerning FOIA requests that originated before the releveant charges.) There are ten or twelve cases that the appellate courts heard that were directly related to these charges, plus some lower court affirmations that I haven't tracked down. Of those twelve, the newspapers apparently reported on only a few, and were rarely precise when they did. There were also trials and appeals in a several states. The movement must have had a couple of federal and state appeals going at once. Reporters don't note proper case names or numbers. It may be beyond our ability, using the reliable sources, to exactly pin down which motion was made in which appellate case was an appeal of which of the many cases that the defendants lost. This is a legal whirlwind. The defense attorneys at the first case filed 400 pretrial motions. After OJ that may seem routine but in 1987 it was notable. There's no way we can ever untangle all of this. I hope the article does a good job of summarizing the main points of the appeals. Most remarkable are the appeals following the Boston trial, which ended in a mistrial. When the prosecution moved for a retrial the movement appealed on the grounds of double jeopardy (and lost). The Alexandria trial intervened and after the convictions there the Boston DA dropped the charges, saying that justice had been done. The defendants appealed that motion, saying that they were seeking vindication in that venue (and they lost that too). So they appealed the planned retrial and then they appealed the dismissal. It boggles the mind. That's why we should keep it short and mostly based on secondary sources like newspapers, even though they're imperfect. I believe the article correctly summarizes those. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the task is too difficult to undertake, or that it is impossible? If the former, maybe you can ask others to assist with the parsing of all that data. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not the large quantity of data that makes it difficult- it's the small quantity. The appeals cases weren't covered thoroughly by the press, and when they did cover them they didn't always make it clear which appeal they were writing about. At the level of an enyclopedia article covering the whole set of trials and their appeals it may not make a difference exactly which appeal was which. They lost every one. We have six fairly short paragraphs on the appeals. There's not much more we can say unless we start summarizing the original opinions from the primary sources, but it's probably better if we don't. This was discussed on the talk page already, and the view was that a full listing and analysis of the appeals cases would overwhelm the rest of the article. Maybe that'd be a good topic for a new article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There should not be a problem with untangling the appeals, given the appropriate research tools. Westlaw has graphical listings of procedural histories of cases. They don't appear to have all district court cases from this time period, but they do appear to have all circuit court and supreme court decisions. I haven't looked into what state court decisions. I don't think that it is necessary to list every appeal, but I am still a bit confused about why we want to lump all appeals together in one section, rather than having them accompany the discussion of the individual cases they relate to. It's not as though appeals exist in a vacuum or really probably have anything in common with one another. An appeal is challenging something specific that went on in a lower court, so in almost all cases is best understood in conjunction with that lower court decision. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall why we treated the appeals separately - but it was probably in order to clarify the issues. As I not just below, I've re-writtn the section. Now that that is done, it's apparent that the appeals are clearer than I thought before, and the appeals between the two federal trials don't overlap much. It'd be easy to move the Boston-related appeals to the end of that section. It'd be harder to get everything into perfect chronology especially since there were so many appeals that started even before the first trial. The appeals related to the Alexandria trial, including the "main" appeal of the convictions, might be best left where they are, following the convictions in the other trials. I'll see about getting that material moved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've distributed the appeals to more appropriate locations. Except for the Frankhouser appeal, they're still segregated in their own sections. How does that look? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, I've begun drafting a revised "Appeals" section in my sandbox. The aim is to be more straightforward: simply listing each appeal, the date it was made, its chief claim, and its disposition (though since they all failed it may be redundant to say that repeatedly). Since we don't quote the prosecutors we probably don't need to quote the defendants either. I'll try to finish that tonight or tomorrow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• I've posted the new draft. I need to add some citations, but it's mostly just taken from the appellate opinions. I hope it is clearer than the previous version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

• This article must be suffering from a bad case of TLDR. I'm finding embarrassing grammar problems in later sections ("State Trials"). I'm repairing...
  • Thanks for the repairs.
• "five of LaRouche's associates were also found guilty: William Wertz...Edward Spannaus... Dennis Small, Paul Greenberg, Michael Billington, and Joyce Rubinstein...". I count six.
  • Six is the correct number. Fixed.
• really, the "State Trials" section kinda sticks out for awkward prose. It definitely needs copy editing. The other section may need it too, but not as badly as that one. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed an awkward paragraph of claims by supporters of the defendants. That leaves the section with a more straightforward account of the trials.
• Bad Link:"Testimony Of The Schiller Institute Submitted To The Committee On The Judiciary, UnitedStates Senate". american_almanac.tipod.com (July 13, 1998). Retrieved on October 12, 2008. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I checked the link again and it seems to work. http://american_almanac.tripod.com/dojtest.htm The automated external link checker (at the top of this page) also reports no problems. Maybe it was a momentary glitch.

• Oppose this time around, as per 1a. I'm pretty sure there's an FA lurking inside this article somewhere, but it hasn't been coaxed out yet. The prose toward the end feels a bit skeletal or rote. The whole article had a faint odor of I-can-tell-the POV-of-its-editors as well, though I'm not putting force behind that statement, because many of the facts are irrefutable. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose at the end, in the section now titled "LaRouche supporters' reactions", was mostly written by a now-banned editor (and LaRouche supporter) who was not a good writer. I don't want to remove too much of the LaRouche POV, at least from that section, but I'll see if I can polish the writing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I was actually talking about a minor anti--LaRouche bias. The Background section clearly explains their detractors' POV, but doesn't let the LaRouchies label themselves... and there's at least one very prominent guy mentioned (Ramsey Clark); the WP:LEAD should say something like "These people (list one or two prominent ones) said he was guilty (list prominnt supporting evidence) but supporters such as (list one or two prominent ones) said (whatever).
• The article seems to fail WP:LEAD, now that I think about it...
• While we're on POV, it might be nice to know if those violinists at the bottom of the page support LaRouche's political idea, or just the Verdi tuning bit. Important distinction.
• Eh, it just occurred to me thay the article should be retitled/moved. The word "conspiracy" may have several legal connotations and may even be technically correct, but it really has strong associations with conspiracy theory. The LaRouchies are apparently 'all about conspiracy theories; it is almost their raison d'être. There really should be an article about LaRouche conspiracy theories, but then the association between that article and this would really become too powerful. This one should be LaRouche criminal trials, or perhaps something more specific regarding the charges (though we both know that no charge-related title will ever escape the gauntlet of Talk.)
• But 1a is the key word for the day; the article's writing isn't FA level. Sorry. Needs copy editing...
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. Could you be more specific about how the lead violates WP:LEAD? I didn't write it, so don't worry about offending me. ;)
• The article had long been at {{United States v. Lyndon LaRouche]] but was moved during the GA review becuase it covers more than the single case, that the old name implied. LaRouche fraud trials would be accurate, as the main charges related to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and, in the first trial, obstruction of justice realted to the investigation of fraud. FYI, there is an article titled Views of Lyndon LaRouche that includes many of his conspiracy theories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• I added to the "background" section a quote from a follower that describes LaRouche in glowing terms. Regarding the violinist, Norbert Brainin, it's not clear whether he supported LaRouche's politic, but he did support LaRouche. In 1988 he gave a concert to benefit LaRouche's legal defense fund, "Constitutional Defense Fund" (CDF). An article on the concert said:
  • The concert playbill explained that the CDF, located in Upper Darby, Pa., "has taken on the commitment to funding numerous cases against the government's effort to destroy Lyndon LaRouche and the political movement he leads because these cases involve the blatant use of government power for the purpose of political persecution." Brainin, former first violinist with the Amadeus Quartet, introduced LaRouche as a "very good friend of mine" and said he wished to "pay homage to a great man and to bear witness to his stainless character," according to [LaRouche spokesman] Scanlon, who was at the concert.
• The other musician listed, William Warfield, was a supporter of the Verdi tuning movement and became a director of one of the LaRouche organizations, the Schiller Institute. Do you think that more information is needed on the involvement of those who signed the petitions? While we avoid it in the current draft, the movement sought signatures on several petitions seeking exoneration of LaRouche, and when a list of endorsers was published several claimed they hadn't realized what they were signing. It's interesting and relevant, but there isn't room for everything. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article is massively researched, comprehensive and objective. The facts are irrefutable that LaRouche and a number of his followers were found guilty of serious felonies and were unable to get their convictions overturned on appeal. LaRouche's accusations that he was the victim of a political conspiracy are covered but are not given undue weight.--Dking (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the article is looking good, although I share a concern about the title. Why not just call it LaRouche trials or something similar? Another issue is the lead, that seems to be a bit on the long side. I am sure that some sentences can be dropped for a tighter lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Per comments from Ling.Nut and Jossi, I have re-written the lead. While it's about the same length as before (487 words versus 470 words), it's less verbose and adds some important aspects that hadn't been in the previous draft. Regarding the article title, some current proposals are "Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement", "LaRouche criminal trials" and "LaRouche fraud trials". "LaRouche trials" would be inaccurate because there have been a number of unrelated civil trials concerning LaRouche and his movement that aren't covered here. The benefit to having "movement" in the title is that at least 13 associates and three corporations were also involved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Per discusion here and on the talk page, I've moved the article to LaRouche criminal trials. That title matches the scope of the article, which covers more than just the conspiracy charges or even just the fraud charges. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed one large paragraph from the lead, which makes the lead tighter and much easier to read. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Much improved. (However, will this reduction increase Ling.Nut's complaints (above) about the problems in article's WP:LEAD, such as not mentioning prominent people that are involved?) —Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That surgery seems a bit drastic, but it certainly does make the intro shorter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I changed the following sentence in an attempt to clarify the quotes. Please check my changes for accuracy:

According to the Boston Herald of May 5, 1988, one of the jurors described the poll: "It seemed some of the government's people caused the problem, adding that the evidence showed that people working on behalf of the government 'may have been involved in some of this fraud to discredit the campaign.'"

Also, this needs a reference citation.

This link appears to be dead: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/878/878.F2d.1571.88-1415.88-1323.htm

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I modified the quote a little more and added a cite. It doesn't really matter which newspaper reported it, or the exact date, so I dropped those.

One juror told a reporter that "it seemed some of the government's people caused the problem", and that people working on behalf of the government "may have been involved in some of this fraud to discredit the campaign."

The link was missing a final "l", which I've fixed. Thanks for catching it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the headings a little. I remember how confused I was when I initially looked at the article, when it was up for GA review. There seemed to be too many confusing headings, but feel free to change them back. I wish that under Boston trials there was another heading for Main trial, but I can't think of one. Calling it LaRouche trial would be misleading because of the co-defendants? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

One option would be to change the Boston headings to "trial of Frankhouser" and "trial of LaRouche, et al."

(BTW, the circuit court consistently spells it "Frankhauser" while every other source spells it "Frankhouser". It's hard to say with absolute confidence which spelling is correct, so I would't use a [sic] annotation. But would a footnote, or a note following the entry in the list of appeals, be helpful? I think it's confusing and may lead readers to think we made a mistake if it isn't explained.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A note or footnote explaining the situation probably would be a good idea, in case someone obsesses over that in the future. This article is much clear now. It is a fascinating story. You have done an unbelievable amount of work figuring it all out. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I like your suggestion for the section heading rewording: change the Boston headings to "trial of Frankhouser" and "trial of LaRouche, et al." - would there be any objection to that? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done. I also added some of the case names to the text and did more prose-polishing. (Thanks for the noticing the effort. You're right—it is a fascinating story and that's why I've found it so interesting. The events and characters have a quality of high drama or opera.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Article is now ready for prime time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - When I first encountered this article, I could not make heads or tails out of it. Now it is a fascinating pleasure. You have done a great job of making sense of all of this and telling a story that I did not know at all before encountering this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A great read on a tough topic to pull together cohesively. The article is structured well and has good flow throughout. Very well done. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd really like this moved to a less informal name, perhaps the one from the lede, "Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement". As it is now, before I clicked it, I thought it was about a trial of Lyndon LaRouche specifically, when it obviously isn't. At the very least, 'movement' needs to be in the title, as "LaRouche" is ambiguous, possibly referring to Lyndon, his wife, or his movement. --Golbez (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement" was an alternative that I'd proposed to which no one specifically objected. It's the more accurate, though more verbose. I'll go ahead and move it there. (Though I won't move this FAC to match the new name - that seems to screw up hard-to-fix links.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course, now that I think of it, such a title could be construed to mean trials conducted BY the movement. So 'of' could be maybe 'against' or 'involving'. But that's picking nits, at this point. :) Thanks for the move. I've been on a minor crusade against such informal names ever since "Mozart's operas" came up on FLC. --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop!. There has been much moving of the title already. Why doesn't everyone take some time to think about it and get more opinions. Maybe there is no perfect title. The current one (arrived at after some discussion) is sufficiently vague but contains the word "LaRouche" so that anyone interested in the subject can take the time to read the first short paragraph of the lead that explains the topic of the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you proposing it be moved away from Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement? I don't know what you mean by "sufficiently vague", I wasn't aware we aimed for vagueness in our titles. --Golbez (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Matisse may mean "sufficiently broad". The original title was "United States v. LaRouche", which was too specific because it referred to only one of the dozen or so trial that the article covers. Another title was "LaRouche conspiracy trials" which covered only one set of charges (and was also too vague because "conspiracy" has multiple meanings). I think that "LaRouche criminal trials" and "Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement" are both good, and I prefer the first just because it's shorter. "LaRouche movement criminal trials" is another variation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is what I meant. I also prefer the shorter title because I prefer short titles. I don't think the longer title adds anything and might even be misleading. Looking at the article LaRouche movement, it seems that the criminal trials in this article involved only a small subset of the various people, groups, parties, companies, political causes etc. that the LaRouche movement article describes. It does not involve any of the topics listed under the "LaRouche movement" subsection of the LaRouche movement template on that page. Further, the LaRouche movement, according to that article, involved many other countries all over the world. This article is confined to criminal trials in the U.S. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
          • If there's no further comment from Golbez I'll restore the previous title, "LaRouche criminal trials". I hadn't anticipated that Matisse would object to the newer title, "Criminal trials of the tLaRouche movement", so my assertion that no one objected turned out to be wrong. I'm not sure I see the "formal/informal" distinction. I can't see how anyone could seriously think that the movement had conducted criminal trials, since criminal trials are conducted exclusively by governments. The longer title doesn't appear to really add much except more words. Any other thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Agree with "LaRouche criminal trials". Cirt (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jumble. Ok, the article moves have resulted in a jumble, with a redlink to the FAC on the talk page and the FAC out of sync with the article. Please don't move it again without checking in with me so I can help you get all the pieces in the right place. When you decide on the name, I need to make several corrections. If it's moved again and then has to be moved back, I can't fix it because I'm not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, please check the dab link that needs attention in the dab finder in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, this is the second move since the FAC started. I couldn't figure out how to fix the FAC link on the talk page the last time. I've fixed the dab -it was a new link added recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• When you're certain everything is settled, I'll get all the pieces in the right place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm not sure how we'll know then it's settled for good. ;) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Seeing no more commentary, I've moved it back to "LaRouche conspiracy trials". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• As I feared, the FAC pages were moved and I cannot correct them now without admin tools. So, I'll get someone to help sort it all out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I moved it - anything else left to move? Cirt (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Cirt; I believe everything is OK now, but if I find anything straggling that will foil the bot, I'll ping you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to perseverate over this, but I thought reasons were given above why LaRouche conspiracy trials was not right and we settled on LaRouche criminal trials so I am baffled. But whatever. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think this title is the most appropriate, and consensus exists. We should just go with it and move on. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• No opinion here, just pointing out that the pages were out of sync, and if there are more moves, it will probably take an admin to keep the pieces correctly named for the closing bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ooops oops oops. I made a mistake writing this last night - the consensus was for "LaRouche criminal trials", not "Larouche onspriacy trials". Everything was set, but, niw it's all moved to "conspiracy." Sorry for this mixup, everybody. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay I think we are all in agreement that this name is appropriate as well. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment—The lead shows a certain fuzziness in the prose, particularly in referents—is this the case throughout? Commas throughout could be audited for easier reading. Here are examples from the top:

• "They" in the second sentence is fuzzy (could refer to the prosecutors themselves, until you read it twice).
• Comma after "evasion", and "was" before "sentenced". Consider "and received a 15-year sentence" instead.
• Comma after "conspiracy", because there are two ands.
• "Found guilty"—why not "convicted"?
• Was it the trial procedures or the appeals that were "unsuccessful"?
• Unsure about the semicolon then the period: please think about the relative closeness of the clauses. Tony (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question to Tony: The lead is completely unrepresentative of the article. After much discussion of what and what not should be included in the lead, since the article is so complex, the lead was whittled down with all details removed in one edit, thus leaving the fuzzy "they" and such. It has not been touched since. The result is what you read.

We could carefully add back a little more explanation, hopefully without alienating those who felt strongly the lead should not contain detail. Is this your go ahead that we should to do this? Or could we just copy edit to fix the "they" and the comma to rectify the two ands. Plus perhaps clarify that one of the trials was a mistrial, some defendants were not convicted, and none of the appeals were successful.

If you do read the article, you will understand that it is extraordinarily difficult to summarize in a lead.(It is amazing that the editor was able to make sense out of the plethora of facts). There were a multitude of investigations, investigating agencies, charges, trials, defendants, and convictions (and a few failures to convict) as well as various trial locations. There were too many appeals to detail in the article. Therefore, it was difficult to select which particular facts to include in the lead, because any one statement, such as "and received a 15-year sentence" could be criticized as misleading if not qualified, since, for example, in the case of LaRouche, the sentence was reduced by a judge and then he was paroled before serving the reduced sentence. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've made copyedits to address each of Tony's issues.[13] Mattisse's question about whether we should include more information in the lead still stands. The deleted second paragraph was 195 words of dense narrative.[14] It'd be possible to cover the key points in half that space if we wanted to do so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• To cover the trials, a pared-down paragraph could look like this:
  • In 1986, hundreds of state and federal officers raided LaRouche offices in Virginia and Massachusetts. A federal grand jury in Boston, Massachusetts, indicted LaRouche and 12 associates on credit card fraud and obstruction of justice. The subsequent trial, described as a "courtroom extravaganza", was repeatedly delayed and ended in mistrial. Following the mistrial, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted LaRouche and five associates. After a short trial in 1988, they were convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. LaRouche was also convicted of tax evasion. Three LaRouche-related organizations were forced into bankruptcy after failing to pay contempt of court fines.
• Would that help round out the intro? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. But it is hard to read Tony's mind. His comments seem to come out of nowhere, since he hasn't read the article. (If he sees a huge distinction between "found guilty" and "convicted" when it is stated that the sentence is 15 years, then I am lost.) Perhaps he would object to the "courtroom extravaganza" part. Just a guess. I see you have fixed his specific objections. Perhaps that is enough. A whole host of objects may be raised by Tony and others if you change much. It might be asking for trouble. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Don't do anything hasty! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it if there are no objections. The lead should cover the main points of the article and this is a minimal treatment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I'll add this paragraph as a minimal outline of the main cases. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review - There are lots of issues that need to be cleared up with regards to the images:

• Image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:William Weld-cropped.png - There is no information on the image whatsover nor on the image it was cropped from Its license cannot be verified.

• Removed.

• Image:Supreme Court.jpg - Source link does not work.

These links work: http://free-stock-photos.com/supreme-court.html, http://free-stock-photos.com/patriotic/supreme-court-1.html —Mattisse (Talk) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly reassured by the assertion on that site that Hammond from the USDA is the photographer (upon which the PD claim rests). We need to find something more solid. Can anyone find the USDA link? Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the question whether Hammond took the pciture, or whether Hammond is an emplyee of the US government? Based on searches, it appears that Hammond is a prolific USDA photojournalist.[15][16] I found another Commons image credited to him with a similar USDA URL that is also down - they apparently moved or removed the images from the website. image:Wool.www.usda.gov.jpg. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This search includes cache results that show Hammand did a series of photos on landmarks in Washington D.C. The file names and URLs are similar to that for this image. And like with the image, the URLs are all broken.[17] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While it's not as good for this article, IMO, I swapped inImage:United states supreme court building.png to replace this image. It's sourcing info appears to be complete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Boston Post Office and Courthouse.jpg - This image is missing author and date information.

• I see that someone has added "unknown" to the author field. Does that mean we are unsure if this image really is the work of the federal government? Perhaps you could point me to the part of the website that explains that images on the website are in the public domain? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed.

• Image:VP Bush 1981.jpg - The source photo needs an author.
  • It is an official portrait, so that would likely be "White House staff", which I've added

• Image:Old Alexandria District Federal Courthouse.jpg - Please add a description, author, and date to the image description. Also, please explain why you believe this photo was taken by a federal employee.

• I see that someone has added "United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia" to the author field, but that is simply who runs the website. Perhaps you could point me to a place on the website where it says that the images on the website are in the public domain? Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed.

• Image:Ramsey Clark in Nandigram cropped.jpg - The source image for this is missing the source, date, and author.
  • It's uploaded by the creator. I've filled in the other fields.

• Image:Arturo Frondizi 2.jpg - What is the source for this image?
  • Apparently it's from Todo es historia, Nº 444, pag. 65.
    • What is that exactly and what is the rest of the publication information for it? Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Removed.

Let me know if any of the above are unclear. Awadewit (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I found the two courthouse pictures on U.S. government sites, while the other pictures in this list were already on Wikipedia. I see that other recently featured articles have images where the date is the apparent date of uploadning, and the author is listed as "unknown". For example, Image:USS_Nevada_(BB-36)_in_drydock.jpg. If that's an acceptable solution then this will be easy to deal with. Otherwise it may be impossible to obtain date of creation and author information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Other FAs are irrelevant to this FAC; they may have not received an adequate review, images may have been added later, and Fair Use varies depending on the article. This article needs to conform with crit 3 of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I'm a bit confused. Are date and author required in order for a public domain image to have an acceptable image license? I can't find that requirement in Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Public domain, or Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• These two pages may help sort it out: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. (Example: If we don't know who the author is, how do we know when they died?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed some of the above image issues. I think the only one unresolved is the image of William Weld, which is unfortunately not public domain, and I have put that one up for deletion. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added further questions above. Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of these images are more decorative than informative. It's probably not possible to determine the sourcing details that have been requested. Rather than wasting further effort on this side issue I'll remove the images that have questions remaining. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

With help, I found an image on Flickr of the Alexandria courthouse. Image:Martin V.B. Bostetter, Jr. United States Courthouse.jpg/[18]. It has a compatible license and all of the sourcing and authorship info. If there are no objections I'll insert it into the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:04, 28 October 2008 [19].

---

Bob Windle

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it satisfies WP:WIAFA. The subject is a four-time Olympic medalist, the highlight being gold in the 1500m free at the 1964 Olympics for Australia. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's comments

• "1500 m freestyle" - should there be a space between the distance and the unit - I've never seen it written like this (that I can recall) before. Applies throughout.

Heh. Tony told me to put a space on my first FAC - Thorpey. It's correct. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the first/second sentence you could add a bit more context by saying they're medals (and linking to a relevant article?)

I could but I think it will get unlinked in the common words sweep pretty soon. I think everyone understands the context.YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• "in all freestyle distances from 100 m to 1500 m" - I'd end the sentence at "distances"

Actually the range needs to be specified because nowadays they had the 50m freestyle which is for flat-out sprinters, which endruance swimmers can't do. In those days they didnt have that. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• "racing the 100 m and 200 m freestyle and the corresponding relays, having completed his transition to sprinting" - .... those are swimming races, yet you say he was sprinting (previous sentence too), or am I just confused?

Sprinting means short distances, not explicitly running on two feet. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course... I can't believe I didn't pick up on that. I'd suggest you make it a bit clearly that you mean short distance swimming the first time you use the word (maybe "from distance swimming to sprinting" --> "from long to short distance "sprinting"") as I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought of running first. Well, I hope I'm not. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• No image of any sort available?

Found two images of the Olympic pools he swam in. A bit corny, but there you are. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some numbers aren't spelt out (eg. 12), some are (eg. fifteen)... noticed this in the early years section but check throughout

fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Windle as the "greyhound"" --> "as a "greyhound""?

clarified. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• "17 m 37.7 s" --> "17.37" or something like that? I dunno what the mos says on this.

Kept the min s format per always. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Rose returned to the United States, and at the 1963 Australian Championships, Windle..." - the connection between the two clauses is a bit odd... I'd just not mention Rose here.

Reworded. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• "narrowly defeated him in a touch finish" - a bit redundant; clearly a touch finish is narrow (and vice versa), so cut a bit off

Done. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with all concerns addressed. Giggy (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments — A good article for the most part. It needs a thorough copyedit, however. Some examples from the lead and the "Early years" section:
• First sentence seems a tad long and hard to read.
• He won his first national title in 1961 with victory in the 1650 yd freestyle, and won the 220–440–1650 yd treble in 1962. - Does it need "with victory"?
• Could you write a tad about his early/personal life in the lead?
• The infobox says he was born on 7 November 1944, but the article mentions nothing of this.
• In the first paragraph of the "Early years" section, some of your numbers above 10 are spelled out, while others aren't.
• A turning point for Windle was the 1960 Australian Championships; he came second in the 1650 yd freestyle behind John Konrads and was selected for the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. - "Came in" → "placed".
• He then dropped out of high school to attend a three-month training camp in Queensland with the Olympic swimming team. - "Then" is redundant.
• Windle did not swim in Rome, with team officials merely wanting him to learn from the routine and atmosphere of Olympic swimming. - This would read more clearly as: "Windle did not swim in Rome; team officials merely wanted him to learn from the routine and atmosphere of Olympic swimming.
• On his return to Australia, he switched to the tutelage of Don Talbot, who also coached Konrads. - "On" → "Upon".
• He was known to do twice as much pre-season training as the other swimmers in Talbot's squad. "Known to do" isn't encyclopedic language. Maybe "Known to complete"?

Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Did all of these instances. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When I find time, I'll review some more of the article later, though I have one quick question at the moment. Is "However, his victory was overshadowed by a suit malfunction that caused his bathers to partly fall off while he was racing" notable enough to warrant inclusion? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It was the main talking point according to the source. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine then. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Aside from needing a copyedit, for me the article is not resourceful enough, It uses few sources, although has enough citations which suggests to me the subject has not been researched as thoroughly as one would expect for our best work on wikipedia. There must surely be articles on him in the newspaper archives in Melbourne and Sydney Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've scraped out everything in the resources attached, and I've managed to scrap out three more sources and whatever info is in them. I don't know what you think is missing. I have included the results of every Olympic, Commonwealth and Aus Championship race that he competed in. Unfortunately the electronic archives (subscribers only) only goes back 20 years, so the Sydney Morning Herald can't be used yet. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This oppose is somewhat unactionable. What more is needed, exactly? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Scraped out some more by Talbot. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Bert Trautmann, a recently promoted FA, uses photos of important locations in his life to make up for the fact that it has no photos of him. Are there any appropriate photos of important locations involving Windle, like one of Toyko, for example? The picture situation is always difficult for people from this era. I'm skipping my usual prose review for now because this has enough commentary already. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Found two images of the Olympic pools he swam in. A bit corny, but there you are. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images all free images, however:

• • Image:Yoyogi Gymnasium.jpg licensed on commons as cc-by-2.5, while the original image at Flickr is licensed with cc-by-2.0 (generic). Change the license on commons to reflect this.

Done YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 03:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • All other images meet criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - First, nice job on the images, though the one Flickr photo needs a license adjustment, as Mr. Fuchs said. Now for the article itself...

• "During his career, Windle set six world records, won six Commonwealth Games gold medals and 19 Australian Championships in all distances from 200 yd up to 1650 yd." Sentence looks off to me, perhaps because and doesn't come before won. Also, is up needed, seeing as a similar statement earlier doesn't use it?

• This one caused some confusion, and I apologize for not making my beef clearer. To understand why I don't like this, it's necessary to read the whole sentence out loud. If you do that, you may find that the transition after the comma is what I see wrong. What I want is to see a connecting word (and) added after "set six world records,". Giants2008 (17-14) 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked for the better I think. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Maiden national title and international medals: "His quest to sweep all of the freestyle events failed when David Dickson defeated him in a touch finish in the 110 yd race." I'd like to see "touch finish" defined for those who may not understand its definition.
• Olympic gold: Delink United States here.
• "This meant that the Australians were the second fastest qualifier for the finals." Hyphen for second fastest? If so, check for other similar uses.

Tony1 said not to do so, so accordingly, all are hyphenless. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If Tony told you that, I'm fine with it. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Although made up 1.8 s on the Japanese anchor swimmer..." "He" did? :-) Maybe insert after first word.
• US college career: "After the Olympics, Windle enrolled at Indiana University-coached by Doc Counsilman-on a swimming scholarship." Sounds like he coached the whole university. Perhaps move something around to fix this.
• Why is Business capitalized?
• "as hed did in long-course swimming."
• International farewell: The actual name of the NCAA championship is the NCAA Men's Swimming and Diving Championships, not the NCAA spelled out. (Though it should be spelled out as part of the above)

Done, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "men's teams titles for the university." Is teams correct? Seems like a lot of plurals for one spot.
• "Wenden was saved and pulled from the water after Windle noticed this." Reverse the order of the events. He wasn't saved until after he was removed from the pool.
• "Windle was usually regarded as the fittest and hard-working member of the Australian swimming team." Hardest is probably the word you're looking for.
• Current ref 16 shouldn't be in all caps. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked these. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 03:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I've neer gotten to see your articles at FAC YM, but this one's great. —Ceranthor^(Sing) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• About to give it a quick run-through, but everything seems to be in order. Support, any edits I will make will be superficial. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• My comments are all struck, and I do believe it meets the comprehensiveness criterion, if only just. Therefore, I support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm currently copyediting the article a bit, but I got stuck at this sentence, which I'm having trouble understanding: The quartet won their heat and qualified fastest, with the Americans second with their second-choice team. Is it possible to reword that? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, with my concerns addressed, and some copyediting. It might help to get someone new to the article to run through it with a fine-toothed comb, but it looks good for the most part. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I enjoyed reading this article. I have made a few edits to fix a few problems with the prose, but on the whole this is a beautifully written piece. I know next to nothing about the subject, (well more than I did this morning), but it seems comprehensive. Well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:04, 28 October 2008 [20].

---

No Way Out (2004)

Nominator(s): User:SRX

This article has been nominated for Featured Article status twice, and failed twice due to prose problems, reliable sources, jargon, fiction, plot, and in-universe, thus not meeting the Featured Article criteria. Since the revisions from the first nomination, and the second nomination, I heavily improve the article with others help as well, current revision. The article now has improved prose to comply with WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT, WP:IN-U, WP:JARGON, and WP:RS, and has improvements based on previous wrestling FAC's.--S_RX 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—It's not a "quick-fail", which means I believe it's within reach of the requirement for a professional standard of prose in the short time on this list. Please find someone fresh to the article to copy-edit it carefully. Here are some pointers, on random examples from just the top.

• Compared with for contrasts, not to.
  • Replaced with with.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Outside of—spot the redundant word.
  • Yes I did, removed of.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Watch those long, cumbersome sentences that could be split: "The feud between Lesnar and Goldberg began at the Royal Rumble, WWE's previous pay-per-view event which featured both brands, where Lesnar interfered in the Royal Rumble match, a 30-man battle royal, attacking and eliminating Goldberg from the match." And others.
  • I cut the one you mentioned into two sentences, and I am still seeking to cut others.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove "who was" from previous sentence. There's a slight overuse of "that was", "which was", "who was", which can sometimes be reworded using a different grammatical construction to avoid tedium.
  • Removed who was and I am seeking to replace overuse of those terms.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "in which they insulted each other" (not "the" other) ...?
  • Right, replaced "the" with "each"--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Battle royal" sounds like POV.
  • Well it's not because Battle royal is the name of the match.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "front-row ticket". Check for any other double adjectives that might be better hyphenated.
  • Removed, did a search didn't find any except ones like "pre-existing" and "15-man" unless those count?Added.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "A storyline was written"—passive voice necessary? You might audit for this—some passives are OK, but only where they avoid cumbersome wording or have some other purpose, such as not needing to state the agent.
  • Removed passive voice and reworded statement.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "tag team match"—link it? (or maybe you did on first occurrence).
  • Yeah it was linked before.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Clumsy sentence structure: "Bradshaw performed a high impact forearm attack—called the Clothesline from Hell—on Haas." Why note "Bradshaw performed a high impact forearm "Clothesline from Hell" attack on Haas." Tony (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reworded to your suggest, will watch for others like that.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I am also seeking to get the article copyedited by new eyes.--S_RX 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Done - Article has (and is) being copyedited by User:Ceoil.--S_RX 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony. I'd be willing to switch to support or maybe neutral if you do what Tony suggested. iMatthew (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Weak support - It's gotten better. iMatthew (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well you shouldn't base your vote or decision per other users citing WP:PER. But, I've done Tony's requests.--S_RX 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Per is an essay, not a policy. There are still problems that should be banged out by a non-wrestling fan. Also, I feel like the "Other on-air talent" box disrupts the text when opens. And get rid of the quote, quotes are only supposed to be lines that are 2-3 sentences long. The text can be put into the article. iMatthew (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll also point out here that Tony said those were examples, not that they were the only problems. Suggest you find a copyeditor to satisfy him. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(@Ealdgyth) I know, I am aware of that, which is what I am seeking a copyedit by a new set of eyes and I am extending Tony's comments by applying them to other problems I see. (@Matt) Well, don't know where you got your info from, MOSQUOTE says nothing on 2-3 lines quotations, but removed it per Ealdgyth.--S_RX 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Matt, on my screen, the collapsible box works fine and does not effect the text/images in a major way, it moves them maybe a line down, no big deal that is just your preference.--S_RX 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Curly quotes are a no-no according to the MOS.
  • Removed.--S_RX 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look fine, links couldn't be checked with the link checker tool, it's down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, would appreciate link check once it's back up :)--S_RX 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You can do that yourself, the tool is linked right over there on the side of this FAC page... (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Okay.--S_RX 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support' Quite well written and an engaging read. Its comprehensive, insightful and well sourced. I'm not finished yet on a ce pass, but am impressed with the work put into this FA quality article, and hope to see more from the editor(s). Ceoil ^sláinte

Comments Support - I see some prose work is needed here. Allow me to contribute some thoughts.

• "At No Way Out 2004, Guerrero won his sole World Championship before his substance abuse related death in 2005." Hyphen before related? Another thing: the last Guerrero mentioned was Chavo. Maybe make it clear that this refers to Eddie.
  • Both Done.--S_RX 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Non-breaking space needed for 11.9 million.
  • Where exactly should it go?--S_RX 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It goes between the number of million, but one is now there, so this is now fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Background: "The event featured eight professional wrestling matches involving different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines." I think this is better: "The event featured eight professional wrestling matches with different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines."
  • Reworded.--S_RX 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "After winning a 15-man battle royal (a match in which participants are eliminated until one person remains as the winner, on the January 29, 2004 episode of SmackDown!) Move the second parenthesis to after winner and move the comma.
  • Changed, that came about during the copyedit.--S_RX 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "The following week on an episode of Raw, as a result of the rivalry extending between the two programs, the General Manager Steve Austin..." Perhaps remove last the?'
  • Removed.--S_RX 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "front row" still doesn't have a hyphen.
  • I misread Tony's comment, I added it.--S_RX 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Commas before and after linked use of Paul Heyman?
• "The rivalry continued to develop the following week, in which Angle was scheduled to team..." I'd like to when replace in which. When is good to use in cases where time is a factor.
  • Replaced.--S_RX 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Event, Preliminary matches: Photos shouldn't be placed on the left side below second-level headers. Move the big man, either to the right or beside the second paragraph.
  • Hope I did that right.
• "WWE Tag Team Champions Rikishi and Scotty 2 Hotty (real names needed) defended their titles... Should titles be plural here? Later, it refers to their championship (singular).
  • Can't believe I missed that.--S_RX 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm at the beginning of the section and will come back later to review the rest. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• "in a move that allowed Rikishi and Hotty retained their championships."
  • You didn't tell me to do anything but I think I got it, reworded --> Rikishi and Hotty to retain..--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That was the one. Another thing I just noticed: In that sentence, a comma would be preferable to a semi-colon. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Done.--S_RX 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• "before throwing him down with a Alabama slam;" Probably should be an.
  • It should. Done.--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Main event matches: "Lesnar then attempted to take advantage over the referee's state," More commonly, it would be "take advantage of the referee's state,".
  • True, Done.--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Guerrero then kicked the belt out of the ring to avoid the referee from seeing it..."
  • You didn't tell me to do anything, but I think I fixed it, removed the word then'''.--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, this hasn't been touched. "to prevent the referee from seeing it" is my preference, but there are a lot of ways it can be improved. I'm just not liking "to avoid the referee from seeing it". Giants2008 (17-14) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Done.--S_RX 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• "to pin and win the WWE Championship from Lesnar." Cute play on words, but it doesn't work grammatically. "to pin Lesnar and win the WWE Championship from him." is more like it.
  • I like that cute words :) I reworded it.--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Aftermath: "on the July 15, 2004 episode of Smackdown!." Exclamation point followed by a period. What does the MoS say on this? I'm really not sure because I don't remember seeing this before.
  • The MoS doesn't really say anything about it, but the exclamation point is part of the show's name and is not their for punctuation purposes.--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• I don't get the part on the aftermath of Guerrero's death. The semi-colon doesn't seem right, and the whole thing needs to be rewritten.
  • I reworded that, hopefully it read's better.--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Reception: I liked the star ratings that the other wrestling pay-per-views had and am disappointed that they aren't in here. Any chance I can change your mind on that? It would help fill out the section, with the DVD not worth more than a sentence.
  • The source that gave stars to the other PPV did not give stars or points to this pay-per-view, but I added the points by IGN to the DVD.--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 23 gives the WWE in initials. If it's not too much trouble, I recommend spelling it out like the other WWE citations. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.--S_RX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Now refs 1 and 21 are initials only. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I spelled out the initials.--S_RX 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note, on a quick scan, I don't see review of sources or images here; perhaps I missed it? And there's a hidden template in the "Event" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The images and sources were checked in it's second peer review, also can you point out the template?S_RX 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to second peer review is here. Giggy performed an image check there. I happened to notice that the source link for the poster goes to the WWE front page, and not to any pages on the event. Perhaps Mr. Fuchs should be called in for an image review. Not sure, but I think Sandy is referring to the template with the announcers and referees. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed FUR.--S_RX 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SRX is currently away due to a family emergency, please allow him time to get back to these comments. He will return on October 15. iMatthew (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Spot-check: I'm disappointed to find glitches and stylistic deficiencies so easily as soon as I started at random, somewhere about half-way through.

• "Heat, the pay-per-view began with a handicap match; a tag team match in which a team of two wrestlers face a team of three." Semicolon is wrong; use a comma or – a dash.
  • Used dash.--S_RX 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• "During the match Hotty attempted to hit Shaniqua, who was lying on her back, with a slap over her chest; however, Shaniqua hit him with her forearm." The logic isn't explicit: do we understand that she "fended off", "preempted" or "thwarted" this action by hitting him ...? The "however" just raises questions as is.
  • Reworded/Fixed.--S_RX 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Next was a singles blindfold match,..."—Possibly a new para? Unsure.
  • No because the first match is short and this one that follows is short and combined makes a good reasonable prose.--S_RX 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• "The third contest a tag team match, in which ..."—Ungrammatical.
  • Reworded/Fixed.--S_RX 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• "High-impact forearm"—Hyphen does make it easier to read, especially for non-experts, and I see that I didn't point this out in my previous examples (where it occurred in one).
  • Added Hyphen.--S_RX 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Longish sentence: "As apart of the storyline, Goldberg immediately jumped over the barricade into the ring, where Lesnar performed a spear, a running shoulder block to Goldberg's stomach, but he recuperated and lifted Lesnar vertically in the air before slamming him down to perform the Jackhammer." Just "; however, he ..." does the trick.
  • Fixed/Reworded.--S_RX 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Once there, Holly slammed Rhyno off the top rope with a superplex, whereas Rhyno eventually hit Holly with a spear that caused Holly to roll out of the ring." "Whereas" doesn't work for me.
  • Fixed.--S_RX 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• This kind of narrative description of the performance doesn't need so many sequence links: "afterward", "then". I see "afterwardS" in the previous para, which is better, in any case. I see "During the match" twice in a para. Tony (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Tried to get rid of some of those.--S_RX 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I didn't make myself explicit that this is just further evidence that the prose is generally not up to standard. I can't yet change my "oppose". Tony (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Tried to get rid of some of those"—they were intended as examples of why the whole text needs the scrutiny of fresh eyes. There's a limit to how much you can do now that you're so familiar with it. Do you know how to locate copy-editors in this field? Tony (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It has been copyedited twice, one from this field and one not from this field. But I will seek new copyeditors.--S_RX 10:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Looks good for the most part. As Tony said, a copyedit is needed. some examples:
• All wrestlers belonged to the SmackDown! brand –a storyline division in which WWE assigned its employees to a different program, the other being Raw. - Is the en dash spaced, or unspaced?
  • It has a non breaking space, or unless it's in the wrong position.--S_RX 21:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• That Thursday on SmackDown!, the storyline between Guerrero and Lesnar was enhanced when they began to brawl after an in-ring interview segment. - "To" → "a".
  • Changed.--S_RX 21:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• After Sunday Night Heat, the pay-per-view began with a handicap match- a tag team match in which a team of two wrestlers face a team of three. - Change the hyphen to an endash/emdash.
  • Done.--S_RX 23:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• During the fight, Mysterio performed a 619 on Guerrero (at the time positioned on the second ring rope) and hit him in the face with both legs while using the ropes for leverage, leading to an attack by Paez on Guerrero, Sr. - "619"?
  • In that sentence I am explaining a 619, the move in which he kicked him in the face.--S_RX 21:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Text squeeze and hidden text in a template at "Preliminary matches" section; can't that template be moved down (to avoid text squeeze) and unhidden? And the dab link checker in the tool box shows six dab links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed the 6 dab links and I moved the template to the "Aftermath" section, which has no pictures so no text could be squeezed, it is also unhidden.--S_RX 20:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [21].

---

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk)

Another in the series of articles I am working on devoted to the works of Mary Shelley! This article has given me a lot of trouble as it describes a rather unusual work—a travel narrative written by Mary and Percy Shelley—and I have struggled to explain it clearly. I hope that after the excellent GA review, peer review, and rounds of copyediting that this article has undergone, however, that any rough edges have been smoothed out. I feel that I must point out that I made a conscious decision not to cover the poem "Mont Blanc" to any great extent in this article because that poem has its own article, due to the fact that scholars most often discuss it independently of the texts with which it was originally published. Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article is lacking any mention that the trip was made during the Year Without a Summer. To quote that article: In July 1816 "incessant rainfall" during that "wet, ungenial summer" forced Mary Shelley, John William Polidori and their friends to stay indoors for much of their Swiss holiday. They decided to have a contest, seeing who could write the scariest story, leading Shelley to write Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus and Polidori to write The Vampyre. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I took out a lot of those details at the behest of reviewers. I can certainly start adding it back in, though. One concern that was raised by earlier reviewers was that there was a lot of detail in the biography section that was not connected back to the travel narrative by the later part of the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• My own personal take is that the extraordinary nature of the weather that year (which I never knew about – ya learn something new every day) is reason to include a brief mention. But I leave it to Awadewit's judgment. Scartol • Tok 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll add it in, then. Interestingly, this fact is far more relevant to the writing of Frankenstein. There are entire academic articles written about how the weather that summer affected the Gothic tone of the novel. :) I didn't see anything like that in the scholarship on the Tour. However, Tour scholarship is in its early stages. Perhaps someday we will have that. Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Sources look good for the most part. I'm slightly concerned about the reliability of http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1070 (ref #16), but given the information, I think it should be fine. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• The author is a published academic in the field - see Monika Fludernik and associated Google searches. Also, the Literary Encyclopedia is a peer-reviewed online publication, with an impressive review board which consists entirely of academics. See their list of editors here. I'm not really sure what your concerns are. Awadewit (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine, then. I suppose I have it written into my mind that encyclopedias are usually unreliable. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is not that encyclopedias are unreliable - in fact, specialist encyclopedias are often highly reliable, since they are usually written by academic experts in the field. The problem with encyclopedias is different. They are a tertiary source (a summary of secondary sources). Since Wikipedia is aiming to be the same thing, it is a problem for a Wikipedia article to rely too much on encyclopedias - Wikipedia cannot summarize a tertiary source and then itself claim to be a tertiary source! We must do the legwork of reading and summarizing the secondary sources! :) However, very selective use of specialist encyclopedias is perfectly acceptable. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I came in at the end of the process to do a peer review, but I could tell Awadewit had injected her trademark blood, sweat, and triumph to the article. As always, her writing is concise without being skimpy; engaging without being tangential; and pleasant without losing its intellectual edge. Kudos to her and other folks involved in the project. Scartol • Tok 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor comment - I was looking for the Mary Shelley link in the "Biographical background" section, and did find the link. But, it was not immediately obvious from a quick glance at the page. I suggest adding a "Main article" link at the top of the section for readers who want more information about her. --Aude (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

She's linked under "Mary Godwin", the first two words in the section. I can see where this could be confusing for those who aren't familiar with her background, however; perhaps "(née Godwin)" should be implemented so others don't make this mistake? María (habla conmigo) 12:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley is directly linked in the lead. I'm not sure that the additional names are necessary in the "Biographical background" section. The whole point of calling her "Mary Godwin" in the first sentence of that section is that she was not yet married to Percy Shelley in 1814, so I think it would be strange to use the "nee" nomenclature. We could, however, say something like "Mary Godwin (later Mary Shelley)". Ah! Why were women forced to change their names? Didn't people know it would be annoying for chroniclers later? :) Awadewit (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Lucy Stone had the right idea. :) I personally don't think it's weird to initially refer to her as Godwin since, as you say, she wasn't married to Shelley at that point, but (again) I know the history. If Aude didn't know, it's possible others might be confused, as well. María (habla conmigo) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A better solution: I have added "Further information" links at the top of the section and delinked the names of Mary Godwin and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Awadewit (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - The further information links are perfect. Although I'm not knowledgeable in literature, this article is very informative, well-written, the sources look good, and I believe it meets FA criteria. --Aude (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I participated in the PR, but the article has come along leaps and bounds since then. I found it to be well written (as per usual), informative, accessible, and comprehensive. A very nice article about a little known work. Great job! María (habla conmigo) 12:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments, leaning to Support I thoroughly enjoyed this elegant article. My comments are generally of a minor nature and should be resolved very easily.
  • The sense in which you use the word sublime might need a word of explanation at first mention. Readers may have a quotidian view of its meaning ("jolly nice", etc) rather than a philosophical one. I know the link is there, but links are sometimes ignored.
    • "Sublime" is defined in first time it is used in the article: Almost all of the passages describing the sublime are in Percy’s words.[16] Passages describing God in nature, experiences of terror and awe, the transportation of the soul, and particularly the feeling of being overwhelmed by the majesty of nature, are Percy's. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not obvious, when reading, that the second sentences above is merely underlining the previous one. The connection would be clearer if the sentences were combined, linked by an mdash, with [16] joining [17] at the sentence's end: Almost all of the passages describing the sublime are in Percy's words—passages describing God in nature, experiences of terror and awe, the transportation of the soul, and particularly the feeling of being overwhelmed by the majesty of nature, are Percy's[16][17] Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Good suggestion. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I found the sudden adoption of numbered notes (i) to (iv) within the text a bit disconcerting, and wonder why this was thought necessary.
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand - I only see numerals. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The last paragraph of the Composition and publication sentence mentions "four major types of change", which are then enumerated as (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) within the text. Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • To clearly delineate the four major types of changes. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, well, obviously....what I was wondering about was why (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) rather than first, second, third, fourth. But what the hell, I'm supporting anyway, so no great problem here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph of the Description section is over-complicated, containing both a semicolon and a colon, which I find jars the flow. Could the semicolon be a full stop?
    • Changed. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "extatic" is spelt thus in the quote. If that is how she spelt it, I think it needs a (sic), to stop pedants like me worrying endlessly.
    • Done. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "empirical experience" - possible tautology; is any experience not empirical?
    • Some people might argue that spiritual or emotional experiences are different. I wanted to emphasize the fact-gathering and observational nature of these experiences. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, though to me "empirical" covers all experiences, not just physical/observational ones. And I still find the phrase "empirical experiences" a bit of a mouthful. But OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • If you can suggest a better wording, I would certainly be all ears. I tried to think of something yesterday, but I fear "empirical observation" falls prey to the same problem. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The caption to the Mary Wollstonecraft image doesn't make it clear that this is indeed she. As it has a slightly androgynous appearance, perhaps this could be clarified?
    • It isn't enough that her name is "Mary"? And that she is wearing a dress? :) Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The point is, two different Marys are mentioned in the caption... Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Caption now reads "The group read...", so now there is only one "Mary". Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "William Wordsworth's 1850 The Prelude..." gives the impression that he wrote it then, rather than half a century earlier. Again, I know the link covers this, but...see above comment.
    • It is not worth explaining that Wordsworth wrote three different versions of this poem, one in 1799, one in 1805, and one in 1850, and that some parts of the earlier versions carried over and some did not. It is opening a Wordsworth can o' worms. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting a discussion of the Preludes history, only something like: The third canto of Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, and the 1850 published version of William Wordsworth's "The Preludes", follow a similar course. Should you choose to leave it as it is, you still need to consider commas after "Pilgramage" and "Prelude", otherwise it reads as though "third canto" applies to both. Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • "1850 published version" is not really necessary here (and frankly, the source does not distinguish between the unpublished and published 1850 versions). The point is that it is the 1850 version. Rearranged sentence to avoid canto confusion. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The David picture doesn't seem related to the text, other than that both mention Napoleon. Is it really necessary?
    • I think it is a good representation of a the sublime Napoleon that the Shelleys are reacting against. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • It might be worth extending the caption to make this point. Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I can't. It would be OR. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally, it is slightly odd to see the precise subject of the article listed among the sources. I would have thought this would be taken as read.
    • It is used as a source in the "Description" section, for example, so it has to be listed as a source. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I was told that in articles about books, plays, etc, any plot description details didn't have to be cited to the work. But you know the form better than I do. Just as a point of interest, why are Percy's and Mary's names bracketed in the list of sources? Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • The article uses direct quotations from the Tour, which absolutely must be cited. Percy's and Mary's names are bracketed because they are not included as author names on the original text. The brackets indicate that the information is an editorial addition (like brackets in a quotation). Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• These quibbles aside, congratulations on a quality article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [22].

---

Rhinemaidens

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk), Peter cohen (talk)

We are nominating this article for featured article because it has been extended and expanded substantially since achieving GA in April, and in our view it now meets all the FA criteria. It has recently undergone a most active peer review in which many participated. While all contributions were appreciated, we would particularly like to thank the following: Mike Christie; Johnbod; Elcobbola; Ealdgyth. Co-nominators: Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) and Peter cohen (talk)

RickBot picks co-noms from the first line in the FAC; did you mean to add Peter cohen there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Peter is co-nom. Can this be fixed, please? Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here now. Brian and I have agreed each to respond to our own work.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eek, incorrect use of a "Main" template at the top of the article, see WP:LAYOUT and the description on each template, that link should be in the text, not a template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't undrstand what I did wrong, but do I assume this as been fixed? Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I peer reviewed the article; it was good then and has improved since. I would also like to mention that there was some debate over the value of the image of the naked Rhinemaidens. I believe this is justified fair use because for someone who does not see many operas, it is a vivid illustration of the differences in staging between the earliest productions and the present day. That section of the article makes specific reference to rigid interpretation insisted upon by Cosima Wagner for decades; I think this image is a very clear depiction of the changes since 1951. Mike Christie (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment I moved the article as requested. On checking the disambiguation checker, there are four dabs in the article that need to be fixed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. I have fixed the four dabs. Brianboulton (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now carefully read the article and apart from a typo I found and fixed, found nothing else to raise here. Well-written, well-referenced, nicely illustrated - I find it meets all of the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support passes all the criteria and is nicely neatly written. Domiy (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Leaning to support with a few caveats, based on this version — Jappalang

All issues resolved, Jappalang (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

|content=Lead

• "although they are generally considered as a single unit and act together accordingly"

Not too sure about "a single unit", perhaps "one" or "a single entity"?

• "Of all the 34 characters"

I think "all" is redundant here.

• "before he died, in Venice in 1883."

Is the time and location necessary? The last part, "in Venice in 1883." seems a bit rough on on reading. Perhaps "before he died in 1883." or "before he died in Venice, 1883."?

All these fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Origins

• "Water-sprites (German: Nixen) occur in many European myths and legends"

When I read "occur", I would think that the subject was not pre-planned in the target (event). Hence, I find this weird as I am pretty certain that myths are created by people who intended to tell of these entities. Why not replace "occur" with "appear"?

Agreed - "appear" is better. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• " "Bronnlinde" "

Are the quotation marks necessary?

Newman put the name in quotes, presumably to draw attention to the name not being what it ended as. I don't think it matters too much whether they are there or not, so I've removed them.Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Later still, as Wagner continued working his reverse chronology from Siegfried's death"

Noting that the preceding sentence starts with "Later", perhaps "Later still," can be dropped. Furthermore, Wagner was stated to "continued working", giving a hint of continuance from the preceding sentence.

Yes, agreed Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "between the Oceanids' treatment of Prometheus and the Rhinemaidens' initially tolerant treatment of Alberich."

How about "between the Oceanids' treatment of Prometheus and the Rhinemaidens' initial tolerance of Alberich." to rid the second "treatment"?

done--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The opera story does not reveal"

Is "story" not redundant here (as operas are generally assumed to be sagas that are sung)?

Agreed - story" deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The identity of the father who entrusted them with their guardianship of the gold"

The guardianship was not yet theirs before the entrusting. How does "The identity of the father who entrusted them with the guardianship of the gold" or "The identity of the father who entrusted them to guard the gold" sound?

I've adopted the former of your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Some have suggested"

Some of who? Scholars? Opera critics? Notable opera patrons?

I've made it "Some Wagner scholars"--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nature and attributes

• Not an actionable item or suggestion but a praise. I love "The Rhinemaidens act essentially as a unity, with a composite yet elusive personality. Apart from Flosshilde’s implied seniority, demonstrated by occasional light rebukes and illustrated musically ...". On reading, there is a seeming pleasing rhythm of "-ly" and "-ty". Pity it draws out and ends at "musically". I really love the melody here.
• Unfortunately to me, an overly long dependent clause followed by a short non-essential clause disrupts the last sentence. I would drop the "one of the deeper female voices" or merge it; thus,

"Apart from Flosshilde’s implied seniority, demonstrated by occasional light rebukes and illustrated musically by awarding the role to a contralto or mezzo, one of the deeper female voices, their characters are undifferentiated." becomes

"Apart from Flosshilde’s implied seniority, demonstrated by occasional light rebukes and illustrated musically by awarding the role to the deeper-voiced contralto or mezzo, their characters are undifferentiated." Would that be better?

Yes. I introduced the deeper voice bit last night as I felt some sort of explanation of contralto and mezzo was needed. You've fund a less wordy way of putting it.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "but finally wise in the undisclosed counsel which they give to Brünnhilde."

I think it would be better to explicitly say that they are shown to be wise by the counsel they gave, correct: "but finally wise as shown by the undisclosed counsel which they give to Brünnhilde."?

Yes, accepted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Sabor sees the personality of the Rhinemaidens as blending the ..."

Would "Sabor sees the personality of the Rhinemaidens as a blend of the ..." sound better?

I think you're right. Our excessive use of present participles sems to have caught the eyes of the assessors.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Thus the whole was ..."

I think it needs to be asserted as "Thus Woglinde's opening lines were ...".

I've reworded the whole sentence it is now "Thus Woglinde's lines portray both the childishness of the Rhinemaidens and the holiness of Nature."--Peter cohen (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Their sorrow ..."

Since we diverted the main subject by talking about Wagner in the last part of the preceding paragraph, perhaps we need to open again with "The Rhinemaidens' sorrow ...".

OK, done Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "whose actions in provoking Alberich to the theft of the gold are responsible for all that follows."

How about "whose provocation of Alberich to steal the gold is responsible for all that follows."

OK, also done Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The fact that only its return to their care"

Probably need to assert what "its" refer to: "The fact that only the return of the gold to their care".

I have rejigged the sentence as, on re-reading, it didn't seem quite right. Let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit unwieldy ("the fact that" would usually be ungainly to readers). My initial concern was that the "gold" was the subject, but it turns out to be the "ring". There needs to be a connection between the gold and the ring to establish the "unifying" theory. I am not too certain over how my following suggestion will flow, but take a look:

"As the titular ring was made from the stolen gold, only its return to the Rhinemaidens' care in the waters of the Rhine will lift the curse on it; hence, the return of the stolen property provides a unifying "thematic consistency" to Wagner's complex story." Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The connection between the stolen gold and the ring should of course be clear from the Rheingold Scene 1 summary - but that section has not yet been encountered. I think your suggested wording is clear and precise, and am happy to adopt it.

Das Rheingold, Scene 1

• "measureless power would be his who could forge a ring from it."

I am not certain "who" can be joined to a possessive...

Suggestion A: "measureless power would belong to he who could forge a ring from it."

Suggestion B (gender neutral): "measureless power would belong to the one who could forge a ring from it."

I've gone for gender neutrality. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Götterdämmerung, Act 3 Scene 1

• "whilst hunting"

"while hunting"?

How was that missed in the copyedit? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens' music

• "in Götterdämmerung Hagen, enslaved to the ring by his desire for it, utters his ..."

Bearing in mind the numerous commas here in this sentence, I still think Hagen needs to be separated from the play's name to avoid minor confusion; hence, "in Götterdämmerung, enslaved to the ring by his desire for it, Hagen utters his ...".

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens on stage

• Not seriously opposable, but could the red links for Nikolaus Lehnhoff and Keith Warner be eliminated?

I thought I had responded to this, but... I think directing Ring productions at major opea houses means that these two shoudl meet notability requirements. So I don't want to de-link them. In theshort-mid term I don't feel able to write the rtices on them myself.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Bayreuth Ring which followed Chéreau's, directed by Peter Hall in 1983–86, took the natural innocence aspect of the Rhinemaidens literally, by presenting them naked, a feature shared with Keith Warner's Ring production for the Royal Opera House Covent Garden, first staged 2004–06."

Lots of commas and seemingly re-runoffish; suggestion: "After Chéreau, Peter Hall directed the Bayreuth Ring for 1983–86. His version took the natural innocence aspect of the Rhinemaidens literally; they were naked. Keith Warner adopted this a feature in his Ring production for the Royal Opera House Convent, first staged 2004–06."

Reworded based on your suggestion but slightly adapted.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Whilst Warner"

"While Warner"?

Done--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

}} A marvelous article, which I believe should be read to Wagnerian music to receive an inspiring experience. I only have a few quibbles above to clarify on. Jappalang (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand in awe of your eye for detail, and meticulous reviewing. Thank you for the care you ave given to the article and for the many helpful suggestions, also for the encouraging words. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a well-written and comprehensive article on the minor characters of an epic saga. The reading experience is helped by the prose and the images, which helped to flesh out official imaginings and portrayals of the characters. After reading this, I think the other characters of Wagner's work could benefit from it. Would Peter and Brian be inspired to work on "Valkyries (Wagner)" next? Jappalang (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

An intriguing suggestion. I can't speak for Peter, but at present I am rather overburdened with wikiprojects, not to mention obligations in what is often risibly referred to as "real life". A few months down the line, though, and.....who knows? Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, which I accept while acknoeledging that Brian is the main author. Unfortunately I need to concentrate on my real life research at present and not on new Wikipedia projects. Next year, perhaps.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• I peer reviewed the article, and the only question was http://www.mrichter.com/opera/files/bayreuth.htm this site which I'm on the fence about and leaving out for other reviewers to decide for themselves if it is reliable.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt Richter's site is reliable since there is no proof that Helmet Weber gave Richter permission. Neither do we know what credentials Weber has. Nonetheless I think the single reference this source serves as ("the debut of Hanna Schwarz as Flosshilde in 1975") can be found in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians if we believe what this colloborative site says. Once the book is gotten, it should be fairly easy to replace this unreliable source, or failing that removal of Hanna Schwarz's mention would eliminate this issue, no? Jappalang (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to that book. I do have online access to The Grove Book of Opera Singers which has this rather strange sentence in the entry for Schwarz "In Hamburg her roles included Cherubino and Dorabella; at Bayreuth in 1975 she graduated to Rhinemaiden and Valkyrie, appearing as Erda the following year." Given her voice type, Flosshilde has to be the Rhinemaiden she played. As we're just looking for confirmation of what we already knew, can I assume we have it here without violting WP:NOR?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Further investigation has come up with [23] which suggests friendly relations between Richter and Weber. As for Weber's credentials, he appears to be a reputable academic [24] but not in music.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no done a search on The Grove Book of Opera Singers and found that Margarete Matzenauer sang Flosshilde at Bayreuth in 1911. She's probably a bigger name than Schwarz. So I can replace what we have with another singer wh sang the part.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Violation of "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article" (MOS) Rhinemaidens' music --> Music?, Rhinemaidens on stage --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MOS continues the sentence you quote above: "...unless doing so is shorter or clearer" (emphasis added). I believe that the sections in question would be less clear if they were reduced to "Music" and "On stage", and would suggest that the exception applies in this case. If the weight of opinion is against me I will of course defer to it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "Rhinemaidens' music" is fine, as simply "music" could be too broad a concept (it could lead to thoughts that the section is of songs composed by the fictional characters). "On stage", however, could work since the article is on the Rhinemaidens and by "on stage", the section will be dealing with their performances in the theatre (real-life, not in-universe elements). Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable suggestion. I have amended the final section heading. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, a fine job done on prose, and well-rounded comprehensive article with background and interpretation. Very little to correct or improve. The only slightly odd sentence is below: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

..but finally wise as shown by the undisclosed counsel which they give to Brünnhilde. --> shown or revealed as wise? As it stands it sounds like they became wise (no biggie).

You're right. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work. I see a couple very minor nitpicks that I might comment on later. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - without even a tweak from me! Well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support after the notes and references are fixed This is a well-written, well-researched, beautifully-illustrated article about the Rhinemaidens. I have a few prose nitpicks, but most of my comments relate to the notes and references, which need to be cleaned up. I'm sorry that I can't fix more of these, but I don't use these templates, so I am unfamiliar with their fields.

• The Hesperides myth tells of three maidens who guard the golden apples of Arcadia, a scenario clearly reminiscent of the core Rheingold themes of guardianship and gold - The "theme of gold" sounds a bit strange.
  • I don't know how to make this clearer. "Guardianship", and "gold", are themes in the Hesperidean myth and in Das Rheingold. They are at the core of the latter. I could say: The Hesperides myth tells of three maidens who guard the golden apples of Arcadia, a scenario which has aspects in common with the story told in Das Rheingold, but would that be an improvement? Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think that would be an improvement. What about something like "the search for gold" or "the desire for gold"? (I don't know the Ring cycle (gasp!), so I'm just guessing here. Awadewit (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Neither of these suggestions are appropriate to the Ring cycle, so I reckon it'll have to stay as it is. If I get a late inspiration I'll bring it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
        • If I may make a suggestion, how does "Similarities exist between the Arcadian maiden guardians in the Hesperides myth and the Rhinemaidens of Das Rheingold; three females guard a highly desired golden treasure that would end up stolen in the telling of each tale." sound? Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Pretty good, but not "end up" as far as the Ring story is concerned; the golden treasure ends up back where it started. I'd go for it with "is" in place of "would end up". Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
            • That sounds good to me.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I've gone with that. Now wait for a Hesperides expert to say: "Ah, but..." Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some Wagner scholars have suggested that he may be a "Supreme Being", father of Wotan, all the gods and all creation. - I feel like the series of commas becomes confusing here - I can't quite parse out what the sentence means and where the and's should go.
  • Fixed to say: "...a "Supreme Being" who is father to Wotan and al the gods—indeed, of all creation". Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't the direct quotations in "Role in the Rings Operas" need citations to specific pages?
  • I didn't know about this until you told me yesteday during another review. I bow to your greater knowledge on things like this, so I have fixed them all. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• In a remote wooded valley where the Rhine flows, the ageless Rhinemaidens continue to mourn for the gold, pleading with the "Sun-woman" to send them a champion who will give them back the gold - "give" or "win"?
  • "give": sende uns dem Helden, der das Gold uns wieder gäbe

• From the first complete production of the Ring, at the Bayreuth Festspielhaus in 1876, it was established that the Rhinemaidens should be depicted in conventional human form, rather than as mermaids with fishtails or other supernatural features - Do all mermaids have fishtails? Do we need to say "mermaids with fishtails"? Also, are fishtails supernatural features? Are they only supernatural when they appear on mermaids? This sentence just reads a bit strangely.
  • Simplified to "...as mermaids, or with other supernatural..." Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note 8 should use the author's name, not "author of such-and-such book"!
  • This citation is redundant; full details of Sabor's book are in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Cooke footnotes should be distinguished by year (i.e. Cooke (1979) and Cooke (1967)) not by Cooke (audio).
  • I have put in the dates as requested, but I think it right that Cooke's recorded introduction - the audio - should be identified as such. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I fixed the last two. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• All newspapers listed in the notes should be italicized.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Footnote 55 needs to be rewritten since the reference is a book with publication information and an author - it is not a website.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The note should simply say "Randel p. 210", if Randel is the author of the entry. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Randel is the editor. The author's name is not revealed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Alleyne ref, Daily Telegraph should be italicized since it is the name of a newspaper.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gutman ref - the ISBN is missing some numbers, I think.
  • Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Henahan - New York Times should be italicized
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Miller, Philip Lieson. "Matzenauer, Margaret(e)" in The Grove Book of Opera Singers. Ed Laura Macy. Sourced from Oxford Reference Online. - several problems here - "in" should not be italicized; "Ed. Laura Macy" should not be italicized; what is the date of publication? even online publications include the date

• On this, I've now learnt a lot more about the parameters of the cite book template and have fixed the specific issues raised. I obviously can't supply a page ref as I accessed it online. The footnote on the entry says:

How to cite this entry:

Philip Lieson Miller "Matzenauer, Margaret(e)" The Grove Book of Opera Singers. Ed Laura Macy. Oxford University Press, 2008.Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. South Bank University. 25 October 2008 <http://0-www.oxfordreference.com.lispac.lsbu.ac.uk:80/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t262.e978>

I don't think I should include my university name or the web address that identifies my university, but do you want the access date mentioned or ORO italicised in our ref?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to butt in but, provided we give all the salient info, do we have to follow their citation format? I never have done in the past, in similar circumstances. Also, I'm a bit worried that citation [58] just reads "Miller". Can this be a bit more specific?Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a one paragraph article, so there is no possibility of a page reference or other qualifier. We could put in a year, but at that point we would logically have to do it for all the other references. As for the other stuff, I was asking if Awadewit, or anyone else for that matter, wanted an access date given when no web address willl be given.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We've fixed this, by agreement, using the "cite encyclopedia" template which seems most appropriate in these circumstances. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Might I mention that this is why the cite templates are so terrible? It is very difficult to include all of the necessary information in them, I find. This entry is still missing the editor's name and the "Oxford Reference Online" bit. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I copied the template exactly from the saintly Ealdgyth's Robert of Jumièges article, thinking "How can this possibly be wrong?" Oh Gawd! I'll do what I can to fix the problem.Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Mowatt ref - Is Mowatt the translator, too? There needs to be some sort of translator field.
  • There's no "too" about it - the Nibelungenlied are ancient German myths, translated in this edition by Mowatt. I have added (trans) to his name in the source. There is no translator field in the cite book template. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)t
• Weber, W - New York Times needs to be italicized
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Havard Biographical Dictionary of Music has an author and publication information - it is not a web source. Please rewrite the ref.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This is now missing the name of the entry, however, and, if the author of the entry if different from the editor of the dictionary, the name of that entry's author. It is also missing the publication location: Cambridge. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Too tired to look just now, will fix later. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
        • (Later) I have added what I can to this and to the Miller source, above. There is no more information - we do not know the name of the author of the Dernesch entry. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I hate templates so much! Why is the editor's name italicized in the Miller entry? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Try the "book chapter" template for Randel - that might fix things. Randel is the author of the entire book as well as the "chapter". (If you weren't using templates, I could have fixed all of these in five minutes.) Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
            • It seems I've been acting on the wrong assumption that Randel was the editor of the Harvard book and that individual entries were by others. He is indeed the author of the book, and all the entries, including that for Dernesch on p. 210. So we need only the ordinary cite book template, which gives author, year, title, location, publisher and IBSN. This I have done, in the Sources section. The inline citation is, as you suggested some while back, "Randel, p. 210". Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I just give up on this. This should really cite the name of the entry as well, but whatever. We are at the point of diminishing returns here. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Say not the struggle naught availeth. I find there is a "chapter=" feature in the cite book template, so we now have the name of the entry in the source. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

These shouldn't take long to fix at all. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your meticulous attention to detail, which helps enormously to build the quality of the articles you review. Also for your kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, that is exactly how I think of you, too. Wow, imagine what we could do if we teamed up! (By the way, I obtained a Trivial Pursuit pie piece because of reading your polar expedition articles!) Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Should you find that Shelley had a secret career as a polar explorer, and/or sang opera in his spare time, I'm your man. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Frankenstein count? There are lots of polar scenes in that. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image:1876Rhinemaiden machinery.jpg - This image's copyright tag is claiming that it is in the PD because it was published before 1923. However, the source information does not make that clear. Can we have the publication information that establishes that claim?
  • Peter will have to confirm this, but I imagine that the sketch was dated as from 1876 in the ROH Guide from which it is taken. I don't know what other information is given. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Was the ROH Guide published in 1876? That piece of information should be included in the "source" field. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the images seem fine to me. Awadewit (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry about the delay. I'm having to do some real work. I've probably used the wrong tag. Every other photo in the book is sourced either to an individual or an organisaiton and this one is not. It's just described as contemporary The publication from which the photo is taken is copyright 1985. So, even with the extension from death+50 to death+70, its being out of copyright then should mean its being out of copyright now. The picture researcher for the book, Henrietta Bredin, is now active with The Spectator. So we could try to contact her as to where she found the picture.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I fixed the tag. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks! Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
            • And Thanks from me too.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I peer reviewed the article, and although I am not a Wagner fan, I found it informative, well researched and well written. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

sourcing question about possible addition I know that Brian is wary of the danger of things getting rather prose listy in the paragraph about singers who have played Rhinemaidens. However I would be interested in mentioning Lotte Lehmann and/or Elisabeth Schumann, two of the biggest names of the inter-war years. One or both could join Joan Sutherland in the sentence on interpretators away from Bayreuth: - I think it will look better with more than one such case being mentioned. Would reviewers regard pages at the Lotte Lehmann foundation [25] [26] and/or a referenced page at the Elisabeth Schumann Website [27] as reliable?

Fyi Jappalang has suggested bringing the question here in an answer [28] to almost the same question at the article talk page . Jappalang's provisional view was yes to LL, no to ES.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't mind the addition of accurate and properly sourced information, the danger here relates to the balance of this section. We claimed fair use for the Covent Garden image on the grounds that this section was essentially about the history of the staging of the Rhinemaiden scenes, and that the image was important to that understanding. The last paragraph, which lists the performers, is not about staging; if we extend the para with more and more examples, the focus of the section will change. However, I don't own this page, but could I request caution - one name only added? Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [29].

---

Paranoid Android

Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk), Giggy, Papa November, WesleyDodds

A current Good Article about an acclaimed 1997 Radiohead song. This article has largely come about as a result of a collaboration between Giggy, Papa November, WesleyDodds, and myself. Additionally, Peanut4 GA-reviewed the article, and Risker recently copyedited it. The article is extremely comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written, and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I support as a co-nominator. Giggy (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC) For what that's worth; I forget if Sandy wants us to note this sort of thing here or not.
• Me too. I'll help to address any comments where possible. Papa November (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Herr Fuchs

• Images: Iffy on Image:Paranoid Android video.png and Image:Paranoid Android CD2 back.JPG. How does a different tint and packaging necessitate an image to illustrate the prose? What purpose does the android video have, when the art style and content in the image are no commented upon? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• The tint is not all that justifies Image:Paranoid Android CD2 back.JPG. The primary purpose is to illustrate everything about the back of the CDs, including its use of symbols taken from the OK Computer artwork and the overall design, all of which are discussed in the text. All of these factors combined create a need to show what the design looks like. Additionally, the content of the scene in the music video screenshot is discussed in detail, although I also added some information about the drawing style used. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think the music video image concisely illustrates all the important parts of the lengthy discussion in the music video section. It's difficult to fully appreciate such things as the inaccurate depiction of the band members or the contrast between the mild-mannered protagonist and the bizarre characters he meets without an illustration. I have expanded the fair use rationale for the image, to hopefully explain why it is so important to the discussion. I also moved the image within the article so it sits right next to the paragraph which it most specifically illustrates. Papa November (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• The fair use rationales should be beefed up. How is the image low resolution? Why can no free alternatives be found? See Image:Star-trek-II-spocks-funeral.png for an example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Papa November and I significantly added to the image FURs. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, they look better now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hpfuxqy0ld6e gives a "forbidden" message when attempting to access it

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Link fixed. Giggy (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments

• I don't see "Cover versions of the song have been recorded by notable artists from a wide range of musical genres, including Brad Mehldau, Easy Star All-Stars and Christopher O'Riley." as particularly vital fo the lead . . . I mean so what, almost every half-significant song has been covered.

Fixed. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you add a quote about the song in the lead; preferably one that drives down how weird and, er, down-right mindf*cking it is.

I quite like the Simon Williams quote for this reason, but I'd rather not include it in the lead. "[N]ot unlike 'Bohemian Rhapsody' being played backwards by a bunch of Vietnam vets high on King's Cross-quality crack" is hilarious and covers the mindblowing aspect of the song, but it doesn't concisely sum up the song in the way I would like a quote in the lead to. Evan Sawdey got closer with the broader "sweeping, multi-tiered centerpiece", but while it sums the song up it doesn't get into the weirdness. None of the other quotes really worked either, so I ultimately didn't move any quotes to the lead. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree; I haven't really seen a quote that sums it up well (apart from the Williams one which probably shouldn't go in the lead). Giggy (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• That cover versions section is rather dull and mostly unneccesry, I think. Unless multiple secondary sources (or the band themselves) specifically single out the covers' for comment, like Tori Amos' "Teen Spirit" or Dinosaur Jr's "Just Like Heaven", there's no need to mention them really.

Fully agree. No need to big up the article with multiple small claims. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I significantly trimmed up the covers section, cutting out a lot of the previously mentioned covers. There's also a bit more about the Radiodread and Sia covers. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Check for British English spellings: "humorous" etc...

Fixed. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unless secondary sources mention discuss what's written on the back of the CD cover, I don't think it counts as notable for us to include. indopug (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Footman discusses it; added a bit about that. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment 'Support. (as long inactive but still an alt rock project member) Its very good. Some small things from the first half I've read:

• bleak but intentionally humourous song - I have a problem with this; ok they named it after the robot and the other (non-thom) guys were joking around when they put it together, but ASFAIK or have heard there is nothing funny about the finished product.
• primarily written by singer Thom Yorke contradicts the later claims that it was drawn from 3 seprate pieces written by 3 seperate members of the band. A wild guess are the sources contradicting each other that since post Kid a the band members have to tow the Yorke line; he wrote it - nothing to do with us. Again, "Paranoid Android" is categorised by three distinct moods written in what Yorke referred to as three different states of mind." Right. It might not be possible to resolve this, but it could be implied - in 1999 Greenwood said, in 2000 Greenwood admitted, in 2001 York "declared/ decreed" ;). Ceoil ^sláinte 00:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• From the looks of it there might some miscommumication of the possible fact that Yorke wrote the lyrics (which would seem like the sort of thing that would be mostly his job), not the music. As currently phrased, "primarily written by singer Thom Yorke" is not supported by the body of the article. I'll leave it up to Brandt Luke Zorn to decide what to do with it, since he's read more of the sources than I have. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

aah, understood, sorry slow there, but clafaried now. I'll happily support this on the basis that it cover the subject matter in fine detail, is well written and carries the reader along (although the 'packaging' and 'cover versions' sections are dull - i'd even kill cover versions bit altoghter), and the sourcing is fine. A second sound sample-or a third to cover all three sections-wouldn't be out of order. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well written.
• I personally did not understand how Thom Yorks words make sense regarding "it's actually my opinion that is of no consequence at all"

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here; Is the wording in the article unclear? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• "quite [] affectionate [], " are those brackets correctly placed? isn't it normal to have [ ... ] if the intent is to signify a gap? Greetings, and good luck.--Kiyarrlls-talk 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [30].

---

Albert Speer

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after extensive work, a peer review, and feedback from another editor I've worked with on another FA, I believe it meets the FA criteria. I find it rather ironic that what would be the first FA about a member of the Nazi Party should be done by me, a former synagogue president, but that is how things are sometimes. As I am currently on the road and will be online on a less than continual basis, please allow for some lag time with your comments.Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

• I thought it was an interesting article. However, I think it can be stronger with some additional details and/or tweaking:
• I think the article would benefit by having subheadings under Nazi architect and Minister of armaments
• I would love to see a paragraph that discusses Speer's background, philosophy and inspiration for these Nazi buildings that are so unique, and quite imposing. In fact, I thought it a remarkable coincidence that Speer's biography should appear in the same FAC list as Major depressive disorder, since his architecture seemed to have inspired it... or been inspired by it. I noticed you did have some discussion about his inspiration from the Pergamon Altar in Anatolia, and perhaps this can be overcome by consolidating information about the Nazi building style under a subheading. At any rate, a section that stands out as an analysis of his vision - or the Nazi vision of order, power, and structure through buildings and city planning should be concise and evident. This may also be done by placing all his architecture information in a section at the bottom of the article - removing most of it from his life to analyze it separately. If you incorporate the Architectural legacy section and expand it with quotes by Nazi and WWII historians, I think it will look quite nice.
• Your dates read as American dates except for the linked date for 1944 July 20 plot to kill Hitler.
• This is an odd passage: greatly affected by the memories of the two Nazis' long relationship, and the article would benefit by having a copy editor look it over. I noticed it switches from passive to active several times.
• I know Ealdgyth at least asks for citations to go above the bibliography. I don't even know if that's a rule - I just do it.
• By restructuring some of the elements of the article, it can be a stronger one that makes the necessary points more emphatic. I enjoyed reading it, and think it won't take much to get it to FA. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll work through these. We used to have under the Nazi Architect heading "Main Article: Nazi architecture", which contains most of what you are suggesting, would that answer your concern? I'm reluctant to add too much analysis of Speer's architecture in this article; we might wind up having to split out that portion of the article. I can add a quote from when he was interrogated in 1945, even he thought his works were "awful" then, of course, he might have been wanting to please his captors, but he did say it. I'll split up the two long sections of the article into subheadings and see about asking a member of the League of Copyeditors in. Failing that, I'll muddle through on my own.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your specific concerns. I'll look through for the active/passive transitions you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of the active/passive transistions that troubled you, except a couple that I think are needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I believe there's something wrong with the Harvard referencing; the links in the citations do not seem to lead anywhere, when in fact they are supposed to link to the works under "Bibliography", yes? Also, per WP:DASH, dashes for page ranges in the citations need to be changed to en dashes. María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just copied what was already in the article. Can someone point me in the right direction in fixing the refs? I'll fix the dashes after I fix the refs, just in case I totally have to redo the refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Swapping the various {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates to {{citation}} seems to have solved the issue. - auburnpilot talk 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, AuburnPilot. I will start working on the dashes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• All done. I think Maria's concerns are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite; a few dashes were missed (19, 53, 71, 74, 137, etc). Also, what does "Geheny" in ref 12 refer to? There's not a listing for such an author in the Biblio. María (habla conmigo) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a typo for Sereny, it will be corrected. Could you do me a favor and let me know which other notes need ndashes? It is hard to tell the differnce on this browser.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All the things you listed have been resolved. Let me know what else you see!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: mixed date formats (the infobox uses international style, but article text uses US-style dates, doesn't Germany use international style dates?) Quotes are not in WP:ITALICS, see also WP:MOS#Quotations. Also, mixed citation styles, see WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools, the remaining cite xxx templates should be swithched to citation to agree with the rest of the article. All of these are minor fixes, and there is no hurry to address them while traveling. The dashes look fine now, but in the future, you can just ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix them. (What about Karl Dönitz, a former featured article?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. They're coming hot and heavy on Holloway right now so can't spare a lot of time for this. Germany does use international style, let me look at the guidelines on that. Dönitz was only an honorary member, he never joined the NSDAP. So sayeth Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I cleared up the italics issue. The question of international style only applies to English speaking countries, which Germany is not. So as long as I am consistent, using US style is fine, so I'll change the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The citation issue is done too, so that cleans up your first pass issues, Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch the mixed citation (another cite web crept in, for an example of how to link Harvnb style using cite xxx templates for future ref, see Death Valley National Park). (I see what you mean about the English-speaking reference on the dates, but I suspect someone at Mos goofed the wording at Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic, and they really meant to use the convention used in the country regardless of language -- at least the last conversation I paricipated in at MoS re: dates in Venezuela was that way. Oh, well :-) I'll ask Tony to review it that was a MoS error or the intent.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the cite web is gone, I just ran a quick search. I see by your comments on my talk page that the Mos mavens decided that as long as you are consistent on dates for non English speaking countries, either US or international format is fine.[31]. After today I will be travelling and working from internet cafes and/or when I feel like paying exorbitant rates for internet access on my computer, so expect response times to slow, though I will try to log in on a daily basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorted with Tony, dates are fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

}}

Comments -

• Current ref 75 (Speer cross examination) needs a publisher
• Still have a {{cite book}} lurking somewhere that needs to be made consistent with the rest of the {{citation}} usage.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just took care of those, Ealdgyth.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I feel that the lead should be expanded to satisfy the demands of WP:LEDE. Currently, it leaves out details about Speer's early life and only briefly (in two short sentences) discusses his role as Nazi architect. These are vital bits of information which should be expanded upon to give the reader a sufficient overview of the entire article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've rewritten it. One paragraph as leadin/summary, one about him as Hitler's architect, one about Minister of War Production/Spandau, one about his life as author/death. I could put in a sentence, I guess, about him being Tessenow's assistant, can't think of much else of significance to say about his early life in the lede. I'd actually rather not. Speer was basically Tessenow's TA, and I just think it pales by comparison with everything else he did. Let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Yup, gotta love the irony of Wehwalt bringing this to FAC but in a weird way, I like the idea of the first FA biography of a Nazi leader being about a somewhat ambiguous figure like Speer than about a more macabre one like Göring, Hess or Himmler. (not that this comment has anything to do with the FAC of course) In any case, this is a very interesting read: I don't claim any expertise on the subject so I can't judge comprehensiveness (or for that matter accuracy) but I am going through the article to do a bit of copyediting (update: I'll continue tomorrow). As I noted in my first summary, please feel free to revert any of my tweaks. I really have no serious objection to the article getting FA status though I think it could benefit from the following:

• The books of King and Schmidt, listed in the bibliography, are not cited (well not quite in the case of Schmidt...). I don't know these books but the titles certainly suggest that they cover specific aspects of Speer with greater depth and perhaps a slightly different vantage point. There might be some value in using them directly as sources in certain sections.
• I hope nobody is insulted by the suggestion but during the FAC of Leonhard Euler, the nominator contacted a math historian who had worked on Euler to get some comments on the comprehensiveness. Maybe a similar thing can be worked out in this case.
• I think it's great that nearly all references are to books rather than short articles here and there. On the other hand, from a purely practical point of view, having some pointers to online resources (supposing decent ones exist) is a plus for the average reader. For instance, if I trust WorldCat (maybe I shouldn't) there are only 18 copies of Fest's book in Canadian libraries... Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried both Amazon and my local library to try to get a quick copy of Schmidt. However, all three of the later authors discuss pretty comprehensively what Schmidt talks about and make it clear that Schmidt was out to be sensational and make his name, remember, this was a doctoral thesis, slightly expanded. I'm less sure about King, but Sereny has a long discussion of what went on at Nuremberg, with some information on the prosecutors' views, though King himself is only briefly mentioned. In any event, I take it that what is contained in a later bio is more likely to have a fuller perspective than an early one. I don't know any historians. Any ideas? As for comprehensiveness, obviously there is a lot more to say about Speer, but summary style limits me. As for online links, there are some sites about Speer's architecture, we link to the better ones. Half of them get some fact or other wrong. I couldn't find any sites I really trusted for detailed biographical info on Speer. And believe me, I looked. I didn't enjoy writing reports from five or six books on a table back in my college days, and it was a pain here, too. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the replies. I just checked and WorldCat finds eight copies of King's book in Canada and the closest is a three-hour drive away... Ideally direct references could be added but clearly the article is fine without them. I'll continue to copyedit when I can and I'm happy to see that you are undoing some of it. Pichpich (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of King myself, if for no other reason than curiosity. I haven't undone much of what you did, mostly the capitalization of party/Party. I don't want to throw the word "Nazi" around so I think the capitalization is needed, it is fairly standard. Most of your copyedits are really great, I have a tendency like most people not to see the flaws in ones own writing, and I'd say probably 90 percent of the nonquoted material in this article is mine. And the first commenter said a copyediting was needed, so it is all good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

On AbeBooks, the cheapest price I could find King's book was for $27, plus shipping. But, they sell Schmidt's book for $1, with a shipping fee of close to $4, for a total of $5 (which is pretty cheap). Here is a link. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have ordered King from Amazon, but judging by the reviews of both books, I'm not sure they are needed.Here is a link to the NY Times review of Schmidt. The reviewer makes it clear that Schmidt's views aren't widely shared.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Wehwalt, I'm still doing bits of copyediting and the following sentence doesn't make sense to me.

"In his final years, Speer would describe his perspective in 1939 to Gitta Sereny, later to become one of his biographers:"

Maybe I'm just tired... But the combination of "final years", "would describe", "1939", "become" and "later" has me completely confused by the timeline. I started to rewrite the sentence but stopped for fear of completely changing its meaning. (feel free to ignore if I am indeed just being stupid!) Pichpich (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you. This was Speer talking to Sereny in his final years, and he was talking about how he felt in 1939. I felt that unless I stressed that this was how he felt in 1939, people would assume he still considered Hitler a "great man" in the Seventies, and that would be unfair to him. Does that help? If not, I'll edit it myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I get it. I'll try to rewrite it, see if it helps. On an unrelated matter, if you have the time and courage to look at this, I googled "Albert Speer" on Google images and there are fantastic pictures that would illustrate a number of things. See for instance this site this one this one or these images [32] [33] and so on. Now because Wikipedia is apparently the only website that gives a rat's ass about copyrights, few of these images, if any, have a clear source and copyright status. But I'm pretty sure that at least some of these are in the public domain. I just don't have the patience to play detective. Pichpich (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Nazi pictures had their copyright revived in the 1990's. The thing is, we're pretty loaded up with pictures right now. I'm considering replacing the Speer/Breker photo with one of the Chancellery and reshuffling them a bit, but I may wait until after the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too much of a fan of pictures. By the way (ah the joys of Google) did you know about this play? It might be completely insignificant, still I wonder: do Sereny or Fest address the issue of Speer's portrayal in works of historical fiction? You do touch on this at the end but very few top-ranking Nazis have this sort of strange and ambiguous "oh maybe he wasn't so bad" image. For instance, I feel that writing a play about Speer's life is just an odd idea whereas writing a play about Goebbels would be downright creepy. Pichpich (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Yes, there are a couple of plays. I ran searches on the NY Times website as well, it had reviews of the plays. Given that this is a fairly long article which I know from experience that a FAC usually adds to an article, I avoided works of fiction and deleted the section about who played Speer on TV and in the movies. Let me put it this way, we don't have room for everything in real life ideally you'd want in here, we just don't have room for fiction! To answer your question, no they are not addressed in the bios.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if the plays themselves have been published, it would make sense to add them to the bibliography. Pichpich (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the David Edgar play. I think that should do. I got the King book, by the way, and hope to read it on the airplane tonight. I'll add anything noteworthy and make sure that at least a couple of cites about factual matters come from there. Might take two or three days, depending on what internet access I can find.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read about a third of King. It is a rather annoying read, because it is his analysis, a retired lawyer, of why Speer did the things he did, like joining the Nazi party, and it feels like armchair psychology. There are a few interesting parts, like about his interviewing Speer in 1946, but it really isn't helpful. I've added a cite from there to a support a fact. But it really isn't very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)}}

Comment - This is a wonderful article, filled with ironic juxtapositions, as someone has mentioned. I am reading it over and over. Hope you don't mind if I copy edit here and there. Very well written from my point of view. I like your sparse style and the exact distance you maintain from the subject. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - with comments.

• The reference supporting the statement that Speer's childhood was loveless is, surprisingly, not from Inside the Third Reich, where Speer wrote "My parents did their best to provide a happy childhood", and he goes on to say that social obligations made this difficult and he was left with a feeling of "artificiality" - he does not say lovelessness.
• "Speer's scheme, using huge flags, was praised by Hitler" - the source says Hitler was "enthusiastic", which is not quite the same.
• According to Speer, he chose not to become a mathematician because of his father's "sound reasons", he doesn't say that his father doubted his ability to support himself if he chose this path.
• "Congratulations! Now you're number one" is not a direct quotation, the source says "Congratulations! Now you're the first"

The rest of the uses made of Inside are accurate as far as I can tell using my old copy which has different page numbers. This is an engaging, comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written article.Graham Colm ^Talk 13:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. There are two DABs that need fixing.

Thanks. What Funk said is described differently in different books. I'll make the necessary changes to address your concerns. I'm working directly from the hardcover in all Speer books, and I've verified that the Fest hardcover and trade paperback are identical. Please state which DABs need fixing to save us clicking on every blue link in the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You can use the toolbox at the top of this page. ;) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, and I was seconds behind AuburnPilot on each change! Well done! Graham, did you see the other changes?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-reading the book, but as you know it's over 700 pages. So far I am pleased with the accuracy of the summary style of the article. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I well know. The article is the residue of over 3,500 pages on Speer. By the way, the "You are number one" comes from Sereny at page 115. Careless of me. She probably translated from the original German edition without bothering to check to see how Speer's translators rendered it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I finished re-reading my old copy of Inside the Third Reich today (phew!) and I remain most impressed with the synopsis presented here. I have taken the liberty of changing a little court-room jargon ("stated" "stated that" "stating") into the plain English "said", and I (hopefully) corrected a couple of fused participles. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say, of the four FACs I've been involved in, this is by far the most collegial.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nice atmosphere. Mostly due, I think, to how thorough and responsive you have been with the comments. Pichpich (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm down to copyediting something like 5 sentences a day! In any case, the sentence

The decree, by its terms, deprived Speer of any power to interfere with the decree, and Speer went to confront Hitler, telling him the war was lost.

is a bit awkward and I'm not entirely sure I understand it correctly. Can you take a second look? Pichpich (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear. Hitler knew what Speer was up to with getting machinery, foodstuff, and spare parts in place so that the German people wouldn't all starve to death after occupation. Hitler wanted to pull the people down with him, so in the Nero Decree, he deprived Speer (either by name or title or name of ministry, the sources aren't clear) of any power to interfere. I'm closely paraphrasing the source there.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• yeah yeah yeah, me again. Just found this reference on the German wiki: Heinrich Schwendemann: "Drastic Measures to Defend the Reich at the Oder and the Rhine..." A forgotten Memorandum of Albert Speer of 18 March 1945, in: Journal of Contemporary History, 38. Jg., 2003, 597 - 614. I've just downloaded it through my university (not read yet, no idea what it contains) but I can send it to you if you want to take a look and I'll try to find time to read it tomorrow. Also, on the German wiki are two long pieces on Speer published by Die Zeit in 2004 and 2005. My German is good enough to read and understand the first two or three paragraphs but my brain fries after that. The first is by Schwendemann so hopefully the content is similar to the above article in English. The second is by a guy named Ullrich Von Volker and has the provocative title "Wie die Legende um Hitlers Liebling entstand und welche Rolle Wolf Jobst Siedler und Joachim Fest dabei spielten" (my rough, hopefully semi-accurate translation: "The shaping of the legend of Hitler's protégé and the role of Siedler and Fest"). Probably more evidence that Speer is still today a very controversial figure among historians. Pichpich (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak German, alas. I'll happily look at any English article. Can you access my email? Incidently, now that you've declared in favor of promotion, why not move these discussions to the article talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just sent you an email. Unfortunately, the wiki interface doesn't handle attached files so you'll have to reply to me so that I can get your email address. As for moving the discussion to the talk page, that makes a lot of sense, especially since there's a greater chance of getting help from a German speaker there. Pichpich (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the article, which for everyone's information has to do with an order Speer issued giving military traffic on the Eastern Front priority on the railroads over civilian traffic, the author arguing that it goes against Speer trying to make things easier for civilians. I really didn't see anything that should be included in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Angeklagte-im-Nuernberger-Kriegsverbrecherprozess.jpg needs a source. There's no proof it's a government image at present. DrKay (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, Pichpich, unless you feel strongly about it, I'm just going to delete it. Feel free to readd with the info that DrKay wants, but I don't really like that picture anyway. What is it illustrating that can't be conveyed in words? By the way, I finished King and found it disappointing, although there are good parts when he includes a transcript of interviews with Speer, his daughter Hilde Schramm, and one of Hitler's secretaries. He asks too many leading questions, though. Also, there's a full copy of Speer's closing statement at Nuremberg.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I really don't feel strongly about the picture. Pichpich (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I completed my round of copyediting. Matisse seems to be going at it too. Pichpich (talk)

}}

• Support (just in case SandyGeorgia wonders where I stand) I do support FA status for this article even in its current form. I'll continue to try and help polishing the prose to the best of my abilities but as far as I'm concerned you can already tack on that Bronze star. Pichpich (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Another minor issue: can you add the reference to the 1966 Der Spiegel interview? Unless it is reproduced in its entirety Van der Vat's book, it makes sense to also point to the original interview. Pichpich (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that it was all in German, I don't think it is necessary in the English Wikipedia. WP:EL indicates that non-English sites are generally not linked to in the English Wikipedia, and I guess that would apply to this.[34]--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The Spiegel does not have its archives online. But I still feel the exact reference should be there because the interview has some historical importance. Presumably, the exact reference is in one of the biographies (if it isn't, don't bother). Pichpich (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • In the same spirit, the references for Speer's books give the year of publication for the English translations but publishing years of the German originals should be given either in the article or in the references (or both). Pichpich (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC) (Nevermind, fixed it myself)
      • Um, if you think so. The cite is Gespräch mit Albert Speer über Adolf Hitler und das Dritte Reich. In: „Der Spiegel“, Nr. 46 (1966), Hamburg, S. 48 - 62, 7 November 1966. Or, Interview with Albert Speer about Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, "Der Spiegel", No. 46 (1966), pp. 48-62, Nov. 7, 1966. I'll add that ITTR was originally published in German in 1969 and Spandauer Tagebücher in 1975.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, I see you got the German editions added. I've taken care of the Spiegel interview (and it is just that, an interview, Q&A printed verbatim).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: I peer-reviewed this article and felt then that it was close to FA standard, though I recommended further copyediting to sort out a few prose issues. The peer review was closed after just five days and the article brought here, I believe a little prematurely. However, since it has been here the copyediting has been tackled enthusiastically, and other improvements have been introduced, so I see no reason for withholding support, as in my view the article meets the criteria as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Being a fan of tight, organized writing, rather than the overly detailed, I feel the editor has done an excellent job of distilling the essence of the topic from the source material. The writing style is clear and a pleasure to read. This article could have easily become bogged down in a wealth of detail. The editor has carefully maintained a neutral point of view. I have seen him resist using words suggested by others in order to maintain this neutrality. I have confidence that he is committed to an accurate presentation. I commend him for this accomplishment. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Suport after changes. Oppose for now.

• Is there a reason we're using American style dates in a German article?
• Any reason we're linking to "London" "England", etc?
• "Speer began his architectural studies at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, as the hyperinflation crisis of 1923 limited his parents' income." I don't get the connection, is the place he studied less than stellar reputation wise?

Maybe we could say "Speer began his ... , not his first choice of schools, as..." since it's obvious that he wanted to go elsewhere? This makes it a bit clearer, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Another editor seems to have played with the language. See what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do we not have any third-party thoughts on whether Speer was apolitical in his youth or not? I know you have qualified it as "Speer said..." but it would be nice to know if there was a memoir/statement by one of his students/friends/associates for this information also.

Ugh, I can't say I'm that happy about this, but it's not ya'll's fault, since the secondary sources don't seem to cover it. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Speer inspired considerable loyalty in his students/underlings, from what I can see, with Wolters only doing what he did after Speer basically acted like a jerk to him, repeatedly. My guess is that anyone who could contradict him kept his mouth shut, and it is too late now, no Speer student pre 1930 could be much under a hundred now, so I'm not expecting any revelations. But Speer wrote this in an era when there were plenty of people still alive and active who would have known him then. If there are lies in ItTR, and there may be, I'd think they were where the only people who could contradict him subsquently took suicide capsuls or went to the gallows.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• First architect section, by the time Speer became a member of hte Reichstag, wasn't this mainly a powerless post?

I don't have the books with me, but when I get home I can put in an explanatory note on this from Evans' The Third Reich in Power. Striking this so it doesn't hold the article back. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• might link "pogrom"
• Nuremberg trial - point, not all the nuremberg defendants were arraigned on all four counts. The article as currently written states "Speer, like all his fellow defendants, was indicted on four counts: first, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace, second, planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace, third, war crimes, and lastly, crimes against humanity." which is incorrect. see our article on the trial for who was charged with what.

Again, the books are at home if you want something that backs this up, but your solution works until I get home. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to insert that info. In the case of the Reichstag, I'd make it very brief, perhaps a parenthetical, because Speer's status as a Reichstag member is not a big part of the article. The only other mention I can find of it is in the indictment against Speer, it is mentioned. Typical prosecution laundry list mentality, though, because as we know, Speer's status as a Reichstag member and ten pfennigs got him a cup of coffee.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to support after some of the above is dealt with. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

MOS wars :-) It seems MoS changed again on date formatting. See User talk:Tony1#Albert Speer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding dates, as Sandy indicated, the MoS limits itself on dates to how it must appear for English speaking countries. For nonEnglish speaking countries, it is editor's discretion, as long as you are consistent. Sandy checked this out with Tony, and that's how it is.

Regarding Speer and his studies at Karlsruhe, that is basically what he says in Inside the Third Reich. He does not go into details on the point.

Regarding the apolitical question, Speer is the source when it comes to Speer's life before 1931. All the biographers rely exclusively (other than for points that can be drawn from public records, birth, marriage) on Speer's works for that. I was a bit troubled by that, so sprinkled in a "Speer said" every now and then, but it is what it is. I do not see any reason to doubt him on that point, Speer focused exclusively on the tasks at hand, that is clear throughout his career, and he no doubt focused like a laser on his job with Tessenow. The most likely candidate to contradict him would have been Wolters, and even though Wolters had justifiable grudges as their friendship broke up (unhappily beyond the scope of summary style, as it is a story in itself), he limited himself to showing Schmidt the Chronicle and leaving it to the Bundesarchiv.

London, England delinked, pogrom linked. I think we refrain from linking obvious places like Paris and Berlin.

That is what the source said on Nuremberg, but it is not an essential point, obviously, so I've deleted the phrasing. Speer was indicted on all four counts, and the trials article agrees.

Reichstag. I've made that change. The source doesn't address the powers of the Reichstag, merely saying that Speer was entitled to take his place beside Todt on the government benches. So I've linked to Enabling Act of 1933, by which the Reichstag effectively surrendered its powers to the Cabinet, which rarely/never met, with Hitler exercising its power.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [35].

---

Ring-tailed Lemur

Nominator(s): Visionholder (talk)

Recently listed as a good article and put through a peer review, the article has seen significant improvement since June, and has been stable (no edit wars) during that time. The Ring-tailed Lemur is a very popular zoo animal and the most widely recognized lemur. Visionholder (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done here. My first thought is that some of the technical vocabulary should be unpacked. Rather than the monotypic genus, why not dab it [[monotypic|single-member]] genus. Similarly, you could try [[diurnal|active through the day]].

As a reader, I admit that I prefer to see new terms so I can expand my vocabulary. I realize that few readers share that view. I have made changes per your recommendation, including parturition in the Breeding and reproduction section. I opted (pending approval) to maintain the technical terms, but put a very brief definition in parentheses immediately after. To my eyes, this does not add clutter, although I realize some may disagree. I would value your feedback and will consider removing the technical terms per a FA review recommendation. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Will comment at bottom. Marskell (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this task was completed, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. Sorry for not noting it earlier. - Visionholder (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be afraid of a somewhat larger lead. You might have a sentence on troop sizes, for instance and a bit more on social behaviour.

I have added more social information per your request. Please let me know what you think. If you approve, I will mark this as done.

Good size now. Generally, you should let reviewers make their own strike outs. Marskell (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. Sorry, it's my first review. I always assumed people struck out text when they finished a task. - Visionholder (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is close to support, but I'll try and read through it more closely. Marskell (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically supporting, pending an MoS look over from the specialists and a few minor items.

• Agonistic behaviour needs to be defined at its first mention. Readers will not be familiar with the term. Ditto sympatric; people can probably deduce the meaning from the context of the section, but it doesn't hurt to define it.

• Done. Please review. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• In general, numbers below ten should be spelled out. I took care of this in a couple of places but you might check for others. Don't do this with sentences that mix numbers above and below ten (e.g. "from 6 to 25...").

• This is a little tricky because all of the numbers below 10 that I found are in sentences with a mix of numbers above 10, include decimals, or are running through the Template:Convert. I will need further guidance before I can make any changes you suggest. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I may gotten to the only non-mixed examples myself. Marskell (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, can this be considered done? - Visionholder (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rejig the "suggest...further suggests..." sentence in Evolutionary history. It's odd phrasing.

• Done. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's some really large paragraphs (I broke up one in Conservation status) which creates a "wall of text" effect on the eyes. Consider splitting a couple more.

• I'm sorry, but I may also need more suggestions here as well. There might be two in Social systems (first and third paragraphs), but everything else looks fairly small to me. Due to the extra line spacing created by footnotes and the similarity that has with the extra line space between paragraphs, what may appear to be a paragraph on one size screen may be three or four on another... at least on my screen. I'm sure you saw past that. But like I said, I think I'll need a couple specific suggestions. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal. Marskell (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Mention of predators should probably be moved into Ecology and, if possible, expanded somewhat.

• The material has been moved, but I do not have additional material to expand it. All of my sources just list the predators and share no additional details. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• When mentioning the predators and other animals both the common name and the binomial are bluelinked. Again, the eyes strain. Just link the former.

• Done. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can nothing be said about cultural references in Madagascar, rather than just the West? Marskell (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have no material that mentions Malagasy cultural references, nor have I even heard of any. I have an opportunity to do some volunteer work in Madagascar next year (October 2009), assuming I am able to raise the money needed to go. Hopefully I'll be able to bring some information back from that trip, if I can find sources to confirm. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC

• I didn't find anything in any of my primate or lemur books to indicate any special significance of the ring-tailed lemur in Malagsy culture. I also tried a Google search and checked some of the books listed as references for the Malagasy mythology article. I've found references to the aye-aye and indri, and one even to the black lemur on a particular island off Madagascar, but nothing for the ring-tailed lemur. And I think this actually makes sense. To a westerner, the ring-tailed lemur is a charasmatic animal, but to a pre-Western introduction Malagasy, it would probably be just one of many lemur species that could be seen regularly (and possibly hunted), with no particular significance to that particular species of lemur. That is especially the case since it has a fairly restricted range within Madagascar. Rlendog (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• I know of only one other source for such information: the library at the Lemur Conservation Foundation. I met the librarian this past spring, so I sent that person an email asking if they knew of any Malagasy cultural references to the Ring-tailed Lemur. It's been more than a week, and I have not heard back. At this point, unless I hear otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that there are no published sources that report such cultural references. - Visionholder (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh. Just realized you're mixing upper and lower case for species names. There has been enormous debate on Wiki in this regard. My own opinion is to do one or the other consistently although some insist on lower case. Either way, it's not consistent here. Ruffed Lemur, Brown Lemur etc. need to be made upper case to match Ring-Tailed Lemur or else the latter needs be rendered ring-tailed lemur throughout. Marskell (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to your note, I did catch one error: the Greater Bamboo Lemur (since it is monotypic) under Taxonomic classification. However, all other mentions of "bamboo lemurs," "brown lemurs," "ruffed lemurs," etc. refer to general types, not specific species. I'm going off of what I read at: WP:BIRD#Bird names and article titles. Please let me know if I'm missing anything. - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My mistake, as they're genera. I did catch the Domestic Cat in Etymology. This now has the capitilization that I prefer. But be warned that this is not a universal opinion... Marskell (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the Domestic Cat. Yes, I've seen the debate and have been tempted to chime in on it. However, for this article I'm following the general concensus and the recommedations given in this review. Otherwise, can this task be considered done? - Visionholder (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you've really upped the ante on mammal articles by including audio. Good work! Marskell (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! - Visionholder (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as CITES in the references.
  • Done. I also removed CITES from the author, leaving it only as the publisher. Please let me know if this is acceptable.
• What makes http://www.dailyllama.com/news/2002/llama143.html a reliable source?
  • The reference was for his passion for lemurs. (Admittedly, I should reference IMDB or a more credible source that notes his role in Fierce Creatures.) Honestly, I'm not sure how to reference this otherwise. Cleese himself says it in the video In the Wild: Operation Lemur with John Cleese and the Santa Barbara Zoo has acknowledged it to me (he's on the board of directors). To be honest, I'm not the type to normally care about entertainment, nor am I likely to ever work extensively on an article under that category. What kind of references are acceptable for non-scientific claims? - Visionholder (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • On this one, the video would be an acceptable source, since it's basically him stating his opinion. I believe we have {{cite episode}} or {{cite dvd}} which would format it for you. Better in this case to go straight to the person for the statement, which his own dvd would be. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Reference changed. - Visionholder (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Patience is a virtue. I think it would've been nice if you had waited for the FAT to help. —Ceran^(Sing) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • My apologies to the FA-Team. I guess I misunderstood the deadline as a completion date, not a deadline to start. We were approaching the deadline, and I hadn't seen any activity for the proposal on the FA-Team proposal page. I also had a host of other reasons pushing me on. In the future, I will not make that mistake. Again, I'm sorry. Please don't take offense. - Visionholder (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. No need to apologize, but our copy editing help probably would've helped this article. Btw, I'm going to look over this, prose-wise. —Ceran^(Sing) 22:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Additional comments - by Ceranthor (talk · contribs)

• The Ring-tailed Lemur (Lemur catta) is a large Strepsirhine primate, and the most recognized of all lemurs due to its long, black and white ringed tail. - Uh oh, first sentence is faulty, try fixing the second half of it. —Ceran^(Sing) 22:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, while adding more to the lead about their social behavior, I created a dangling, solitary sentence about their anatomy. Since the tail is a distinguishing feature of the species, I was hoping I could tie it into the introductory sentence. I had a feeling I was making a mistake. I will fix it, along with the other problems, tomorrow evening when I get home from my volunteer work at the Santa Barbara Zoo. - Visionholder (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • General fixes have been made to the opening paragraph, and I believe the first sentence has been properly repaired. Please review at your convenience. - Visionholder (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

      I think that this is a great article, don't get me wrong, however I think it can be one of the best with a bit of prose help from some specialists. I'm always up for grabs, if you need me. —Ceran♦^(Sing) 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

      • Help from you or any other prose specialist is always welcome. Just let me know if there's anything I can do to help. - Visionholder (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I have a few observations. Nit picks if you will, and I love to pick nits.

• Firstly, and I realise you did this to placate another reviewer, I hate the monotypic (single-member) genus Lemur, it is diurnal (active throughout the day). If only cause it sets a precendent of dumbing down that might be applied to my writing.

• So which way should I go with this? I'll be honest: I favor technical terms. I feel this is a scientific article, and scientific topics should not be "dumbed down", as you put it. (I provide wikilinks whenever possible, and have even created new pages if no information exists about a term.) However, Wiki is a community, so I would like a concensus or a previous ruling on this topic so I know how to proceed. I will delete one of these options, but I need to know which one. - Visionholder (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Personally I would follow your instincts. I am not going to object if you do not, it was a comment. I think the case for explaining monotypic is stronger than diurnal - if you don't know what that means it is high time you clicked the link and found out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Changes have been made. Please see my note below. - Visionholder (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• You have a wealth of nice images, but they are all zoo animals (some obviously so, but this is okay as they clearly demonstate behaviour). But it would be nice to have at least one image of one in the wild - perhaps in the ecology/range section?

• I realize this, and I am trying to legally obtain images of wild lemurs (this species and others). Most of what I have found have copyrights. A photographer at the Duke Lemur Center and another contact at the Lemur Conservation Foundation said they will provide these photos, but they have not been as forthcoming as my sources for the audio files. Until I go to Madagascar, I'm not sure where to obtain these images. - Visionholder (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• The following flickr images are on a suitable licence. [36], [37] (actually that guy has a lot), [38]. Some of these photographers have lots of other species and pictures of the environment they live in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for finding these options. I have selected my favorite and posted it per your request. (I think it was a wonderful addition and greatly appreciate the suggestion.) - Visionholder (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• No mammalian fossil record has existed in Madagascar until recent times. is confusing. Does it mean that some fossils were discovered last week, or (as I suspect) that all fossil lemurs are from recent time periods.

• I agree that this was confusing. It has been re-worded per your suggestion. - Visionholder (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• On the whole I ike this and I will probably support when I have had time to give it a proper read through. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the technical terms issue. I actually prefer them myself—but generally not in the lead and only when unpacked in the body. On Giant Otter I used [[diurnal|active through the day]] in the lead—I think somebody requested it—and then defined it in the body. Note the comment at WP:LEAD "In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." Perhaps in this case we can reword to avoid the brackets? The second sentence of the lead is a bit clunky anyway, and should probably be broken up. Marskell (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• After much debate, I opted to follow your suggestion (and the guidelines in WP:LEAD) and re-word the second sentence while dropping the terms monotypic, diurnal and omnivorous from the lead. To all those interested, please let me know if it looks alright. - Visionholder (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a little sorry I brought it up. I don't want the lead to lose info. How about:

"The Ring-tailed Lemur (Lemur catta) is a large Strepsirhine primate and the most recognized of all lemurs due to its long, black and white ringed tail. It belongs to Lemuridae, one of four lemur families. It is the only member of the Lemur genus, which is thus monotypic...It is omnivorous and the most terrestrial of lemurs. The animal is diurnal, being active exclusively in daylight hours.

Here the terms are still included but without brackets and too much cumbersome phrasing. I don't see omnivorous as an esoteric term—no need to remove it. Marskell (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes with a few of my own. Since monotypic is used and defined in the body of the article, I did not use "which is thus monotypic." I also compacted "the most recognized of all lemurs" by removing the slighly redundant "all." I did favor your suggestion for the last two sentences in the paragraph. The note about the tail has consequently moved back to the opening sentence. Granted the tail is its more distinguished feature, but I'm worried that it makes the critical opening sentence too long. Or does that first paragraph look fine to everyone now? - Visionholder (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with it. I don't have a problem with the first sentence. Perhaps Ceran or one of the other copyeditors has an opinion, however. Marskell (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've read the entire article and found it comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated and interesting. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. This is probably the single best article I've ever read on Ring-tailed Lemurs. Well-done!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are image layout issues throughout, a bit tricky to fix. See WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images. Images go in sections, not above them, but no images under third-level section headings, and if possible, no images facing off the text (but that's the last priority, the other two are accessibility items and more important). Several images need to be juggled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the least important picture, showing a Ring-tailed Lemur eating a tamarind, in order to make room for more important photos and proper alignment/spacing. Images are staggered left-to-right, except for the picture of the mother with twins to avoid placing a left-aligned image under a level 3 heading. All images have been moved into their respective sections. One lemur in the Isalo National Park is facing away from the text, but the lemur nearer the foreground is not, and this placement maintains a left-to-right staggering of images. The only thing that might be questionable is the use of the gallery. However, no one has had objections up to this point, and I feel that it is relatively small and adds quality illustrations to the article... moreso than a {{Commons}} links would. If anything, I could re-word some of the captions to help abbreviate them. Thoughts? - Visionholder (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The reproduction picture has been moved back to the left, one paragraph down from the level 3 header. The lemur now faces the text, and images are once again properly staggered. The section grew slightly in length due to the break-up of a large paragraph and the addition of an extra sentence of information about staggered female receptivity. - Visionholder (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I gave the prose a massage as I went and feel free to revert any meaning lost. Could explain pelage as I had never encountered the word before but no biggie. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the copyedit! The changes looked great. I did reinstate the technical term "multi-male/multi-female" since it is a classification term used in numerous texts on primates. (Sadly, no Wiki page exists for it, but I don't have good defining references or the time to figure out whether it should just be mentioned on the Social network page.) When changing back, I maintained the new sentence structure. - Visionholder (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images all check out, save Image:Ring tailed lemur and twins.jpg- some cleanup is needed to update the description. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, what cleanup do you want? On the page, I changed "carrying" to "nursing", but the problems with the image's GFDL permissions sound like something the image's owner should fix... but that person is not using their Wiki account any more. Could you please be more specific? - Visionholder (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it should be fixed either way, as the current license is outdated and invalid. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed on Commons. - Visionholder (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then, images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [39].

---

Pilot (House)

Nominator(s): David Fuchs

WP:FFA, delisted 17 September 2008, has not been on main page

This article was delisted about a month ago for comprehensiveness concerns; it barely touched on production and hardly had anything in the way of reception, weighing in at 1157 words with 11 references. With some work by Music2611 and I, it has been expanded by 700 words and 18 references; I now believe it meets all FA criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Checking the history, the article was defeatured only three weeks ago: just a note, in the future, you can simply request extra time to address the issues at FAR, so that FAC/FAR won't become revolving doors and paper shuffling. Extra time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that this is a little strange. FAR exists for a reason. You began working on this literally within minutes of voting for its removal. Marskell (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, Despite the above (wich is rather strange) the article is up to FA quality.--Music26/11 10:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per the MOS, curly quotes aren't used.
• http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/15434857.htm deadlinks
• Current ref 23 (Roush, Matt) also deadlinks
• What makes http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=141135&PID=10120416&buy=closed&Tab=reviews&CID=18 a reliable source for anything other than a reviewers opinion?
• Current ref 27 (Nuland) is lacing a last access date

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the deadlinks (I've got pdfs of them offline but I couldn't use archive.org to generate an on-line archive), added the accessdate, and removed the questionable source (it was redundant with other sources anyhow.) As for the curly quotes, I assume you meant the quote box? I changed it to a different template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, meant the quote box. Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

I found this recap by Sara Morrison from Television Without Pity, it may be handy if you want to expand the Reception section a bit further.--Music26/11 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the reliability of the source, and also that since it's done in a sarcastic, snarky manner it would be hard to actually say what is criticism and what is just humor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's your call.--Music26/11 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's comments based on this version

• Why are there wikilinked years in the infobox?
• "Adler happily agrees to take her medication." - so, um, does she die? The section ends without a wrapping up of loose ends.
• "pitched House to Fox as a medical detective show" - Fox is in all caps in the lead, be consistent
• I doubt you're pointing to the right page when you link to invasion.

Giggy (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the above. The wikilinked dates are part of {{House (TV series) episode}}; I'll see about changing the template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support; clearly it's close to FA quality and could have been fixed up at FAR, but whatever. Giggy (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, it seems to be close to FA quality. No obvious problems with the text of the article, and no clear reason to oppose, really. Anthøny (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Some of these are picky and may be ignored.

• Mention the orange tint. There must be some reliable source on the Internet that mentions it. It is just about the first thing that anyone who has seen this episode notices.
• Link to Television pilot and mention that the show is from the States, e.g. start with: The pilot episode of the American television series House, titled "Pilot", premiered on the FOX network on November 16, 2004.
• It introduces the characters of Dr. Gregory House (played by Hugh Laurie)—a maverick antisocial doctor—and his team of diagnosticians → It introduces the character Dr. Gregory House (played by Hugh Laurie)—a maverick antisocial doctor—and his team of diagnosticians
• Get rid of "young" in "The episode features Dr. House's attempts to diagnose a young grade-school teacher"
• "Pilot"'s initial broadcast → The initial broadcast of "Pilot"
• 62nd → sixty-second per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words (also in "Reception")
• House and his actor have already been introduced in the lead so "(Hugh Laurie)" is unnecessary in the plot section
• which forces → prompting • remove "first" as redundant
• House, working in the hospital's clinic, treats → Working in the hospital's clinic, House treats
• The second "House" in the conception and filming section needs to be italicized
• was shot in Canada (while later episodes were shot on soundstages in California) → was shot in Canada; later episodes would be shot on soundstages in California per User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Sentences
• Mention that Flight of the Phoenix is a film in "actor Hugh Laurie was filming Flight of the Phoenix"
• His or its? "[Laurie] apologized for his appearance (which Singer compared to a "bin Laden video")"
• Did Wilson or House have "boyish" looks?
• David Shore, Hugh Laurie, Dr. James Wilson (x3), Sherlock Holmes, Robert Sean Leonard, Omar Epps and Jennifer Morrison are all linked again in the production section
• Which part in Numb3rs was Leonard planning to audition for?
• Does "planning on auditioning" fall under User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing?
• states → stated • didn't → did not • costar → co-star
• BuddyTV should not be in italics
• Three "Spencer"s in one sentence: change the second one to "he"
• Critics reacted positively to the character of House; Tom Shales of The Washington Post called House → Critics reacted positively to the character of House; Tom Shales of The Washington Post called him
• Remove "positively and negatively" from "The episode's format was positively and negatively compared to a rival television series"
• "Numb3rs" and "ABC's Invasion": Networks should either be mentioned or not
• Why is Pilot italicized and without quotation marks?
• Link to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series
• Should music be mentioned, e.g. Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want", lack of Massive Attack's "Teardrop" on the DVD for this episode

I would support, but this article has nothing from the interviews in the extras from the DVD set and according to TVShowsonDVD.com, there are at least three good bonus features for this article. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I believe I've dealt with all the concerns you mentioned above (except for the orange tint; I've found mentions of it, but only in a snarky review which may or may not be reliable and is a poor source for something like that.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose per criterion 1b, as no information has been extracted from the DVD release. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support;Comments

Did it air anywhere else on the planet? The world wide look on the topic is missing, the British and the Canadian have to be added at least.--Stone (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unable to find English-language reliable sources talking about the show outside of the US. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It placed outside the top 20 in Canadian ratings. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had found that previously, but it just seems weird to say "it didnt do this" rather than its actual performance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For it's UK terrestrial premiere it was shown on Five on June 9 2005 and got 1.8 million viewers (a 10 percent share). -Halo (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Added the info to the article, nice find! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support After a read-through of the article, I see nothing of concern. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Drive by comment. Is there something in the reliable sources you have about the unaired version of this episode? It was about five minutes longer, and FOX included it free with several magazines to help publicise the show before it aired, and to solicit viewer opinion on a temporary web site they set up. Maybe relevant as marketing information if there's anything to be found in the sources? Steve ^{T • C} 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I found a lot of fan-sites and such had the information, but not any good reliable sources (I'm guessing most didn't notice that the preview episode was longer, or didn't note as such.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I felt the article was very close to FA when I did the GAN review a few weeks ago, and the changes since then[40] have been additionally beneficial. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. I find all the prose and references excellent, but I'm not convinced by the IDP of the necessity of this copyrighted imagery (Image:House-(pilot)---trachea.png).

  The rationale is "to illustrate the appearance of several of the main characters in the medium of the TV series; to illustrate some of the medical procedures as shown in the show." The image's performance in the supposed identification of characters and medicine in this particular episode is poor at best. Further, the article's prose adequately describes the action portrayed without going into any critical commentary on the copyrighted imagery as listed on the non-free content acceptable use guidelines.

  I don't see any need for any illustration by non-free media, but if there's a convincing rationale for this (or another) image, I don't see any reason not to support this as one of the best of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the image if necessary. It's whatever other editors think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the following images can meet the criteria. #1 ends up being the image used behind the words "House, M.D." for the show's title card; #2 shows House, some X-rays and the orange tint that I was talking about; #3 shows a scene that takes place in just about every episode, gives an idea of what the hospital's interior looks like and shows the relationship between House and Wilson, which is talked about in the production section; #4 also gives a glimpse to the design of the hospital, is a typical scene, has the orange tint, has movement and shows the main cast minus Cuddy. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not adverse to images per sé, but the significance to the particular images you linked woul dneed to be cited to reliable sources first. I'm browsing mobilly right now and can't discern any tint in the frame (orange or otherwise), but if there's reliable sourcing for it in a particular scene, that would be wholly appropriate for pertinent illustration, I should think. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the third image the characters walking in the hospital? Maybe then I could make a mention of the "walk and talk" aspect of the show (I have a source for that). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The source of the images? I took these screenshots from the episode. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, i mean I have a source that talks about the 'walk and talk' aspects of House, in particular season 1, so if you had an image which shows that, it might be better defensible per NFCC? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I was actually responding to the first sentence in pd_THOR's most recent post. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and removed the image. If at some later time one with a more defensible FUR can be found or added, so much the better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - For whatever reason, there is a big blue bar in the infobox under Final diagnosis that completely obscures the text within it. Is it my browser - Firefox 3.0.3? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a big blue bar, but it doesn't obscure the text (In Safari 3.x, at least). I've tried to make the episodes thing less garish, but it's a confusing template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• More comments: I still recommend that you mention the orange tint and the episode itself should be a sufficient reference. Secondly, I have come across some reviews by The Seattle Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the San Francisco Chronicle. As the reception section is not the longest, you could add those. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the above references into the article. As to the tint, I can't see how that wouldn't run afoul of WP:OR. You may consider the tint orange, I might consider it brown; citing it to the episode seems a bit misleading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no experience at FAR, but does anyone think the Plot section is a little long? I guess it's more permissible to have a longer summary when you're doing a relatively in-depth discussion of a single work (as you do in FA), but this just caught my eye because I've had to cut plot summaries of entire series down to things about this length or shorter, and this summary does seem a little detailed. But again, I'm not familiar with FAR, and if you think this level of detail in the plot summary is necessary to impart understanding of the article then I have no complaints. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's only three paragraphs; that's hardly an excessive plot summary anywhere. It's 483 words ,in the range than the guidelines at WP:TV state is a good size. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Very good, follows the criteria; and I see no other major or minor flaws. However, as mentioned before, information from the first season DVD would be much appreciated and make the article a lot more interesting. GO HOUSE

Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with notes. I think recent edits have addressed the concerns I had at the FAR. The Emmy award sentence seems to be separated from its reference, and the award cited the "pilot" episode, which isn't very clear from the text here. Series awards don't always cite the first episode of a season, for example the Carnivàle nomination the same year as the House win. Gimmetrow 02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'd like to fix whatever you're talking about, but I'm not really sure what's the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the description of the Emmy in the text here says "Christopher Hoag, who composed the music for "Pilot" and the first season of House, was nominated for a 2005 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series (Dramatic Underscore)." This implies the award is for the season and is only mentioned here because the music played in the pilot. Also, the ref for this line is on the following sentence, although it appears to me that following line is not supported by the Emmy award cite. (But I could be wrong on that.) Gimmetrow 03:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review The one free image currently in the article checks out fine. Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [41].

---

Harvey Milk

Nominator(s): Moni3, Dank55

On February 4, 2008, I stood at the corner of 19th and Castro Streets and watched a film crew park the most hideous vehicles in the history of mankind along the street in preparation of the day's filming of Milk. It was a coincidence that I was there during filming, and I kind of forgot about it for a few months. This article was on my radar to rewrite for various reasons, but was not so fun for me to take on. A bit of a bipolar journey: both very inspiring and profoundly saddening. I would appreciate your review of the article for Feature. Watch the trailer for the film for inspiration if you need to. I hope you find the article an engaging and perfectly human story, and, as ever, accurate. Thank you for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to reviewers: at first glance, the goings-on mentioned in Early career may seem a little soapy and unconnected ... but keep reading :) It's a small world after all. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Refs #1, 8, and 159 are missing a last accessdate.
• Ref #2 needs an en dash for the year range. Also, the link to that ref is dead.
• http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-01-30/news/white-in-milk/1 (ref #112) seems to be reliable, but another opinion would be appreciated.
• http://www.spur.org/documents/000501_article_01.shtm Ditto with above.

• http://www.spur.org/about.shtm is a non-profit, public policy think tank. For many purposes, it would not be a reliable source. It is reliable for the text it is citing: "Where Market and Castro streets intersect in San Francisco flies an enormous Gay Pride flag, situated in Harvey Milk Plaza, which doubles as the Castro District San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) station." (In fact, the statement is so non-controversial that it shouldn't even require citation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Shall I just remove the citation then? --Moni3 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out, Sandy. That bit of information seems non-controversial enough for the source to not be a problem. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't hurt to keep the citation; I'm less sure about the text cited to sfweekly.com, and unclear why Julian struck it, unless he knows something I don't know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Whoa. That's an interview with Ray Sloan, Dan White's second campaign manager and then political aide. Not sure how that would be unreliable. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just that I've not encountered sfweekly before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) That was actually erroneous striking, sorry. In any event, Moni's argument seems convincing, but I'm still concerned about that source. Ealdgyth, thoughts? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I dug a bit further: sfweekly.com is owned by the Village Voice, and the author has written for several well known publications, including the LA Times, so he should be able to conduct an interview :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. :-) I re-struck that. Thanks for the help, I'm still somewhat newbie-ish at reviewing sources. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The publisher for ref #136 is simply FindLaw.
• Ref #153 is missing publisher info.
• Otherwise sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done, and I'm quite sure the two in question are reliable. --Moni3 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article is a fascinating read. But when I was finished, I was troubled by questions regarding attribution. Look forex at this sentence: "San Francisco, a major port city, was home to a sizable number of gay men expelled from the military who decided to stay rather than return to their hometowns and face ostracism." The nearest cite is one (long) sentence later, ref #15 to Clendinen p. 151. Am I to assume this info is from Clendinen p. 151? I tried to poke around on the (dearchable) Amazon page for this book, searching for this info, but was unable to find it. That doesn't mean it isn't there, justthat I didn't find it. But if the info is not in Clendinen then it is WP:OR; if it is OR then I think I see several other questionable passages. Please shed some light on this. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is from Clendinen, probably pulled from Alan Berube's book Coming out under fire: the history of gay men and women in World War Two. Clendinen summed up the factors that led to San Francisco, and the Castro District in particular, to become the first gay neighborhood in the US. Berube dedicated an entire chapter to it, to my memory. If you want me to use Berube, I can. Let me know any other places where the attribution seems spotty. --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are more than a few places where a sequence of sentences seems unattributed—but on closer inspection, the nearest subsequent cite usually goes to a page range rather than a lone page. It seems likely that the sequence of sentences are all drawn from that source and that page range... The "port city/navy/expelled" one just jumped out at me 'cause it's a lot of info (gay bars, hippies, Victorian houses, Kinsey Institute, etc.), and the cite only mentions a single page. Can you scare up the exact text of that cite (or a unique-looking chunk of it)? That would help me find it online, I think. Thanks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh. Give me a few hours. The book is at home and I am not. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it better to attribute that sentence After reading it, it looked odd. So there's a citation there now. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to make things clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—(And the "theater" edit was my glitch) Tony (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)1a. This is an entirely worthy, fascinating and culturally important topic. I saw the film at a time when it was still a little naughty. But the writing is a significant problem. While it shows skill at the clause level (aside from the irritating repetitions), it suffers from the writer's knowing too much about the topic, being too close to it. The result is unreasonable assumptions WRT the unfamiliar reader (even the familiar one), ambiguities, and unintended POV. There's definitely a need to find fresh eyes to copy-edit this carefully and thoroughly from that "distant" perspective. I've looked only at the lead, and what I've written here is nearly as long as it.

• "Milk was born and raised in New York, where he acknowledged his homosexuality early, but chose to pursue relationships with secrecy and discretion." The reader will have to assume that "secrecy and discretion" refers to his adult period in New York, having introduced the statement in terms of being "born and raised". You'd need to mention the vital fact of when he "came out", surely, as a bridge between these two statements. "Relationships" needs to be explicit (not business or political relationships).
• "moving frequently"—does this mean moving house within New York City?
• "Milk joined the counterculture of the 1960s, shedding many of his conservative views, and moved to San Francisco in 1972."—Can you let us know first that he came from a conservative background?
• "earning their resentment"—nope, you could earn their respect, but here a positive metaphor is mixed up with a negative epithet.
• "He was brash, outspoken, animated, and outrageous." Is this WP speaking? Sure, claims can be made in the lead without citation, as long as they're not too interpersonal (a grammatical term, which certainly applies to "outrageous", and probably to the other terms, too) or contentious, and are cited further down; but this looks like a highly subjective framing; at the very least "he gained a reputation among [blah] for being ...".
• "Equating politics with theater, Milk earned media attention and votes, although not enough to be elected."—This equation earned him votes? Can you find a more straightforward way to put it? We're left to make the leap from his inner equation to his attitudes to his outward methods or style to his votes. It's all too much. And we have "earning" ... "earned" in the space of three sentences.
• "He campaigned again in the next two supervisor elections,... and also ran for the California State Assembly"—just checking that he did run simultaneously for both offices in those two elections. I shouldn't have to wonder whether a supervisor is a civil servant or a politician, since officers other than politicians are elected in some US jurisdictions. I still don't know which.
• "He became increasingly popular, taking the role of a leader in the gay political movement in fierce battles against anti-gay initiatives." Can't it be simpler? "He became increasingly popular and led the gay political movement in fierce battles against anti-gay initiatives." Just a few words to make explicit what these intitiatives were (referenda?).
• He was elected to the state assembly or as supervisor in 1977? ... I suppose I got it after re-reading the sentence.
• "chosen from neighborhood districts rather than on city-wide ballots"—on --> through.
• The lead could do with some trimming: the end of the second para could go, presuming that it's discussed further down.
• City-wide ... city-wide.
• "In the 1960s and 1970s, the largely working-class city had a conservative municipal government and police force, but quickly gained a diverse population, including a gay community well-connected both economically and politically. These developments were supported by a liberal city government but resisted in a number of ways by the police." This essential background needs to come earlier. I hate "in a number of ways". Does it add anything useful?
• history ... historic
• "gay ... gays ... gays ... gays" in the one long sentence.
• "his most comprehensive biographer"—that's WP speaking is it, privileging one biographer over others? Just checking that it's not contentious/POV, since there's no citation or "in the words of blah,". Otherwise, just "biographer Randy Shilts".
• "Writer John Cloud remarked on his influence, "After he defied the governing class of San Francisco in 1977 to become a member of its board of supervisors, many people—straight and gay—had to adjust to a new reality he embodied: that a gay person could live an honest life and succeed." It's not the smoothest lead I've seen into a quote. More seriously, I worry about the word "honest"; does it mean that gays were inherently dishonest? You see, I think the writer uses "honest" in a very particular sense, like "an honest day's work", and here means "mainstream, public, straight". But through the veil of decades and varieties of English, this is going to be misconstrued as offensive by some people (I almost did). One option is to paraphrase this bit. And the bit about defying the governing class of SF seems to need to go earlier; you could break up the quote and use it in two places, one directly and one paraphrased. I'm unsure. Tony (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to the lead, hoping it will read better. In the structural changes, I hope the POV issues have been addressed. I don't think the lead is POV, but shifting some of the information around should have taken care of most of that.

I hope the changes made clarify the areas you highlighted. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to add that no lead has ever given me so much difficulty. In everything I've read about Milk, no one wants to give a comprehensive summary of his impact without sucking in Dan White, George Moscone, the entire city of San Francisco, the AIDS crisis, or Jesus...anything else. I cannot find a quote that speaks about Harvey Milk in all the stuff I read. I have changed that last quote 5 times (either saved or not). Maybe his legacy is the utter ambiguity his life inspired. How can one man's life puzzle so many people so perfectly? --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is much much better. I don't get "Milk outspokenly encouraged gays to seize their growing power in the city and support each other.", specifically, "seize their growing power". Do you mean "use their growing power"; or "seize power"; or "translate their growing social movement into political power"?
• "Milk outspokenly encouraged gays to seize their growing power in the city and support each other.
• "Milk was the subject of teasing due to his protruding ears" --> "In childhood, Milk was teased for his protruding ears"
• "Very guarded secret" ... I'd remove "very".
• One remembered, "He was never thought of as a possible queer—that's what you called them then—he was a man's man".[9] The "One" is the author of Ref 9? This is an odd way to cite. Better, "One of his classmates ...".
• "Milk soon joined the U.S. Navy during the Korean War."—Soon is odd here; what does it mean?
• deep-sea diver
• "aboard" is funny in the statement that he was a diver. Just "with"? Or "on"?

• Aboard is proper to describe his service there (Diver or not). We could have a discussion as to whether or not it is too nautical (yarr!), but I feel that it is ok. Protonk (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• "after fewer than six years" --> "after only six years"
• "untethered" is rather loose in this register. It's a metaphor that some readers (esp. non-natives) won't understand.

That's the next bit; it was easier to write than the lead, of course, but still shows that someone else needs to go through the whole text with a fine comb. Tony (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All right. I did make some edits, but I have to ask - one of your changes to the lead altered "compared to theater" to "compared a theater", and I don't know what that means. Were you trying to say "compared to a theater"? More on further copy editing soon. --Moni3 (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, "his metamorphosis from a middle-class Jewish boy" was added; I'm inclined to say that you have to morph from something "to" something, but on the other hand, he morphed into a lot of things; is this a case where the vagueness of the topic sentence is completed sufficiently by the paragraph, or does the sentence need to be expanded? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Tony, is "uptight" okay, or would "rigid" or "rigidly conventional" (I'm stealing that from MWOS) be better? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) I think we can get away with "uptight", seems to be global enough. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Weak oppose This is a fascinating article which left me wanting to learning more, but there are a few little loose ends that need polishing.

• The writing at the beginning of the article, up until "Broader historical forces", is much more uneven than the rest of the article. After that point, it becomes truly brilliant and gripping. Can we not make the earlier parts of the article flow just as nicely? Here are some examples:

• He opened a camera store and ran for city supervisor in 1973, where he came up against the existing gay political establishment. - The "where" implies he came against the establishment in his store - should it be "during which"?

• Both Milk's election and the events following his assassination demonstrated the ongoing demographic shifts in a growing liberal population and political conflicts between the city government and a conservative police force. - I think this is a little wordy - could it say "...demonstrated the ongoing liberalization of the population..."?

• Milk has become an icon in San Francisco and "a martyr for gay rights", according to University of San Francisco professor Peter Novak. - Is Milk a gay icon or an icon to all of SF?

• According to biographer Randy Shilts, Milk's legacy was representative of all gay people: that he struggled, had faith, and showed that it was possible to win, at least for a while - This seems facile - must we repeat it?

• Campbell and Milk split up after fewer than six years—his longest relationship. Milk, once again bored and untethered in New York, offered to marry a lesbian friend in Miami in order to "have ... a front & each would not be in the way of the other".[11] However, he remained in New York and chose to pursue relationships secretly. - "homosexual" or "gay" relationships?

• Milk abruptly moved from his job as an insurance salesman to become a researcher at a Wall Street firm named Bache & Company, where he was frequently promoted despite his tendency to offend the older members of the firm with his brash speech - "brash speech" seems a little awkward

• In the late 1960s, two organizations in San Francisco, the Society for Individual Rights (SIR) and the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), began to mount defenses against the persecution of gay bars, police entrapment, and lack of legal rights for gays and lesbians coming out of divorces. - awkward wording

• In the late 1960s, two organizations in San Francisco, the Society for Individual Rights (SIR) and the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), began to work against police persecution of gay bars, entrapment, and to represent the rights of gays and lesbians coming out of divorces. - sentence lacks parallel structure Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• One day in 1973 a state bureaucrat entered Milk's shop, Castro Camera, saying that Milk owed $100 as a deposit against state sales tax. Milk was enraged and got into a screaming match with the man, and eventually got the deposit shaved down to $30 by complaining for weeks at state offices. - "get/got" is a vague word - I've replaced some of the instances in the article - please do a quick check and replace with more precise vocabulary.

• One of Milk's first displays of influence was with organized labor. - a bit vague - I think this could be worded more strongly as well

• The "Tributes" section feels a bit long and at times trivial - must we list everything that has been named after Milk? I would suggest cutting back on this section so that it appears more substantial.

• Link for footnote 11 doesn't work.

• Just needs to be rewritten (see below). Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is footnote 39 from an subscription online database? If so, it would be helpful to provide the link and record number.

• Tell me how the documentary fits under WP:RS and WP:NOR - I just want to make sure we are being rigorous in our use of sources here. :)

• This link isn't working for me.

• This link doesn't support the statement in the article - is there any way to get a direct link so the reader doesn't have to search the site?

• Image:Robert and Harvey Milk 1934.JPG - Don't we technically have to take this image out until we get the OTRS ticket?

• Image:Harvey Milk with Audrey Milk 1973.jpg - Again, don't we technically have to wait for the OTRS ticket before we include the image?

I am confident that I will be able to support this article soon! Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• To Awadewit. I've made some changes, even after I saw your edits yesterday. What you read yesterday may not be the same, so to point out: I've edited the lead several times - just now specifically addressing your points. I removed Shilts' quote because it's in a different part of the article.

• The lead looks much better, yes. Awadewit (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just like Milk's life, the article rambles until it finally gets some direction. I can claim that's deliberate, like thematic and all...but instead I'll work on it. I've already made changes since yesterday.
• On Milk's being a gay icon: that's ambiguous. See my comment above about trying to find a sharp comprehensive quote about his legacy. It seems the annals of gay history can't summarize Milk's life without it being infused with Dan White, the failings of the justice system, the entire city of San Francisco, what Milk may have done during the AIDS crisis, or quite honestly, feeling really sorry that they lost their only voice and can't seem to find anyone to replace him. I spent hours looking for a good quote about his legacy and finally had to embrace all this other stuff about it to add a paragraph in the Legacy section under Politics. It's fodder for a good academic paper: "Communal Depression and Confusion and the Memory of Harvey Milk". Let's write it together! However, he doesn't have the adoration that Barbra Streisand or Madonna has. Some people have referred to the cleansing of his story as "Saint Harvey". I would consider him a hero to gay people, but at the same time, Professor Novak was reported in that story saying the young people in his classes have never heard of Harvey Milk or George Moscone. Historian John D'Emilio said the memory of gay people lasts only a generation. So...unh?

• I understand all of that - makes perfect sense. I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing out on a great link. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• The documentary includes interviews with Milk's aides, political colleagues, television coverage of the events during his career, the assassinations, trial, riot, etc. I don't have access to local television news reports that are included in the documentary. If you want to take a peek, the documentary is in installments on YouTube with a Japanese translation to boot.

• I think the documentary is a primary source, since there is no real oversight of it (to what extent was it fact-checked, for example?). In particular, I am worried about two statements:

• An 11-year-old neighborhood girl joyfully ordered gay men and older Irish grandmothers to work on the campaign, despite her mother's discouragement. Milk himself was hyperactive and prone to fantastic outbursts of temper, only to recover quickly and shout excitedly about something else.
• Milk had been a rousing speaker since he began campaigning in 1973, and his oratory skills only improved after he became City Supervisor.

The other statements are either direct quotes or have another source to back them up. Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Medora Payne, the 11-year-old assistant campaign manager, is in Shilts, p. 133-137, as is Milk's temper. But the documentary had his friends talking about how he shouted at everything, talking a mile a minute.
• Both Shilts and the documentary address how he was a charismatic speaker when he started and that he improved after he became supervisor. If you want me to change the citations, I can. I used the documentary for more eyewitness account. I can get direct quotes if you wish.--Moni3 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why don't we just add the Shilts references to both of these instances, then? It will be more precise than referencing an entire movie, anyway. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I replaced it with another. I'm trying to diversify sources beyond Shilts. --Moni3 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know why footnote 10 (was 11) or http://www.spur.org/documents/000501_article_01.shtm don't work for you. They do for me. Anyone have any ideas?

• It must have been a momentary thing. It works now. I believe the footnote should be rewritten as well. Note that the website says "This article first appeared in the May, 2000 SPUR Newsletter". Shouldn't that be reflected in the note somehow? Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm using the Oscar website to cite the fact that the film won an Oscar. That site is time-limited. I could look up ... nevermind. I found a better site. I hope the link works for you. I tried it and it worked for me.

• Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave a note on Elcobbola's talk page since he can retrieve permissions emails now. I hope the OTRS tickets will be placed in those images today.
• Thanks for reading it. Let me know if you need me to do anything more. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• On citation 38: I did get it from an online biography, but through a university database. I'm trying to access it when not logged on through the university and it's not successul. Ideas? --Moni3 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think more could be done in the Tributes section, I agree with Awadewit that it's not quite punchy enough. I swapped the first two sentences and deleted a phrase, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better if we move the whole first paragraph down into Note 9 with the rest of the list of "things named after Harvey". The other material in the section seems stronger to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was emailed the OTRS ticket numbers and I expect the image pages will be updated soon. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, double check the last paragraph before the "sincerely" at the bottom of the OTRS response. Эlcobbola _talk 14:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may be so bold to make a suggestion. The important part of the email replied to an editor should be at the top, not resting underneath forwarded correspondence with the copyright holder, with "Thank you" heading the reply. Sorry for sounding like a prat... I am really tired today. The amended statement has been sent to permissions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement here. Images are tagged. Эlcobbola _talk 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to support this engaging article, but could someone fix those two footnotes I pointed out? :) Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! I believe you're referring to the two things that we were relying on the documentary for that are also in Shilts (which Moni engagingly misspelled at one point). Moni, do you have page numbers? Okay, now I'm not sure what Awadewit wants. The sentences about the 11-year-old girl and the oration have been given better refs, and the last note doesn't contain a link to spur.org any more. A little help, Awadewit! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have a crackpot theory that what we mistype is the unconscious coming forth. I challenge anyone to type "Shilts" 300 times and not misspell that to a more common term in English. You're freaking me out with the missing page numbers, Dan. Is anything missing? I answered Awadewit on my talk page referencing citations 151 and 38. If there's another, I'm not sure which. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• The issues resolve around my unstruck comments above - having to do with two small unresolved citation issues. Moni3 and I are currently in consultation on her talk page. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Other than that, Moni and I have tweaked everything we can find to tweak. Anyone else want to give this article a read-through? There's sex, violence, sordid love affairs, and backroom politics. What more could you want? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Full Support for a full account of the life of a culturally and politically important man. Clearly, the article has been thoroughly researched—I do not think there are any problems with neutrality and the sources are reliable. The prose, on the whole, is engaging. I liked the restricted use of the verb "to be" in all of it's disguises (was, were, be, being, been) that often spoil biographies. But, I have some (minor) criticisms.

• It would be nice not to see split up, put off, dropped off, cleaning up, cleaning up after and so forth.
• I didn't like instrumental in organising - how about a simple "helped"?
• Some work is required here: To make a point to McKinley, Milk took him to the hospital to show him an unsuccessful suicide: Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell made an attempt when the man he was in love with, Billy Sipple, left him. Should it be "a hospital", and "suicide victim", "who made an attempt"?
• Is this an American expression: had for decades been a blue-collar Irish Catholic neighborhood identified with the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Parish. - the "identified with" sounds odd to me.
• Here "workers" or "employees" would be better then "jobs" I think: Many of the blue collar jobs—and Alioto's supporters—were forced out by inflation due to the influx of white-collar jobs.
• This is also odd: McKinley was offered a job with the opening of Jesus Christ Superstar in New York City - did he get a production job, how about "was offered a job on JSC
• Here:- Milk's role speaking for San Francisco's gay community expanded during this period - "role speaking" sounds odd.
• I had to think about this The biggest targets of Milk's ire were large corporations and real estate developers. - what exactly does "ire" mean here?
• ..and instead of poop can we have "droppings" of even "feces"?
• I didn't like seven and two thirds years - "of a year" or why not convert the 2/3 to months?

That's all. Thanks for a damn good read. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Prepositional Promotion Society of America, I am personally offended that I had to change all those phrases. But I did it anyway. Because the source identified Milk's sentence as seven and two-thirds years, I'm hesitant to change the wording of that. How do people in Britain pick up dog poop if not cleaning or picking it up? I'm just curious.

Ire in this instance means anger and wrath. He really hated real estate and commercial developers. But he told them so when he gave speeches at their meetings. They thought it was refreshing not to get stabbed in the back by a politician. He called them "bloodsuckers" in the press and in other instances. Thanks for the review and comments, Graham. Let us know if we can do anything else. --Moni3 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done Moni, that's all from me. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I don't know—I have a cat, but I have seen people bag-and-bin the stuff).

• "but check please": done, the edits are good, thanks Graham. Everyone else in the world seems less interested in gerunds than Americans are; I'll remember that next time around.
• Weak Support Can be summarized as: "So you see, this is why Tony is a much better FAC reviewer than I am". When I was reading this article, I kept having this nagging feeling that something was wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on the reason why. It wasn't really an obvious POV thing, mmm, not exactly a prose thing..mm.. it just feels... kinda... loosey-goosey (hardly an actionable term) or... chatty.. or... informal.. or.. friendly.. or.. something. I think Tony hit the nail on the head when he said that the editors are a little "too close [to the topic]... The result is unreasonable assumptions WRT the unfamiliar reader (even the familiar one), ambiguities, and unintended POV." I don't feel I can Oppose, but am hesitatnt to Support.. so I'm doing a gut-check, and I perceive that the Support voice is just a little stronger than the Oppose. Hence weak support. I hope y'all won't freeze-dry the article if it is promoted to FA, but will continue to consult copy editors to tighten it up. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• We might consider the possibility that the editors are reflecting the sources. Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec - freaky!):* Let me think about this. Of course, I'd love to have everyone strong support everything I do. I had particular difficulty finding a variety of sources for Milk's life that did not reference Shilts' biography. Although it was a really good book, it has been used and cited as the standard of information on Milk. Shilts knew Milk fairly well, reported on him in some of his first stories as a reporter, and clearly - wrote his first book about him. Shilts was in the Castro when it was becoming the country's first gay neighborhood. What was happening to the city was happening to him as well. I wonder if I took Shilts' tone in some of what he was describing. Is this what you're referring to? If so, I need to look at this from a fresh perspective tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me admit first that I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but I'm thinking about this. Sometimes I notice I channel the tone of whatever source I'm using at the moment. That could be POV without something to balance it out, and then it's accuracy with solid sources. Perhaps it's QED (or fatigue) that I'm not able to tell if I'm channeling Shilts' often chummy tone, or if I'm accurately reflecting the subject who was extraordinarily irreverent by all sourced accounts, impulsive, loud, manic, and quite a few other things I declined to include in the article. I do my darnedest to add energy to each article I write, whatever energy comes from the sources, and I am unable to address an article unless I have some kind of connection to the energy of the subject. Sorry to get esoteric, but if Tony can put into words exactly what brilliant and compelling writing is, he'd make a lot of prospective FA writers happy. I simply define it as energy transferred from the subject and sources to the article - and hopefully to the reader. So, kind of like a thought that isn't quite fully fleshed out, I see the point that I may be too close to the subject, but in that case, just about everything I read about Milk reflects that he was half a nutjob and a lovable one at that. Maybe this is why there are so few quotes that are able to summarize his impact. How much of an impact can a lovable nutjob have? --Moni3 (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with awadewit here. Some of the sources, like Karen Foss, built their look at milk on the fact that he was something of a hyperbolic personality. The flavor bleeds into the sourcing and it is sometimes hard to drain it out (woo, methaphors!) when putting together the text. but yes, tony is a much, much better reviewer than I am as well. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• To anyone who's read the whole article carefully: have you formed an impression of the quality of the writing, even if you're not willing to weigh in on all the WP:WIAFA criteria? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The quality of the writing is excellent, I did go through most of the article, and I don't want to weigh in on all the WP:WIAFA criteria. My reaction lines up with that of Protonk who expresses it more colorfully than I can. I lived in San Francisco, in fact in a section near Castro St., in Noe Valley, during some of that time. Until I read this article, I had not fixed in my mind that Milk's primary identity as a human being was that he was gay. I accept Awadewit's view that the article writers are reflecting their sources and that not much else is available. I can't help wondering though that if it were not for Dan White, would there be a long and detailed Wikipedia article on Milk today, despite the "hyperbolic personality" then? In fact, is this article about Harvey Milk the man, or about a figure conceived of and used by a group? I don't feel the presence of the man. There is a sense, as Moni3 says above, that the article "isn't quite fully fleshed out", although I am sure everything has been said that can be. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to a thought that wasn't fully fleshed out, not the article. However, the point you make is understood. I can't describe the importance of Harvey Milk without addressing the changes San Francisco was going through in the 1970s. I can't write about his life and not about his death. I can't ignore what reliable sources have made from his memory. I think it's a travesty that his legacy will always be associated with the Twinkie defense and a man so confused and out of place the only way he could make things right was shoot people. Milk's history was being written during the biggest crisis the gay community has ever known, and it is apparently impossible to separate the two. I can't say that Milk's primary identification was that he was gay, but he certainly was a very sexual person. He did not take on the identity of the persecuted or the victim (unless he could use it to his political advantage). The concept of gay identity at the time was being developed - in the Castro, actually. Milk was considerably older than the average age of the men pulled to the city, so he wasn't one of them, but he allowed them to be themselves. When they all started dressing alike and behaving alike, forming new modes of communication and subculture, he told others who were surprised at it that it was a natural reaction to being free for the first time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think of Milk first as gay, but the second sentence of this article jumps right into his sexuality. This not being typical of biographies, does emphatically underline the importance of Milk's sexual orientation to the article and causes all else to pivot around it. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When I first read this comment, I thought, "Being gay is the most relevant context". But then I read the second sentence: "Milk was born and raised in New York where he acknowledged his homosexuality as an adolescent, but chose to pursue sexual relationships with secrecy and discretion well into his adult years." I think Matisse has a case here that this is a little off the point for the second sentence. That is, this is an article about how this man influenced, and even had a hand in creating, a community and a social movement. On the WP:NOTCENSORED theory and for many other reasons, we don't want to hide the active sex life; on the other hand, is it really the second most important thing about him, requiring a place in the second sentence? I don't have a position; I'm just musing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the issue really sentence placing? Because the placing of his sexual orientation is in the first sentence. If the next suggestion is to move it from the first, then I gotta say I disagree. Who was Harvey Milk? He was an influential gay politician in San Francisco. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also a good point. No, I think "gay" in the first sentence is perfect; and I also don't want to get rid of the second sentence. Matisse, you're asking for the second sentence to slide down a bit, maybe to the first sentence of the second paragraph, so that the first paragraph can cover what you consider to be his most important legacy, right? Again, I think we're twiddling here, which is fine, and not super-important. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Per the concerns about the tone of this article, I consulted a graduate student that I know who is studying 20th-century gay culture and we discussed Milk, Shilts, et. al. for quite some time (it was absolutely fascinating). I am convinced that any problems in the tone of this article stem from the sources themselves. I am not sure that we can totally drain the tone and POV from the sources without totally distorting them, particuarly Shilts. Hopefully, in the future, more reliable sources will be published. Anyone? Anyone? Awadewit (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• • If he had not been assassinated by Dan White, if he had lived a natural lifespan, how important would he be today? I'm not saying not at all, but there were a great many "hyperbolic personality" personalities in San Francisco in those days; they just were not dramatically murdered with a "Twinkie defense" that made endless national headlines. This is one of the reasons why I wonder if the article is really about a person, or about a confluence of factors, including the aftermath of the 1960s, that ballooned and are now being seen, by this article's sources, through the prism of Milk's life. Perhaps Maralia can clarify this in the readthrough. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • But Milk was assassinated. The SF culture, the subsequent AIDS debate and the 1980s backlash all influenced the people writing about Milk. However, the sources do not say "I am influenced by the AIDS debate and the 1980s backlash" - they reflect those issues. We have to wait for further sources to be published and point out the POV of the ones that this article is using. For right now, though, I am confident that the article reflects the current sources available on Milk, which is all we can ask as Wikipedia editors. That we are unhappy with the current state of those sources is a different problem entirely. My friend is unhappy with those sources, too; that is why he is entering the field. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I quite understand that this article is more than Milk's biography. It's quite long and encompasses history, law, and all sorts of other things. But the majority of reliable sources refer to Milk in the terms of the article. Milk's life was representative of what was happening in San Francisco at the time, and that's not just me saying that - reliable sources say it. Milk was elected because the Castro District was invaded; within 10 years it became the largest gay community in the world. That's historic, and that community was responsible for electing Milk. Milk was assassinated in part due to a clash of values the city was experiencing. The article addresses his ambiguous legacy due to his assassination. He was made a martyr. These cannot be divorced from his life. He was effective because the gay community grew so fast. He was killed at the height of his popularity, and no one took his place. Mattisse, what would you suggest doing to the article to improve it? Or is there anything that can be done to the article to get your support for its promotion to FA? --Moni3 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note—I'm planning to give this article a readthrough today. I have previously copyedited it (twice, I think) but it's been over a month since, so hopefully I'll have the mental distance to ponder the tone concerns brought up above. Maralia (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: A supremely thorough treatment of Milk's life, comprehensively referenced and written in a style that is at once compelling and accessible. Moni and I seem to disagree somewhat on the topic of how much context is fitting for biography articles, but I can't agree with Mattisse above. I feel that all biographies are about a confluence of factors to an extent, and people who meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (all humans, really, but that's something to debate off-wiki) are often important precisely because they brought certain things together in certain ways. (To put it in the words of The Big Lebowski: "Sometimes there's a man.. Well, he's the man for his time and place.")

Take Balzac, if I may be permitted to ramble about him yet again. He was a great writer, but he is important to us not only for the sheer quality of his writing, but also because he coalesced Napoleon's vision, the aftermath of the French revolutions, Swedenbourgian philosophy, and the relentless social drive so prominent at the time. Similar threads were tied together by Chinua Achebe. Thus I don't think an article like this is in error if it spends time on those "background" elements. I personally feel that Moni has done a great job balancing the personal and the public, but of course those of us in the struggle know that the two are very rarely separated – even more true for a person like Milk, who made his personal life so very public. (And thank the gods he did!)

So yeah. I support. =) Scartol • Tok 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The guilt is beginning to overwhelm me. I'm thinking I should go back and rewrite Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and the lot and try to explain Romanticism, the Age of Enlightenment, the French Revolution,...but I despair. Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • (ec) Since there seems to be general acknowledgment that the sources are POV, then it seems like the article should take care in this regard.

• Examples:
• The section "Heroic things" could be eliminated. Its only relationship to Milk is that "Oliver "Bill" Sipple, who had left Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell years before" happened to be the "bystander" who grabbed Sara Jane Moore's arm when she tried to shoot President Ford. Does this warrant a section? It actually has nothing to do with Milk and seems to gratuitously include a famous event just for the sake of it. We all can come up with relationships we had with people who later became famous for various reasons having nothing to do with us.
• "Scholar Karen Foss attributes Milk's impact on San Francisco politics to the fact that he was completely unlike anyone else who had held public office in the city." - "completely" seems like one of those words to which Tony would object. Isn't "he was unlike anyone else" good enough?
• "White showed no remorse for his actions" - This is Court TV and Nancy Grace, a newspaper/TV type statement. It means nothing in terms of the psychology of Dan White or other criminals about whom this statement is regularly made. It seems to carry an implication, but in reality it is meaningless.
• Why have so much about Dan White and his trial? I think most mental health professionals would agree now that his motivations were complex, and that he was psychologically fragile. A good case can be made that he had a mental disorder in the legal definition, but these types of assertions are very unpopular with the public. (Witness the public outcry over John Hinckley, Jr.'s successful insanity defense which precipitated changes in the U.S. Penal Code and many state laws, tightening the rules of evidence for an the insanity defense.) Sometimes juries really do make the right decision in the face of public opinion and pressure and cries that someone is getting away with murder. This could be one of those cases. Even your article details contradictory evidence regarding his behavior. He did kill himself. Why not just have some discussion that the verdict was seen as unfair or prejudiced or whatever, giving the reasons supporting the public's view, rather than trying to second guess juries and psychiatric witnesses.
• In fact, why have so much about White anyway. You spend a great deal of the article building a case against White (I guess that is what you are doing) and trying to explain his motivation. For what reason? Why does it matter? Again, a few statements that people doubted that he was mentally ill or fit the definition of diminished capacity or whatever. (The diminished capacity article calls the Twinkie defense an urban legend. See: Myth of the 'Twinkie defense' This article says that Herb Caen coined it. The public perception of the reality of the evidence in these cases and the psychology of the defendant is usually wildly off base. In any case, such crimes can never be fully understood. See Ted Bundy. Why try here except to make a point that might be made better other ways.
• "California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." - This is a misstatement in that an insanity defense is an excuse offered during the trial, in essence a "not guilty" plea. If it is successful, there is no "sentencing phase of a trial".
• These are examples of what bothers me about the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• On Heroic Things, I disagree. Milk was primarily responsible for outing Oliver Sipple. By doing this, he raised his own profile as a spokesperson for San Francisco's gay community, and all over the country.
• I can get rid of completely. Foss' words say the same, but God forbid I use her quote that says Milk was a "political maverick". So many computers would be ruined by vomit on the keyboards.
• I don't understand why an article about someone who was assassinated by someone he knew - by someone who had a relationship with him - should not discuss that relationship and the motivations (muddy as they are) for the assassination. Furthermore, as a former policeman who was interrogated by a detective who knew him, White's arrest and trial was indicative of the values of the police in San Francisco. Gracious, Dan White received voluntary manslaughter for murdering two public officials witnessed by some of the most reliable witnesses in the city. What did the police do when Harvey Milk was murdered? Joked about it and patted Dan White on the ass for it. Why would he show remorse? The last two years of Harvey Milk's life were spent making homosexuality an issue in the public eye across the state. When he was killed, there was no justice for his murder. The clash of cultural values made painfully clear what the priority of the San Francisco police were.
• Did you just say that Dan White's verdict was the right decision? If so, the people of California have emphatically disagreed. For the record... I do too. If not, feel free to clarify your comments.
• According to my sources, Herb Caen did not coin the term "Twinkie defense". I don't understand your comparison to Ted Bundy: the serial killer or the B-class article? The Twinkie defense, admittedly, has not been put into legal books in the State of California as a law or practical courtroom defense. But it came about because of Dan White's trial. Another example of a joke spawned from a faggot getting shot in the head. It's not really important to discover why such simplifications have been made about Milk, but Dan White ate some junk food and killed some people. Then he got five years. That's hilarious. No more dissection is necessary. Again, I disagree. — Moni3 19:33, October 24, 2008 — continues after insertion below

• Sorry that the B-class of the article means that it is not worth considering my point. My reference to Ted Bundy was meant to point out that even when a great deal of study has gone into understanding a killer, in this case, years of study by foremost professions in interdisciplinary fields, as well as others (like people who knew him), in the end it is not understood "why" he committed his crimes. There can be endless rationales, but in the end "science" (which I know is irrelevant here) does not have an explanation why certain people kill and others don't. I know it is much nicer to rely on sources that agree with you, but that is the cold reality. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, I just didn't understand if you wanted me to follow the format of Bundy's article or make draw a comparison between Bundy and White as murderers. Regardless, as my sources as a group never came to any conclusion about why White killed Milk and Moscone, I was pretty careful to include diverse theories but not to come to a solid conclusion. I don't think White knew why he did it, but I don't doubt it was premeditated. --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The California Penal Code disagrees with you: Notwithstanding the foregoing, evidence of diminished capacity or of a mental disorder may be considered by the court only at the time of sentencing or other disposition or commitment. — Moni3 19:33, October 24, 2008 — continues after insertion below

• You are confusing diminished capacity with "not guilty by reason of insanity". They are not the same thing. Please carefully read your sentence then carefully read California Penal Code. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm comfortable and confident in the content of the article. It draws from the material of reliable sources, placing appropriate weight on the events that led to Milk's election, and the events the spawned from his assassination. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• "California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." - This is a misstatement in that an "not guilty by reason of insanity" is an excuse offered during the trial, in essence a "not guilty" plea. If it is successful, there is no "sentencing phase of a trial". Please seek to understand. "diminished capacity" does not equal an "not guilty by reason of insanity". You are confusing them. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quick response. - Actually, being a forensic psychologist, it is plausible to me that the verdict, however imperfect, was not wildly off base. There are indications even in your article of the incongruity of his behavior. And his subsequent suicide in not characteristic of a psychopathic killer. The public always disagrees with this sort of thing. You are giving a general layman's view, popular at the time, and apparently not reevaluated since. John Hinckley, Jr. is another example where the public thought the outcome was incorrect and the public perception resulted in massive law changes that restricts the insanity defense. The "Twinkie defense" is referenced in my statement above to a relativity recent newspaper article, See: Myth of the 'Twinkie defense' SFGate (The San Francisco Chronicle - Sunday, November 23, 2003. But I can see you are very emotionally involved in this perspective and it is your article. Just an idea. I like having different perspectives, as once a piece of information enters the general culture, it is hard to dislodge it.
• I think you have lost perspective over the Dan White issue and have personalized it. My opinion only.
• You say in the article: "California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." -
• Please be clear that not guilty be reason of insanity defense is not the same as diminished capacity. If the law was "clarified" to not guilty be reason of insanity, then if the defense is successful, there is no "sentencing phase of a trial" because the person has, in essence, been found not guilty.
• I believe that your sources, although correctly reflected by you, are POV. Apparently there are no new assessments available of that period with a fresh perspective.
• You are free to disagree with me. You asked what concerned me and I responded. Sorry to have a different view. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The "Myth of the Twinkie Defense" article by Carol Pogash is used as a source in this one, btw. Historians and journalists make conclusions based on their knowledge and experience, making most sources POV. Pogash herself makes some POV statements. If I've accurately reflected what the most authoritative sources say about a notable individual without making conclusions myself, but reflecting theirs, then I've done a good job.
• I am emotionally involved in all the articles I bring to FAC. None of them are mine. Writing this article has illustrated the joy of community like no other. --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, you have written "I believe that your sources, although correctly reflected by you, are POV. Apparently there are no new assessments available of that period with a fresh perspective." - It seems that your problem is with the sources' interpretation of events, not this article. You must therefore take your dispute off-wiki to the authors of those sources. As Wikipedia editors, we are forced to summarize and present what is published - that is the essence of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I have often been forced to write articles using sources I violently disagree with and include interpretations of literature I believe to be completely unwarranted, but I never complain about that because our policies our sound. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia can only summarize the published secondary material. I hope someday to publish books and articles that will challenge the interpretations I have been forced to include here so that my own views can be included, but that will have to wait. Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I merely responded to Moni3 request. I realize that the standards for these articles are not very strict and do not match the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), for example. However I do think the sentence that is incorrect should be corrected: "California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." This is a misstatement.

As I pointed out, an editor is confusing diminished capacity with not guilty be reason of insanity. This is a misstatement. An insanity defense is an excuse offered during the trial. It is in essence a "not guilty" plea. If the not guilty be reason of insanity is successful, there is no "sentencing phase of a trial". Therefore the part of the text that says "the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial" is a mixed up statement, whether or not it is in one of the article's original sources.

Flat out misinformation, whether it is in the sources used by this article or not, should be corrected. The source provided in the article (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/25-29.html) does not say that a person found not guilty be reason of insanity will have evidence of his mental state provided only at sentencing. A person found not guilty by reason of insanity is not sentenced. That is what "not guilty" means.

It says: "In any criminal proceeding, including any juvenile court proceeding, in which a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered, this defense shall be found by the trier of fact only when the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense." (from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/25-29.html which is used as the source in this article). This quote, from the California Penal Code, has nothing to do with a sentencing trial. This statement pertains to the trial determining whether or not the person is guilty.

This type of misinterpretation makes me fearful of either the sources or the editors' interpretation of the sources. This is the third time I have brought this misstatement to the editor's attention. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting drawn into this relentless back-and-forth, let's see if we can parse and remedy the precise problem, which appears to be based on the following two sentences:

California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial.

My first question is about the phrase "...as a result of Dan White's trial". Source #143 refers to the California penal code, so I'm interested to know if we have a specific source indicating it was a result of voting related to White's trial. This is related to my next point.

How about we rephrase these sentences? Seems like there must be a way to make it match both Moni's sources and Mattisse's understanding of the law (to which I'm inclined to agree, since I assume good faith that s/he is a forensic psychologist). How about:

In 1982 the California penal code abolished "diminished capacity" and allowed a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" only when the defendant is "incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong". Evidence of mental disorder became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial.

I've tried to stick as close as possible to the wording of the penal code text, which seems like a good course of action here. (If we have sources indicating that this change was a result of voting related to White's trial, we can add that info back in. Otherwise it seems best to leave it out, with an implied connection left to the reader.) Thoughts? Scartol • Tok 12:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

After getting the advice on wording from two attorneys, both suggested it should be changed to something similar: As a result of Dan White's trial, California voters changed the law to reduce the likelihood of acquittals of accused who knew what they were doing but claimed their capacity was impaired. Diminished capacity was abolished as a defense to a charge, but courts allowed evidence of it when deciding whether to incarcerate, commit, or otherwise punish a convicted defendant. I wasn't too far off, but I'd rather be accurate. --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (I'd like to see the bit about it being pursuant to White's trial cited). Mattisse? Scartol • Tok 15:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Left a message on your talk page too to clarify: is this what you wanted to see (and have cited?) The San Francisco community and the broader California populace reacted with outrage at what was perceived to be a gross miscarriage of justice. This outrage led to demands for abolition of the "diminished capacity" defense, the expression generally used to describe the defense raised by Dan White. (Mounts, 33 U.S.F. L. Rev. 313) --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The citation obviously covers the change in the law, but I'd like to see something verify that this change was specifically in response to White's trial. (And that it was something decided by voters – aren't such changes in the law usually enacted by legislatures?) Scartol • Tok 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Diminished capacity is not and "expression", it is a legal term used in laws, statutes, penal codes, etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The text I just posted above is from the source, verbatim. That's what I would use to confirm White's trial was a significant factor in the abolishment of diminished capacity. The same source states: Section 25 was added by the voters through the initiative process, where Section 25 is the abolition of diminished capacity. Are you ok with using this source to cite what you're looking for Scartol? --Moni3 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. As you can see in the statute, "not guilty by reason of insanity" is still an available defense in the California statute. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The definition of not guilty by reason of insanity in the California statute: {"incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong") is typical wording, originating in English common law. Therefore, I doubt that part was new to the statute. Most states add, "due to mental illness". Like all NGRI statutes, California's definition excludes personality disorders, voluntary intoxication, etc. that are typically not considered a "mental illness". What apparently is new to the California statute is the restriction on presenting evidence of "diminished capacity" to the sentencing phase. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing track of the requests for clarification and citation. I understood Scartol's request as asking for a citation that confirmed Dan White's trial was somehow significant to the abolishment of diminished capacity, and that it was a voter-approved initiative. Are you asking for another clarification to be made? The wording in the section now does not mention "not guilty by reason of insanity". --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) No, that is fine. Sorry! I was reacting to the following statement above:

In 1982 the California penal code abolished "diminished capacity" and allowed a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" only when the defendant is "incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong". Evidence of mental disorder became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial.

This made it sound like the "not guilty by reason of insanity" wording was added at that time, when the quoted part is the typical definition, and "only when the defendant" makes it sound like this definition is restrictive, when it is not. It also incorrectly stated, "Evidence of mental disorder became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." I was pointing out that this NGRI standard is old, and less restrictive than "diminished capacity", and was not added in place of "diminished capacity". I urge you not to make too much of this issue of law change as it seems more an example of how frenetic the politics of those times were than a significant change in mental health law. It shows how the transitory politics of the moment drive lawmakers. Looking at the law, it leaves "not guilty by reason of insanity" intact, which some states have abolished, and does still allow "diminished capacity" in the sentencing phase. True, it was a citizen driven initiative (political) at the time. I agree that it was. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm very happy with the current wording and citations. Thanks for adding the cite, Moni, and hopefully Mattisse is okay with the new wording too. Everyone's happy, right? (forced grin) Scartol • Tok 14:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am not even going to look at the current wording. Too frustrated at the defensiveness making difficult the correction process and sick of defending accuracy against opposition. I bow out. Whatever you have probably fits with the article, so I no longer care about its accuracy. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Did something just happen? I am completely out to sea here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm confused too. I hope I didn't muddy the waters with my attempt at humor with the (forced grin) thing. Just trying to lighten the mood. Sorry if I made things more complicated or appeared defensive. (I was just trying to develop a compromise – honest!) I think we all want to be accurate, so I'm not sure where the problem came from. Scartol • Tok 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support After a re-read, I am confident that this is among our finest work. I had previously noticed some of the issues others commented on (informality, and a little lack of context/presumption of familiarity in places), but I don't see those now; I think we took care of them during the string of copyedits performed during the FAC. As to the tone concerns, the article certainly isn't dry, but neither was the man; I don't see anything that I would consider unencyclopedic or gratuitous. Regarding the POV concern a few people have raised: thoroughly covering Milk requires adequately covering White and the effects of the assassination; while the presentation of White is rather unflattering, it appears consistent with that offered in the vast majority of published material. Maralia (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have short attention span issues but finally got through most of it. Eventually some of those sections may make good spin-out articles as well. I have a few wording comments which I put on the talkpage. Overall an excellent article. Makes me want to read some of the other FA's as well. -- Banjeboi 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Great article but can I just say - as someone with no prior knowledge of this subject, that this sentence in the lead struck me as a bit incongruent: He opened a camera store and was compelled to run for city supervisor in 1973..... Fainites ^barley 23:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tweaked. --Moni3 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. (I would support except that seems a bit cheeky after having just only read it as compared to the serious, in-depth reviews above). Fainites ^barley 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheeky? If you think the article is excellent and you have no objections to its appearing on the main page (indeed, even think it would be great to see it there), and if the writing is of high quality, citations are in order, nothing seems uncited or inaccurate, support. If not, then make suggestions about how to make it better. I'll do my best to meet them. Don't fuss about what other people here have said. Balls to conformity. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 25 October 2008 [42].

---

Homer Simpson

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson/archive2 - withdrawn

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson/archive3

The last FAC had some outstanding opposition, but I believe that it has been addressed. The article has also been copyedited (huge thank you to Jackyd101 and Risker). You will notice that the article does not have an appearances section like other character articles, and the reason for this is simple. While a show like Lost has continuous storylines, The Simpsons has little or no continuity whatsoever, plus Homer has appeared in 422 (soon to be 423) episodes, so such a section would be a huge mess. Anyway, all concerns will be addressed by myself. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 108 (What's the story with...) is lacking a publisher.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I think "fictional main character" would make more sense than "main fictional character" in the first sentence.
  • Done.
• "When Groening designed Homer, he put his initials into the character's hairline and ear: the hairline resembled an 'M', and the right ear resembled a 'G'. Groening decided that this would be too distracting though, and redesigned the ear to look normal." - I think I brought this up before, but when did Groening redesign Homer? If you really don't know, just say "Groening later decided that".
  • Well, his ear didn't look like a G when the first Ullman short aired, so I would assume that he did it in 1986 or 87.
• The information on "Homer3" seems to have moved back to the Character development section. Why was this done? this was one of the reasons I opposed last time, as that episode in no way contributes to the development of the character (its non-cannon). That information should be included with the other animation information, which at the moment seems to be in creation.
  • I decided to start a "Design" section.
• The stuff about Arabic Homer is still there but it still has no information about other translations. This was discussed on the talk page and there is a lot of information at Non-English versions of The Simpsons that can be researched.
  • I did mean to remove it, I just forgot. It is done now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise a very nice article which I feel I can support when the above are addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All done, good job--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes, left-aligned images under third-level headings (WP:ACCESS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments after a small copyedit:

• "Homer Jay Simpson is a fictional main character in the animated television series The Simpsons…" Okay, from a policy standpoint, that is necessary, but from a reader's standpoint, I find that ridiculous.
• "The character received his first name from Groening's father" does not flow well with the rest of the paragraph. Maybe "He named the character after his father Homer Groening"?
  • Done.
• A shorter dash should be used in reference #1 per WP:DASH
  • Done.
• I suggest including more than one example for Castellaneta's other characters
  • I'm not sure if that's necessary because Castellaneta is most identified as the voice of Homer. If this was the article for Mayor Quimby, then I would certainly add that he voiced Homer, but I think it's not entirely necessary here. The reason Grampa is noted is because he is mentioned extensively in the above sections.
• Too bad we do not have a picture next to "Castellaneta claims he is rarely recognized in public"
  • Indeed, but I'm trying.
• "Homer has been cited as a bad influence on children, however; for example, in 2005 a survey conducted in the United Kingdom found that 59% of parents felt that Homer promoted an unhealthy lifestyle." The however-for-example is awkward; I suggest that "however" be moved to the beginning of the sentence
  • Done.
• Is "in" better than "for" in "Homer has appeared, voiced by Castellaneta, for several other television shows"?
  • Done.
• 'It has been described as "an entertaining little book for occasional reading"' Who said that? The publisher?
  • I'm not sure, it's one of those pesky articles that doesn't list the author. I think it's a staff written article, should I mention that?

What an excellent (and humorous, e.g. "Homer has a low IQ of 55 which has variously been attributed to … and a crayon lodged in the frontal lobe of his brain") article, –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the sourcing section of the fair use rationale for Image:Evolution of Homer.jpg appears to be inaccurate. Guest9999 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • How so? Those are the episodes that I took the screenshotws from. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure that nothing from the Simpsons Movie DVD is currently being used in the image. Guest9999 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, okay, I missed that (I was looking at the description section). A prior version of the image included a shot from the movie, but it was removed and I forgot to update the source. It is fixed now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support but why are half of the accessdates linked and the others are not? Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

{{cite news}} has access dates unlinked just recently. Gary King (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally that change would be applied to all citation templates... Giggy (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. All said missing refs seem to be there now. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• I know it is mentioned again with references in the Commendations section, but the last paragraph in the lead needs to be referenced. Also, Commendations is not a common term and it should be replaced with a better word. Support when these are fixed. Reywas92^Talk 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • About putting a ref in the lead, per WP:LEAD, references are not needed unless it is a fact that is not sourced later in the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, I got some support from former Simpsons executive producer Bill Oakley [43], just thought I'd point that out. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, very good article. It contains all refs needed, but is it okay the number of images?Tintor2 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 25 October 2008 [44].

---

Robert of Jumièges

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

Another month, another bishop. This one is Stigand's predecessor at Canterbury, and he's a much more shadowy figure. We don't know when he was born, we don't know when he died. He got chased out of England because he quarrelled with the wrong family. He may (or may not) have been involved in getting William the Conqueror thinking about invading England. An important figure, but very obscure, I present you with Robert of Jumièges, who has been the subject of much bother lately by me. Constructive criticism always welcome! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - I'm going to be on the road from the 19th through the 27th, but will still get access to the internet and will be taking a rather large pile of books with me, so the only concern is that I won't be replying as quickly as usual. Also, today (the 18th) I'll be getting ready to go so less than usually prompt replies. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sources look good, but can you add accessdates to refs #2 and #3? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The full reference in the References section has the access date (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, indeed it does. Thanks for clarifying that for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have my own special style of referencing... (hums) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Cough* Borrowed from Alcibiades? That's the first place I saw something similar, or that and the splendiferous El Greco. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support on the grounds of scholarship and generally immaculate referencing. I don't approve of the "Abbey, abbeys" conjunction in the lead. And I think that "Finally" beats "In the end..." But these are quibbles. Good stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: in case anyone thinks this was a "soft" support, I left an exhaustive review on the talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. DONE Disappointingly little on the Missal, surely the thing he is now best remembered for? Since we don't yet have a separate article it should be better covered. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A point ... the missal wasn't commissioned by him, it's a c. 1000 Anglo-Saxon manuscript that he basically looted while he was bishop of London. There is very little to actually connect it with him, he found it and sent it to Jumieges. That's pretty much it. If he'd commissioned it, I would have discussed it a bit more, but considering the slight time it was in his possession, I don't really think there is much more to say. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says the following "He had made valuable gifts to Jumièges, notably the so-called missal of Robert of Jumièges (now Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS Y.6), a finely illuminated manuscript of the Winchester school, written before 1023, which he sent while bishop of London." Certainly we should have an article on the missal, it's a wonderful piece, but the connection between Robert and it is slight. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonethless, it is probably what he is mostly remembered for, with the other Rouen Ms, & has an inscription apparently in his own hand. That 1023 date is not as certain as the DNB suggest, though it seems clear it was pre-owned in his hands. Imo comprehensiveness requires rather more, especially as the episode sets the trend for what was to happen to most English church treasure over the following decades. Johnbod (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

One reason I don't have more is that it's not treated in anything connected WITH Robert that I have. It might be in art history works on the missal itself, but no one in the works I consulted discussed it any further than what the ONDB did, which is one reason it's not discussed more in the article. I just don't have the information on it. (And yes, I've done JSTOR and other database searches on Robert.) There may be stuff I can't access, but I think that information on the missal should properly be in an article on the missal, perhaps you can write that? As far as it setting the trend on what happened to church treasures, the couple of articles on that subject I've consulted don't mention the missal either. (I read a lot on that for Stigand). If you have information, of course you're welcome to add it, but nothing I've consulted does more than mention it in passing, and most don't even mention it at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have rather the opposite problem, in that the many books I have mentioning Robert only do so in the context of his - well "patronage" is not exactly the right word. The "comprehensiveness" requirement would suggest both sides of the coin should be covered. I am working up some stuff on this, including his heist of St Valentine. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• On another matter, the article implies he ceased to be Abbot of Jumièges at some point "while Abbot ... his old abbey" in the last section, but is this the case? I think not. The great size, importance and close links with the ducal family of the Abbey should really be mentioned, and this article linked from and aligned with that one, which credits the rebuilding to the Duke of the day.

Hm. Maybe, but Robert was appointed in 1037, which was during William the Conqueror's minority as duke. The refoundation of the abbey predated the building of the church which Robert started. I certainly wouldn't object to more information on the abbey being added, and if you don't get to it, I will. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Will get to this tomorrow, I'm just now seeing my hotel for the night and I'm suddenly been told I'm grooming tomorrow at 6am... ugh! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a bit in about Jumieges. The article on Jumieges itself seems to be from the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia and probably could use updating... ugh. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• The first external link does not seem much use, short, deriving from a work of 1908, & giving a very variant death date from modern scholars. Is this really an RS?

It was there when I started editing, I believe. Or was added later. If it disappeared, I wouldn't care, honestly, but I've found on other articles that people will just reinsert it sooner or later. External links don't have to necessarily be as reliable as a source, so I tend to not worry too much about them. Feel free to remove it. The PASE link, I did add, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• DONE The lead comes down on one side of the rather open question of the direction of the architectural inflence between Westminster and Jumièges abbeys, somewhat contradicting the last section. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• DONE Richard Gem, who is the top man in English Romanesque architecture studies, specifically denies in Zarnecki, George and others; English Romanesque Art, 1066-1200, 1984, Arts Council of Breat Britain, ISBN 0728703866, p.27, that "the church built in Westminster for Edward the Confessor, now known as Westminster Abbey, ... influenced subsequent English ecclesiastical building styles." He sees the Early Romanesque style at Westminster and Jumièges as a cul-de-sac before the development of "Anglo-Norman High Romanesque" at Caen and Canterbury under Lanfranc. His fuller thoughts are in Vol 2 here, which I've not seen. In another book, Westminster Abbey, Bell & Hyman, 1986, p. 13, he describes Robert as "a great patron of the arts and a famous builder in his native Normandy", who may well have arranged for some of the recorded masons with foreign names to work there. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• DONE Further on that, on the passage "It has been argued by several historians, including Frank Barlow and Emma Mason, that Robert brought the new style to England, and that it influenced Edward the Confessor's rebuilding of the church at Westminster Abbey in a style previously unknown in England.[49][52]" - neither Barlow nor Mason seem to have special expertise in architectural history, and the sentence is a bit confusing. In what way did he bring the "new style to England" before Westminster, as the sentence implies? Gem & all other art historians I've seen put Westminster as the first known Romanesque building in England, as does William of Malmesbury. Gem says (p.13, Westminster Abbey) Edward and Abbot Eadwine were "perhaps encouraged" by Robert, and on the question of whether Westminster influenced Jumièges or vice versa says W "may ...have" influenced J,(Zarnecki, p. 27) and his fuller and perhaps later thoughts are in the book linked to above. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to resource and rewrite that. Both Barlow and Mason are "regular" historians, and generally get their architectural history from the experts. If you have the sources, I'm glad to defer to the art historians in this matter. My plain history books run me enough money, I don't dare start getting into art history! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a section on artistic patronage, which of course please edit as you like - I'm afraid I don't speak citeweb. I have also expanded Spearhafoc and added some online refs which might be useful here - the introduction to the OUP Abingdon Historia especially. The architecture section would still benefit from someone looking at Gem's paper on Westminster (in further reading) or better yet his collected papers linked there. I still strongly suspect that Robert remained Abbot of Jumieges to his death, and clarification on this is the only thing I think the article needs before support. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I have covers whether he did or not. I'm not sure that a comprehensive work on Norman ecclesiastical and abbatial heads (like the Heads of Religious Houses for England) has been done. All I can say is that the ONDB is silent on whether he stayed abbott or not. If I had to guess, I would guess he did not, since he was given a pallium by the papacy at a time they were starting reform, and popes began to require bishops and archbishops to no longer hold offices in plurarity. But that would be OR, so at this point, all I can say is that I don't know. If you have another source that says yay or nay, that'd be great, I just don't have anything that comes down one way or another. I'll have time tomorrow to fix any references, but things looked pretty nice when I glanced at iit quickly tonight. I guess I know who to go to for anything connected with art history now! Yay! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of refs saying he was "Abbot from.." etc, but no termination dates. Gem says he "before and after his period of office in England was responsible for the rebuilding of Jumieges" which isn't conclusive of course. If we really can't establish the facts either way the lead should be tweaked slightly to leave the question (silently) open. Did an abbacy and a bishopric count as pluralism? I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It did for Henry of Blois, when he held Glastonbury and Winchester concurrently. Of course, he got a dispensation from the papacy to do so, so it was legal in his case. I know that in 1060, Aldred was deposed for attempting to hold Worcester and York, and Stigand was ruthlessly denounced for controlling several abbeys as well as Winchester and Canterbury. I reworded the lead to say "He had previously served as prior of the Abbey of St Ouen at Rouen in France, before becoming abbot of Jumièges Abbey, near Rouen, in 1037." which hopefully leaves it a bit more open ended. Tweak to suit, if needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all it needs I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This short French bio says he "finit sa vie dans son abbaye de J", again not quite conclusive. He seems to have been the 28th Abbe, with the 31st appointed 1078, from the French article, who date his abbacy as ending in 1045, but give no source, or successor. The Italian have him Abbot until 1050, it seems!Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't read French, so I don't really have a way to evaluate that source for reliablity. I'll tweak the lead tomorrow, I'm dead dog tired after being a horse show groom all day today ... tomorrow I don't have to! And thank you, Johnbod, for your help and attention to the article, it's very much appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support now issues all resolved. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I peer reviewed this and have followed it since - it has been improved considerably since, and I find it meets all the FA criteria now. My only quibble is that the lead still says he died between 1053 and 1055 in the first paragraph, and 1052 and 1055 in the second. I am not an expert on the missal, so I will not weigh in on that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. A fine piece of work. I look forward to supporting, but I do have some quibbles.
  • I don't really like the sentences in the lead starting "His main activities" but I had some trouble recasting them in a way that I could be sure was faithful to the sources. How about: "Robert's time as archbishop lasted only about eighteen months. He had already come into conflict with the powerful Earl Godwin of Wessex, and while archbishop made attempts to recover lands lost to Godwin and his family. He also refused to consecrate Spearhafoc, Edward's choice to succeed Robert as Bishop of London. The rift between Robert and Godwin culminated in Robert's deposition and exile in 1052." What I don't like about the current sentences is that they're not chronological; we get the exile and deposition before we get the activity. Then "His main activities were" is a numbing way to start a sentence.

    Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The sequence in the second background para seems odd: "Edward and his brother Alfred were sent to Emma's relatives in Normandy" follows the mention of Canute's ascension to the throne in 1016, but according to the WP article Edward goes to Normandy in 1013. I think it would be worth mentioning Edward's date of arrival in Normandy, in any case, since it puts an earliest date on his acquaintance with Robert (unless Barlow, your source here, is more specific about that).

    The supposition is that it was the mid 1030s. I've clarified. The general inferance is that he became abbott because his relative was abbott, not because of Edward. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • "The Life of Saint Edward, a hagiographical work on King Edward's life": presumably a contemporary or near-contemporary hagiography? If so I think it would be good to say so; a casual reader of this sentence might think it a modern work.

    It is, and so clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • "The evidence shows that" is a redundant phrase; if it shows it, you just need to say what it shows.

    Taken out. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • You have both Eadsige and Edsige; not sure which is better but please be consistent.

    Went with Edsige, which is what he's named in our article. Whether that is correct, is another story. (I hate Anglo-Saxon names, I really do). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    You mean, names like "Ealdgyth"? I know what you mean, though; if there were enough interested editors it would probably be worth putting a Wikiproject policy in place on which spellings to use. Mike Christie (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • "probably on the strength of Archbishop Edsige having also held the office": the point being that Edsige was his predecessor in the office? If so I would say so explicitly: perhaps "probably on the strength of Edsige, his predecessor as Archbishop, having held the office." "Also" is redundant, I'd say (it often is; it's a good one to look for when you're trimming).

    Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • "In refusing to consecrate Spearhafoc, Robert was following his own interests against the wishes of both the king and Godwin": either I'm missing something (very possible) or this needs a bit of clarification. Later you say that Robert wasn't really interested in the papal reform movement and that he cited it to find an easy excuse; if it was an excuse, what was his real reason that was sufficiently in his interest that he defied the king? You give a possible explanation later in the suggestion that Spearhafoc's appointment was a bone thrown to Godwin to appease him for the failure of his candidate for the archbishopric, but you present that as an historian's theory, not as a definite statement of Robert's interest.

    Walker, who puts forth the theory that Robert was doing his own thing here, implies that it was because Robert wanted his own candidate. I've clarified this a bit, let me know what you think. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    I think that works. I copyedited it slightly to get "a Norman" closer to "candidate". Mike Christie (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • "publicly pronounced" is unpleasantly alliterative; how about just "proclaimed", or "announced"? Is "publicly" necessary?
    • went with "declared" Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

    He wasn't just outlawed, he was rather publicly proclaimed it at a council. I'm open to other wordings, but I would like to retain the flavor of the sources, which make it clear that it was a council that oversaw his outlawing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    Actually I meant to refer to this sentence: "In 1049 Leo IX publicly pronounced that he would take more interest in English church matters". I assume you're talking about this: "Robert was declared an outlaw"? If so I'd suggest you add the detail about the council, which is indeed interesting. Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    • • Added in the bit about the council. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the fix, but I think "post-Norman Conquest" is not the right hyphenation. I suspect "post-Norman-Conquest" would be better, but double hyphens are ugly and you might want to rephrase.

    Changed to "... complicated by propaganda claims made by Norman chroniclers after the Norman Conquest in 1066."

  • That same paragraph discusses the same chroniclers and assertions that you mention in the paragraph about Robert's archbishopric, earlier. I don't think there's a problem in general with having the same material covered in two sections, but I'm not clear what your reason for it is here. I was initially confused, thinking that this must be another set of chronicler comments, but it seems to be the same.

    Hopefully clarified this a bit more. This is part of the fun of writing about him, he's delightfully obscure. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    I think that does it. The additions you made make it clearer to the reader that the uncertainties in the record make it necessary to reference them in a couple of different contexts. Mike Christie (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • "Note that May 1052 is probably wrong, as it is prior to the September 1052 date when Robert fled England. However, most historians agree that he died in exile after his flight from England in September 1052." If I understand this correctly; it's a lengthy way of saying what you want to say. How about "Note that May 1052 is probably wrong, as it is prior to the September 1052 date when, according to most historians, Robert fled England."

    Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Will try to get to these in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, not necessary for FA: personally I dislike having both a succession box and a template at the bottom of the article. The succession box just duplicates the information in the template, so I'd suggest deleting the succession box. And as it happens I just noticed that the succession box for Bishop of London is wrong, anyway; it lists Spearhafoc as Robert's successor! Mike Christie (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He actually was, we list "bishops-elect" as well as ones that got consecrated. I'd rather get rid of the templates, actually, but folks will edit war to put them in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I don't really like either the templates or the succession boxes myself, but as you say they have passionate defenders, though I'm not sure why. If the succession box policy is to include bishops elect I guess Spearhafoc is OK. How about putting something parenthetical in the sbox with his name to indicate he never actually became bishop? "(never took office)" or something similar?

That just leaves the "publicly pronounced" point and its derivative point above as my only remaining concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Caught the two bits above and about the box. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Changed to support above. Mike Christie (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is it just me or is the lead a bit underlinked? I'd have linked Spearhafoc and Godwin of Wessex, and perhaps Romanesque architecture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did my usual, write the gist and let copyeditors work over the text, so there is a possibility that links got lost in the CE. Feel free to link what you feel needs linking, I'm very much a non-linker, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment
• 1)Background and Life in Normandy: Did Robert accomplish anything else besides beginning the construction of the Abbey Church? Did the monastery engage in some kind of notable activity that could be mentioned here? I think this is an important abbey that was known for its school, that could flesh out this section a little more and give Reader a sense of what Robert's responsibilities were. Abbots are like little kings, even more so in that era, they are and were very important and mostly respected people. This is just a suggestion, I will not oppose the article for FAC if it is not included.

The only thing I could include besides the bit that John's wonderfully expanded about building would be general stuff on what all abbots of the time did. Nothing *I* have covers anything special that he did, and nothing is mentioned in the ONDB that he did beyond the building. He became abbott in 1037 and went to England in 1042, so he wasn't abbott very long. I'm not saying there isn't something out there, but I haven't found it yet. I don't read French, so anything in French I don't have access to.

• 2)This statement "However, the Life is a hagiography, written soon after Edward's death to show Edward as a saint. Thus it stresses that Edward voluntarily remained celibate, something unlikely to have been true and not corroborated by any other source." is unreferenced and really needs one.NancyHeise ^talk 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is referenced. Everything is covered by the next footnote in my articles. Sometimes that means a few sentences will be referenced to the footnote at the end of the series of sentences. In this case, it's referenced to the phrase in the sentence starting "Modern historians..." which is to Walker's Harold II p. 35 and 36. If it bothers you, I can slap a footnote on the sentence in question, but generally I don't do sequential footnotes to the same source unless there is a quotation involved. But, I'm glad to footnote it explicitly if you like. Like I said above, I'm on the road, and it'll be tomorrow before I can really attend to anything serious, just wanted to let everyone know I did see the comments and where things stand. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, as you know I am used to working on the RCC where every single sentence has to have a reference or we get hammered over it being unsourced ;). I am fine leaving it the way you have it. Also, not a big deal on the expansion of info in my first comment. I think it would make the section more interesting if there were a little bit about what abbots of the time were doing to keep busy but its absence should not necessarily keep this from being FA. Changed my comment to support. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know you have special issues over there on RCC, I quit watchlisting the FAC a while back, honestly. Thanks for the support and the copyediting! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• The dab finder in the toolbox identifies three dab links needing attn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 25 October 2008 [45].

---

Emmeline Pankhurst

Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok

I've expanded and polished this article about Britain's most controversial suffragette over the past two months, and I believe it's in a very respectable state. Many thanks to Awadewit and Yllosubmarine for their peer reviews, and Ealdgyth for checking sources. Thanks also go out to assorted editors who have cleaned up the British English along the way. Scartol • Tok 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• From DYK to FAC in 4 days? Nice... bibliomaniac15 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
• I'm not keen on "two pairs of women." Can we change it to something like "C. and her two sisters"?

• Changed to: "The family rift was never healed". Scartol • Tok 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not keen on "he kept a note before him"

• Changed to "he kept a note nearby during meetings". Scartol • Tok 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "woman so respected in the community." I must have missed the bit that foreshadowed this statement about popularity

• Added a bit earlier in the section to clarify. Scartol • Tok 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Around the time of their father's death, the identities of .." OK so later in the article the children become an integral part Emmeline's life. When I read this paragraph, though, I wondered why an entire para was devoted to family members...

• I think it's fair to say that (with a few extreme exceptions) every woman's children are integral parts of her life. (The same is true about most, but alas not all, men.) I added another sentence: "Before long they were all involved in the struggle for women's suffrage." Scartol • Tok 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence" her introduction is sudden and unexplained; she is apparently a prominent member of the org., but we do not learn that until later.

• In the sixth paragraph of the first WSPU section, it states: She also insisted that a small committee chosen by the members in attendance be allowed to coordinate WSPU activities. Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel were chosen (along with Mabel Tuke and Emmeline Pethick Lawrence) as members of the new committee. Since this is the first area where we introduce members of the group aside from the Pankhursts, it seems to make sense that this would be the proper spot to introduce EPL also.
• I intentionally left out more info about Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, Keir Hardie, and other folks important to the WSPU because I didn't want the focus to drift from Mrs. Pankhurst. I feel that more info on EPL would be better suited to the WSPU article. Scartol • Tok 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback and attention to detail! Scartol • Tok 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• It's showing up in the Category:Articles with unsourced statements so it's got a fact tag lurking somewhere. I couldn't find it though.

• Yeah, I meant to fix that earlier. The CN tag was in a paragraph which had a citation at the end, but apparently we needed to repeat the citation for that challenged sentence. Fixed. Scartol • Tok 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - (Disclaimer: I recently peer-reviewed this.) This is a well-written, well-researched, and well-illustrated biography of an important suffragist/suffragette. :) The article made for fascinating reading and included enough historical background that readers unfamiliar with the women's suffrage movement could follow the narrative of Pankhurst's life. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I also participated at the PR and happen to agree with everything Awadewit wrote above. This is a truly comprehensive biography about a truly important and complex woman. I had a lot of fun reading it, and am certain future readers will feel the same. María (habla conmigo) 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - very nice. Long, but the writing is engaging enough to carry the length. You do need to decide on her name though. We have Emmeline, Pankhurst, Emmeline Pankhurst and the corresponding set for the Gouldens. This is particular confusing when she is recently married and referred to as just Pankhurst, and often gives the impression that another figure is being talked about (as in The BBC dramatised her life in the 1974 miniseries Shoulder to Shoulder, with Welsh actor Siân Phillips in the role of Emmeline Pankhurst.) A few more pronouns would help remove such awkward phrasing as that seen in "Emmeline Goulden's parents" etc. Good work. Yomangani^talk 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I've tried to clean this up as best I could. As I've discussed with Awadewit, I've had trouble with names in biographies – take Chinua Achebe. In the later sections, it's easy to refer to him as simply "Achebe". When discussing his childhood, however, there are obviously other Achebes in the text. With articles about women (thanks to patriarchal family-naming conventions in our society) it's even more complicated. (It seems weird to refer to her as "Emmeline Pankhurst" when her name was still Goulden. And even more complicated when referring to her autobiography, written when she was Pankhurst about her life as a child named Goulden!) I've tried to adjust this article so that she's Emmeline Goulden before her marriage, and "Pankhurst" afterwards. Scartol • Tok 19:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• At some point we need to all sit down and come up with some good guidelines on how to handle maiden names vs. married names. The currently guidelines at MOS:BIO only scratch the surface of the problem. There are lots of situations where the proper course of action is anything but clear. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The article has two leads. The first paragraph is a summary of the entire article, then the next 3 paragraphs are a longer summary. The first paragraph is not supposed to be a super-summary; it should function merely to establish context about the subject of the article - who was this person and why are they important? The specifics about her founding the WSPU, disagreements with her daughters, etc, should be moved out of the first paragraph and into the rest of the lead (or removed if they are redundant). The lead in general is also a bit lengthy. For example, I would cut the sentence "The former had withdrawn voluntarily, while the latter was dismissed by Christabel." We don't need that much detail in the lead. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've trimmed the lead; hopefully it's more succinct and fluid now. Scartol • Tok 19:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's a nice improvement, although the following sentence is problematic: "She became known for her advocacy of vandalism and property destruction, and her work is recognised as a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage in Britain." This sentence makes it sound like her advocacy of vandalism was a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage, which I don't think is quite what you intended. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I decided to try my hand at it and ended up with: "Although widely criticised for her militant tactics, her work is recognised as a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage in Britain." How does that sound? Also, is my British spelling correct? Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds fine to me. As for BrEnglish, don't ask me! =) We've had a generous stream of folks coming by and adding Us to the the colours. Scartol • Tok 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Support - The article is FA quality for sure. Though I think info should be added to improve it, it can be done whenever I can get the ifno to Scartol. Having some difficulty doing that... --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Scartol, this is beautifully written, and I was particularly moved coming off a protest-themed article myself. Reading this one made me think WikiProject:Protest is in order. However, I have some questions about the content.
• Pankhurst immediately began working to change these conditions, and established herself as a successful voice of reform on the Board of Guardians. Her chief opponent was a passionate man named Mainwaring, known for his rudeness. Recognizing that his loud anger was hurting his chances of persuading those aligned with Pankhurst, he kept a note nearby during meetings: "Keep your temper! There seems to be something missing here, such as Mainwaring's reason for opposing Pankhurst and suffrage. Actually, what I didn't see in the article is the rhetoric of the other side. Why did they feel women's didn't deserve to vote? (Yes, I know, but perhaps it's good that it's puzzling for people to read this and think, "Well why shouldn't women be able to vote?") Similarly, although the protests are described in wonderful detail, the reaction of the government other than police harassment isn't included. Surely those in power dug in further, steadfastly refusing to agree to cow to tactics such as arson and acid-burning in their golf courses. Do you have access to editorials, responses, treatises on why women should not vote or reactions to Mrs. Pankhurst's tactics in particular?

• The biographies really don't discuss these responses (aside from occasional criticism in the media and the noted unwillingness of officials to meet with her). There is a paragraph in the article detailing press coverage, but I haven't gone looking for anti-suffragist views (which would take quite a bit of work to find, I expect) because I didn't want the focus to stray from Mrs. Pankhurst. I feel that adding too much of that broader historical context would inflate the already large size of the article. Perhaps it would be better suited for the article on the WSPU or women's suffrage in general.
• As for Mainwaring: Women's suffrage wasn't an issue among the Board of Guardians. The paragraph in question starts with "these conditions", a reference to the quote from Mrs. Pankhurst's autobiography and descriptions of the workhouses she investigated. Perhaps that needs to be made more clear? (The reasons he opposed her proposed reforms aren't clear; presumably he was in league with those profiting from the meagre conditions of the workhouses.) Scartol • Tok 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think an essential element of a biography for a formidable protester is what the subject had to overcome. I have access to a book (just searched for it) titled Literature of the women's suffrage campaign in England Chapter 1: THE ARGUMENTS. THE CASE AGAINST WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE: Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill, from " Enfranchisement of women " found here. Are you interested? I just copied, scanned, and emailed a few pages from another source for Mike Christie. I'd be more than happy to do the same for you. I'm not saying an entire section should be added, but a few sentences that describe the prevalent thought Pankhurst and her colleagues were up against.

• I'll never turn down an offer of getting free reference materials. =) I don't have a problem adding some more info about the political context. But I would point out that Pankhurst wasn't really struggling against the points made by Mill and others; she was mostly trying to overcome the intransigence of elected officials who professed to support women's suffrage but didn't take the necessary action. So in a way discussing the arguments against women's suffrage might be misplaced in this article. What do other folks think? Scartol • Tok 17:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Winston Churchill; his defeat was in part attributed to "those ladies who are sometimes laughed at" who attributed this? Churchill himself?

• His opponent. Clarified. Scartol • Tok 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• and – especially – her father. The punctuation of this looks odd. I know you're trying to emphasize it...but...I dunno

• Yeah, that was messy. Changed to: "...a betrayal of her family (especially her father) and the movement." Scartol • Tok 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Any leader who inspires followers to put themselves in harm's way, in prison, or commit acts of destruction or violence must have strong influence or charisma. How was Pankhurst able to do this, or was she simply one of many women who did the same (yet if she was, I suppose her portrait and sculpture would not be so necessary)? Have any of her biographers addressed her methods of getting hundreds of women to follow her?

• Aside from a general agreement that she was charismatic, no. The best I could do is add descriptions of people listening raptly to her speeches, but I feel that the article already contains some of these (and I'm always worried about looking sycophantic). Scartol • Tok 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Though I haven't seen the movie in more than 10 years, I believe I could right now belt out "Sister Suffragettes" from Mary Poppins. Now it's stuck in my head. "Well done!" Actually, Glynis Johns enraptured with Mrs. Pankhurst's chaining herself to the prime minister's carriage is an underappreciated Disney film moment, in my opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Me too! "We're clearly soldiers in petticoats! / Dauntless crusaders for women's votes!" :) Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, now you've done it; I had to go and look it up because I'm too lazy to find my DVD. All together, now! "Our daughters' daughters will adore us, and they'll sing in grateful chorus: 'Well done, Sister Suffragette!'" María (habla conmigo) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wait, wait, wait! I demand an "Emmeline Pankhurst in popular culture" section with a reference to this song! :) Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it was in the version I replaced. I expect to see it added in again soon. Would you all hate me if I said I'd never heard the song before? I'll respond to your suggestions soon, Moni.. Right now I'm off to dinner. Scartol • Tok 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• See? Scartol • Tok 00:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Two problems:
  • There are 8 or so citations to Purvis where it is unclear which book is being cited (there are two in the references).
    • I see you added "2002" to the remaining Purvis citations. Does that mean that the other Purvis book Votes for Women is completely uncited in the article? Should it be kept in the References? Also since Holton was the coeditor, it might be worth clarifying which book is cited in the other Holton citations as well (since she has two books in the list). Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess I didn't end up using that second Purvis book, but I certainly consulted it a lot. =) I think it makes sense to keep it in the References, since it contains speeches and writings of Pankhurst, and I can see someone referring to it in the future. (If you want, I can find some way to work it in, heh.) Scartol • Tok 17:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The style of British English used in the article is not 100% consistent. In at least 3 instances I've noticed, Oxford spelling is used (democratize, recognize, recognizing), and in most other cases regular British spelling is used (recognise, criticise, chastise, etc.). Also complicating the matter is the fact that one of the Oxford spellings is in a quote attributed to Pankhurst. Although I personally prefer the use of Oxford spelling in British articles, I'll leave the decision up to Scartol as the principle(?) author. Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Americanized spellings in Pankhurst quotes come from her autobiography, of which I am using the edition published in the US. My guess is that they used the spellings most common to the US audience.
• We've had numerous editors (including Roger Davies and Spinningspark) go through to check the British English. As people keep adding and changing things, the spelling goes wacky, I suppose. I've tried to find any stray non-British spelling. I'm doing my best to keep it all in one variety, but – again – I'm a slack-jawed Yankee living in the 'States and I'm not very good at this stuff. Many thanks to those who have helped unify the English.
• It's principal. Just for future reference. =) Scartol • Tok 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "as expected" by whom? And is "room mate" still in there? is that the British sp.? I was very happy with the comments of other reviewers above. I had to read very quickly during my first run-through, and was coming back to check more carefully now.. but other reviewers above said things that were drifitng around in the formless bog I call my mind. Good job. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the whole world expected Sylvia's book to be acidic and nasty, and Christabel's to be glowing and effusive with praise. But since we don't have any surveys or hard data to back this up, I suppose it's best to take it out. (Done.) I believe Roger Davies added some hyphens and separations for compound words; I defer to him on such matters, as he has established himself as something of an expert on British English. Scartol • Tok 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Indeed as was said above, this is quite an excellent article and sound in terms of the way it is written and content. Very resourceful in terms of the variety of sources used. Covers all aspects of her life, the way in which many of her familial relationships where addressed really is top notch. My only quabble would be that is could be made a little more concise towards the middle of the article where is discusses the WSPU. One of the paragraphs was not as easy to comprehend as the rest of the article and in parts seemed to move a little out of focus. I would suggest trying to improve the WSPU section a little for comprehension in relation to her biography. This is only minor though and the article was a pleasure to read. Well done Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what paragraph you're referring to. Could you specify? Thanks. Scartol • Tok 01:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The prose still needs a little shining. [46] Please don't let our enthusiasm for this important article over ride our first FA criterion. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to detail. I'm not sure I agree that it's necessary to avoid present-participles at all costs. Is that considered a violation of criterion 1a? In at least one instance, such a change alters the meaning: Pankhurst immediately began working to change these conditions... is needed, because she wasn't able to change these conditions straightaway. But she did begin working to make the change happen. Any other spots you feel are in need of review? Scartol • Tok 03:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I was a bit disappointed at the lack of images of Pankhurst herself, especially considering how many great public domain images of her are available. Being bold, I replaced the image of Millicent Fawcett with an action shot of Pankhurst being jeered by a crowd in New York. Hope you think it's an improvement :) Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, looks good. I was worried about having too many images of her (lest it signify idolatry and I be accused of POV). In terms of iconography, I'd say these pictures of her being arrested in 1914 are perhaps the most universal; they grace the covers of two EP biographies. Might one of those be more fitting? Scartol • Tok 00:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to worry about having too many pictures of Pankhurst in her article. Check out Babe Ruth's article! I'm disappointed, though, that so many of the images of Pankhurst on Commons are such poor quality. Maybe I can track someone down that has a Getty Images account. I love the photo of her being carried by the policeman. I also like the photo of her speaking to the crowd though. I think it would make a nice visual narrative to use both if possible. Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still working on getting a high-res version of the arrest photo. Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK, take your pick: Image:Emmeline_Pankhurst_arrested.jpg or Image:Emmeline_Pankhurst_arrested_2.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• I like the second one. Thanks for digging these up, K! Scartol • Tok 18:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also adjusted the levels on that "Pankhurst in prison" image, so it doesn't look completely washed out. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like it may be for naught. Stupid British copyright laws! Kaldari (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Couldn't we use one under WP:NFCC as an example of Emmeline Pankhurst's action or a significant moment in her life? -Malkinann (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's technically possible, but given the lower-quality but not-too-different free options available, I just don't think it makes much sense. Besides, there are plenty of other pictures of Mrs. Pankhurst available. Scartol • Tok 00:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - for a beautifully written, comprehensive and engaging article. I feel I should say more as this is not a vote, so I suggest "room mate" should be one word. Apart from this, I have nothing but praise for this superb contribution. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hyde Park is showing up in the dab linker checker in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sorry about that! Scartol • Tok 11:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 25 October 2008 [47].

---

The Other Woman

Nominator: User:thedemonhog

Previous FAC (09:16, 23 August 2008)

This good article from the Lost WikiProject is about a television episode of the fourth season of Lost. At the last FAC, a potential sourcing issue was brought up and another copyedit was requested. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Image:The Other Woman.png is low resolution, has source, and compelling fair use rationale, so images meet criteria to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that any of these ([48][49][50]) meets the criteria even better? –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not happy yet—1a.

• "From a writing standpoint, the episode provided multiple revelations for a variety of purposes: it furthered Juliet's back story and relationships with Ben,..."—sounds as though your addressing a writing workshop with a clumsy, unclear sentence. Make it plain and simple. It's a humungous sentence, too.
• "with critics from the Los Angeles Times, Entertainment Weekly, and BuddyTV deeming it"—another "noun plus -ing" misfortune. Again, a huge sentence. Split it.
• "Another common claim by critics was that more was learned about Ben than Juliet in the episode, which was not the writers' intention"—you know the writer personally?
• "garnered"—a little precious.
• "Meanwhile"—let me vomit.

Long sentences, lack of clarity, prose glitches. It's within reach, but needs solid input from copy-editors unfamiliar with the text. Tony (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Let me vomit." I am not sure if I should laugh or take offense. Anyway, those examples have been dealt with and I have given the article another readthrough. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has changed quite a bit since you last saw it. BuddingJournalist has copyedited the lead and first section after that and hopefully he continues. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that BuddingJournalist has not edited in the last week, his last edit being his copyedit of the plot section. I will find another copyeditor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Casliber is ‎performing a copyedit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: What makes the following a reliable source?

• http://forum.thefuselage.com/showthread.php?p=1664633 - looks like a forum post to me.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Copied from first FAC: "The Fuselage post that is being cited is attributed to an actor on the show and his identity is "confirmed" in the site's FAQ. A couple more things to help its credibility: the forum is sponsored by an executive producer of the show and the actor posting runs a blog (i.e. he interacts with his fans on the Internet)." –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Very good article, but why don't split the reflist in two columns?--Andrea 93 (msg) 14:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the locked-in gaps that are created with a second column. (Someone else has added it.) –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Image:The Other Woman.png doesnt meet nfcc #8 or #1 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is "no free equivalent", as the show is copyrighted. As for #8, I do not know about you, but when someone mentions a 1980s electrical station on a desert island filled with computers, I do not know what to think. There are other "purpose[s] of use" in the image description page. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support A well-referenced article. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, very well referenced, interesting and clear. Good Job!--Music26/11 11:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the vomit comment above. One thing that could improve this article significantly is the splitting of some of the paragraphs. It looks grey and daunting even at a distance. It's a 15-minute job by a copy-editor. Tony (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean sections when you said "paragraphs"? (The paragraph breaks seem fine to me.) –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, with one comment:

• The episode opens with flashbacks to Juliet's life on the island, following her recruitment in September 2001 by the Others,[6]. - Weird punctuation.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh, that was weird. Fixed, unless you liked the first comma. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Support (I'm a little embarrassed I didn't pop up here earlier!) A nice article, I couldn't find anything wrong or questionable myself. —97198 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 25 October 2008 [51].

---

Tropical Storm Hanna (2002)

Nominator(s): User:Juliancolton

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I'm going to beat Julian. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That was definitely a "WTF" moment when I was edit conflicted. :P –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• (yawn) Images all boring free stuff made by government employees with proper tagging/licenses, and pass criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • First sentence, second paragraph of Meteorogical history: "The cyclone was a disorganized, and contained..."
    • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Second sentence, same paragraph: "...later that day the cyclone was nearing tropical storm status, though remained a depression..."
    • Sorry, not sure I see the problem. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that was vague. I think I fixed it.
  • Third sentence, same paragraph: Can you elaborate on why "it was upgraded to Tropical Storm Hanna at 0600 UTC."?
    • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of same paragraph: "A last burst of strengthening..." Change to "last burst of strength"?
    • I'm not sure. It was, in fact, a bout of strengthening. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I LOLd when I read the nomination. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• You're Welcome. Here's some more. :)
  • Fifth sentence, same paragraph: "Subsequent to a jog to the northwest..." I'm not sure of the correct hurricane lingo, but would it be better to say something to the effect of "Before it moved to the northwest..."? Also, in the previous sentence, you say it's moving southwestward, and then immediately you say it's moving northwestward. Is a transition needed, or am I just misreading it. :)
    • A "jog" is the correct term, but if you think it's too jargony, I'll change it. Also, the storm was moving southwestward, until it made a sharp turn to the northwest. :-) I'll explain that further if needed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Fourth sentence of Preparations section: can you explain why the warnings discontinued when the storm began to move inland?
    • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Seventh sentence, same paragraph: Is there any reason Dauphin Island merits mentioning, as opposed to other areas? Would it be appropriate to put something like "Islands in the Gulf were affected; for example, Dauphin Island..."?
    • Dauphin Island was the only location mentioned in the source, and I try to stick with what the source says, rather than speculate that people on other islands boarded up windows. 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm no expert. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It has been discussed before about whether articles can be GA or better without the Tropical Cyclone Report (TCR) being released yet. Hanna's TCR has not been released yet[52] (as of this comment). On those grounds, I'd have to ask about how stable this article is going to be. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't read the heading carefully :( Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I went through and copyedited myself, check to make sure I didn't mess stuff up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Your copyedits look good, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments from Giggy.

• "and an upper-level low" - don't force me to click the link to find out what an upper-level low is. This phrase is repeated a few times so please do clarify.
• "was to the east of the center" - center of what?
• "and thus the NHC" - the what?
  • Oh, you nane and link it later one. Get the order right.
• "designated it Tropical Depression Nine" - no idea what this means

Giggy (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Got everything, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Reluctant withdrawal of oppose. Next time not underprepared like this, please: it robs other nominations of reviewing resources. And I shouldn't STILL be able to find easy pickings like ... can a business "receive" water damage? And "northwest–northeast-oriented feeder band"—can't you remove "-oriented" from this prickly gobbledy? Portions of the state --> parts of the state? Why is "drought" linked? Same for "cotton" and "peanut"? Not happy. Tony (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "On Dauphin Island, Alabama, however, the storm caused coastal flooding which closed roads, and forced the evacuation of residents." Who ever said not to put "however" first. It improves the clunky structure of the sentence. Comma usage needs a thorough audit. "However, on Dauphin Island, Alabama, the storm caused coastal flooding which closed roads and forced the evacuation of residents.
• Bad spelling error in the lead: have you run a spellchecker through it?
• Space missing after period.
• 20,000 people lost power; then lower down, it's 20,000 power outages. All single-person households? This is very naughty. Please fix it.

I do hope it's not all as sloppy as this. It requires careful work. At least it's not as puny as that "Cyclone Erik" debacle, where a short piece on a boring little storm was put up as an example of our best work. Sorry to be rude; it's saveable. Tony (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed up the lead, and to be safe, I'll try to recruit a copyeditor for the rest of the article. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Spell out NOAA in the refs the first time it appears?
• What makes http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/Scheepvaartnieuws/Pdf/scheepvaartnieuws/2002/september/030-16-09-2002.PDF a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look fine, links couldn't be checked with the link checker tool, it's down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first point. That site is simply an archive of various newsletters, and as I couldn't find that marine newsletter elsewhere, I figured it was good enough. Let me know if you still believe it's unreliable, and I'll remove that bit of information, seeing as it doesn't add much. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it non-reliable, and would cut it. It might be, but better safe than sorry, if the information isnt critical. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the source and its associated bit of information. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments I'd be willing to copyedit, and have started. I'll note changes I'm uncertain about here.

• Is "throughout its life" standard terminology? The wording certainly surprised me. I would have expected something like "thoguhout its duration".
• "east of the center of circulation" - What's a center of circulation?
• 20,000 costumers lost power? Is that supposed to be "consumers"?
• "As such, it was named Hanna" - Why is "Hanna" in italics?
• "A burst of strengthening brought Hanna to its peak intensity" - What exactly caused this burst?
• There's an enormous amount of overlinking. I'll try to fix all of it, but you should look it over.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The copyediting is finished. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the copyedit and the comments. I fixed most of the above. As for your third point, the sources call them "costumers", so that's the word I went with. I'll change it if necessary, though. I'll look for an explanation as to why is strengthened in a last burst, but all of the current sources seem to lack such information. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • If you can't find why it strengthened, that's fine. Which source, exactly, says "costumers"? Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Here's one, as an example. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Heh, that says "customers", while the article says "costumers", Julian. ;) Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
            • ...and now Jappalang's fixed it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Whoops! Thanks Jappalang (if you're reading this) for fixing it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Can you find links for sources 8, 9, 15, 16, and 19? Plasticup ^T/C 17:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Those newspaper articles were obtained through LexisNexis, so no URL is available. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

30 seconds of searching and I found two links for reference number 9. Even though you may not have found the sources online you should at least try to find web-based copies. Plasticup ^T/C 20:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I found links for two of those newspaper articles. The others lack web-based copies. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Revisit—Spot check in the middle (a single paragraph):

• "peak gusts were clocked at 68 mph (109 km/h)"—were they timed? "recorded" (I've fixed that one.)
• Are winds "enhanced" by thunderstorms? Perhaps "and".
• "Knocked down trees and power lines"—"brought down" might be more idiomatic.
• "Three people drowned in high surf; one near Pensacola Beach, one at Seagrove Beach[1] and another at Panama City Beach." Should that be a colon? And in any case, it's laboured: "Three people drowned in high surf, near Pensacola Beach, at Seagrove Beach[1], and at Panama City Beach."
• "Heavy rainfall fell"—jingle; why not "Heavy rain fell"?
• "River flooding occurred"—clunky. So why not: "As a result, rivers in the region, county roads and homes in Perry, and streets in the Tallahassee region were flooded." "Several" is vague; it does tell that "not numerous", but begs the question as to about how many you're referring to.Tony (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done with everything. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are we back to omittig full publication dates again? Readers going to a library to locate an article will have better luck with a full date, and locating something in the future if links go dead is easier when a full date is given. Also, unclear why some publishers are listed as publishers, some as author. Four editors have raised copyediting issues, raising concern if the article was prepared for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll work on the references once I get on a real computer (on a mobile device). Hurricanehink passed the article for GA after a thorough review, so at the time, it seemed the article was ready for FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, done adding publication dates and adjusting the author/publisher bit. Thanks for the reminder; I can never seem to get the references right, unfortunately. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm not that good with grammar, just to let you know:..."The total damage caused by Tropical Storm Hanna summed to about $20 million (2002 USD; $23 million 2008 USD)"...but summed sounds awkward. Wouldn't it be easier to say amounted or something along those line? RockManQ ^(talk) 03:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Convection shifted towards the eastern semi-circle of the circulation as the still-exposed center became malformed and elongated"... Awkward and confusing. RockManQ ^(talk) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as another glance at the prose doesn't bring anything of concern up. Giggy (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support; article prose seems to be much improved. RockManQ ^(talk) 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but with comments:

• Is the cost of damage in 2008 dollars necessary? It might seem relevant this year, but will be continuously adjusted for inflation in the coming years?

• At the beginning of every year, WPTC completes a drive of sorts to update all of the inflation units. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Units in the text (except conversions in parenthesis) should be spelled out, per MoS. For example, 1 inch (2.54 cm). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the support and comments, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:58, 21 October 2008 [53].

---

Stephen Crane

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo)

After nearly a year's off-and-on work, one successful GA review, full copy-edits by two uninvolved editors, and two peer reviews, I believe this article is finally ready for Featured status. Crane is one of my favorite authors, so I quite enjoyed researching and writing this article, both of which presented various difficulties along the way. All constructive criticism and advice is welcome, no matter how minor, as I'm only interested in improving the representation of such an important American writer. I'll endeavor to answer comments as quickly as possible. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Ref #177 has a screwy endash.

• Fixed. María (habla conmigo) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.asburyradio.com/Cranehouse.htm a reliable source?

• Per here, Asbury Radio is a weekly radio show about restoration projects in Asbury Park. This subpage is the official website for The Stephen Crane House, the only museum in Asbury Park. I hope this helps establish its notability. María (habla conmigo) 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Seems good enough for me; additionally, the information it cites isn't of a controversial nature. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043961/ reliable? (real question)

• IMDb is being used just to prove that the film exists, so for that purpose, yes, it's reliable. María (habla conmigo) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking! María (habla conmigo) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I think the article can use further copyediting. Here are some issues I found with the prose, or things that I found confusing, in the lead and the first section:

Lead section

• Should "Impressionism", "Realism", and "Naturalism" all be capitalized in mid-sentence?

• Yes, as they are proper nouns. María (habla conmigo) 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "his father was a Methodist minister ..." - I think this part of the sentence is overly detailed for the lead. Instead, "highly devout parents" is nice and succinct. Instead, I suggest simply saying "The eighth surviving child of highly devout parents, Crane was raised in several New Jersey towns and Port Jervis, New York."

• Point taken; changed.

• "Stylistically, Crane's writing is characterized by descriptive vividness and intensity as well as distinctive dialects and irony." - I think a comma is missing to set off the "as well as ..." part of the sentence.

• I think it can go either way, but just to be sure I added one.

Biography

• "His mother was an eloquent spokeswoman for the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, but although she was a highly religious woman" - this sentence is awkward with "but although" written together. It could use copyediting. Maybe, say "Although his mother was an eloquent spokeswoman for the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and was a highly religious woman, Crane did not believe..."

• Changed instead to "Although his mother was an eloquent spokeswoman for the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and a highly religious woman..."

• "His father wrote in his diary when the young boy was not yet two that his youngest son..." - can this be copyedited, so the sentence is not repeating the words "young" and "youngest"? Maybe instead say "When Stephen was not yet two, his father noted in his diary that his youngest son..."?

• I didn't want to use "Stephen" in back-to-back sentences, so I used your suggestion but substituted his name with "the boy".

• "His first known inquiry" - what do you mean by "inquiry"? I think you mean it's the first question he asked? I would be tempted to remove the "His first known inquiry, recorded by his father, dealt with writing;" part of the sentence, and just start off saying "At age three, while imitating..."

• Hm, I think "first known inquiry" (i.e. question) gives this sentence context; otherwise, does it just seem random?

• "Dr. Crane died on February 16, 1880" - instead of noting Dr. Crane's age, it might be more useful to the reader to note Stephen's age when his father died, for understanding Stephen's life. Also, it seems trivial to me to mention the size of the audience at the funeral. Perhaps not essential.

• Added his son's age (8), but I vote for keeping the number of mourners; it demonstrates Dr. Crane's popularity.

• "After her husband's death", "After living with his brother William" - I don't like starting off two sentences in a row with "after". Try varying the wording.

• I agree, and I'm usually the first to point this out to others. :) Fixed.

• Also, I'm confused about how you mention Mrs. Crane moving the family to Roseville, and then jump into saying that Stephen lived with his brother. Did Stephen live with his mother after Dr. Crane's death? how long? when did he start living with his brother?

• In short, Stephen was "rootless" (his word, not mine) for a few years after his father's death. I've tried to make this clearer.

• "In the fall of 1885 he enrolled at Pennington Seminary" - I think a comma is missing.

• Added.

• "One of the most important events" - how about "A defining event in Crane's life was meeting Hamlin Garland in 1891, who would later serve as an influential adviser and mentor."

• Much better; changed. Although I moved the "in 1891" until the end of the sentence.

• Despite being "frail", "undernourished" and suffering from "a hacking cough", - why are these words put in quotes?

• These are quotes from Munroe herself, but I suppose it's not necessary to attribute a few random words. Removed.

Aside from prose issues, I have to say this article is highly informative for someone not that familiar with literature. The sources all look good and reliable to me, though I'm not really qualified to review on comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality. --Aude (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll take a closer look at the prose later on with your suggestions in mind. María (habla conmigo) 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images - images check out. Awadewit (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support (Note: I have peer-reviewed this article.) This is an excellent introduction to Crane and his works. It is comprehensive, well-researched, well-written, and well-illustrated. Nice work! Now all of those high-school students reading The Red Badge of Courage will be able to find reputable information about Crane - I think they will be fascinated! ;) Awadewit (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• WP:ACCESS, WP:MOS#Images, left-aligned images under third-level headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks, Sandy! María (habla conmigo) 00:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Query In early life it refers to him being a 14th child, with 8 surviving siblings and four dead. What happened to the 13th? ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A middle child had died in infancy, as well; I wasn't sure if this required mentioning, however, since this "exposition" paragraph is already so long. What do you think? María (habla conmigo) 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• For starters this needs an infobox so that people who tend to read the WP:LEAD and Infobox like I often do can figure out who this guy is quickly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are not mandatory nor part of the Featured Article criteria. The very first sentence adequately defines who Crane is and what he's notable for, so I don't think one is necessary. María (habla conmigo) 11:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments. I found this a fascinating, thorough, well-written, and well-structured article. The articles I most enjoy reviewing are ones where I discover at the end of the review that I've had a pleasant time learning something I didn't know; that's what happened this time. I copyedited the article somewhat; please revert anything you don't like. I also have a few questions and concerns, mostly minor, before I support.
  • "Although she apparently recovered, the fourth death...": the first clause doesn't work. I think it's intended to give some flow from the previous sentence, about Mrs. Crane's temporary mental debility, into the tale of Luther's death, but because of that "although" I found myself searching for the referent of "she" in the rest of that sentence. That sentence turned out to be about Luther, and I had to read the two sentences two or three times to get everything straight. Here's a possible copyedit -- I couldn't be sure what bits came from which source, so I didn't make this edit to the article: "She had apparently recovered by early 1886, but later that year a fourth death in six years occurred in Stephen's immediate family when the twenty-three year old Luther died after falling in front of an oncoming train while working as a flagman for the Erie Railroad."
    • Great suggestion; updated sentence to your version.
  • "Shortly after attending a Delta Upsilon chapter meeting on June 12, 1891, Crane left college for good." This juxtaposition tends to imply causation; was the meeting the cause of his departure from college? If so, can you say why? If not, I think a rephrase might be in order; perhaps "He attended a Delta Upsilon chapter meeting on June 12, 1891, but shortly afterwards left college for good."
    • The meeting itself didn't spur the end of his college career, so I've implemented your suggestion.
  • Lily Munroe's "family opposed the match because Crane lacked money and prospects": these seem odd reasons to oppose when she was married. Was there really serious discussion of her getting a divorce, and the family was involved in those discussions? If you're following your sources, then I guess it's OK, but I'm surprised -- I thought in those days divorce was both hard to get and scandalous if achieved.
    • Munroe and her husband had been estranged for several years before she met Crane, and she eventually divorced him in the late 1890s. She then remarried soon after. I think the less money you had the less scandalous a divorce was. :) I've added that they were estranged, so hopefully this makes more sense now?

      I thought of the money issue, but a family likely to oppose because of Crane's prospects seems reasonably likely to be middle-class, so I think it needed a fix. What you've done works fine. Mike Christie (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The description of the typewritten title page of Maggie indicates that it said "Stephen Crane", but then a line or two later you say that Crane used the pseudonym "Johnston Smith". Am I missing something?
    • Gah, that was just a silly mixup on my part; Wertheim says that the typewritten title page that includes Crane's name is from the LOC copyright application, while Johnston Smith was of course used initially for publication. I've fixed it, sorry about that.
  • The description of how the publication of The Black Riders was arranged doesn't explicitly say that publication was delayed till after the publication of The Red Badge of Courage. The sequence, if I have it right, is that he first gets a publisher to accept Black Riders; then he writes and publishes Red Badge, and gets some acclaim for it; then Black Riders appears. I think it would make it easier on the reader if you point out at the earlier mention of Black Riders that it would not appear until after his next work was already in print.
    • Good idea; done.
  • "foundered off the coast of Florida for a day and a half": not sure what you intend here -- perhaps "floundered"? -- but "founder" means to sink, which is evidently not correct.
    • Quite right; changed to "floundered".
  • "He undergoes the threat of death, misery and a loss of self." I'm not sure of the meaning here, but should this be "threats" rather than "threat"?
    • I'm fairly certain that "the threat of death" is correct here, but to make it more clear I've changed "undergoes" to "experiences".
  • "this story keeps me in internal despair": is it known which story Crane is referring to here? It seems to be The Little Regiment, but the lead-in to the quote refers to "these tales", so I'm not sure.
    • The quote was written in an 1895 letter, during the time he was writing The Little Regiment, but it doesn't refer to a singular story, no. I think by "this story" he means war, but if this isn't clear I could always just remove the quote?

      If the ambiguity is his, not yours, I think it can stay. If you can think of an effective way to indicate that it isn't clear what the referent of "this story" is, do add it, but I'll strike the objection regardless.

  • "John Berryman's 1950 biography of Crane similarly established him as an important American author." What is the similarity to? To the establishment of Crane by the earlier scholarly work? I don't quite follow, if so: if he was already established, how could he be established by Berryman's biography? Or did his reputation fade again?
    • I believe I meant that Crane's importance was further established by Berryman's bio; reworded to say as much.
  • There's no list of works, nor a link to an article listing them; nor does the "Primary Sources" section appear to be complete. I think a link to a Bibliography of Stephen Crane wouldn't hurt, perhaps at the top of the "Primary Sources" section, or in a "See Also" section, though I try to avoid needing those.
    • "Primary sources" are the works I actually used as sources; it's not meant to be a list of works. I'll see if I can stick something together, although time may be an issue for me.
  • It's usually recommended that images alternate from left to right, for variety. You do this towards the end of the article, but not at the top. It doesn't have to be rigid -- you can choose whether the quotes count as images, for example, and issues of the direction a portrait is facing may overrule the sequence -- but I think you have too many in a row on the right side.
    • I moved one of the quoteboxes to the left, but you're right in that left-facing portraits and Sandy's note from above have kind of tied my hands as to where the images can go. If you can think of anything else to switch around, be my guest!
  • Regarding the infobox, I agree that one is not needed.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful comments and copy-edits, Mike. I greatly appreciate the insight. Let me know if there's anything else you can think of, and I'll see if I can work on a LOW. María (habla conmigo) 12:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've added a short section of selected works by Crane here, and have begun work on the full article at List of works by Stephen Crane. This will be a WIP for some time, however, as "prolific" doesn't begin to cover it. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What you've done seems fine to me; the article listing his works obviously has a long way to go, but that's not this article's problem. I have switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I gave a peer review for this article. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

 :)

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:58, 21 October 2008 [54].

---

Iridium

Nominator(s): Itub, Nergaal, Stone, WikiProject Elements

Comments are very welcome, and also, please write your opinion weather the article should use primarily SI units or ounces. Thanks, and you probably want to put your savings into this! Nergaal (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• As a dinosaur nut and writer of Chicxulub Crater, I approve of this article! :P Images:
  • Image:Fountain-pen-nib.jpg - source of the image/author?
  • All the other images have source/license/author and other relevant information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I left a question at the talk page of the user who originally uploaded the image. --Itub (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Status on the image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't reply. I've tried to find an alternate free image with no sucess. --Itub (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

this? Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Contacted BenFrantzDale, the uploader back in 2005, waiting for respose!--Stone (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The image linked to by Nergaal is nice, but not free (the page with the copyright info is [55]). I suggest removing the image and if the uploader ever replies we can add it again. --Itub (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: the original uploader has updated the information box stating that he is the author.[56],[57] --Itub (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very good article; great coverage and an interesting read. COI - I brought this article from stub to start class just under 6 years ago but others have brought it through B class. Itub and Nergaal along with other members of WikiProject Elements started to expand and improve this article to A-class starting in mid-September. By the time I came in, there was very little to add so I submitted this to A-class review and it passed. Since then, the article has further improved and I now think it meets FA criteria. --mav (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 58 (Organic Light Emitting Diodes) is lacking a last access date. Also this looks to be a reprint of an article in a publication, could we list what publication it is?
• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as NIST in the references

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

done Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Very well written, with many complicated topics explained in simple terms yet accurately. One suggestion though: introduce complex paragraphs with a topic sentence, as in this diff. --Una Smith (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SupportComments :

1) Please, explain what siderophilic character mentioned in the lead (and further in the text) means—readers may not know this;

2) Abundance of Iridium is by mass or by atom numbers ?

3) In the Occurance section I read "the large copper–nickel deposits near Norilsk in Russia, and the Sudbury Basin, Canada with its large ore deposits are the two other large deposits". Sorry, I do not understand the last part of this sentence;

4) "Total world reserve amounts have not been estimated."—the date should be included here;

5) "All the platinum group metals end up as alloys with raw nickel or raw copper." There is a tag after this sentence. I agree it should be clarified.

6) In the Production section I read "After ruthenium and osmium have been removed, iridium is separated by precipitating". Please, explain how ruthenium and osmium are removed.

7) The irridium coatings are used not only in astronomy, but generally in grazing incidence X-ray optics. This should be mentioned.

8) "enantioselectively" should be explained.

9) Returning to the lead. The first sentence reads "Iridium (pronounced /ɪˈrɪdiəm/) is a chemical element that has the symbol Ir...". It is a bit strange to define a chemical element as one that has a particular symbol.

I am inclined to support this article, as do not see any serious problems except those I mentioned above. Ruslik (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to address (3) and (5). Can someone check to make sure what I wrote is accurate? I don't have access to the Xiao article. Also, I'm not sure why (9) is an issue. The first one or two sentences of an element article always describe the symbol and the atomic mass. See hydrogen, xenon, yttrium, francium, all of which are currently featured. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to address 1, 2, and 9. Can you suggest a good reference for 7 (grazing incidence X-ray optics)? --Itub (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ref for 7? Ziegler,, E. (2001). "High-efficiency tunable X-ray focusing optics using mirrors and laterally-graded multilayers". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment. 467–468: 954–957. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00533-2. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

You can also cite this, this and this. Ruslik (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(5) and (8) are done Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(4) Changed Total world reserve to By 2003 the total world reserve--Stone (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(6) There are several methods possible, if starting from aqua regina solution, iridosmium or zinc preciptate of the platinum, paladium separation. The exact methods used by the companies are secret, so old methods or text book answers are possible. I try to find a good one.--Stone (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(7) Changed to Another use concerns X-ray optics, especially X-ray telescopes. with the ref given above.--Stone (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you probably forgot to change it actually? Ruslik (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Save did not work sorry!--Stone (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase "After ruthenium and osmium have been removed". After looking in more detail at the references (especially Ullmann's) I found that it is not always true; as the order of removal of each elements varies from process to process. --Itub (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The ref I used is not the newest, but it states that ruthenium and osmium are removed by destilling of the volotile tetroxide. Hunt, L. B. (1969). "Availability of the Platinum Metals". Platinum Metals Review. 13 (4): 126–138. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) .--Stone (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

They usually are, although ruthenium can also be separated as K2RuO4 in at least one process. What varies a lot is the order of separation, which depends largely on the composition of the mixture. For example, in one of the six processes described in Ullmann's, RuO4 is separated first when the source has high ruthenium content, but last when it has low ruthenium content. All this makes for very interesting reading, but I think it would detract from the focus of the iridium article. I think it is better to add all these details to the platinum group article where the entire process(es) can be discussed. --Itub (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding this information as a note to this article too. Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Question are accessdates for stuff that is not in a journal (i.e. has no doi but has a link) but is some sort of review by a governmental authority (such as USGS) necessary, and as such can they use a journal-type reference? Nergaal (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support otherwise tight and crisp, the prose is repetitive in places but by necessity as it is information-dense (i.e. very hard to remove any without introducing ambiguity). I managed a couple tweaks and there may be a couple more but no deal-breakers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I've been keeping this article on my watchlist and continually reviewing it, and I haven't found anything to fix for a while. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:58, 21 October 2008 [58].

---

Joking Apart

Nominator: The JPS (talk)

previous FAC (00:24, 24 April 2008)

It's comprehensive, stable, well referenced, neutral, etc. Non-free images with full rationales, and a couple of free images too. Since its last nomination, it has undergone an extensive copyedit by User:Gosgood (whose skill and politeness are highly appreciated). The JPS^{talk to me} 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, the opening section ends with "The first series was released in May 2006, and the second on 17 March 2008." I think this refers to the DVD release, I would have thought that the broadcast dates would be more relevant, perhaps with "and subsequently released on DVD". ϢereSpielChequers 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also is Johnathon Barlow a mispelling of Jonathan Barlow? I know there are some people who spell the name Jonathon, but I've never heard of a Johnathon. ϢereSpielChequers 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations and tweaks. I've removed the sentence with the DVD release dates as it is probably too much detail for the lead. I've kept the "One fan acquired the rights..." sentence, though, as there is a significant chunk of the article about that. You're right about Jonathon: checked the credits, and corrected. Tweaked the lead slightly to incorporate the years of broadcast (exact date within the article). The JPS^{talk to me} 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's my points finished, good luck with the FAC. ϢereSpielChequers 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/comedy/jokingapart.htm (ref #2) a reliable source?

• As covered in the first FAC, the author of this article, Graham Kibble-White, is an established writer (a lot of results on Amazon.co.uk) The JPS^{talk to me} 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is http://www.richardherring.com/press/press.php?id=10 (ref #9) reliable?

• The article was first published in The Guardian, and is reprinted on the official website of its author. Richard Herring is a well established writer and broadcaster. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.sci-fi-online.com/2008_reviews/dvd/08-03-17_jokingapart1.htm (ref #21) reliable?

  As with the other review sites below, these are magazine-style sites. They do not seem to fall into Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources, especially since what they are being used to support is not controversial. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ditto with http://www.sci-fi-online.com/2008_reviews/dvd/08-03-17_jokingapart2.htm (ref #40)

• As with the same site's series one review, it does not seem to breech WP:RS, particularly as it does not supporting any controversial/BLP issues. The JPS^{talk to me}

• Another: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67220 (ref #45).

• Clearly a self-reference is unacceptable. I'm confused, though, as neither #45 or the surrounding ones point to this? The JPS^{talk to me} 08:05, 10

• Sorry, I posted the wrong URL. The correct one is http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67220 –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, OK. My answer above covers all of the review links. They don't seem to breech WP:RS, particularly as they are not supporting any controversial/BLP issues. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67219 (ref #58) reliable?

• Does not seem to breech WP:RS, particularly as it does not supporting any controversial/BLP issues. The JPS^{talk to me}
  • Okay, seems fine then. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite episode}}, or a variation.

  Do you know where the instance of this is, as I can't see it (a 'search' in Notebook shows no results). I see it's on the list of templates on the bottom, but I don't think it's in the actual text? The JPS^{talk to me} 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the only one that uses {{citation}} is ref #55. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notebook must have been lying to me. Changed to cite magazine. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The show attracted a small audience because of scheduling problems, yet it scored highly on the Appreciation Index and it accrued a loyal fanbase."
• "One fan acquired the rights from the BBC and released both series on his own DVD label." What type of rights?
• "Separating from his wife, Moffat was going through a difficult period and aspects of it colored his creative output." Add an "As he was" to the beginning of that sentence.
• "Moffat scripted all sorts of unfortunate things for the Magboy character, such as having a typewriter drop on his foot."-->Moffat scripted unfortunate situations for the Magboy character, such as having a typewriter drop on his foot.
• "Various episodes of Coupling played with structure, such as the fourth series episode "9½ Minutes" which showed the same events from three perspectives." The episodes didn't play with the structure, did they?
• "Mark is quick-witted, and the stand-up sequences serve to show that he thinks in one-liners."-->Mark is quick-witted, and the stand-up indicate that he thinks in one-liners.
• "They have a baby, which is seen or referred to occasionally." "which"-->who.
• "We are shown Becky and Mark's first date, and then going back to her flat." No first person pronouns should be used in articles.
• "In his overview of Moffat's celebrated Press Gang, Paul Cornell says that..." I would change says to said to keep the tense consistent in the paragraph.
• "While the transmission of series two was still being delayed by BBC 2 controller Michael Jackson" Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for these helpful copyediting comments. I highly value how you have taken the time to offer alternatives. I've enacted all of your suggestions, apart from the Coupling comparison. The first series of JA plays with narrative structure, albeit less gimmicky than Coupling. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The pilot from Comic Asides is also included on Disc 2, along with a complete set of Series Two script pdfs..." Write the full name for "pdfs" on its first appearance.
• "The second series followed a more linear structure, though retaining the stand-up sequences."-->The second series followed a more linear structure, although it retained the stand-up sequences.
• "Mark meets Becky in a newsagents"—A typo? Needs a comma after "newsagents" or whatever that word is supposed to be.
• "It is practically identical to the first episode of the series proper: some scenes are even reused, notably the scene with Mark and Becky meeting when he accidentally turns up at a funeral." Colon needs to be a semicolon.
• "The reused footage gives rise to the first episode's shared director credit between Spiers and Kilby." Change "give" to gave for tense consistency within the paragraphs. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the second batch. Done all, about from 'newsagents', which is a legitimate word in British English for a specific type of shop: Newsagents#United_Kingdom. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

comment - this is an odd article it has a number of excellent free images complete with OTRS tags, which is very good. However with the exception of the infobox image, I can see none of the remaining non-free images meeting WP:NFCC, and thus meeting Featured arcticle criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely like to keep Image:Joking Apart - Robert Bathurst.jpg since it's an image that opens nearly every episode and is referred to within the article. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, NFCC#3 states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." A title screenshot is completely different in nature to an image of the major characters, and it is very unlikely that all the characters appear in one frame (with the exception of copyrighted publicity material). The article talks extensively about these characters, and it is important for them to be shown to completely fulfill the FAC#2 criteria of being "comprehensive" to a reader who probably hasn't seen this series. Bob talk 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed two of the images. Not that it'll make much difference. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's comments based on this version

• "The show attracted a small audience because of scheduling problems" - IMO, the current wording suggests the problems were what earned it its audience. That's probably not what you intend to say.
• "Moffat scripted unfortunate situations for the Magboy character, such as having a typewriter drop on his foot." - reading the first part of the sentence, I expected something more dramatic, especially the context it's put in (breaking up with wife, etc.)
• "Recording for the first series of six episodes began on location in the first half of April 1992[11] and were mainly filmed in Chelsea within a short distance from the director's home" - read literally, the "were" refers to "recording"... needs a slight reword.
• "were normally pretty quick" - a bit too informal for an encyclopedia, IMO
• Some words like editing, tightening, recording, etc. should be wikilinked at least once
• Are you saying you don't know the title of the article for ref 18? (David Gritten, Daily Telegraph)
• I doubt the images in the Characters section meet WP:NFCC#8
• "she 'wins' an impromptu one-liner contest" - should those be proper quotation marks?
• "They are initially Becky's friends, but they become friends with Mark too" --> "They are initially Becky's friends, but soon befriend Mark" or something like that
• "which, according to the writer, he now admits that he was wrong" - doesn't make sense, remove the "that he" and see if that works

Giggy (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for these. I've enacted most. I'm leaving the Magboy one: "unfortunate" is a tame word that I don't think invites high drama. 'Having a typewriter dropped on one's foot is unfortunate: whereas it might be somewhat of an understatement if it were more dramatic. I've wikilinked editing: the other terms you mention don't have appropriate articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support per above comments. Giggy (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, has been thoroughly reviewed and revised by all concerned, and appears comprehensive and readable. Bob talk 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I've watched the time and effort that The JPS and others have put into this article to turn it into an example of just how we should (but don't) do articles on television series. This is now the cream of the crop of TV-related articles and certainly rivals other FAs in terms of Wikipedia's criteria. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 20:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 19 October 2008 [59].

---

Volcanism on Io

Nominator(s): Volcanopele (talk); Huntster (talk)

This article has just gone through a peer review, improving the quality of the citations, and conforming this article to WP:MOS. Peer review also greatly improved the prose. --Volcanopele (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as LPSC in the references.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have spelled out the first instance of each journal (and LPSC), and used abbreviations for later references for GRL and JGR (Geophys. Res. Lett. and J. Geophys. Res., common abbreviations used in journal references). --Volcanopele (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this very interesting article back in mid-September and all my concerns were addressed. In my opinion it now meets the criteria to be a FA. - Yohhans ^talk 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak support—I reviewed this article when it was in Peer Review and I have no doubt that it satisfies all FA-criteria except may be 1a. I think some sentences are too complicated and some words are used too often ('lava', for instance, or 'flow'). A copy-edit may be necessary. Ruslik (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you any suggestions of what to replace those words with? They are more technical terms, and have no ready synonyms that I can identify. Yes, there are quite a few technical ideas, but this is a science-oriented article, and I don't think this can be avoided. Wikilinks abound for the more confusing stuff, while care has been taken to avoid overlinking. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand this, but some use of "lava" is clearly excessive. Two exemples: "Ionian lava lakes are depressions partially filled with molten lava covered by a thin crust of cooled, solidified lava". I think it can be written simply as "Ionian lava lakes are depressions partially filled with molten lava covered by a thin solidified crust." It is clear that the crust is made of solidified lava. Another example "These lava lakes are directly connected to a magma reservoir lying below the lava lake." Why not to change it to "These lava lakes are directly connected to a magma reservoir lying below." It is quite obvious that the reservior is below the lake. Ruslik (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to remove the number instances of the word lava in the article to reduce redundancy. The problem results from the lack of synonyms that would be recognizable by the layman. But you are correct, simply rearranging some sentences can help. I have also added your two suggested edits. --Volcanopele (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I copy-edited the article myself. However further copy-edit may be necessary. I also struck "weak" in my support. Ruslik (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I tweaked a bit, and there is still a little repetition but I found it extremely hard to remove more without losing meaning. Prose good I think now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Fascinating article, well-written and well-sourced, plus excellent imagery. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support—Overall good work: I didn't find any significant weaknesses or issues, and it appears to satisfy the FA criteria. However, it does seems a little goofy to me to say "2,000 K (1,730 °C/3,140 °F)", with the Kelvin temperature rounded off to a single digit while there are three digits for centigrade and fahreheit. You might want to add a '|sigfig=2' parameter to the convert template in those cases.—RJH (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've fixed this by rounding to the hundreds position for those numbers which were ambiguous. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 19 October 2008 [60].

---

Antbird

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk

It gives me pleasure to present the latest WP:BIRD offering, Antbird. I was prompted to begin expanding the article after being impressed by the great photos of antbirds provided by Mdf (one of which is now featured) and subsequently found them to be a fascinating family that deserve to be better known outside the narrow field of ornithology. I feel the article has plenty of good references, some magnificent photos and the prose has been picked over by multiple eyes (for which I am very grateful). I hope you can support its elevation to the big time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sources look good, as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment—needs a copy-edit. Here are examples from the lead alone.

• Start Para 2 with "As ...".
• Remove "the" before "pattern".
• You've already established "species" alone, so I'd not spell it out in the third para.
• Feeding and stories/canopies: are you referring to individuals or species when you say "most"?

You're not realising that some things are unclear to those who are not so close to the subject matter. Tony (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the last point, and I have had many people look through, though apparently not enough. I will make another pass and try and find more people to look through it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by You've already established "species" alone, so I'd not spell it out in the third para.? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources and links look good. Might be nice to note the two links that would require a subscription. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• On sources: I also looked at the sources and found 24 citation links to Handbook of the Birds of the World. That's quite a lot. I get nervous when I use a source for 5 citations. Can you explain why you depended so much on this source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs)

Yes I can. This is an article about an entire family, not a single species, as such it needs to draw support for statements not just pertaining to individual species (which is the more usual focus of journal articles) and support sweeping statements about the family. Where possible I have supported these statements with journal articles, but there are circumstances where that is not possible, and HBW is the only treatment of the entire family that is comprehensive enough for the purposes of this article. I don't see this as being a problem when the series continues to receive accolade after accolade for its comprehensiveness, accuracy and depth, I consider it the best source available for writing family articles about birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction, there is another book that deals with the family, an out of print 1996 book which is undoubtedly good (the author is a major authority on the family) but is not in any of my local bookstores (and I don't think in the libraries either). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone with a fair level of background knowledge of the subject, I will turn it around: I would have been far more concerned if HBW vol. 8 had not been quoted widely in this article, as it - by far - is the most complete and comprehensive collection of information about this family. The book by Skutch, while excellent for its time, has become rather out-dated (the level of knowledge of this family has been greatly expanded since then), and, as could be expected considering the main author, primarily focuses on the Central American species (that's only ~1/10 of the species in this family). • Rabo³ • 09:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my opinion to confirm both SS and Rabo - HBW, and the HANZAB books for birds in my neck of the woods are terrific aggregations of the sum of knowledge to date and should form the basis of any bird Featured Article. Now to have a look... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Me too - multiple refs to HBW are essential and inevitable jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CommentSupport Oppose due to a few issues, the main one being missing content. --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Morphology. Although these antbirds are not notably colorful, aren't the females usually more colorful than the males, a notable reversal of the normal pattern of dimorphism in birds?

I wouldn't phrase it as a reversal of trends as they are both muted, but there is a sticking pattern (males tending to blacks and whites, females to browns and buffs) which I have now included. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi from NM-PLANTS, Una. Are you by any chance referring to the fact that in some genera, female plumages are more diagnostic of species than males? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Systematics. From context, sometimes it is unclear what "the family" refers to: Thamnophilidae, Formicariidae, or "expanded" Formicariidae (including Thamnophilidae?).

I have tried to clarify that. Better? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Breeding. There used to be considerable interest in the nests of certain antbirds, as a possible shared trait with ovenbirds. Some other traits are of similar interest, eg the leaf tossing of some species. This article needs a (brief) discussion of the phylogeny within the family, and of the family and its sibling taxa. If the phylogeny is much in dispute, then a review of what points are and are not in dispute would be appropriate. (This would extend the Systematics section beyond the taxonomy that is given there now).

I will have to pick up some pages tomorrow to work on this, I had read about it but didn't really consider it essential. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick update, I am reading the stuff on this and thinking about how best to include it. I remain unconvinced that this article is the best place to discuss the phylogeny of the family in anything other than the broadest strokes as we have a detailed list of antbirds that can deal with many of the more detailed aspects of the relations within the family. It is a large family with a lot of uncertain relationships that is still being untangled. I'd appreciate further thoughts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Such a discussion does not belong on list of antbirds. At present, this article does not achieve broad strokes re phylogeny in and of this interesting family. --Una Smith (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am flexible about this and am not going to argue the point until I hear more from you on this, and where other people think it has to be too. I simply need to understand further where you think this article needs to be. There are over 200 species and 45 genera, some of which are polyphyletic. In some genera uncertainty abounds. Are you asking for a blow-by-blow account of where each genus stands? Does each of these genera needs supporting arguments for why it belongs where it is based on morphological, behavioural and genetic work? What level of resolution are you expecting? And why is LOA the wrong place for this? To my mind this is a lot of information that is of passing interest to most readers. Most readers (and quite frankly most editors) have no familiarity with the genera involved, and saying that Antbirdia is possibly closely related to Antshrikia 45 times is notable but perhaps too much information for this article. I'm not saying we shouldn't have this, I just am not convinced this is the best place for it. I am amenable to being convinced otherwise. And of course, this may not even be what you are asking for, which is why I am seeking the clarification. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing so elaborate. There are books about "ovenbirds and antbirds" yet this article does not mention how (if) the two groups are related. See Ovenbird (family) for an example of a brief precis of the current understanding of a group's phylogeny. --Una Smith (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Took me a while to catch on by I think I've got it now. Just need to deal with the nest bit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have been reading more on the nests. The nesting similarities between closely related species and clades is suspected and supported anecdotally, but has not been subjected to a thorough review as it has for the ovenbirds. It is at present a promising avenue of future research Other behavioural clues to phylogeny have been examined but not over the whole family, and as such may serve to support or contradict morphological or genetic studies, but not yet suggest its own rival phylogeny. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, that's the idea. The Systematics section is better now, but now I can see a problem with the article title, Antbird. "Antbird" can refer to the Thamnophilidae, the Formicariidae sensu stricto, or the combined Formicariidae sensu lato. In this article, "antbird" mostly refers to the Thamnophilidae, but in the Systematics section that still is not clear. I have tried to make it clear in the first paragraph, but in the second paragraph there is at least one instance of "antbird" that I am almost sure refers to Formicariidae sensu lato. Please do a sanity check of "antbird" throughout the article. Also, consider renaming the article to something less ambiguous such as Antbird (typical) or Thamnophilidae, and making Antbird a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose a move, as the ground antbirds seem destined to get split into antthrushes and antpittas, leaving the antbirds as the only group that retains the name, and I have a strong preference, where possible, to use the simplest name possible. I will do a run through and check that any mention of antbird means Thamnophilidae. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the text. To make things easier to follow I have simply called the Formicariidae (in today's sense) the antthrushes and antpittas. I have also put in a sentence stating that any following use of antbird refers to the family Thamnophilidae. Hopefully this diminishes the confusion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Systematics section still had some highly ambiguous grammatical refs and tortured syntax, so I worked it over. I think it reads better now, but please check that I did not introduce errors. --Una Smith (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The change didn't introduce any errors; I removed the citation requested tag as it was the same study as the reference at the end of the preceding sentence. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• It still bothers me that the article title is Antbirds. The family includes antwrens, ... antbirds, antshrikes. How about moving the article to Antbird family? --Una Smith (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We have the family article at cuckoo even though some are known as koels and coucals, parrot is the order article even though some are parakeets or conures or cockatoos, Old World babbler even though some are laughingthrushes or mesias or wren-babblers. A peppershrike is a viero, a shrike-tit is a whistler (probably) Rock Wren isn't actually a wren. Common names and common sense aren't always hand in hand, and like I said I think there is value in keeping article titles as simple as possible. And the common name for the family as a whole is antbird. A antwren is an antbird as much as a shoveler is a duck, a shag is a cormorant, a puffin or murre or auklet or guilemot is an auk, a triller is a cuckoo shrike, a go-away-bird is a turaco, a coot is a rail, a Fieldfare is a thrush or a Tui or a chat is a honeyeater. If there is a problem with this article is named as it is it goes way beyond just this article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (COI) I did the GA review for this, and since then it has been formally peer-reviewed and informally commented and improved by many project members. I agree with SS on the level of detail in phylogeny, and to me this article is one of the best bird articles I have seen in coverage, depth of research and prose. I have no significant issues jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (COI) (conditional on below) I have looked over this several times; I feel the prose is crisp and the content comprehensive. Una does have a point in taxonomy and a sentence or two clarifying may be of use:

::The antbirds are now thought to occupy a fairly basal position with regard to their relatives, the ground antbirds, tapaculos and gnateaters.

this sentence is a little unclear as to how the groups are related - is formicariidae the sister group or much more distantly related? Worth pointing out as they were once classified in same family. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I have clarified that. It took me a while to see what Una was driving at by I think I've got it now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (no COI)... seems to me to meet all the criteria. Giggy (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comments "As small birds with rounded wings and strong legs, antbirds have mostly sombre grey, white, brown and rufous plumage." - does that mean all small birds with rounded wings and strong legs have sombre ... plumage ?
  • "Most have heavy bills, which in many species are hooked at the end." - which end? tip may be better.
  • "Some species communicate warnings to each other." - each other of the same species or across species.
  • "the loudsong and the softsong" - are these terms standard ? If so maybe good to italicize on first usage to indicate the novelty of the words.
  • Would be good if the citation templates are used. This makes wikipedia amenable to meta-analysis such as citation counts etc.

Shyamal (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed the points you made - softsong and loudsong are neogolisms used by workers and found in the texts I worked with which is why I included them. I didn't change the citations; I loathe the citation templates. If someone else wants to change them I will not stop them but (last time I checked) they are not required and until they are I will choose not to use them unless an article already overwhelming uses them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A family of birds I will probably never meet. I agree that the citation templates are still rather intrusive, but I can also see great advantages to it.(See http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/5582/pdf/imm5582.pdf) By having central control it can also have values beyond in the future like perhaps allowing the user to choose preferences in citation style such as APA, MLA and so on. Shyamal (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 19 October 2008 [61].

---

Khalid al-Mihdhar

Nominator(s): --Aude (talk)

With help from User:Sherurcij, I have put extensive work into getting this article about one of the 9/11 hijackers ready for FAC. The article is now fully referenced, with reliable sources, comprehensive, edited for MOS, images tagged, and copyedited to get it up to what I believe are FAC standards. Of course, I welcome review and comments here. --Aude (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I did some cleanup of the linking and other issues with wording...will resume this endeavour over the next few days.--MONGO 23:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/911/la-na-plot-1sep01.story (ref #6 is dead)
• Ref 6 is also formatted oddly.
• Many of the references appear to be formatted in varying styles. Try to stick to one. For example, why do some contain publication dates, while many others don't?
• Page range in ref #22 needs an en dash.
• http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Hijackers_Timeline_OCR.pdf (ref 13) is a wiki, and thus is not reliable.
• Otherwise sources seem to be fine. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed ref #6 and #22, and looking at the publication dates. For the timeline, the site uses mediawiki but it's only open to the site owner. The timeline was sent to him from the FBI via FOIA request, as well as to others including historycommons.org [62], and NEFA Foundation [63] so it can be corroborated and deemed reliable. As well, the FBI has been very forthcoming with these documents, and the timeline is one available on request directly from the FBI, if one wants further verification. So, I'm convinced that it is a reliable source. --Aude (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried fixing more references and adding dates. The only ones that are different are two that are to wikisource documents. I'm not sure how to handle these as citations. Also, I should note that as a wiki, I know they might not be reliable. Counterargument in this case is that both wikisource references are alongside another reference, so the wikisource documents are more or less redundant and added information. If there are other references that I missed or need formatting tweaked, please let me know. I'm not always good at spotting these. --Aude (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, referring to "Ref number X" does nothing for me when it comes time to sort the FAC. A week after the fact, I have no way of knowing if current Ref #6 or Ref # 22 are the same refs referred to when the comment was written, since Wiki articles are dynamic and ref nos. change. Can y'all please sort for me what is resolved ? On the Wiki timeline concern, why not just link to nefafoundation.org instead of a Wiki? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The only issue with linking to the NEFA Foundation is that they posted their timeline within the past month, whereas I got my copy from 911myths earlier, in February 2008. Though, they are the same documents, so I went ahead and changed the link. As for the refs, #6 was the Los Angeles Times article. The link was broken, so I de-linked it. The article is still valid and available from Lexis Nexis and other sources. Ref #22 was the "Inside 9-11" book by Der Spiegel. I adjusted the dash, though if Julian wants to check my changes, that is of course fine with me. --Aude (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. My only concern is with the images which have pixel sizes and with the "<nowiki>

" used above the "Aftermath" section. See if you can do without those. I also prefer not mixing in notes (like refs 1 and 2) with the rest of the citations, see if that can be done in a notes section (like Washington, D.C.) or incorporated into text.--Patrick «» 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi...I was kinda silly to use that break spacing but only did so to keep the next section header from being overrun by the image and its caption. I could have simply moved the image up slightly in its section.--MONGO 01:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried right aligning the image. I know we like to stagger them right and left, but putting the image on the left was causing problems and blank space for me. Also, I tweaked the notes and made them into references, with use of the "quote" field to add a small note. I hope this works okay. I don't think it's reasonable to have a notes section separate, for just two notes. I'm open to other ideas. --Aude (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a few dates that might be confusing...maybe some sort of standardization is needed...in some instances we have just a month and year, and others we have the month and date without the year. I'll check MOS to see what, if anything is needed here.--MONGO 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was of the thinking that all refs should be at the end of a sentence...but not sure if this has changed. There are a few instances in which (maybe a good idea for fact checking) I see refs in the middle of a sentence.--MONGO 02:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from jimfbleak Khalid al-Mihdhar (Arabic: خالد المحضار, also transliterated Almihdhar) Two points

• why do we need the Arabic on en-wiki?
• perhaps more importantly, if Almihdhar is the transliteration, what is al-Mihdhar? It certainly doesn't look like an Anglicisation. Is there any point having what appear to be two different transliterations?

• jimfbleak (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a point to displaying the alternate transliterations: like Halacha, Halocho, Halakha are different versions of הלכה. Similar to Hebrew, I don't think that Arabic vowels are vocalized in text; hence, writers may use differing Roman vowels to represent the sound. It could cause confusion for a reader unfamiliar with transliteration. A young reader may not grasp immediately that, despite spelling differences, the names refer to the same person. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the Arabic script should be retained for the subject's name. The English transliteration is, at best, an approximation of his name. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that providing the Arabic is a standard MOS thing that is done across Wikipedia. The reason I see for doing this is that only with the Arabic written, can one really know how his name is pronounced. Four of the Arabic letters are for sounds that we don't have in English. This is especially important for the first "h" and the "d" sounds in Mihdhar, where Arabic has two variations of the "h" sound (ه and ح)and there is a "d" - د sound like English and a "d" - ض , which is a hard, deeper/emphasized pronunciation. The second h in "Mihdhar" is not pronounced, but rather the "dh" is to indicate the hard "d" sound. Also, the kh - خ is different than anything in English, and the ر "r" is trilled like in Spanish. For benefit of readers who know Arabic script, it's a good idea to go ahead and provide the Arabic script so they know what his name really is. Furthermore, with the Arabic script, one can go out on Google or elsewhere and search for Arabic language material about him. --Aude (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As for alternative transliterations, "al-Mihdhar" is most commonly used, though "Almihdhar" has also been used fairly often (e.g. FBI press release). I think it's a good idea to provide all the commonly used variations, which helps people who want to search for information on him. As well, I think providing alternative transliterations are common practice on Wikipedia, per WP:MOSAR. --Aude (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

4 quick Comments

• Is it possible for current citation #3 (9/11 comm. report, Chapter 5) to be more precise? Chapter 5 is long and I notice that the chapters are broken into subsections. In the absence of page numbers, could you cite the subsection (e.g. section 5.3)?
• There is a lot going on in this sentence (1st section, 1st para): "In 1997, al-Mihdhar told his family that he was leaving to fight in Chechnya;although that year both men caught the attention of Saudi intelligence, who believed they were involved in arms smuggling, and the following year were again eyed as possible collaborators in the United States embassy bombings in East Africa" Any way we can simplify it?
• Suggestion: what do you think of changing this: "During a 1999 meeting in Riyadh, the Saudi Intelligence service notified their CIA counterparts that Mihdhar and Hazmi were involved with Al-Qaeda. to this: During a 1999 meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Intelligence notified the CIA of Midhar and Hazmi's involvement with Al-Qaeda?
• Likewise: In late 1999, the NSA picked up a conversation which mentioned an upcoming meeting in Malaysia involving "Khalid", "Nawaf", and "Salem", and informed the CIA to this: "In late 1999 the NSA informed the CIA of an upcoming meeting involving...."? (Malaysia Summit, 1st para)

That's all I have time for at the moment, hopefully this helps. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I made changes based on your comments. --Aude (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding criterion three:
  • Image:KAlmihdhar.JPG - purpose of "This photograph was widely circulated after the September 11 attacks by the FBI" is, in fact, not a purpose. WP:NFCC#10C requires a detailed, relevant purpose. NFCC#10A requires attribution of the copyright holder.
  • Image:HotelAddress.jpg - is not correctly tagged. This is not the work of a federal government employee. Mere use in a federal report does not transfer copyrights to the government nor does it release copyrights.
  • Image:Dulles khalidalmihdhar.jpg - does not appear to be contributing significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8) and/or appears freely replaceable (NFCC#1). The purpose of "To illustrate that Khalid al-Mihdhar and other hijackers were at Dulles International Airport on September 11, 2001, on their way to board American Airlines Flight 77 and carry out the September 11, 2001 attacks" seems inadequate. What understanding of the topic do we gain from this? Doesn't prose tell us they were at the airport (isn't it common sense, as they hijacked the plane)? What understanding does the visual impart above and beyond the prose? "This video footage was used in the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui" is irrelevant to this article; Moussaoui isn't even mentioned once. No copyright holder is attributed. Эlcobbola _talk 19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I added more detailed descriptions and rationales for use for the drivers license photo and security camera image. For the ID card, I have to say that it would be PD-ineligible. It's a forgery of an official US government document, and I highly doubt that the fake ID makers can claim copyright. Nor would such claims hold up since Mohamed el-Atriss, the owner of All Services Plus which made/sold the ID, pleaded guilty for selling this and other false documents. I have updated the image page to clarify this. --Aude (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic images have been removed; no remaining image concerns. Эlcobbola _talk 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

image questions Why after it being asserted that the photograph contained in Image:HotelAddress.jpg is PD, yet the non-free Image:KAlmihdhar.JPG is used to show what the subject looks like, as there is no free alternative? How do you know Image:HotelAddress.jpg is PD. How does Image:Dulles_khalidalmihdhar.jpg significantly increse the readers' understanding? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I took out the fake ID. I'm not sure enough that it would be public domain, and not sure how official it is as government document. The drivers' license photo circulated by the FBI is most clear when it comes to knowing its source. For the security footage, we have a screenshot included now. I would prefer a brief video clip instead of a screenshot, which shows the sequence of events in screening them which the article text refers to. But don't know if brief fair use video clips are permitted. Nonetheless, the still image also helps beyond the text to show how the security screeners did with these two hijackers (which the 9/11 Commission described as "marginal at best"), also show how they were dressed, their demeanor, carry-on items, etc. Furthermore, with all the conspiracy theories out there, there are some people who don't believe that these men were on the flight and carried out the attacks, but here you see they were indeed at the airport. --Aude (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I really cant see Image:Dulles khalidalmihdhar.jpg meeting {{WP:NFCC]]#8, and thus the article fails Featured Article Criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took it out. I think the security camera image (perhaps a different screenshot of the "wanding" of Moqed or Hazmi) would be a better fit on the Flight 77 article. Perhaps it is too tangential to this article. With taking it out, there still is an image in the section of this article. --Aude (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have deleted the Dulles security camera image and the fake ID image, as both nonfree and unused. --Aude (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

criteria 3 now met Fasach Nua (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I am satisfied that this article is an excellent summary of this individual, is accurate in its representation of the known information regarding him and is presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner congruent with FA expectations.--MONGO 07:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Prose issues, particularly much repetition of individual words and phrases. See my recent copy-edits for examples of the kind of work necessary. There's also inconsistency in the rendering of Arabic names: should the "al-" be included or not? I have no idea which is correct, but for instance mostly the subject is called "Mihdhar," but elsewhere he's "al-Mihdhar." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Jbmurray. Spot-check ...

• "and also alerted them"—remove "also".
• "On January 5, Mihdhar traveled on to Kuala Lumpur, where he met up with Hazmi, Attash, and Abu Bara, who were all arriving from Pakistan."—did they arrive before he "met up with" them? And "met" ... "meet".
• "and left a week later on January 15 to travel to the United States"—"and left a week later on January 15 for the United States". Avoids repetition. Tony (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done further copyediting and am seeking an uninvolved editor to go through the article. The few instances referring to "al-Mihdhar" have been changed to just "Mihdhar." I found nothing in the MOS about whether he should be referred to as "al-Mihdhar" or just "Mihdhar". I looked at what the 9/11 Commission Report does, what Lawrence Wright does in his book (referenced in the article), and what Terry McDermott does in his book (also referenced in the article). They all refer to him as "Mihdhar", unless saying his full name, then it's "Khalid al-Mihdhar." --Aude (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update - User:Momoricks has helped out a lot with copyediting, as well as pointing out things for me to clarify and fix. I have gone through and made necessary changes, and additional copyediting has been done since leaving my previous note above. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Have Opposers been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like pestering people, but I could ask them. --Aude (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Left messages with the reviewers. --Aude (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are diffs for the messages left with Jbmurray and Tony1: [64] [65] If there are any outstanding copyediting issues or anything else, please let me know so I can address them. --Aude (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Leaning to support, but "came from a prominent family" at the start cries out for expansion, and the only link I followed, Network analysis at the end, needs disaming. I also wonder if an extra timeline section would make things clearer in this case. I note the outstanding prose opposes above also. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I adjusted the wikilink.
• As for more details about his family, I can't find any, even searching news archive databases like Lexis-Nexis. The only possibility for more details is to Arabic language newspapers (and I do know Arabic), to see if any talked to or provided information about his family. I know that Jamal Khashoggi of Al Watan did good reporting on many of the hijackers, though not sure if that covers Mihdhar. Checking these sources requires going to a library that has an archive of them, which I might be willing to do after working on more hijackers' articles, but not right now.
• Adding a timeline? "in this case"? I'm not sure what you have in mind. Can you please point me to another article that is an example? or try to clarify.
• I believe that opposes above regarding prose have been addressed. Another user has helped out a lot in the past few days. If there is anything regarding prose that you think needs to still be addressed, please let me know.

--Aude (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This bio is an accurate and excellent summary of Khalid al-Mihdhar's life. It satisfies WP:FACR. I'm satisfied with this bio. AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Comments. Leaning towards support. I have a couple of comments:
  • Two of the images are behaving oddly for me: the apartment, and the image of the Pentagon. In both cases the image is replaced by its caption, blue-linked. The problem only occurs with Firefox; it works OK in IE and Chrome. I see nothing wrong with the syntax, but when I tried copying it to my sandbox I found I could make it work OK by adding a pixel size. I won't oppose on this basis, since as far as I can tell it's just a Firefox issue, but I thought I should let you know.
  • The lead does not mention any of the information from the "aftermath" section; I think a sentence or two would be good. This is an important part of the article and should be reflected in the lead.
  • I have a minor MOS issue which I have asked Tony about, but I won't oppose on that since it's easily fixed. If you fix the lead I will support.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you reviewing the article.

• I have added two sentences to the lead, to reflect what's mentioned in the Aftermath section.

  I tweaked it a bit and have supported; please edit my changes further if you think they're not improvements. Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the images, Wikipedia servers were down for ~10 minutes earlier (about 7 hours ago). I wonder if it's a problem with the thumbnail caching from Commons, related to the server outage? The infobox image of Mihdhar is uploaded locally, and appears okay for you, but not the two images from Commons.

  Could be. The problem has now gone away. Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the MOS issue, I don't know if there is an official way for using punctuation in the references. I looked at other featured articles as examples, such as Samuel Johnson, but maybe that article got it wrong too. If Tony can clarify, that would be helpful. --Aude (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• After tracking down what the question was, I'm not aware of any guideline regarding full stops at the end of shortened citations. If one existed, it should be at WP:CITE, but that page has been edited beyond anything intelligible in the last few months, and I'm not even sure the page is even trustworthy anymore (I can barely decipher what it's saying most of the time, and it used to be a fairly decent page). As long as your citations are consistent, with or without a period and wrt p. or p or pp. or pp it's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  I could swear I'd seen a guideline on it, long ago, but whatever. It's fine as is. I'm switching to support above. Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I'm not sure if Tony or Jbmurray plan on coming back, but did see that Jbmurray gave User:Momoricks an award [66] for copyediting help with this article. Thus, I believe the objections have been addressed, unless someone says otherwise (then I will be happy to address anything else). --Aude (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Aude; I've been watching for ten days now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [67].

---

Panic of 1907

Nominator(s): JayHenry (talk)

The most interesting, in my opinion, of the panics of the National Banking Era. I believe this meets all the criteria and is particularly timely as well. I look forward to addressing any issues that reviewers feel are outstanding. Special thanks to GA reviewer User:Mattisse who also helped fixing it up to GA status; to User:Protonk and User:Ceoil for extensive and invaluable polishing toward that end; and to User:Robertknyc for checking over so many of the details and helping with the stock data. --JayHenry (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment From the Aftermath section: "Immigration dropped to 750,000 people in 1909 from 1.2 million people two years earlier." Do Bruner and Carr (don't have the book handy) note this as directly connected to the panic? Also, other elements of the aftermath section seem better explained by the prolonged contraction from Jan-Sep rather than the acute financial panic that is the subject of the article. I'm loathe to change that section without access to the references myself, hence the question. :) Protonk (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'll ponder this. Not sure how one would isolate the effects of the contraction, the stock crash and the bank panic. They are all so interrelated. Perhaps the aftermath section should just make that clearer? --JayHenry (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think its fine; its clearly just context. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've reworded this a bit. To address the specific question, they note all these points in a couple of paragraphs on the economic fall out in this period of American history. Calomiris finds that panics in this period invariably accompany stock crashes. I'd be reluctant, however, to go too deeply into theories about panics in this article. --JayHenry (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. I gathered that it was meant to be context but figured the wording could have been clearer. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Might note that with courtesy links to the JSTOR articles a subscription is required. (Doesn't invalidate the use of the articles as sources, just makes it clear to folks that the links are courtesy links and not everyone will be able to access them). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please show me which JSTOR articles we've not done this for? I tried to get them all. --JayHenry (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Click on the "check external links" thingie (don't you love my technical vocabulary?) in the tools box. It'll show you all the links colored in a golden yellow that require some sort of subscription/registration. Very handy little tool, don't forget to thank the coder for it! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ealdgyth, I don't understand what you're asking. I know which links are JSTOR links and have already tried to signify this. Could you please fix this for me so I can see what you're talking about? I sincerely thought I'd done this correctly. --JayHenry (t) 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

YOu got it, you just did it differently than I've ever seen it done ... and if I hadn't had such a sinus headache yesterday, I might have noticed it sooner. You're good! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as a copy editor, though I hand no hand or part in the content. The article was fully written before i got involved, and I only took interest because it was full of insight and provided me with a clear look into the turmoil of the period. I think the structure is particularly well drafted; its pacy and engaging, the research is above reproach and the sources cleverly used to weaved together a complicated story into an accesable timeline. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you, dear Brit. I was very much aiming for a nicely paced and engaging article (too bad we almost never talk about pace at FAC), and I'm glad you noticed. --JayHenryc (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  NB He's not British, but hales from a nearby island. Tony (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Good man Tony. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ah... not very good with geography. I looked this up and learned that Ireland is an independent nation of some sort (who knew?) The difference between Scottish and Irish is still very fuzzy for me. Which ones have all the freckles and potatoes? --JayHenry (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We Irish have the potatoes, them scots (also celts) are blessed with red hair and freckles, god love em. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Pace should of course be factor and Great Fire of London sets the benchmark. Yannis is another who is gifted in this area. Ceoil ^sláinte 10:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Timely.

• Omg I totally did not look this up, but Jackson got rid of the Second Bank in...1832? Or 1836? Am I close? At any rate, a year should be indicated. How long did the US go without a central bank, and how common were runs up to this point?
• Different tenses? There is no exact measure of when a panic occurred
• The committee issues a scathing report issued?
• I thought it was an interesting read. I did have to check some blue links, not being intimately familiar with some finance terms. I found the article both readable and technical. Short selling, panics, and runs get into some more abstract areas of economics. There were a few places that I thought could benefit by just a bit more help for the average reader unfamiliar with some of these concepts. Otherwise, I enjoyed the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  Hi Moni! Thanks for the nice words. So, Congress passed, but Jackson vetoed, an extension in 1832, he stopped depositing government money there in 1833, its federal charter expired in 1836 and it actually went out of business in 1841. I went with the 1836 date. Fixed the next two as well. As for your final point... (I was thinking of doing Bear Stearns at some point, but worry about going into collateralized debt obligations, mark-to-market accounting principles and credit default swaps.) If you can point out where specifically the text would benefit from a bit of further explication would help, I can certainly add context to those spots. --JayHenry (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Unsure of the factual, but would this: "The crisis occurred after an attempt by Otto Heinze to corner the market in United Copper failed in October, 1906." be be better as this? "The crisis occurred after the failed attempt by Otto Heinze in October 1906 to corner the market in United Copper." No link for Heinze, so you might consider a phrase telling us that he was ... an industrialist? Was United Copper ", a major US mining company"? Pack too much into the sentence and it becomes unwieldy, but these things are part of the big picture we need to know at the start.
• " With the collapse of New York's third largest trust company"—was that Copper of Knickerbocker? Clearly the latter when you think about it, but you need to explain things more carefully in the lead for non-experts.
• "regional banks" twice in one sentence. Can this be avoided?
• "further" could probably be dropped. Is "pulled" ambiguous/loose? "withdrew"? And by "New York", you mean the state, the city, the stock exchange?
• A lot of folks, particularly non-Americans (but many Americans, too) won't quite know what "anti-trust" means, even though it's linked. I think we're supposed not to rely on links to explain such terms. Again, it might require more wording to get around this, and a consequent split into two sentences.

Antitrust law redirects to Competition law. I think Americans would have no trouble with "antitrust", but perhaps non-Americans are not familiar with laws relating to business competition, and there should be explanations of such concepts for non-American folk. (It only relates peripherally to the article; the various financiers had to go to President Roosevelt to get permission to act in unison, because of the tough antitrust/competition laws which forbade business monopolies or collusion.) Would it be clearer just to remove the concept from the lead, so as not to confuse non-American folk? It could be expanded in the article at the relevant point when the financiers actually go to President Roosevelt for permission. —Mattisse (Talk) 08:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Would "antitrust (competition) law" be OK? Tony (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• The last clause in the lead is the crux of the whole article, yes? Good.

I haven't read further and will return, but there's enough here to chew off for the moment. I have hopes for this one, and if the nominator didn't have a good track record in fixing, I'd recommend withdrawal and resubmission in a few weeks. See what you can do. Great topic if the troops can understand it. Tony (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• PS "backstop" ... "stopped". Radar beam out for those repetitions. Tony (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Tony, thanks for those catches. I think the prose throughout the article is actually fairly good, especially on a somewhat technical subject. Myself and several others have given it another once over, and if you spot anything else please point it out, but on the whole I'm actually pretty proud of the prose here. --JayHenry (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images - There is some work to be done on the images. :)

• Image:Knickerbocker trust company.jpg - The source book needs a name, not just "monograph".

• Image:JP Morgan.jpg - This image needs an original source that demonstrates the photo is from 1903, etc.

• Image:Dow 1904 to 1909.png - The description of this graph needs to include what sources you used for the information.

• Image:Morgan cartoon-1.png - Link to source does not work

• Image:Fed Reserve.JPG - This image lacks a source.

• Image:James J. Stillman.jpg - This image lacks a description, a source, an author, and a date.

I'm reviewing the rest of the article now - I am quite excited to read it! Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all except for Image:Fed Reserve.JPG which wasn't my image, and I couldn't determine the source so I removed. --JayHenry (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose for now This is a clearly-written and fascinating article - we have too few economics articles and this is certainly a timely one, so thank you! I have a few concerns regarding images (outlined above) and sources, but I have no doubt these can be cleared up quickly. I found the article's prose to improve dramatically after the lead, for some reason, and then to decline a little again in the "Aftermath" section. I have isolated some sentences from the lead that need improvement:

• Yeah, I hate WP:LEAD. If I could it'd be the first (but nowhere near the last) part of MOS I'd nuke. I'll work on these prose fixes. --JayHenry (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I can't write a lead to save my life. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• This quickly spread across the nation, leading to the closures of both state and local banks and businesses. - I'm not sure it is entirely clear what the "this" refers back to.

  Clarified. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• The crisis occurred after an attempt by businessman Otto Heinze to corner the market in stock of the United Copper Company failed in October 1906. - This sentence doesn't read right to me.

  Clarified. Ceoil ^sláinte

  I've worked on it a bit - see if it is still correct. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Its good. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Presumably he had borrowed heavily in his bid and his failure to repay his debts hurt a number of institutions. Jay, can you calrify. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• With the collapse of the Knickerbocker, fear spread throughout the city's trusts as regional banks withdrew deposits from New York City banks, and nationwide as people withdrew their deposits from regional banks. - This sentence should have parallel structure - as it stands fear spreads through trusts and nationwide. Ideally, the sentence should compare two places or two kinds of banks, if you see what I mean.

  Reworded. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Parallel structure is still a problem - "city's trusts" is not parallel to "nationwide". Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I have no idea at all what Parallel structure means! Can youexplain so I can fix. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Parallel structure (incomplete article) means that sentences are supposed to be structured so that nouns and verbs are logically and grammatically organized. In this sentence, two different kinds of nouns are being compared: a kind of banking institution is being compared to a location ("trusts" are being compared to a "nationwide") - the logic of the sentence breaks down. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ahh. I tried to resolve but its a tricky one. Jay might be able for a better stab. Ceoil ^sláinte

• The panic would have deepened if not for the intervention of J.P. Morgan, who convinced other New York bankers to provide a backstop - Is "backstop" a technical term here?

  Its meaning seems obvious to me. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  To me, it sounds colloquial, but I thought perhaps it was a technical term. If it is a technical term, it should stay, if it is not, it should be replaced by something less slangy. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fair enough; Tony also objected to this. Done. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  It's also a technical term[68]. I thought it would be clear to lay readers, and also signal to an economist that it's technically correct. I think Tony was just objecting to the use of stopped later in the same sentence. --JayHenry (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I like the word; if we could pipe it, it could stay. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Let's pipe it, then. Awadewit (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Although Morgan lost $21 million in the panic, and the significance of the role he played in staving off worse disaster is undisputed, he became the focus of intense scrutiny and criticism. - This is cited to an opinion piece in the Washington Post - opinion pieces are not fact-checked like news stories. Could we find a reliable source for this claim?

  Um... Awadewit, the national american newspapers like the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, rigorously check the facts in their opinion pieces. Did you think you could write an opinion piece in The Washington Post and say "J. P. Morgan had a trillion dollars and two heads" and the editors would say, "eh, seems unlikely, but it's an opinion!"  :) Anyways, this is part of the Washington Post Outlook section which is lumped together on their web site with opinions, but it's not actually the op-ed page. This is written by Jean Strouse, a J.P. Morgan scholar, the author of "Morgan, American Financier" and director of the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. This source is okay. --JayHenry (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Opinion pieces are not fact-checked like news stories. They are the production of the authors who submit them and printed as such - that is one reason why newspapers print disclaimers regarding them. I saw that this piece was written by someone who has written on J.P. Morgan, but my concern is the oversight of the article. I see nothing to indicate that this is not an opinion piece published for the Post. This description of the "Outlook" section explains that it is a hybrid, but that it is most definitely an "opinion" section. The editors apparently look for "provocative" pieces. None of this is very reassuring to me. So many of the other sources in this article are excellent academic productions which have been peer-reviewed. If the statement supported by this Post article is in none of those academic, peer-reviewed sources, I would be concerned. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  "Outlook, the Sunday opinion section, is a hybrid. The front of the section is put out by the news staff." This is page B1 ie the front of the section. There's no requirement that I remove a J.P. Morgan scholar writing about Morgan in the Outlook section of the Washington Post. That passes RS in spades. It's also helpful for people who don't have easy access to a library. --JayHenry (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I would resist anything that is an opinion piece, frankly. Scholars can say in opinion pieces what they cannot say in peer-reviewed books. That is why I am asking for a peer-reviewed source to back up this claim. We are not talking about a claim regarding a current event here. Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Do you consider citing a single sentence in the article to a JP Morgan scholar writing about JP Morgan in a section produced by the news staff of the Washington Post, in the Sunday Outlook section, to be a dealbreaker in terms of satisfying WP:WIAFA? I do not have access to the claim elsewhere. If you believe this is an actionable objection grounded in the criteria, I will remove. --JayHenry (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  This is an important claim (it is central to the subsection it appears in) and I believe we need to verify it in academic, peer-reviewed sources. Are you saying that none of the other books you read on the panic make this claim? Or, is the problem simply access to sources? I could always go to the library and look through the books listed as references here and try to verify this claim. Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Wait, why can't we solve this by simply identifying the source of the material? WP, NYT, etc nominally check facts in works of opinion but don't bear an equal responsibility for factual claims made there than they would in the news section. However, the author of the piece is clearly an expert on the subject. Let's just name him and move along. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  This has been resolved on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fettig, David (ed) (1989), "F. Augustus Heinze and the Panic of 1907", The Region (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis), <http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/89-08/REG898C.cfm> . Retrieved on September 14, 2008 - I am not sure that this source is cited correctly. At the bottom of the webpage, it sort of looks like this is an excerpt from another book. "Copper King at War," published in 1968 by the University of Montana Press and currently out of print, is based on McNelis' master's thesis completed in 1947. Among her many sources for her thesis was a 72-page collection of correspondence she had with Otto Heinze, F. Augustus' brother, between 1943 and 1947. That collection remains in the author's possession." - This suggests to me that the piece is taken from the book - what do you think?

  I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Fettig is clearly reviewing McNelis' book. --JayHenry (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry - I got turned around. What I meant to ask was why we are citing the book review rather than the book itself for the claim that "Some analysts believed that the panic had been engineered, either to punish Heinze or as part of an elaborate plot for U.S. Steel to acquire TC&I, or to damage confidence in trust companies so that banks would benefit". Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  The answer is that I do not have access to this out-of-print 1968 biography of a copper magnate. I will be happy to add additional sources about the general conspiracy theory type claims, however. --JayHenry (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  My library has it, so I will be happy to add the additional reference. Awadewit (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I have done this. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the editors can meet my concerns during this FAC and that I will be able to support soon. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, rather than meeting you point by point; it might be better if you revisit in a few days, after the prose and sourcing issues you have raised have been combed over. And many thanks for your time. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be best, yes. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please leave a note on my talk page letting me know when to reread - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My concerns have been met and I am happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I have been a fan of this article from the beginning as it makes for fascinating reading. I especially enjoy the editor's concise style that engages the reader and gives a punch at the end. It is a wonderfully written story. (I'm sure that whatever sourcing concerns exist, as expressed above, will be remedied.) It is a great slice of American history, not unknown, but extremely well presented here. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This is an extremely well done article. I went through expecting to be able to "fix" a few things in an effort to be helpful but only found one minor prose issue that I edited myself. This article clearly meets all FA criteria and should be featured. NancyHeise ^talk 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment No ref for Kindleberger? Oh, it's missing the second author in the cite... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Good catch. Fixed. And great book if you're interested in panics in general, although not a lot of specifics in that book on 1907. --JayHenry (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'm in. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [69].

---

StarCraft: Ghost

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), S@bre

This is an unreleased video game that has been canceled. I asked several weeks ago if it was okay to submit it to FAC, and I was told that it is acceptable. David Fuchs has taken a look at the images, while Juliancolton has taken a look at the sources. In addition to S@bre and myself, the article has been copyedited by Durova, GrahamColm, and David Fuchs. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• To state for the purpose of the FAC, yes, I agree that the images meet criteria; all are low resolution, have appropriate fair use rationales, sources, and information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the intro say "StarCraft: Ghost is a military science fiction stealth-action video game previously under development by Blizzard Entertainment." ? I presume they're no longer actively developing the game. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-6 21:55

That implies the finality that they aren't going to return to it, and since the game's in limbo and has not ever been out-and-out cancelled (Blizzard refuses to do so, but all development has certainly gone in-house), use of the word "previously" probably isn't a good idea. -- Sabre (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it now says "suspended development" to get the point across. -- Sabre (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Link checker has a couple of 500 errors to Gamespot. No other comments. Dunno if that's temporary, though I'd suspect it. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Both have been resolved. Gary King (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Leaning support: I did a fairly substantial copyedit, mostly removing redundancies, reducing passive voice, and improving flow. I also added one or two inline comments that I would ask you to clarify. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a huge copyedit, thanks! I have responded to your comments. Gary King (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I still wasn't sure about the year thing, so I changed it to a less awkward wording and what I think is what you're trying to say. Check again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's incorrect; the series begins in 2499, not the game. I've corrected it and tried to make it more obvious. Gary King (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that takes care of that concern. Send me an email, and I'll reply: I've got some print sources I want you to integrate in. They talk about Ghost's parallels to other games, some have support for "highly anticipated", there's some previews you could talk about a little in development, and some other lines to gameplay (tactical capabilities of the player). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sent Gary King (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

References have been integrated Gary King (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that a large number of the sources are from Blizzard, the developer of the game, so they need to be checked for unintentional bias. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, the Blizzard sources, less the odd press release, are generally from the old Ghost website before it was taken down, and are used to reference the plot and a number of gameplay points. -- Sabre (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just need to point this out for other reviewers, it's not necessarily bad, just needs to be handled with a bit more care than when using third-party sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Gary King (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a fantastic article, and all the sources look in order. However, the article does not seem to specify exactly why the game was cancelled. The development section explains that the "GameCube version was canceled by Swingin' Ape Studios due to the platform's lack of online support", but does not mention what the rationale was for the cancellation of the PlayStation and Xbox version. Personally I think this is of vital importance in an article about a game for which development has been suspended, so I must (extremely reluctantly) oppose. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 23:24

Upon reading through the article again I realized that I missed this sentence: "Blizzard's co-founder Frank Pearce explained that the title was not in the company's focus at the time due to a finite amount of development resources." However, that's just corporate blabber in my opinion. I suspect that there was a very lively internal debate about this decision, probably with a lot of drama, and this article would be much more interesting if there was something on that. I realize that it will probably be impossible to find sources for this, which is why I suspect why it will be very difficult to bring any cancelled game to FA. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 23:58

The reason for cancellation of the Xbox and PS2 versions is there: "Blizzard announced in March 2006 that the game is on "indefinite hold" while the company investigated seventh generation video game console possibilities" - ie, to investigate the potential of making it a PS3 and Xbox 360 version. As for the second comment, on the "lively internal debate", that is entirely speculation. We have no idea what Blizzard does internally, or how they came to this decision, and key development decisions are hardly always made known about products that are released. The "corporate blabber" as you put it, is verifiable and relevant, speculation on how they debated coming to the decision to suspend development is not. I can't include sources that don't exist, so the article is still as comprehensive as reliable sources allow. -- Sabre (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just don't feel that the article as it stands does a comprehensive job of telling the whole story. Yes, you've done an excellent job with the sources that are available, and I realize that my objection should perhaps be discounted because it's not actionable due to the lack of sources. However, the fact is that this game will mainly be remembered for the fact that it was canceled, and I feel that the article in its current state does an inadequate job of describing the circumstances that led to this. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 01:18

David Fuchs has pointed me to this Edge article where Rob Pardo talks about this situation. This is exactly the context I was looking for, so presuming the relevant quotes from Pardo are added to the article, I'll support. Great job, everyone. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 03:16

The relevant quotes—the ones on Blizzard being "stubborn" and not executing the game the way they wanted—are now in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with Jacoplane, and must add that while reading the article, the tone made it seem like it was a real and released game. Perhaps changing a lot of the present tense used now to the past tense would help this. User:Krator (t c) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  I was wondering whether or not to put the article in past or future tense; it was in both before, which was very odd. I made it all into present so that it read much more smoothly. I think it makes more sense, too; the information regarding gameplay, etc. is still valid now as it was before. Gary King (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's comments

• "under suspended development by Blizzard Entertainment." - I know what this means because I enjoy reminding my StarCraft loving friends that game isn't coming, but it's not really that clear. I'd suggest you split into two sentences and state in the second that development was suspended, or something like that.
• Campaign image needs a caption that indicates significance (NFCC)
• Same in the synopsis section
• "Despite positive reactions from the press when told that Ghost would be available for video game consoles,[18] the game was consistently delayed," - "Despite" implies a connection. I don't see one.
• "The team consisted of 25 people compared to its original six" - not sure what the original you speak of is...
• "The game's trailer, comprised of the cinematics team's work, was released in August 2005." - next paragraph starts in July 2004; I'd stick to chronological order
• "but the game's GameCube version" - I'd remove "game's"
• "Despite its long development history, IGN noted that the concept of Ghost still held promise" - again, not seeing why "despite" is used; if anything I'd have thought the concept would hold MORE promise if they stuck at it for so long (maybe it's just me?)
• Wired News should be in italics in ref publishers (check other stuff too, just noticed this one)
• "When questioned about this, Blizzard's co-founder Frank Pearce explained that the title was not in the company's focus at the time due to a finite amount of development resources." - this is slightly unclear. I looked at the source and I would include the "It never was technically canceled.", then the rest will make more sense.

Giggy (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"suspended development" is explained thoroughly in the lead. I don't think this needs to be changed. The "Despite [...] IGN" I think should not be changed; the concept is so old that there's a good chance that it is "outdated" by now; at least, that's how I see it. The rest are done. Gary King (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Randomran's comments:

• "StarCraft: Ghost is a military science fiction stealth-action video game under suspended development by Blizzard Entertainment." - Is there a better way to phrase this? "Under suspended development" sounds awkward. Maybe "... and its development has been suspended by Blizzard Entertainment."
• "Set in Blizzard's StarCraft series" - try "Set in Blizzard's StarCraft universe" (and pipe the Wikilink)
• "Several delays in development moved back the planned release date ..." - Try "Several delays in development caused Blizzard to move back the release date ..."
• "Vehicles form a crucial part of the game;" - just drop this. I tend to hate semi-colons as meaningless and messy, and this judgment of "crucialness" doesn't really add anything to the article.

Otherwise, the prose is strong -- it seems like the lead was the main issue. The research appears to check out, and the images have good fair use rationales. The article is very comprehensive, which can be tough when talking about an unreleased game. If you fixed these few statements (not necessarily in the way I suggested), you would have my support. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. Please check again – thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about the "under suspended development" comment? Is there a more elegant way to phrase this? Randomran (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My response to Sabre when asked about this. Gary King (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a matter of personal taste, then. If someone else suggests you change it, I hope you do. But otherwise, I think this is just a reasonable point of disagreement.

Support: Was already close to featured quality, and my concerns have been addressed. You guys are gonna have a lot of fun re-writing this if they ever resume development and release it. Randomran (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [70].

---

USS Nevada (BB-36)

Nominator(s): —the_ed17—

I'm nominating this article to be featured because it recently passed an A-class review and I feel that it is ready/almost ready. I'm not entirely sure about the quality of the prose, as I added chunks of info from different sources at different times... Basically, I fear that I am too close to the article and I missed some prose issues. =) Hopefully, there are none... Cheers! :D —the_ed17— 18:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• References check out with the link checker, though the fourth external link is dead.
  • removed
• What makes http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_dr.htm#nev-cl a reliable source?
  • I believe so. All of the WP:MILHIST reviewers didn't have a problem with it in its A-class review.
    • See below about how to show something is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I could almost copy and paste TomStar's second sentence below right here; "The information contained on the cite has been repeatedly check by me against second and third party sources, and has always agreed with the source checks, so I regard the site as reliable, if that means anything." Hazegray has always been accurate when compared with other sources; in fact, I believe that most of the citations that Hazegray provides make statements double-cited (double sure!). Does it really cite contentious information? I'd rather leave it in because it's the only citation I found that said it was in refit for all of 1942...otherwise it wouldn't be a problem... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Tomstar's response is unrelated to how we determine if a site meets WP:V and WP:RS. Ealdgyth has linked a Dispatch which explains how to address the question. There is nothing at http://www.hazegray.org/about.htm that speaks to reliability. "I checked their info and it looks reliable to me" isn't part of WP:V. Please address this. Also, can you please streamline your signature per Wikipedia:Signature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Removed. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm is reliable, but another opinion would be appreciated.
  • Iowa class battleship's ref #49 uses this site too, and that article is featured. (And recently went through a FAR)
    • I'll just note that the site was still unstruck at the end of the FAR, no rationale for why it's a reliable site has yet been put forward. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The page herein is sited to the Iowa clas battleship preservation society, a group that is dedicated to preserving information on the Iowas. The information conatined on the cite has been repeatedly check by me against second and third party sources, and has always agreed with the source checks, so I regard the site as reliable, if that means anything. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Was I the only one to notice that I did exactly what that dispatch said not to do? (The dispatch: "Saying "It's used in 15 other featured articles": OtherStuffExists isn't a valid argument." What did I do? "[This article] uses that ref too") ...sorry! =/ —the_ed17— 05:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • This source doesn't seem to be in the article anymore, so I'll strike. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/36a.htm ditto with above.
  • I'm not sure if it is reliable, but the info is from the New York Times and only repeated on that site.
    • Maybe pull that info from the NYT itself then? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • ....the other shoe drops: it's the NYT from 1915...how in heck do I find an article that old?? —the_ed17— 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • A newspaper archive? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Specifically here. The wonderful thing about the NYT is that they have put up a good chunk of their archives... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Holy mother of pearl...that is a lot of articles, and the source doesn't mention what day the caption is from... I'll go hunting, but I won't have time for that hunting until this afternoon/possibly tommorrow. —the_ed17— 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Late, late notice, but I found the article (I think it's the same one; regardless, the articles same the same thing methinks). Thank you very, very much for the link, as I got three sources outta that!!! Cheers, —the_ed17— 15:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://www.acepilots.com/ships/nevada.html reliable?
  • It's not—but the image that appears on the site is an official U.S. Navy paper, and that is what I'm using from the page.
    • Is it possible to get the information from the Navy paper, instead? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • How would I cite it? The image is in the article, by the way, if you want ot look at it; it is the very last one, I believe...) —the_ed17— 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • You could use {{cite news}} or {{cite book}}, which don't require a URL. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Alright...I'll get to it as soon as I can (I has mid-term today...) —the_ed17— 13:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Almost forgot about it! Done now (ref #40)...like it? —the_ed17— 23:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Again: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/usn/BB-36.html
  • Hmmm I really don't know. Any other opinions? (The info it has isn't controversial, by the way, I believe that it only references that the wreck of the ship has never been found...)
    • Ok, the information isn't controversial, so I'll strike. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some issues I noticed in a quick glance:

• The order in which you present the sourcing subsections—Bibliography, Notes, References—is strange to me for a couple reasons. First, these sections are usually presented in descending order of relevance to the article text (Notes, References, Bibliography using your section headers). Secondly, the order you used dissociates the References from the Bibliography.
  • Go Sandy! (she changed it)
• 'See also' sections are for internal links to relevant articles. Your See also section lists other books on the topic; the best name for this would be Further reading (since you have already used 'Bibliography' in its other meaning).
  • Go Sandy!
• Please tweak the Bibliography to consistently list authors by last name, first name (since that's the format you use in the References).
  • Go Sandy!
• Some of your references have wikilinked accessdates. You can achieve unlinked accessdates in most citation templates by replacing the accessdate= parameter with accessyear= and accessdaymonth=.
  • =( I'll go through and change them.
    • Doing this changes the refs to "01-09 2008", which I don't like at all. Wouldn't it be simpler to change the {{cite web}} template so that it doesn't link the dates?
• Formatting of page citations needs minor attention for consistency in punctuation (Bonner, 105. vs Wallin, 212–213). Note that dashes in page ranges should be endashes.
  • Will do.
    • Done and done.
• Most, if not all, of the image captions are nominal groups—not complete sentences. These should not have ending punctuation.
  • Done.
• Inch or the abbreviation 'in' should be used with the figures in the armor thickness section of the infobox. Additionally, when giving a range, the unit of measure should only be given once (not 13.5"–8", but rather 13.5–8 in).
  • Will do also!
    • Done.

These are all minor formatting issues; I'll try to get back for a full read of the article soon. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, shoulda read here first :-) When I take my first look at new FACs, I almost always correct ACCESS and LAYOUT issues :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. =) —the_ed17— 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments'

• I've had to learn to live with "she" for ships, but there are an awful lot in the lead. Can you vary it a little? ("the Nevada"? "the ship"?). I see you use just Nevada further down; wouldn't it take "the" before it?
  • Any other opinions on "the"? I believe that you are not supposed to use it..I think that the ship is thought of almost as a person, and therefore has no "the". Am I right? (I've been wrong before...) —the_ed[[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|17]— 13:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• En dash for year ranges.
  • Will hunt these down.
    • Dumb question...where? (I put one in the Bibliography, put I think that I overlooked what you are talking about...)
• Ellipsis dots are ... spaced. See MOS.
  • Was there only the one occurrence? (the one I fixed already? =])

Looks good. Tony (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question: with information I just added, I compare Nevada to Oregon, Connecticut and Delaware. However, do I use "BB-3", "BB-18" and "BB-26"? These designations did not start until 1920...and I'm in the pre-1915 part of the article (Design and construction). Any military history buffs want to help? (I'll post this on the WP:MILHIST talk page too.) —the_ed17— 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Answered here...thanks Tom! —the_ed17— 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: The are a few things I have questions about.

• First, in the opening paragraph, you have the sentence "Nevada served in both World Wars: in World War I, she was attached to the British Grand Fleet until the end of the war; in World War II, she was one of the battleships moored in Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked it." The "it" at the end is Peral Harbor, but in this case it may be better state that rather than imply that becuase it could be construed as meaning Nevada, and that would put your article at odds with naming conventions since ships need to be all "she/her" or all "it".
  • Changed to: "Nevada served in both World Wars: in World War I, she was attached to the British Grand Fleet until the end of the war; in World War II, she was one of the battleships that was sunk when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor." Is that better?

• In the first section, you have the lines "Their tonnage was almost three times larger than the USS Oregon (BB-3) and almost twice as large as the USS Connecticut (BB-18). Also, the class was 8,000 tons heavier than one of the original American dreadnoughts, the USS Delaware (BB-28).[9]" Here the problem is plurality, we have two or more of one thing; which suggests that we are dealing with a class of ships, but the wording implies that we are only talking about one ship in a class (if there is a class, some of these lower battlewagons don't have a class). This needs to be resolved.
  • Changed to:

The Nevada class marked "another graduated step in the rapidly evolving American battleship".[10] When Nevada was originally built, The New York Times remarked that the new warship was "the greatest [battleship] afloat"[9] because her tonnage was nearly three times larger than the USS Oregon (BB-3) and almost twice as large as the USS Connecticut (BB-18). In addition, Nevada was 8,000 tons heavier than one of the original American dreadnoughts, the USS Delaware (BB-28).[9]

• In the interwar year, the last sentence is "Nevada then served in the Pacific Fleet for the next eleven years." Do we know what she was doing? I don't expect anything too important, but it might be nice to see if anything pops up in her history during this time. I will not hold this against you if you can not find any information, this is merely an "I am curious" question.
  • A guess is that Bonner has that on Page 104, but Google Books won't let me view that page, (I don't own the book!) DANFS is where the "eleven years" statement came from, and Battleships in the U.S. Navy is a general overview of battleships and does not have that info.

• Attack on pearl harbor, first sentence: "During the attack on Pearl Harbor, Nevada was not moored side-by-side with another battleship off Ford Island, and therefore was able to maneuver, an ability that was denied to the other eight battleships that were present." There are two problems with this statement: first, there were a total of eight battleships present, but this phrasing suggests that there were actually nine, eight other battleships and USS Nevada, not eight battleships including USS Nevada. This should be easy to fix. The other problem deals with manuvering: it is technically correct to note that the other battleships could not move, but IMO it should be noted of of the other seven battleships six were anchored at Ford Island; the seventh, USS Pennsylvania, had been drydocked before the attack and thus was not anchored at Ford Island during the air raid.

Otherwise it looks good. Well Done!

• • I can not believe that I overlooked that...-_- Did you like the note I added? (Note:A6) Thanks for the comments Tom! —the_ed17— 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support The "A6"mentioned note was a great addition :) It looks good, and as such now has my support. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone help me a bit with the Pearl Harbor map I added? It's huge because the key doesn't fit if it isn't huge!! -_-

• need to re-word this sentence, 'cos I have too many "first"s....how?
  • "The class marked many firsts for U.S. Navy battleships: they were the first to have triple gun turrets,[11] to have a single funnel,[12] to have anti-aircraft guns,[13] and the first to be fired with oil instead of coal,[13][14] which gave them an engineering advantage.[8]" Thanks for the help, —the_ed17— 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You could move this to the class page and that would solve your problem. If you needed it reworded, how about "The class was the first to have triple gun turrets, a single funnel, anti-aircraft guns, and introduced oil fired power plants which would give them an engineering advantage over earlier coal fired plants." TomStar81 (Talk) 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Remind me aagain: who says that you suck at grammar? —the_ed17—
  • Also, with regard to images: the commons linker is there for a reason; if the people complain about the absence of images you can always tell them that the article's images are set and that there are additional images at the commons. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm going to get rid of the key, I think, because it has no bearing on this article...then I can get the map smaller. Thanks! —the_ed17— 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • There's nothing wrong with Tom's grammar—it's his spelling that makes me weep :) You should, though, add an 'and' in that sentence to complete the list ("gun turrets, a single funnel, and anti-aircraft guns, and introduced"). Regarding that map: I would make sure the key is linked on the map image page, but I wouldn't include the key on this article, as the gradient between most of the colors is so vanishingly small that it's not very helpful. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

        • D 'And' is being added now. I will add the link now to the key in too...and the key is already out of the article :).

• Support—I just commented before. But please note that supports carry only minor weight here. More important is the addressing of critical comments. Range en dash: I can't find it either. Just one substantive matter: the real value of the dollar amounts in 1912 was HUGE. When I looked at the $5M cost, I though, nah, that can't be right. It is very misleading. I wonder whether you might locate the table with dollar equivalents and insert the 2008 estimate. Anyone know where it is? There's a $50K amount, too. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why don't we abolish inflation so I don't have to do this? :D Serious now: where would I find the conversion table? Is there a template somewhere? I looked through the inflation article and couldn't find anything...so you mean Inflation adjustment? Thanks, —the_ed17— 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Brian's articles on the polar exploration has this sort of thing converted, use the site he uses. Check any of his antarctic or artic ones. (I don't have the site bookmarked because it doesn't go back to medieval money, unfortunately) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • ...who is Brian...? (Am I searching Wikipedia or the entire web?) —the_ed17— 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Southern Cross Expedition is one of his articles. Brian is User:Brianboulton. The website is Measuring Worth. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Does Brian's site account for the various specialty items? I adjusted for the cost of the Iowas in their class articles on the Consumer Price Index and left a note with the adjusted cost that the new cost did not take into account specialty items; if Brians's site does, then I may exchange his my site for his. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
            • No clue, I've only ever used it on stallion articles for adjusting race purse sizes, total lifetime earnings, and stud fees, all of which, while certainly a niche type item, don't qualify as "specialty". Suggest reading the site to see... they offer like three or four different types of adjustment ratios. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Added in as notes A4 and A5. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 01:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Err... please take a closer look at the Measuring Worth site. The adjustment method you've used is the Consumer Price Index, which only works well with a broad basket of consumer goods. It's not the best method to use for a heavy industrial project like constructing a battleship. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, I went off of the "it can be interpreted as how much money you would need today to buy an item in the year in question if its price had changed the same percentage as the average price change", but I'll remove it if someone else concurs with you (and I think that someone will :D). Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments I copyedited the lead, made some MOS fixes, changed accessdate parameters in references (to remove linking on dates), and added a couple dates in the infobox from NVR. I will continue a copyedit later (headed out to run errands now), but it would help if you take a look at the changes I just made and carry on with fixing the accessdate formatting. One source comment:

• The Abraitis source needs to be replaced. The author's site is indeed hosted at princeton.edu, but that doesn't mean he's a professor, nor would his being a professor mean he was an expert in a relevant field, nor would his being a professor in a relevant field mean that his website was necessarily a reliable source with appropriate fact-checking and publication controls. (Sorry if that comes across as condescending - just trying to explain where bad assumptions can trip you up when assessing a source's reliability.) In fact, at [71] Abraitis lists his occupation as "employed as a computer programmer by a "Prestigious Ivy League" institution".

Back for more copyediting later. Maralia (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I liked that copy-edit!! Thank you!
  • Plehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................that's where assuming something comes back to get me. I'll stay with the NYT source then, which says "a little less than 600,000 gallons". —the_ed17— 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Finished my copyedit. I left one hidden comment/question in the text. Are you still working on replacing some of the less-reliable sources? I haven't gone over the references in detail yet. Maralia (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh my goodness! Thank you! I saw the hidden comment, and tomorrow I'll leave a message for the guy who added that info in (Thewellman, I think? I'll check the history). References should be alright; Hazegray's info is reliable and none of the MILHIST A-class reviewers had a problem with it. The only non-RS is the Pacific wrecks.com one (the very last ref). I believe that it cites non-contentious information, but if the ref is seen as a problem, I'll remove it immediately. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Nope, I was the one who added the info, so I fixed it myself. =) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A few more comments, mostly on references:

• HyperWar is not an ideal source; the author lists a bibliography, but it's site-wide (not page-specific). I would consider it a tertiary source at best, since he cites both secondary and primary sources in his bibliography. HyperWar is used to support the commission date in the article text, and some portion of the armament section in the infobox. The commission date is sourced in the infobox to DANFS; let's use the same source for the citation in the article text. For the armament, there are so many sources cited at the end of the section that I can't tell which source supports which data, but I would prefer to try finding a more reliable source to substitute for HyperWar there.
  • ...it provides sources though! Per Ealdgyth above "...or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods". Here they are! Yes, they are site-wide, but it is sourced...
    • Please reference WP:V and WP:SPS policy. I can find nothing at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/about.html to indicate that the author or website is a recognized expert. That he sites what he claims are his sources is irrelevant; anyone can put up a website to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• On a related note: I have a really hard time making sense of the armament section. There's so much information there, and almost nothing is linked (and 1920s should not be); it's just impossible to look up what guns she had at a given time. I'm sure I can come up with a better way to organize it, but this will just make it more necessary to break out the sources to clearly indicate which source supports which part of the armament text.
  • Have I improved it to your satisfaction?
    • I created an article for the 14"/45 caliber gun, its not muc, but its a start at least. I may get a DYK out of it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• I notice that Ealdgyth questioned whether battleship.org (the Iowa Class Preservation Society's site) is a RS, and Tom explained why he feels it is reliable. I have a simpler question: why not drop this citation as it is the least reliable source of the four sources cited for the same sentence?
  • Done :)
• Please add the parameter |format=PDF to any cite x templates for references that link to PDFs (the NYT links are all PDFs).
  • Done.

Maralia (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support from Maralia I'm comfortable with the sourcing now. I gave the formatting a thorough going-over this morning:

• Tweaked the armament section for similar formatting to rest of infobox
• Removed HyperWar cite in armament as there were three other cites for the same fact
  • There was a reasone for that...sources conflict as to whether there were 2 or 4 torpedo tubes. I'm going with 2, and Hyperwar said that...
    • Hmph. So you say HyperWar, Hazegray, and The Battleship in the United States Navy say two, while Fitzsimons says 4. Well, DANFS says both Nevada and Oklahoma had 4 (4 21” tt). There's enough question that I would suggest you elaborate on this in a Note. For a defining tie-breaker, suggest trying to get your hands on Norman Friedman's U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History (check for a local copy here). Maralia (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Using Google Books, I found the book. It says 2 torpedo tubes as well. ([72] [Pg. 438])
        • That page indeed says 2, but Friedman explicitly says 4 elsewhere in the book, too. His books are incredibly accurate, but maddeningly difficult to wade through for one specific fact, as he tends to describe (and chart) specs throughout every step of the design process. I'll post more when I have some specific quotes. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I didn't see any "4"'s anywhere when I was hunting...but I can't look anymore either. "...you have reached your viewing limit for this book." -_- Thanks for all of the help, Maralia. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I've posted a lengthy response here: Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36)#Torpedo tubes, and some Googly delights. Maralia (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I put that into a note: see note A2. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Replaced HyperWar cite on commission date with DANFS cite
• Removed 'christened by' from infobox as the infobox is a mile long, the info is already in the main text, and we rarely put this (low importance) item in infoboxes anyway. Also moved the citation for it to the main text (which had a different cite)
• Replaced templates on some New York Times citations; not sure why you used {{cite journal}} instead of {{cite news}}
• Fixed date formatting in publication dates for NYT citations (they were using monthdayyear format but the rest of article uses daymonthyear)
• Straightened out a weird problem where the converted draft figure (in meters) was listed under the Decks parameter
• Added link to the NVR page into the {{NVR}} template
• Removed a citation for an image as unnecessary
  • Did I miss one? Well, apparentlyI did.... :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• For the weird citation regarding her resembling the South Dakotas, I added the name of the book that the specs image was published in (Naval Recognition Manual) and the publication year (1943)
  • Thanks! I had no idea where the image was from...

Thanks for an interesting article. Apropos of nothing, may I ask why you picked this particular ship? Maralia (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! But that is a good question...I really don't know. For some reason that I can't remember, I've kinda "idolized" not the exact word I want, but w/e the ship since I became interested in Military History...so then I came here and I was like "Hmmm, I could improve this!"......so I did, and then it snowballed past the GA stage. =) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please address the non-reliable sources: I'm concerned about the sourcing that is getting past MilHist A-class lately. Also, pls see Wikipedia:Signature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. I really don't know why you had to bold that.... And what does "streamlining" mean....I made the sig smaller with <small>, and the "vote" thing that I was doing for fun is on my talk page now. Is that what you wanted? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• More notes: There is a mixture in both the article and the citations of US-style and international-style dates, even within one sentence, which is it:

• Her keel was laid down on 4 November 1912, and by August 12, 1914, the ship was 72.4% complete.

• Both citations and the article need to have a consistent date style.
  • I believe that this is done.
• Can you address the text squeezed between images in the first section, "Design"? I'm not sure how to fix it, since these ever increasing infoboxes are taking over almost the entire lengths of articles.
  • Not really....the images are really only relevant to that section, so they can't be moved down...
• I don't know what's happening in the infobox: some of the "×" are spaced, some aren't. Please see what WP:MOS says or aim for consistency:

• 10 × 14-inch (356 mm)/45-caliber guns (2×3, 2×2 ...

• Done.

• 30% to 40% of what? With this new armor scheme, the protection tonnage was increased from 30% (in the New York class) to 40%. Total tonnage? And what is "protection tonnage"? Please watch the WP:JARGON; in fact, a jargon check throughout would be helpful: why isn't Dreadnought linked in the first sentence ?
  • I think that "protection tonnage" is the total amount of tonnage in a ship devoted to armor. I re-worded the sentence. The source used 30% of the New York's tonnage--but then in the next section it remarked that armor was 40% of the Nevada's displacement. I'm not sure, but I think that these (tonnage & displacement) are different, so I changed the sentence to only remark upon the latter.
  • Done.
• What makes Hyperwar a reliable source, per WP:SPS and WP:V? http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/about.html
  • Would you like me to change ref #49 to reference the actual communique and then use HyperWar as a convenience copy..?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [73].

---

Tokyo Mew Mew

Nominator(s): AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

previous FAC (03:13, 22 July 2008)

I'm renominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria for being an FA article and that all issues from the previous FA nomination have now been addressed. This article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and properly follows the Wikipedia style guide and the Anime and Manga manual of style. It is thoroughly referenced from reliable sources and using a consistent referencing style. It has been peer reviewed, thoroughly copyedited, and is currently a GA article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.tv-aichi.co.jp/mewmew/kako/052/index.html deadlinks
• There were concerns brought out in the previous FAC about brandnoise and the two CD retailers, which I left out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Check the FAC for the reasoning given for inclusion.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Already fix the first with the addition of an archiveurl :) For the concerns over the two retailers, I still pretty much stand by my earlier remarks: CD Japan is the English language version of one of the largest CD sellers in Japan (Neowing). Kalahari is a South African retailer. While commercial sites are not the preferred option for the source, however they are only being used to cite the existence and releases of those CDs/DVDs, and in the absence of any other official or RS site, they are the best available source. The alternative would be to just pretend we don't know that the series was released in English in South Africa or that the CDs exist, losing valid information from the article. It is unfortunate, but with the series licensing issues, there is unlikely to be another source for any of this unless it is ever relicensed and re-released.

For Brandnoise, as I noted in the previous FAC, it is a blog, but it is the official blog of a company, scenarioDNA, which is a market research firm and would seem to be RS for that sort of information. From my understanding of WP:RS, such a blog is considered a reliable source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave these out for other folks to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On references:

• Many of the links for published works go back to their Wikipedia articles instead of the source itself, including Anime News Network, Manga Pacific, Miachi Daily News, Taylor and Francis, and Tokyopop.
• The use of Amazon and CD Japan is being used to verify track listings? Can you use the actual CD inserts instead of these sites? Secondary sources should be used instead to report how the CDs were received. Are there reviews for the music on them?
• Is source #60: Forum Buzz actual news reported by reliable sources or press releases or the result of chat room gossip? It's difficult to tell with that source. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On the links, they are linking the name of the source, right? So Anime News Network? i.e. they are linking to the publisher's wikipedia article? That's not a problem, as long as they aren't linking to that for the sourcing, which I didn't think they were. They are just giving a link to let folks know more about the publisher, it isn't the source being cited. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely scratch that...God... I do the same for The New York Times. I'm so embarrassed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine. It is your friend. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no problem. :) For the rest, I used the Amazon and CD Japan sites to primarily verify the CD release dates and general contents since the CDs were never released outside of Japan and would be difficult to acquire. I could not find information on them on any Japanese news sites or the like to use as alternative sources. I have not found any reviews on the series music at all, unfortunately, likely due to the lack of the international release for the CDs and the poor English release. :(

The Forum Buzz is based on verified info posted to AoD's forums by site moderators so for that particular site, I would consider it a reliable source. I can drop the ref, if needed, as it basically just backs up the first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support on prose alone, not to say that a little polishing isn't possible.

• "It was originally serialized in Nakayoshi from September 2000 to February 2003 and later published in seven tankōbon volumes by Kodansha from April 2003 to May 2004." The longer the sentence, the more likely the insertion of an optional comma. Here, I'd put one after "February 2003", especially as it divides a repeated construction.
• What earthquake isn't sudden? You mean "powerful"? Tony (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a comma as suggested and removed sudden. It wasn't particularly powerful, just very quick and no aftershocks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments, Giggy

• "Tokyopop licensed the manga series for English-language publication in North America and released the complete original series as well as the sequel; 4Kids Entertainment, meanwhile, licensed the anime series for North American broadcast" - I'd split this into two sentences.
• "Well received by English-language readers" - what about Japanese reception? Since it started in that language I'd give it priority.
• "Tokyo Mew Mew was generally well received by reviewers, who described it as cute and entertaining." - and then you give one review as an example... I dunno, I'd prefer if some more substance was put behind the claim

Giggy (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first. Unfortunately, no Japanese reception information has been found. Its been a regular problem in the anime/manga articles, where except for the biggest series, even sales figures are difficult to find. For the third, I've fixed that. Somehow a la Mode ended up in the middle of the original's set of reviews :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - there's no academic or peer reviewed literature out there about Tokyo Mew Mew? -Malkinann (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've ever been able to find, no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've actually never heard of Tokyo Mew Mew before, but I skimmed through this article and know a lot more about it. Sources seem fine (where they're needed,) no expansion is needed, I originally thought that more "reception" was needed, but I guess what's there is about all there is. Good job, whoever wrote this. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I wish there were more reception as well. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:33, 13 October 2008 [74].

---

TAM (tank)

Nominator(s): JonCatalán^(Talk)

The TAM is an Argentine tank developed in the late 1970s and still in active service. I wrote the majority of this article (well, re-wrote) based on the information coming from the only major written source on the tank - Javier de Mazarrasa's book, La Familia Acorazada TAM. I have attempted to diversify the sources as much as possible by scouring through various English sources (unfortunately, there are no English sources which focus on this specific vehicle), and so I have come up with about fourteen additional references. This article passed an A-class review and was recently peer reviewed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I found no major issues worth mentioning, this fills all the criteria. Domiy (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Page ranges in the references need en dashes. Otherwise, references and sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • All dashes done. Giggy (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• All images are fine. Giggy (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the lead:

• "is a main battle tank in service with the Argentine Army" - "main battle tank" could be some jargon I'm not aware of it, but if it's not, then I'd have this as "is the main battle tank..."
• "in 1994 manufacturing began anew until the Army's request of 200 tanks was fulfilled" - did they fulfil the request in 1994 too? The reader is left hanging, somewhat.
• "but the TAM was ultimately never exported." --> "but was ultimately not exported."

Giggy (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to address the three concerns. For the first comment, I wikilinked to main battle tank since I thought "a" sounded better than "the" in this specific case-well, actually, "the" might be better since "a" may infer that there is more than one MBT in service with the Argentine Army. In any case, I clarified the second point by adding "prematurely closing the production line in 1983", and changed the word in the third concern. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support The article fills the criteria, IMHO. As far as I know from other (non-verifible) sources, the information currently in it is accurate. The pictures included depict reasonably the current aspect of the vehicle. The author of the main source cites is quite well-known nas has several other boks published. Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally supportive. I have a few comments from the top.

• "Profile" means "height", does it?
• "103,333" without the decimal places would be fine, and easier on the reader.
• Can you make it clear where and by whom it was manufactured? Was it the Argentine MoD, and Argentine corporation, or what?
• Do we really need "Spanish language" linked? Who's gonna interrupt their reading to go to that article? Same for British, a word that will confuse most of our readers, I'm sure. "Second World War" and "Atlantic Ocean" too? The low-value links are diluting the good ones, particularly in the first sentences of "Development". Tony (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Profile is the correct word, average height would be a poor substitute though with some of that meaning; Whilst height is more likely to be interpreted as the height of the highest point of the tank. ϢereSpielChequers 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, profile does refer to height. "Profile" might fall under the category of jargon though, although I think it's more specific than "height". I could go with silhouette instead—I'll change it temporarily. I removed the decimal values in 103,300.13. I tried to make it clearer by adding "local mass production", to infer that production took place in Argentina. I delinked some of the words, as well. I hope it looks better now. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I didn't spot any reference in this article to the Falklands War which I believe is the only external war fought by the Argentine army whilst this tank was in service; perhaps this is because none of them were shipped to the Falklands, or none had quite entered service in time. If you have sources that cover this question I think it would be worth a mention in the article as I may not be the only reader who wonders about that. Also were these vehicles used by the Junta against the Argentine people? My understanding is that most of the dirty war preceded their deployment but if they did see any civil repression action that also would be worth a mention. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that an old version of the article did mention that the tank was used in a coup (early 1990s, I believe), but it was mentioned by an unreliable source—I, unfortunately, do not have a reliable source which mentions the same information. On the other hand, I do have a source which mentions they were not used in the Falklands, so I will add that in. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction, the statement was unsourced. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to that, though with an inanimate object like a tank I'd be inclined to use a word like deployed or saw action rather than participated. ϢereSpielChequers 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern, well-armed tank, with a high velocity, low silhouette and low weight."

Suggestion: "The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern light-weight fast tank that was equipped with adequate fire-power and had a low silhouette."

Development

• "Despite attempts to procure equipment from the United States, Argentina was only able to secure 50 M41 Walker Bulldogs and 250 M113 armored personnel carriers."

This statement is a bit weird in that Argentina did buy American equipment in their attempts there. What is the reason that they should not be able to purchase 300 armored vehicles from US? Did the US previously promise to replace the Argentinian entire tank fleet? If the contradiction is not clearly explained, then "Despite" should not be used. Suggestion: "In their attempts to procure equipment from the United States, Argentina could only secure 50 M41 Walker Bulldogs and 250 M113 armored personnel carriers."

• "Turned down by the United States for further equipment, the Argentine government turned to the nations across the Atlantic Ocean and put into gear the so-called Plan Europa (Plan Europe)."

"Put into gear" seems a bit informal... Suggestion: "Turned down by the United States for further equipment, the Argentine government turned to the nations across the Atlantic Ocean, putting their Plan Europa (Plan Europe) into action."

• "Argentina went on to procure 80 AMX-13 light tanks, as well as 180 AMX-VCIs and 24 AMX-155 F3s from the French government, manufacturing around 40 AMX-13s and 60 AMX-VCIs at home."

Go straight to the point. "Argentina procured 80 AMX-13 light tanks, 180 AMX-VCIs and 24 AMX-155 F3s from the French government, and later manufactured around 40 AMX-13s and 60 AMX-VCIs."

• "possible substitutes for the existing Argentine Sherman fleet."

Suggestion: "possible replacements for the existing Argentine Sherman fleet."

• "In 1973 the Argentine ministry of defense put in a series of requirements for a tank to enter service in the 1980s. These included a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, grenade launchers, a road range of at least 500 kilometers with a maximum velocity of 70 kilometers per hour and a weight of no more than 30 tonnes. Taken into consideration was the existing infrastructure in Argentina, including railroad capacity, bridges and road capacity, and the several types of terrain which existed in the country. In late 1973 the Proyecto de Tanque Argentino Mediano (Medium Argentine Tank Project) was founded with the goal of studying, designing and developing a future tank for the Argentine Army. The lack of experience and the necessary technology pushed the Argentine government to look for a foreign company to provide it with these things, resulting in a contract being established with the German company Thyssen-Henschel. The contract agreed to a transfer of technology resulting in a program to develop a tank under the requirements issued by the government and under a technical team which included both German and Argentine engineers. It was decided to use the hull of the German Marder armored personnel carrier, and the chassis was strengthened to support the increased weight of the TAM."

Suggestion: "In 1973 the Argentine ministry of defense put up a series of requirements for a tank designated to enter service in the 1980s. The armored vehicle would weigh no more than 30 tonnes and could, at a maximum speed of 70 kilometers per hour, cover at least 500 kilometers on the roads. It would be armed with a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, and grenade launchers. The designers of the tank also had to take into account the existing infrastructure in Argentina, including railroad capacity, bridges and road capacity, and the various terrain which existed in the country. In late 1973 the Proyecto de Tanque Argentino Mediano (Medium Argentine Tank Project) was founded to study, design and develop this future tank for the Argentine Army. Lacking the experience and necessary technology for the project, the Argentine government looked for a foreign company to help to address these shortcomings. It signed a contract with the German company Thyssen-Henschel. The terms of the contract called for German and Argentine engineers to work together in developing a tank which would fulfill the requirements issued by Argentina. The Germans would also transfer the technology to the Argentines, allowing the South Americans to develop and produce tanks on their own. The joint German-Argentine team decided to use the hull of the German armored personnel carrier, strengthening the chassis to support the greater weight of the TAM."

• What did the Germans get in return for this transfer of technology? They seemed to get the short end of the stick here.

• "The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and lethality."

This statement comes from a primary source. Suggestion: "According to its manufacturers, the light and compact Rh-105-30 could destroy its target with its first shot on most occasions."

• "On the TAM, the FM K.4 does not have a muzzle brake and can elevate to 18 degrees or depress to -7 degrees."

Suggestion: "Unlike the Rh-105-30, the FM K.4 does not have a muzzle brake. The locally built cannon can be elevated to 18 degrees or depressed to -7 degrees on the TAM." Furthermore, I think it is preferable to briefly explain the workings of a muzzle brake.

• "The tank's secondary armaments include a co-axial 7.62 millimeter FN MAG 60-40 general purpose machine gun and a second FN MAG 60-20 mounted on the TAM's turret roof as an anti-air machine gun."

Again, a brief explanation co-axial in layman terms would be nice. Is there any way to separate the FN MAG 60-40 link from the general purpose machine gun link (two blue links side-by-side that may be mistaken as a single link)?

• "which computes the gun's fire solutions"

There could be less than military-buff readers around. How about "which helps the gunner in aiming the cannon to hit the target."

• "The tank commander makes use of a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope, with a 2x and 8x zoom."

Suggestion A: "When inside the tank, the tank commander uses a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope to observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects."

Suggestion B: "A Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope allows the tank commander to remain in the tank and observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects."

• "The TAM's engine requirements included low weight and compactness, but with a fast rate of acceleration and high reliability. The program chose MTU's MB-833 Ka 500 diesel engine, producing 720 horsepower at 2,400 rotations per minute."

Suggestion: "Requirements for the TAM stated that its engine had to be light and compact, capable of producing a fast rate of acceleration, and highly reliable. With those terms in mind, the program chose MTU's MB-833 Ka 500 diesel engine, which could produce 720 horsepower at 2,400 rotations per minute."

• "a maximum velocity of 75 kilometers per hour"

Suggestion: "a maximum speed of 75 kilometers per hour"

• "It has a range of 500 kilometers with its internal fuel capacity of 680 liters, and 900 kilometers when adding the two 200 liter external fuel tanks."

Suggestion: "With a 680-liter internal fuel tank, the TAM could travel 500 kilometers. Its range is extended to 900 kilometers if the vehicle is equipped with two 200-liter external fuel tanks."

• "The TAM's survivability is based upon its low profile turret, based on that of the Leopard 1A4s and the Leopard 2's, and physical armor arrayed around the tank. It has 50 millimeters at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the vehicle's sides. This offers protection against anti-armor shells from up to 35 millimeter guns. The turret front is protected by 50 millimeters of steel armor at an angle of 32 degrees. Although the tank's weight and armor protection are light compared to other main battle tanks, it has the advantage of better tactical mobility over the nation's terrain."

Suggestion: "The TAM relies on its low profile turret—based on those of the Leopard 1A4 and the Leopard 2—and armor to survive in the battlefield. Its armor is 50 millimeters thick, sloping at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the sides. This offers protection against anti-armor shells fired from guns up to 35 millimeter calibre. Likewise, the turret front is protected by 50 millimeters of steel armor at an angle of 32 degrees. Although the tank's weight and armor protection are light compared to other main battle tanks, it has better tactical mobility on Argentina's terrain."

• "As a private venture, Rheinmetall Landsysteme built a fourth prototype, completed in 1978. Apart from the existing periscopes for the tank commander, the position was also given a PERI R12 periscope originally designed for the Leopard 1A4. The gunner and loader received a day periscope each, as well. To fire at night, a low light level television (LLLTV) camera was fitted to the mantlet, which moved in elevation with the main gun."

Suggestion: "As a private venture, Rheinmetall Landsysteme built a fourth prototype. Completed in 1978, it added a PERI R12 periscope, originally designed for the Leopard 1A4, for the tank commander. The gunner and loader each received a day periscope as well. To enable the crew to fire effectively in the night, a low light level television (LLLTV) camera, which moved in elevation with the main gun, was fitted to the mantlet." Furthermore, where is this mantlet (a portable protective shield)?

• "The improvement program also made provisions to increase the armor thickness to provide additional protection."

Suggestion: "The improvement program also made provisions to increase the armor thickness for additional protection."

Variants

• "FN MAG 60-20 situated on the turret roof."

Suggestion: "FN MAG 60-20 mounted on the turret roof."

• "Infantry can dismount through a door situated to the rear of the hull."

Suggestion: "Infantry can dismount through a door on the rear of the hull."

• "The VCTM carries an AM-50 120 millimeter internal mortar, with a range of 9,500 meters and a rate of fire of 8 to 12 shots per minute."

Suggestion: "The VCTM carries an AM-50 120 millimeter internal mortar, capable of firing 8 to 12 shots per minute up to a distance of 9,500 meters."

• The second paragraph starts with "Other variants include the ..." and ends with "Variants also include ...". It might be better to reword either of those (preferably the latter).

Production

• "Fabrication of the TAM began in 1979, in Argentina, with the intention of manufacturing 200 tanks and 312 VCTP infantry fighting vehicles, for a total of 512 armored vehicles. However, production ended in 1983 due to economic problems with only 150 TAMs and 100 VCTPs built."

Suggestion: "Argentina intended to manufacture 512 armored vehicles—200 tanks and 312 infantry fighting vehicles—and started production in 1979. Economic problems, however, forced the program to stop in 1983 after 150 TAMs and 100 VCTPs had been built."

• "Although originally 25 VCA-155s were planned for production starting 1990, only 19 were completed and delivered by 1995, along with 50 VCTMs."

Get rid of the noun plus -ing. "Although 25 VCA-155s were originally planned for its production which started in 1990, only 19 were completed and delivered by 1995, along with 50 VCTMs."

• Why did the article stop at 1995 for the production? Are there no reliable sources that can confirm if TAMSE is still in operation and producing tanks?

• "The factory is completely covered, with two warehouses for storing components, quality control laboratories, a project office, an engine test room and a firing range. Also participating in the production of TAM and variant components were Argentine companies Military Factories General San Martín (manufacturing the chassis), Río Tercero (turret and armament) and Bator Cocchis, S.A."

Suggestion: "The factory is completely covered. On its premises are two warehouses for storing components, quality control laboratories, a project office, an engine test room and a firing range. Besides TAMSE, other Argentine companies were also involved in the production of TAM and its variant components. These companies include Military Factories General San Martín (manufacturing the chassis), Río Tercero (turret and armament) and Bator Cocchis, S.A."

Export and combat history

• "In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs, although upon completion of 20 of these the order was canceled due to budgetary problems in the country."

Suggestion: "In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs. The order was, however, canceled due to budgetary problems in the country after 20 tanks had been completed."

• "The TAM achieved 950 out of 1,000 points, while its closest competitor only earned 750 points, but in the end Ecuador did not procure any of the vehicles presented."

The mention of its competitors "only" scoring 750 points seem a bit biased. Perhaps, "Although the TAM scored 950 out of 1,000 points, outscoring its competitors, Ecuador did not procure any of the vehicles presented."

• "The Iranian deal fell through after Saudi Arabia and Iraq appealed to Germany to cancel the order, which it did. The Saudi Arabian deal fell through when Israel appealed to Germany to cancel the order."

Suggestion: "The Iranian deal fell through after Saudi Arabia and Iraq successfully appealed to Germany to cancel the order. The Saudi Arabian deal, in turn, fell through when Israel appealed to Germany to cancel the order." Even so, there is a repetitive sentence structure... Furthermore, why did these countries appeal to Germany? Should Argentina not be the sole decider, or were these TAMs of German manufacture?

General

• Remove the periods from all units of measurement per WP:MOS#Unit symbols and abbreviations.

Aside from the copyedit I did, the above are my comments and suggestions for this article. Jappalang (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I took most of these suggestions into consideration. Some responses:

1. These included a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, grenade launchers, a road range of at least 500 kilometers with a maximum velocity of 70 kilometers per hour and a weight of no more than 30 tonnes. - The maximum road range is not 500 kilometers under the condition that the tank is going at maximum velocity, so I didn't add that in.
2. No source really specifies, but you'd imagine that they got paid.
3. The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and lethality. -> According to its manufacturers, the light and compact Rh-105-30 could destroy its target with its first shot on most occasions. - I don't understand; the claim on the second sentence has almost nothing to do with the claim in the first sentence. It went from being lethal, to being able to destroy a target on its first shot - these are not necessarily the same thing.
4. I made the change to the sentence, but muzzle brake is wikilinked.
5. Co-axial is wikilinked, as well.
6. I don't feel like "it helps the gunner aim" is really the most accurate description, since that can encompass a lot of things. I added something similar, but I didn't take off "fire solutions".
7. "When inside the tank, the tank commander uses a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope to observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects." - This seems redundant in several places. The second suggestion is not necessarily true.
8. A lot of these edits seem like re-writes of sentences that had nothing wrong with them, but making them more complex. For example, the re-write of the engine choice—I decided to keep what I currently have.
9. Velocity is a more exact word than speed.
10. The mantlet is the same as it is in every tank. I wikilinked to Gun mantlet.
11. In the variants section, I didn't make the change to what was relevant to the internal mortar. The copyedit makes it seem as if rate of fire and range are inter-related, which they're not.
12. TAMSE is not producing tanks. Production ended in 1995.
13. I don't see how mentioning how many points its competitors received is biased—it's not an opinion, it's referenced fact.
14. Sources are not very clear, but a lot of the technology used on the tank was German and so the Argentines did not necessarily have the right to sell all of it (like the gun).

Apart from the above, everything should be changed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If I seemed direct in my comments, I apologize. I truly appreciate the effort put into improving the prose of the article! JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1. With the clarification, I can suggest "The armored vehicle would weigh no more than 30 tonnes, move at a maximum speed of 70 kilometers per hour, and cover at least 500 kilometers on the roads. It would be armed with a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, and grenade launchers."

2. I think it is common knowledge that they got paid, but the amount of payment they received for the transfer would be relevant. It is not a big issue if this amount cannot be found (it could be confidential, but it could also have been released through various news sources), but let me know so I can strike it.

3. "Lethality" is subjective and one would expect all firearms to be lethal anyway. By putting "lethality" as an advantage, it is expected that either a source states the weapon can kill much better than other weapons. As this statement comes from a primary source, that opinion can be questioned (hence, the suggestion of adding in the "according to the manufacturer"). The source also states no qualifier to "lethality" other than "greater firepower" and "high first-shot kill probability". Replacing "lethality" with the "greater firepower" (which does not truly translate to better killing ability) is another option.

4 & 5. Yeah, I wikilinked it during the copyedit, but I suggested adding brief explanation of their workings as I am of the mind that the reader should not click on the link to find out what it generally means but to find out more of the term in detail. This is just an opinion.

6. Your change is much better.

7. The essence behind the suggestion was to suggest an importance to the mention of the periscope. If the original sentence is stuck to, please replace "makes use" with "uses".

8. See below.

9. Velocity comprises direction and rate of displacement. Why should a tank use velocity?

10. That is fine.

11. Eh, I do not think "capable of firing 8 to 12 shots per minute up to a distance of 9,500 meters" implies that the rate of fire is dependent on distance.

12. TAMSE's stoppage since 1995 should be mentioned in the article because the paragraph mentioned its reactivation in 1994 to produce an additional 120 TAM tanks as well as VCA-155s. The article then dangles with production numbers for 1995 (which based on the 1983 figure of 150 TAMs, meant that 70 TAMs in the 1994 order were not produced—200-150=50 tanks were produced).

13. Yes, but we can certainly do without the "only".

14. Hmmm... is it possible to find sources that can clarify this situation further?

There is no need to apologize. What I written above (specifically the suggestions) are my opinions. Like Tony said, the prose is generally fine, but I found it a bit phrased in a technical manner. Hence, I tried to offer a spicing up of the language (Note: the Suggestions are not issues except where there are other questions to them). When put in a technical manner, tank jargon—phrases which most tank buffs would understand—are often introduced (e.g. coaxial, muzzle brake, etc). A reader with a lesser interest in tanks can be overwhelmed and find it less motivating to read further on. Linking is just a work-around (no need to fret about those comments on the terms that are wiki-linked, I left them unstruck for others to think about); it totally fails when there is no article on the term. I missed this out the first time, but what is a "hydrodynamic par converter"? Jappalang (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are some responses,

1. Changed.
2. Unfortunately, the value of the contract isn't mentioned. Argentina's news sources also do not have a well designed online archive, and I haven't been able to find any articles relevant to the TAM.
3. I changed it to "increased lethality".
4. Well, the definitions would be rather long (at least a few sentences each term) and it this may be a breech of the term that the text should not go off topic. Generally speaking, in books "big words" are not defined in the text, as they expect you to go look it up if you don't know it. The problem with tank articles is that they will be full of jargon, since those are terms in their simplest form (in relation to other tank-related jargon).
5. (Actually #7) Changed to "uses".
6. Well, when a tank is moving then it will have a direction. I think either speed or velocity are fine, but I don't see the point in changing back and forth.
7. I reworded the rate of fire and range sentence. Hopefully, it sounds better now.
8. Well, the article says 120 of both TAMs and VCTPs. I notice how this can be confused as 120 TAMs and 120 VCTPs. I don't have specific production numbers, unfortunately, although I assume that enough TAMs were produced to fulfill the requirement of 200 tanks and then the rest were VCTPs. But, breaking it up like that would be original research.
9. "Only" removed.
10. Unfortunately, no. The case is similar to the case described in the AMX-30E article. The Germans could not sell the Leopard 1 without British approval because the British owned the license to the Royal Ordnance L7. Just that, this would be original research. I don't have a general source that describes copyright laws with this type of equipment, unfortunately.

I think I took care of most of it. Only a few more points to discuss. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I struck some but I think I will re-list for clarity my remaining concerns.

• On "velocity" versus "speed": Everything has a direction when moving but we do not commonly refer to their rate of displacement as velocity. An important point as stated in the velocity article is that as a vector quantity, velocity must have its unit (eastward direction in this example) as "meters per second east" and not simply "meters per second". Velocity does not equal speed, and I am certain it is not commonly used to describe the capability of a vehicle. Hence, all mentions of "velocity" in this article should be changed to "speed".
• What is a "hydrodynamic par converter"? Note that Google shows no result at all for this phrase; however, it suggests "hydrodynamic torque converter" or simply "hydrodynamic converter". I think the unique term deserves some explaining.

Besides the difference in opinion over wiki-linking to and briefly describing jargon (but which I am prepared to overlook in light of the explanations), the other concerns are minor and likely subjective. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, all instances of velocity will be changed to speed. And yea, I forgot to translate "par". Par is torque in Spanish. :( I will change it to hydrodynamic torque converter. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

With all the major concerns resolved, I looked over the article again. I have a couple of questions:

* is the Cold War tanks template necessary?

* why is the TAM categorized as a Tank of Germany even though the European country does not use it? Is that category correct (i.e. should it be named "Tanks produced by Germany")?

Regardless, other minor concerns aside, I believe this article is comprehensive as the sources allow it to be. It has appropriately used sufficient images to illustrate the tank and its variants. The article reads well and is generally smooth in its prose. Hence, I believe it to be worthy of Featured Article status. Jappalang (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we are adding both the Cold War tank and Post Cold War tank templates to tanks which were used in both; i.e. tanks developed during the Cold War, but remain the main battle tanks of their respective countries (such as the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, etc... we are trying to avoid conflicts about what tanks to include in which templates, and what not). Furthermore, I took off the "tanks of Germany" category (that was there before I started editing the article) and added two more. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - looked through it, found a gap and some other minor problems. I addressed the one, the submitter fixed anything else. Seems about 100% complete. Doesn't seem like anything could be missing, and this is a small topic, which is covered well. I haven't seen anything that this could be opposed over. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Downright clunky prose. See my copy-edits for some very preliminary indications of the kinds of things that need to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the edits you made took out important information, which was definitely not redundant. Some examples,

Due to a lack of resources and experience, the Argentine Ministry of Defense established a contract with German company Thyssen-Henschel to transfer the necessary technology. - That wasn't redundant, despite the fact that the next sentence says that the vehicle was designed by German engineers. The fact that Argentina lacked the resources and experiences is an important fact.

I don't see what I could change "adequate" with. To me, the adjective is pretty clear, although perhaps it's not as clear to others. Adequate firepower would simply refer to adequate enough to defeat current threats. I changed the sentence to, The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern light-weight fast tank with a low silhouette and sufficient firepower to defeat most modern armored threats.

In all the tank-related articles I've put through FAC, having a decimal conversion is preferred to rounding up or rounding down.

The rest of the edits are fine.

Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have copyedited where I thought it would help, and I'm hoping it's looking better. I'd like to work to get rid of that oppose, however. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed "scuppered", which you added, to "scrapped". According to dictionary.com scuppered is a synonym of "massacred", and so I don't think that would have been the correct word to use. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't forgotten. :P JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support After a read of this, I can see no issues. -- how do you turn this on 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Read the article, can't see any problems that haven't already been addressed. Skinny87 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding article. The only thing that somewhat bothers me (its a pet peeve, so it doesn't count insofar as S&O !votes go) is the presence of the tank portal link out on the main page. A check of the tank portal's FAs shows this isn;t one of them, but if this does become an FA on the tank portal I would recommend removing the portal link on the main page and integrating into the MILHIST template on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how is that done? JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Its coded into the Milhist template (actually, it was at my suggestion that we do this :) When an article is selected for use on a particular portal the milhist template is updated with the code |portal1-name= and |portal1-link=. The first part denotes the portal on which the article is used, the second links directly to the article on the portal (selected aricle/x, where x is the number used). At a glance, you can see this on the talk page for Iowa class battleship, and as a bonus for we can add the code regardless of whose portal the article actually appears on, thereby allowing us to include all aplicable projects within the template, thereby cutting down on the need to include portal links on the article name space. Unless something has changes, we can support up to five different portals within out template. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just did it to all the FA tank articles, which are on the portal, and I'll do it on the TAM's page if it passes this FAC. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Concerned about overreliance on one source: JonCatalan, do you speak Spanish? The MilHist A-class review raised concerns about overreliance on one source, and you replied that there was no info from Argentine newspapers. I found these with nothing more than a very quick google search on only two newspapers: [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89]. I have not read these sources in detail, but they certainly indicate that more sources do exist, and give rise to concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article. As far as I can tell, you haven't used any of these sources. Because Jbmurray has lodged an Oppose on prose (that remains unaddressed), and because he speaks Spanish, I suggest further work with him, or another Spanish-speaking editor (such as Titoxd) will help assure that this article meets 1b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his concern was addressed. He spent some time copyediting the article, but after I left another message on his Talk Page he hasn't responded or reported back here. I will take a look at those articles later, though. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Those newspaper articles cover, to a degree, some trade deals and I will hopefully replace a number of references with those when I come back from class, or tomorrow morning. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking that sources be replaced for the sake of diversification of sources: I'm asking if the article is comprehensive and well-researched. That is, is anything left out or not accurately represented by the one source you used in writing the article ? Switching some sources for the sake of diversifying the sources won't address the concern; the concern is thoroughness and comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I added what I could get from those articles you provided. They mostly had to do with illegal arms transfers by former Argentine governments, and one mentioned the amount of tanks planned for the Iran sale. La Nación mentioned something similar, but instead said that 60 tanks were going to be sold to Iraq. Mazarrasa, by far the only major and researched source on the TAM, doesn't mention Iraq, and I think that La Nación mixed Iraq with Iran (not the first time a newspaper has gotten things like that wrong). One of La Nación's articles claims that the TAM was built by the Germans to work in conjunction with "heavy tanks", but the Argentines were not capable of building heavier tanks. I'm not so sure that I should add this, since this is the only source that mentions that and La Nación has already shown tendencies to get some facts wrong. The TAM's weight was specific to the terrain it was supposed to fight over, so it doesn't make sense that it was to fight alongside heavier vehicles. I have worked with another editor, who has supported the article (DPdH), and we haven't been able to find a great deal of sources in Argentina proper (apparently there are some military magazines which mention it, but these are almost impossible to find without living in Buenos Aires). JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I do not have time to research this article thoroughly just because I happen to speak Spanish: I will give you one example of my concern:

The article says:

In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs. The order was, however, canceled due to budgetary problems after 20 tanks had been completed. A similar order was established by Panama in 1984, although this contract was also canceled, for unknown reasons.

Noting the prose concerns of Jbmurray about contracts being "established", I think deeper research should yield something better than "for unknown reasons".

Advierten que Panamá podría embargar la fragata Libertad says:

La historia del juicio es la siguiente: en 1983 la empresa estatal Tanque Argentino Mediano (TAMSE) firmó un contrato con una empresa intermediaria de Palleros constituda en Panamá, llamada Agrometal para vender a Irán 60 blindados por un monto de 90 millones de dólares y con una comisión legal de 9 millones.Sorpresivamente, en 1984 cuando ya había asumido el gobierno radical otra empresa denominada Ventes, también avalada por TAMSE, hizo una oferta por un precio menor lo que enojó a los iraníes y abortó la venta. Entonces, Palleros inició un juicio en Panamá por el cobro de su comisión y resarcimientos de los gastos en que había incurrido, argumentando que la operación se había frustrado por una decisión del Estado argentino.En 1990, Humberto Romero, ministro de Defensa de Menem, aceptó un arreglo extrajudicial por 15 millones de dólares a pagar en cuotas, que fue objetado por Economía. En 1995, la Sala II de la Cámara Civil y Comercial de Buenos Aires falló a favor de Palleros para un pago en bonos, pero el retraso que se habría producido en la liquidación de las cuotas hizo que el demandante reabriese el juicio en Panamá y se trabase embargo sobre bienes argentinos en ese país.Consultados voceros de la Armada sobre esta situación se abstuvieron de confirmar o negar la existencia de la advertencia de la Cancillería.

And there are bodies, too. From A Estrada le habrían dado US$ 1,8 millón en Uruguay:

El capitán de navío estaba imputado como partícipe necesario de la venta ilegal de armas y había sido indagado por el juez Urso el 21 de agosto. Cuatro días después apareció muerto en su departamento.Urso y el fiscal Carlos Stornelli allanaron la casa de Estrada el 27 de agosto y secuestraron una serie de documentos sobre la empresa fantasma Hayton Trade, intermediaria en el contrabando de armas a Ecuador, y sobre transacciones con Panamá vinculadas al Tanque Argentino Mediano (TAM). Entre los documentos confiscados figurarían comprobantes de transferencias a la cuenta secreta de la Exter Banca, en Montevideo.En Uruguay rige un estricto secreto bancario, por lo que Urso deberá tramitar el levantamiento de los datos reservados ante los tribunales de ese país. En el allanamiento a la casa de Estrada, Urso también secuestró notas entrecruzadas con la Dirección Nacional de Fabricaciones Militares (FM), documentos sobre las empresas Hayton Trade y Debrol, y papeles sobre transacciones con Panamá por unidades del TAM supuestamente pactadas desde 1985 en adelante.

The article has one sentence about Panama, which doesn't appear to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Considering the text above from two articles only, I suggest deeper research would reveal that we can say more than "canceled for unknown reasons", which should not be a satisfying explanation to our readers. Likewise, the article has one sentence about Ecuador, when the news sources indicate an arms scandal. I am not suggesting that this article has to delve into all of the arms contraband scandals mentioned in these articles: I am asking that you convince us that the article has been thoroughly researched, and that there is nothing in the 15 links I gave above that should be included. Perhaps Jbmurray or Titoxd will have time to look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those articles are talking about the possibility of political scams, related to the Argentine arm trade with other South American companies (including Panama and Ecuador), and I'm not sure if a lot of the information in those articles can be taken as facts. The articles don't really make it clear why the Panamanian deal was canceled. For example, in one of those quotes it mentions that TAMSE had offered the tank for cheaper than they had offered it to Iran, which angered the Iranians and caused TAMSE to temporarily cancel. It then blames the government for making that decision, and then goes on to say how later the Ministry of Defense decided to offer the Panamanians a deal in which they could pay in installments. It's not very clear, and then says that the bank allowed the payments to be done in bonds, but due to budgetary problems it was decided to stop selling Argentine goods to Panama. So, would it be correct for me to say that it was canceled because the Panamanians couldn't afford the tank? It weaves in and out about the arms scandal, and claims that some payments were made to a "secret account", but doesn't really specify. The article doesn't mention anything related to the TAM and Ecuador, just that Panamanian payments were arriving in banks in Montevideo, Uruguay. My greatest worry is how Clarín leans politically. Unfortunately, my Argentine friends are currently sleeping, but I know that a few Argentine newspapers have left-wing or right-wing tendencies, and what I'm afraid of is that a lot of this information is peacocked in order to make it sound worse than it actually is, or at least exaggerate the situation. I guess I could add information on why the Panamanian deal could have been canceled, but I don't really feel comfortable adding information about an arms scandal, especially when none of my published sources agree. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So, considering all of those factors, you feel that "for unknown reasons" summarizes the situation best? This is but one example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I should not that Jbmurray's "concerns" had to do with him deleting a sentence which mentioned that Argentina has established a contract with the German company to design the TAM, not establishing export deals with other countries. Although, I do get your point. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, those articles are not discussing the offer to sell the TAM to Panama. They are talking about an attempt to sell Iran the TAM through a Panamanian company. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:33, 13 October 2008 [90].

---

Richard II of England

Nominator(s): Lampman (talk)

This is a complete rewrite of a B-level article. GA-nomination has been skipped, but it has undergone at least a partial peer review. All major issues of the man and the reign have been addressed, and the article is sourced with reliable sources throughout. The heavy reliance on one source (Saul, 1997 - c. 50%) I believe is a natural consequence of that work's standing as the only up-to-date, academic, full-scale monograph on the king (the last such dates to 1941, and must be considered outdated). Lampman (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment All the links to the Oxford website are subscription-only. Also, is there any reason ref #5 isn't split up into separate references by page? Otherwise sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• There was a recent discussion about this on the talk page, and the consensus seems to be to use doi on subscription required sites, so I did that. As for ref #5, that's same thing - Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - so since it's a webpage there's no page numbers. Lampman (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, misread, I thought ref #5 was a published work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Wilton diptych2.jpg has been nominated for deletion, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wilton diptych2.jpg. The others seem fine to me. Giggy (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm on it. The nomination doesn't seem to have any merit. The image won't be deleted, worst case it'll have to be cropped. Input on the nomination would be appreciated. Lampman (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image was kept, for the record. Giggy (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quite a few dablinks need fixing. Giggy (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's only three, and one is the {{otheruses}} link at the top of the page. The other two are now fixed. Lampman (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Overlinked: why "deposed", "tyrannous", "courtiers", "retinue", and for god's sake "personality disorders" (which will give us a very 21st-century skew on the concept). This article is not for the nine-year-old grade-school student, and we can assume that the reader speaks good English (if not, there's a radical thing called a dictionary, or even Wiktionary, but that's over to children and non-native speakers). The more lexical definitions you link, but more you dilute the considerable number of high-value links: we don't want to do that. Tony (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Though I agree with you in principle about overlinking, I'm not sure I agree with the examples you've given. The history of the indentured retainer in medieval England is a complex one. It is probably not well understood by most non-experts, much less so by nine-year-olds, and I don't know of any dictionary that would fully explain it. As for "personality disorders", this is deliberately a 20th/21st-century expression, because - as you will see from the relevant section - it relates to modern historians' assessment of the king, from a psychoanalytical perspective. I did remove a handful of other links though. Lampman (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that, although the courtier article is pretty poor. Favourite might be better. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link on courtier. Favourite is linked elsewhere in the article. Lampman (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• "Richard became second in line to the throne when ..." here or below it should be mentioned he was 4 at the time, to save us doing the maths.

• Done

• "This was preferred over a regency led by the king's uncle, John of Gaunt, ..." "to", not "over"? Preferred by whom?

• Changed

• "was later used as a Messianic analogy, as can be seen in the Wilton Diptych." perhaps rather overphrased?

• Changed

• the silent sitting on the throne was "on solemn festivals" according to the source.

• Added

• capital D for Duke of Ireland, no? This was exceptional & unique & a new creation, one of which is worth saying.

• Added

• "The duke of York, who was acting as keeper of the realm, had little choice but to ..." has he been linked before? I think not. Again sb Duke.

• No, only in a footnote. Linked

• "– were revealed to plan the murder of the new king, " - grammar

• Changed

• "wherefrom Richard's two wives came" - ?!

• Changed

• "and gave them @ badges with his White Hart @ ." add livery at either @

• Done

• " most recent academic biographical book " "biography" then?

• That would be a bit inaccurate, as he has been the subject of an extensive biographical article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography since that (see Tuck, 2004)

"full-length academic biography" would be better then. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Richard's exclusive reliance on the county of Cheshire " not previously mentioned & worth expanding on.

• It's mentioned in the sentence that begins "By installing de Vere..", but I didn't make the connection between Chester and Cheshire clear enough. Fixed

• The tomb already contained Anne

• Added

• Court culture and patronage. International Gothic, which I have just revamped, is worth a link. There was a general increase in royal grandeur across Europe at the time, and royal pretensions. The over life-size Westminster portrait appears to be unprecedented in England, if not Europe, and again fits in with international trends. Chaucer was not just a civil servant who wrote; he read aloud to the court, & seems to have been rewarded for his writing. "Geoffrey Chaucer, served the king as a diplomat and a clerk of The King's Works before devoting himself fully to literature" is wrong - his two careers apparently peaked over the same years. In this context his relationship to Gaunt might be worth a mention. Did not Gower's change of heart follow Richard's death, and include some canny backdating of his works?

• I've added IG as a "See also" link, and I've rewritten the sentence on Chaucer. As for Gower, it's hard to say. He might have been in the service of Bolingbroke as early as 1393,[91] though he could of course not openly criticise Richard while he was still king. While these are all interesting issues in and of themselves, I think it would be undue weight to get too far into it in an article about Richard II. In Saul's words: "there is little or no evidence directly to connect the poetry of the court with Richard's patronage." (Saul (1997), p. 361.)

• Generally there are not many pictures - the miniature of Chaucer reading could go in. The Liber regalis coronation miniature is here, and there are more from the Gruuthuse Froissart around.

• I've added another couple of images

• Aren't we going to have the handkerchiefs?

• This I considered trivia, though I wrote a note about it on the talk page

Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments! Lampman (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Changed to Oppose, see below. - although the article slightly lacks excitement, which is a pity given the subject. I would still like to see more on the court & its culture culture, since Richard was one of the few medieval English monarchs interested in the arts - perhaps rather more so than in politics. There should also be a concluding passage explaining Henry's treatment of his memory and how his overthrow eventually led on to the Wars of the Roses. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Several sources state 6 January as his death date, not 14 February. Which is right? -- how do you turn this on 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to know which sources those are. Most reliable, academic sources operate with a date on or around the 14th (Pollard (2004): "Most chroniclers believed that he died on 14 February, but how he died will never be known for sure."), but, as the article says, he was starved to death in secrecy, so we'll never know with certainty when exactly he died. Lampman (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jan 6 was his birth date of course - is there perhaps confusion? Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • There are books I own that mention it as an alternate date. Here is an online source I'd consider reliable. -- how do you turn this on 22:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly an RS when there are so many other better ones. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just one, and it happens to be sourced to a book. I have a few kings and queens books at home. I'm certain they say 6 January as an alternative date. I'll check them when I get back. -- how do you turn this on 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Saul's Richard II seems to feel that the death happened in February, and discusses the contemporary sources that give dates between the middle of Feb to the last day of Feb. Tuck's ODNB article agrees. It's going to take more than the peerage site (which uses Wikipedia as a source for some of the other information!) to make this other than a probable transcription error (Which seems likely given that the day and month given for his death is the same as his birthdate) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support It was an enjoyable read, and I tweaked up the text a bit. Though some things, like the arts are lacking, as Johnbod notes. Wasn't he the first English king to have his portrait painted? Surely that's something interesting that should be mentioned? -- how do you turn this on 22:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

first surviving panel portraits (as opposed to ones in manuscripts, coins or tomb effigies), yes. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the support. I think you're right about the portrait, I'll see if I can find sourcing for it. Lampman (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support with a couple of quibbles.

• I may have missed it, but you mention in "Coming of Age" the third paragraph, Gaunt and Buckingham, but I don't know where you introduced Buckingham before? Flogging my brain, isn't Thomas of Woodstock meant here? I seem to recall that one of his earlier titles before Gloucester was earl of Buckingham...

• Good catch! Gloucester, Buckingham and Thomas of Woodstock are indeed one and the same person, but it's inaccurate to call him Gloucester before he received this dukedom in 1385. I've amended this, and put in a brief explanation.

• When was de Burley executed?

• Added

• Second crisis... third paragraph, the sentence "The house of Lancaster..." is really awkward. Perhaps "The house of Lancaster not only possessed greater wealth than any other family .,..."

• Done

Overall, an excellent article and one that doesn't neglect anything on the recent scholarship I'm familiar with, although it should be noted that I'm much more an Anglo-Norman person than a Plantagenet person. One book I can recommend is Prestwich's Plantagenet England 1225-1360 part of the new Oxford History of England series. Excellent overview of recent scholarship. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support and kind comments. Prestwich's Plantagenet England is indeed a useful reference, but for this period the next volume in the series - Harriss's Shaping the Nation: England, 1360-1461 - is more relevant. Lampman (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. To us Anglo-Norman people, all that stuff past Henry II is just ... modern history (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Problems could arise from the "Ancestors of Richard II of England" being in the closed position. The "see also" should be integrated. Also, the "English Royalty House of Plantagenet" seems to be very bulky and possibly causing problems. The "Titles and style" in the info box seems a little off ("The King" as a title, when there is already a "King" title, for instance). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I moved "Ancestors" down, and removed the "Plantagenet" box and "The King". Lampman (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose by karanacs. I thought the article was interesting and informative, but the prose really didn't seem to be up to FA standards everywhere. I've listed some examples below.

• "Joan of Kent had been involved in a marriage dispute between Thomas Holland and William Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, from which Holland emerged victorious" - this is a very interesting way to phrase this concept. I assume you meant that two men were fighting over her hand, but "involved in a marriage dispute" could mean a lot of other thins. Is it really important to know this information, anyway?
• "In addition to discontent with the royal council came an increasingly heavy and more wide-ranging burden of taxation,." - this is very awkward to me.
• The article needs a comma edit. There should be no comma in instances like this "he did this, and did that" unless both halves are complete sentences by themselves ("he did this, and he did that")
• "Richard had, in spite of his young age, shown great personal qualities in his handling of the rebellion. " - this sentence seems like someone's opinion. Should it be attributed directly in the text to whoever wrote the sentiment?
• The prose need to be tightened. For example, "It is only with the Peasants' Revolt that Richard starts to emerge clearly in the annals" should be, "After the Peasants' Revolt, Richard began to emerge clearly in the annals" - except in this particular case what does this mean?
  • second example: "set about on the task of negotiating a permanent peace with France" - why not just "began negotiating a permanent peace with France"?
• "In spite of great sums of money awarded to the Empire, the political alliance never gave any military results" - does this mean that the Empire did not attempt to do anything militarily, or that they lost every time?
• Watch for passive voice. Most of the time sentences in passive voice can be rewritten. This helps flow and can tighten the prose quite a bit
• "Awkward phrasing: "De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family, and when Richard made him chancellor in 1383, and created him Earl of Suffolk two years later, this provoked the hostility of the more established nobility"
• "and obviously never did, as Richard would be dead within four years" - this might work better as a footnote; it seems a bit jarring where it is.
• A template should not be used as article text (with its own section). The template on ancestors should go at the bottom of the article.

Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, I've implemented some of your suggestions. Lampman (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

• "denied these charges, that would have amounted to treason" which is treason, the charges, or the denial?

• Changed

• "where the Duke of Ireland was routed" I had to do CTRL-F to discover that this refers to de Vere. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Changed, thanks. Lampman (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Moral Dilemma Support I'm on board with Karanacs in thinking that the writing is just a teeny bit uneven in places, like a skating rink with a slightly warped wooden floor. My heart says weak oppose (Don't count that, Sandy!), but I'm afraid if I do that then I'll cross the nom over some intangible No Consensus tipping point and make it have to wait (if the wise and sensible waiting rule is accepted) another 28 days.. so Support. But please don't dump this article like bad news and move on to another one; please find a couple folks to smooth the writing. See forex "According to Hereford Norfolk"... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, and I'd be happy to work with anyone who wants to tweak the article further. I wasn't quite sure about the example you mention, but I guess it must be considered a participial phrase, and requires a comma. Lampman (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Good job and much improved. Just one thing, the 5th reference "Tuck (2004)" should be broke down into specific page references. This will be a pain in the arse to do no doubt, but all the others show specific pages. - True as Blue (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. As I mentioned above, "Tuck (2004)" refers to a website - the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.[92] That's why there are no page numbers. Lampman (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Placeholder-oppose - the writing is awkward in places with some redundant wording, I will try to fix this as I go, but revert me if I change the meaning inadvertently. This oppose is a placeholder really as it does need a bit of a tweak before being up to scratch. Nearly there, though and this FAC should be successful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Abbey of St. Andrew - someone should make a stub really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I never wikified this; someone else did but I've removed. A Google search on "Abbey of St. Andrew" and Bordeaux returns very few results, most of them relating to the birth of Richard II. I honestly don't think this is a very notable institution, apart for being the birthplace of a king. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family - unless 'upstart' has a particular contemporary connotation I have missed, this comes across as negative POV.

It was certainly how the elite thought at the time, maybe adding "" would do it, if the reference uses it. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::::ok, that's fine then, I wouldn't worry about quote marks but maybe a link to an explanation in teh future may be a good thing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to sleep now but will chip in tomorrow. It still needs some massaging. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the seealso section is a problem - I don't understand why International Gothic is there - if important, there should be some elaboration in Court culture and patronage section, or somewhere, if it is too tenuous, then the link should be just dropped. As well, the Cultural depictions of Richard II of England should be a short paragraph rather than just a link. Shakespeare's plays have been crucial in their representations - as he is a playwright and not a historian, I'd take the para on shakespeare out of Character and assessment proper, and make a subsection cultural depictions at the bottom - with some mention about appearing in numerous films and their treatment of him, did any deal with the homosexuality, were they faithful to shakespeare or have some attempted to use more direct historical records? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I try to satisfy everybody, but when one person says International Gothic should be included and someone else says it should be taken out that becomes impossible. In or out, I don't really care much. As for the cultural depictions, to the best of my knowledge Shakespeare's play is the only culturally significant fictional portrayal of the king, and as such doesn't seem enough to warrant a separate section. Of course the play has a long performance history, but in my opinion that belongs in Richard II (play), and not here. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, you now have three reviewers saying the cultural section needs expansion - please don't try and play us off against each other, we are clearly all saying the same thing! Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about the International Gothic link - there seem to be opposing views as to whether or not it should be included. You're saying that it should be removed if it's "too tenuous", and I'm leaning towards this opinion. As for culture, it has been suggested above that more be added e.g. on the biographies on Chaucer and Gower. I have expressed my views on this; that this would constitute undue weight since there is little evidence to connect either of these men to the king. However, we have to distinguish between court culture in Richard II's own time, and posthumous depictions of the king. If I understand you correctly the latter was your main concern, and as I said above, I believe a performance history of Shakespeare's play belongs in that article, not here. Lampman (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems I was misreading your comments above, where you said adding more on the poetry would constitute "undue weight". I don't agree on this, but it is an acceptable point of view. However it now seems you meant this to apply to any expansion of the whole culture section, which three reviewers have clearly asked for. This swings me back to an oppose. Let's be clear no one asked for International Gothic to be a See also - the request was for some of the easily available and significant additional material to be added to the section to justify the link, which I might add you are very well qualified to do, but it seems you have dug your heels in over this. Given the level of detail accorded to the political history of the reign, this goes against the comprehensiveness of the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I misread the comments above and got you and Casliber a bit confused. I wasn't principally opposed to expanding the culture section if there was a consensus on this; I've expanded it somewhat now, hope this helps. Lampman (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I don't know enough about international gothic to know whether it is significant or not, just that it shouldn't just be a seealso link. You already have a paragraph on the shakespeare, and it wouldn't be a section, but a subsection of the last section. Also, there have been many films, and any major motion picture release can be argued to be culturally significant - given he is a controversial figure, its is important to note whether subsequent protrayals dipcti him in a negative or positive light. Like it or not, this is how 99.9% of people who read teh article are gonig to come in contact with the subject. It doesn't have to be much. No-one would oppose on a succinct paragraph (already half doen with the shakespeare material already there, and a brief summary of some of the film versions. I may have some material accessible at my mothers' but it may take a day or two to add). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about what you called "elaboration in Court culture and patronage" - ie the cultural aspect of Richard's own court (a centre of International Gothic). I'm not aware of other significant later depictions of Richard, though there may well be some. The cultural aspects of Richard's court seem more relevant to me - frankly too many "history" biographies are let off the hook on this here, just as too many political historians underplay the cultural aspects of the subjects of their biographies. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, I don't mean to be difficult; so since the consensus is that there should be more on the culture, I've added a bit more than 1k on this. As for movies, as far as I've been able to find there hasn't been a single one made (though there have of course been some adaptations by the BBC and other TV stations). Lampman (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there were no films of this play at all! Wow. The stuff on Giledgud performing it and then a different play of Richard are interesting, but neither are unequivocally important. On reading it, I can see how the shakespeare material blends in to the natural flow of where it is currently placed, thus moving it creates as many problems as it solves. OK, not a deal-breaker and over the line. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support! Lampman (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: mixture of citation methods. See Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools; do not mix the citation template with the cite xxx family of templates as they provide different styles. Pick one or the other, not both. There were numerous inconsistencies thoughout the citations in dashes and plural page nos; I think I got them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your fixes, it seems I was too sloppy with my "p"s. I've converted all the citations into cite xxx. Even though I generally prefer these, I used the citation template in places because the cite xxx template is sometimes too restrictive, but I found a way to make it work. Lampman (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to Oppose - see below & above on culture section, plus various other points not dealt with - there really should be a concluding section linking Richard's deposition to the War of the Roses. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• The culture section is expanded. As for the Wars of the Roses, that's already commented on in the introduction. Lampman (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed: "...Shakespeare, whose narrative held Richard's misrule and Bolingbroke's deposition responsible for the fifteenth-century Wars of the Roses.[1] This is an interpretation no longer accepted today." - this does not exactly cover my point, and actually is rather confusing. What is no longer accepted today? If it is that Henry's deposition led to the WoR then this should be expanded on, as it would seem rather a necessary precondition to get a good civil war going.

When editing, I noticed some American spellings which of course should not be there. Has the article been checked for ENGVAR? Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added material to the section myself, and I think it now covers the ground ok. I note that a book by Jenny Stratford], "Richard II's Treasure" is to be published next March by Boydell, and will no doubt contain additional material worth adding. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - changed back as the article meets FA standards, though some points made by various reviewers should still be dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support—Damn good read. The overlinking seems to have been addressed. Does MoS allow single quotes for words as words? ('gyration'). Not sure I understand it, anyway—is it in quotes because the source (ref 38) used it? That's unclear, so the word as word versus the quote from source functions are confused. I'd use a different word without quotes. Tony (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PS and Lampman, are you going to do a little reviewing yourself? We'd love a bit of help from skilled people. Tony (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. MoS seems to prefer double quotes, so I changed that throughout. I used "gyration" because this is the word that is most often used about this event in the literature (not just ref 38; do a Google Book search for "Richard II" and "gyration"). It's a rather obscure word, and today mostly used in geometry, so I put in the more contemporary "circuit" in parenthesis. I appreciate all the comments here, and you're right I should probably give some back. I'll be on the lookout for a subject where I feel I can contribute. Lampman (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Weak oppose In general, I think this is an excellent article. I read it through twice and learned quite a bit - that is my favorite kind of FAC reviewing. There are just a few places that are a little vague or poorly explained:

• The first major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, during which the young king comported himself well, and played a major part in suppressing the rebellion. - "comported himself well" seems like a strange choice of words to me

• Changed

• By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony - harmony with whom?

• Expanded

• For the next two years Richard's rule was seen by many as tyrannous - by many chroniclers?

• Expanded

• In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. - It seems like these two events are connected - could we show that more explicitly?

• Expanded

• This is an interpretation no longer accepted today - "today" will go out of date - perhaps "twentieth-century historians"?

• That wouldn't really work, as you can see I've based this on late-twentieth/early-twenty-first sources. I changed it to "Contemporary" - surely if historic consensus should change radically, the whole article would need to be rewritten anyway?

• though this does not exonerate Richard from responsibility for his own destiny - fluffy

• I've changed it a bit, but I'm not quite sure how else to word it. It must be seen in conjunction with the next sentence, which is explanatory.

• I think it is the word "destiny" that is bothering me - I don't think someone can be responsible for their own destiny, considering the word has the ring of "fate" about it. Perhaps replacing that word would solve the problem? Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Deposition?

• Historians agree that, even though his policies were not unprecedented or entirely unrealistic, the way in which he carried them out was too extreme, and this led to his downfall. - "too extreme" is a bit vague

• Changed

• Shortly after Holland's death in 1360, Joan married Prince Edward. - It is unclear whether they were married in 1360 as well.

• Added

• This anecdote, and the fact that his birth fell on the feast of Epiphany, was later used in religious imagery, as can be seen in the Wilton Diptych. - Could this imagery be explained, rather than just referred to?

• Expanded

and redone Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed an inconsistency in the capitalization of "Commons" - I wasn't sure whether it should be capitalized or not.

• I like to use uppercase when speaking of the lower house of parliament, and lowercase about the social category of non-nobles

• Although that year's poll tax was the immediate cause of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, the root of the conflict lay in deeper tensions between peasants and landowners, which were in turn caused by the demographic consequences of the Black Death and subsequent outbreaks of the plague - a bit convoluted

• Split up

• On 28 June at Billericay he effectively ended the Peasants' Revolt. - How?

• Expanded

• Was this a battle? Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• More of a skirmish

• Despite his young age, Richard had shown great personal qualities in his handling of the rebellion. - "personal qualities" is a vague phrase

• Changed

• It is only with the Peasants' Revolt that Richard starts to emerge clearly in the annals. - It might be worth explaining to the reader what "the annals" are.

• Wikilinked

• De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family,[25] and when Richard made him chancellor in 1383, and created him Earl of Suffolk two years later, this antagonised the more established nobility. - awkward wording

• Split up

• Richard's close friendship to de Vere also caused displeasure, exacerbated by the earl's elevation to new title of Duke of Ireland in 1386. - caused displeasure to whom?

• Expanded

• Furthermore, he assured legal backing from Chief Justice Robert Tresilian that parliament's conduct had been both unlawful and treasonable. - slightly awkward wording

• Changed

• Towards the end of the 1390s began the period that is often referred to as the "tyranny" of Richard II. - could be worded more strongly

• Removed "often"

• The passive voice is what is causing the weakness. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Activated

• The fines levied on these men brought great revenues to the crown, but the legalities of the proceedings were questioned. - Who did the questioning?

• Added

• He was then free to develop a courtly atmosphere in which the king was a distant, venerated figure, and art and culture, rather than warfare, were at the centre. - The article claims that art and culture were at the center of Richard's court, yet the reader has no idea of this until the very end of the article. I'm wondering if some hints of this can be added to the biography section?

• I've deliberately kept the political and cultural history apart for clarity. I'm not sure how to make this change without re-writing the whole article, but I'd be happy to hear concrete suggestions

• Perhaps this material could be mentioned in the lead? That way it would not be such a surprise to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - per WP:LEAD and the "no surprises" principle, it should be. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Which is also a really good song by Radiohead. I've added a sentence in the lead.

• Chroniclers, even those less sympathetic to the king, agreed that Richard was a beautiful man, possibly in a somewhat feminine way - This is a strange statement - perhaps we could just quote the chroniclers?

• Changed to quote form

• Another major historiographical question concerns Richard's political agenda and reasons for its failure. - "another" is a weak transition

• Changed

• Image:Richard II of England.jpg - Could we try and find the source link for this image again?

Or upload a better one - it is very washed out. The best full length I can find is this (at zoom), or the BBC has this head and shoulders. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - new image uploaded. Awadewit (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing and images look good to me. I am not enough of an expert to judge whether or not the artistic patronage section should be expanded. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - I expanded it somewhat myself last night, after my comments above, & would not now oppose on this. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it is good to know that - I feel reassured! :) Awadewit (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and copyediting. Please let me know if the changes are satisfactory, or if there is more. Lampman (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a few remaining ones which should not be difficult to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope that takes care of it. I've also added more on the perceived connection between Richard and the Wars of the Roses. Lampman (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am most happy to support this article - thanks for working on such an important biography! Awadewit (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:33, 13 October 2008 [93].

---

Problem of Apollonius

Nominator(s): Willow (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it exemplifies the best of Wikipedia's work. This is a legendary problem on which dozens of mathematicians have worked, from Apollonius of Perga to the present. The problem can be solved by a great variety of methods, illustrating for students the richness and relatedness of mathematics, and highlighting some episodes in its history, such as the resurgence of geometry in the early 19^th century. The problem is also relevant for modern navigation systems such as the GPS.

The article has undergone a Peer Review and became a Good Article over a month ago, with few changes since, indicating that it is stable. It has 43 kB of readable prose, one table, 23 static images and one animation that clarifies a mathematical transformation. It also has 72 inline-cited references (some are doubled up into a single citation), 11 books for further reading, and 7 external links to reputable websites. But above all, I hope that everyone enjoys the article! :) Willow (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Note to reviewers: please do not change &-n-d-a-s-h-;'s to –, and other such HTML coding; I do that on purpose to help with proofreading. Thanks!

Comments

• Current ref 34 (Eric W. Weisstein "Four Coins propblem) is lacking a last access date. Also, shouldn't it be Weisstein, Eric W. to fit with the rest of your references?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I couldn't evaluate the non-English sources ... even the Latin. Ecclesiastical medieval latin did not prepare me for mathematical Latin! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Ealdgyth, for your scrupulous attention to detail! :) I think I've fixed up that reference. And now that I know your preferences, I'll give you only medieval Latin to evaluate: Sensus noster iam marcescit, et in nobis refrigescit iam fervor ingenii; si quaeratur, quis hoc fecit, respondemus, "Nos affecit labor frequens FACii." ;) Willow (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(flees from the Latin) Argh! College memories... Argh! Thanks Willow, looks like you're done! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks solid. I knew that Willow was working on it and she's definitely made a change in the article. Good luck! —Sunday | Speak 20:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, m'lord! :) A rose by any other name... :) Willow (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• What gorgeous images ! But they need to be within sections, not above them; I hesitate to move them in myself, as that will create some layout problems (and there are a couple that are creating white spaces already). Also WP:MOS#Quotations on pull quotes and quotation mark/graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The pull-quote from Apollonius might be stricken soon, based on other critiques, so I won't fix that just yet, although I would be interested to know whether {{cquote}} templates are categorically forbidden in Featured Articles? I kind of like the big splashy quotation marks, but others such as the royal pentomphaloid of blessed memory dislike them intensely, and I can imagine they might seem, well, a little unprofessional. :( In any event, I'll bow to the consensus, whatever that is.

The pull-quote has been stricken. Willow (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The image layout is a bit of a quandary for me. As I'm sure you're aware, it used to be a layout requirement that left-aligned images came before the subsection heading. Now that wording has been softened to: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."

I can try to do that in some places, such as the beginning of the "Solution methods" section (Figure 3) as well as Figures 9 and 11; however, I don't see any solution for Figures 6–8? I'm sure you don't want me to interpolate unnecessary text just to satisfy an image layout issue. Willow (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I might've found an agreeable compromise on the image layout issues. Does everyone like the present layout? Willow (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is a subject of discussion at WT:MOS (See Prince of Canada et al). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd much rather make geometrical animations and write medieval Latin poetry all day for Ealdgyth than wade through (or into) such conflicts, which depress me and tie my stomach up in knots. :P Can you just tell me what to do once it's all over? I really don't care one way or the other, as long as I can explain my topic without too much interference from the MoS. Thanks, Dan! Willow (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Second that thought :-) It looks very nice, but there's still one left-aligned image left under a third-level heading (in "Number of solutions"). Can that be moved right? I think the left-right alternating business is purely aesthetic and much less important than accessibility for readers who use screen readers, but honestly, I'm not sure how a screen reader would do with all the math formulas anyway. MoS suffers from WP:TLDRitis, but if you want to consult Graham about how his screen reader does with the article, you could post something brief to the talk page of WP:ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy, for your kind encouragement! :) I'll definitely follow your advice on asking Graham for help. The lone holdout image you mention, Figure 11, is a special case. After some brooding and ignoring all rules, I moved it from the proper right-aligned to left-aligned. The dilemma was that a right-aligned Figure 11 stacks on Figure 12, pushing it down and causing unwanted whitespace just before the poem by Frederick Soddy, as you can see here. Figure 11 can't move upwards because it must come after the Table of the preceding subsection, and it's not really practical to switch the order of the subsections, since Figure 11's subsection refers to the one preceding it. I kind of like the present look, but I also don't want to shut anyone out of understanding the article due to an easily fixed layout glitch. Hoping that this is an OK solution, Willow (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support and comments A really nice article, but two concerns: jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Forced image sizes. These override my thumb preference settings, and, although the images are excellent, make for an ugly layout. If this had not been at FAC, I would have removed most or all of the image sizes. I was going to withhold support on this issue, but I'll be away a for a few days, so supporting now in expectation of a fix.

• I can't decipher to whom this support belongs, no sig, and it will take me a long time to step back through the diffs; please add an {{unsigned}} template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I know forced image sizes aren't customary, but the default image sizes were too small to read the subscripts on the figure labels, such as the "2" in d₂. Is there a way of setting a minimum size? Whether a layout is ugly might be a little subjective (for instance, I find the defaults worse than the present article, naturally) but it seems that illegibility is something we can agree on. Willow (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The image size preferences have been removed except for those in the table. Those were maintained for consistent spacing of the table rows. Willow (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd I'm not a FA regular, but MOS:IMAGE does say If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified. so too small labels would be a reason to give explicit sizes. I would say default size works well for most here but figs 6, 9, 10, 13 and the unnumbered fig near fig 3 seem a bit too small to me. (should that fig be given a number for consistancy?) --Salix alba 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• opening sentence - ...is to construct circles that are tangent to ("touch") three given circles - I really don't like "touch"; tangent is linked and explained later in the text. An explanation in the key sentence disrupts the flow and seems inappropriate. Someone who can't pick up the idea of tangency pretty quickly won't get far in this article anyway. jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize about the "touch" interfering with the flow and I've tinkered with other ways of saying it; but it's hard to satisfy all the desiderata at once. I feel that the lead has to be able to stand by itself; I don't think we can expect that the reader will read the rest of the article or even follow the links. This is especially true for people who might be reading a geometry article on a cell-phone with a slow connection. (An admittedly unlikely scenario but, hey, geometers can dream, too. ;) I also feel that the lead has to be accessible to people who have never learned the mathematical definition of "tangent to". I could remove the "touch" and interpolate a parenthetical sentence, e.g., "(Two circles are tangent if they touch at a single point.)" Would that help, or would it interrupt the flow even more strongly? Willow (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the parenthetical "touch" and added an explanatory clause, which I think is not too disruptive to the flow of the writing. Willow (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Supportive comments by Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC). Congrats, Willow, great article. (I read til Inversion methods for now.)

Thank you very much, Jakob! :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a Support or a Comment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother forcing the distinction. Third bullet in the instructions plus the subsequent sentence clearly suggest the artificiality of this distinction. What does count is the addressing of critical comments. Tony (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Jakob means to say that he's leaning towards Support because he likes the article and will do so once his relatively minor concerns are taken care of. Which I'm trying to do...the main outstanding thing left is to re-write the lead paragraph to encompass more of the technical details of the article without losing readers because of accessibility. I'm brooding over that and will likely dive in on Monday. Willow (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Except for the lead section issue, I would already strike the "ive comments" above, but I will wait until that point is covered more adequatly. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lead: "Apollonius' problem can be generalized in several ways. The three given circles can be of any size and at any distance from each other" - the wording is a bit unfortunate, I feel. After all in the original problem the positions are arbitrary right off the start, right?

You're quite right; that test was moved from somewhere else and not updated appropriately. I fixed the wording and made it a little more colourful at the same time. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Statement section": Given your apparent talent with images, I think that section would benefit of an image of a tangent vs. a secant.

Sure, that's not hard. :) Do you think that tangent/secant lines/lines, line/circles or circles/circles would be more helpful? Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I just thought of a circle, and a tangent line and a secant line.

• Same section: I don't understand why you talk about two lines being tangent or not.

Perhaps I was misguided in this, but it seemed necessary for completeness to discuss the meaning of tangency for all of our geometrical objects, not just the obvious ones. That's also why I discussed how points could be tangent, and whether something was tangent to itself. Does that seem reasonable? Did I understand your meaning correctly? Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see too possibilities: either you stick to the case where solutions are circles (proper, i.e. no points or lines), in which case you don't need to discuss when two lines are tangent, because at least one of the entities in question is a circle. Other case: you do allow lines as solutions (as you do in the "Resizing two given circles to tangency" section. If you do this, the lead has to reflect this somehow.

As an aside: I have never heard people calling parallel lines tangent to each other. The projective plane image you may have in mind, i.e. considering the points at infinity, does IMO not really allow to call them tangent: parallel (distinct) lines intersect in infinity, but they are not tangent there (think of two great circles on a basketball).

I understand your point, but please consider the case of two tangent circles in the plane? They will become two parallel lines if we carry out inversion in a secant circle centered on their tangent point. If we say that inversion doesn't change the tangencies of inverted objects, by adding a point at infinity (rather than a line at infinity), then the two parallel lines are tangent at that point, aren't they? I'm imagining it's like putting two tangent small circles (not great circles) on the sphere so that their tangent point is the North Pole and then projecting down stereographically? Does that seem reasonable? Willow (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not check the details, but it sounds somewhat reasonable. I suggest putting some of these thoughts into that section and finding a ref for this so as to escape OR.

Update: I'm doubtful that such a projection transforms two tangent circles into parallel lines, because the intersection multiplicity of the circles is 2, whereas the intersection of two lines (intersecting at infinity) have multiplicity 1. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Figure 3: Showing the hyperbola you are talking about would be nice.

That image is much harder for me to make, but perhaps I can write a computer program to do that. I wanted to do that anyway for another article, so thank you for encouraging me! :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• A general markup concern: you use bold face pretty freely. I would not do this: it drags the readers attention to single symbols, it is also not standard in math books to use bold face for points, say, and also, I guess, the MOS has something in this direction. Also, the labels à la CCP don't deserve bold face, in my view.

Let me brood over that? I like the boldfacing to indicate that two things are different in character, e.g., points and lines. But I've been known to change my mind — sometimes many times before breakfast. ;) Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another markup thing: I am a bit irritated by switching so often between TeX markup and standard text. I personally prefer standard, because the flow is better. Most of the formulae (!hey ;) don't need TeX, for example the ones in the "Lie sphere geometry" section don't at all. I would suggest replacing every occurence of TeX, where it is possible, by standard markup.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any TeX in the text of the article? If you meant the TeX equations in math mode, I'm really sorry, but I think I'd like to keep them that way. I find the TeX formatting much better than my kludgy formatting with italics and subscripts. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's about

$\left(X_{1}|X_{2}\right):=v_{1}w_{2}+v_{2}w_{1}+\mathbf {c} \cdot \mathbf {c} -s_{1}s_{2}r_{1}r_{2}.$

I mean, I won't insist, but why is the above nicer than

(X₁ | X₂) = v₁w₂ + v₂w₁ + c·c − s₁s₂r₁r₂

Admittedly, the difference in quality isn't glaring, but I do prefer the LaTeX version on my screen, particularly for its spacing and positions of subscripts. De gustibus nihil disputandum est, perhaps? :) Willow (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it "Viète's reconstruction"?

Because he was explicitly trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to reconstruct the original straightedge-and-compass solution of Apollonius? Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I didn't understand that from the said section.

• "Multiplying out the three equations and canceling the common terms yields formulae for the coordinates xs and ys" - I don't see ad hoc why this gives linear equations. Could you specify what you mean by "canceling"?

When multiplied out, all three equations will have x_s² + y_s² on the left-hand side, and r_s² on the right-hand side. Subtracting one equation from another eliminates these quadratic terms, leaving only the linear ones. Should I explain it more fully in the text? Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote out the fuller explanation; undoubtedly, many people would've gotten that. Thanks for catching that and improving the article; that's a very important part of the article! :) Willow (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK.

• "s_1–3" is usually written "s₁ ... s₃".

Yes, you're right, I was just trying to save space. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's been fixed, I think. Does it seem OK to you? Willow (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the first equation in "Lie sphere geom", why do you use the congruence symbol?

I was trying to say that this is the definition of the five-dimensional dot product. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. AFAIK, the standard symbol for this would be ":=" or ${\stackrel {def}{=}}$, or simply "=" and say a magic d-word in the text.

• You should introduce or at least wikilink the |...| notation of the Euclidean norm.

OK, I'll do that right away, that's a very good suggestion. :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's been fixed, I think. Does it seem OK to you? Willow (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the rôle of the orientation of the circles. On the one hand you call it "for visualization", but then it is also the sign in terms of these tangencies. The only widespread meaning of orientation is the clockwise-counterclockwise thing, AFAIK.

We should consult G-guy to explain this cryptic nomenclature, but I've definitely read it in my sources. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first question that comes to (my) mind in the inversion section: if the inversion is undone by applying it again, how come that a problem becomes "simpler" when applying the inversion? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the operation of inversion can render the problem more symmetrical, e.g., by making given circles concentric, or transforming them into parallel straight lines. Another good example of that is the Steiner chain, which I've been fitfully working on these past few weeks. I'm sure that a real mathematician could give you a better explanation and better examples, though. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely; this is the usual reason to restate a problem, from the application of Cartesian coordinates to the Langlands conjecture: to get a new form which contains the same information, more conveniently arranged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have read the rest of the article:

• Pairs of solutions: the text is partly almost the same as the image caption. Consider trimming down the caption of the image? In general, your image captions are really long.

Yes, I'm kind of talkative. I also know my own weaknesses and project them onto others: I sometimes skip the main text if I can get the idea from the figures and the captions. Others might like to do that as well. ;) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Inversion to an annulus: Wikilinking "concentric" might be good.

That's a good suggestion, although the article concentric definitely needs some TLC. :) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is "in tandem" English or Latin? I mean, is it common English use? Never heard that one.

Yes, I've heard it before; I hope that I've used it correctly! :) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Figure 7 and 8 have a number of captions (in the image) that don't seem to be used. e.g. r_inner, r_outer. I would remove these things, they just clutter up the image.

Actually I need to keep them becuase they're needed to define the solution radius and the distance of the solution circle from the concentric center. I think I've fixed up the captions to Figures 7 and 8 to agree with the text on that score. Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• is there a reason for not using standard header markup at "Shrinking one given circle to a point" and the next one? The equal spacing before and after the heading looks a bit odd, I find.

I didn't realize that I could go down one more level in subsections with five ='s in a row! Live and learn something new every day at Wikipedia :) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• You mention that Euclid solved the PPP and LLL case. It might be good to say that every middle school kid (at least in Germany :) learns this, and this is apparently much easier.

To benefit students with less enlightened curricula, I explained those two cases in more detail in the article. You probably noticed that there's a daughter article that goes into all the special cases. Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is, at last, a critical (in the original sense) point: the lead is, I have to say, fairly unbalanced. The generalizations, strangely, occupy a third of the lead, but much less of the article. Another third is occupied by the historical stuff. The current lead section gives the impression: it is an old problem, somehow there are 8 solutions, this can be done more generally.

I read above that your intention is to make the lead interesting or readable to the general public, but this should not be at the expense of matching the content. Please consider adding some hints how the solutions were achieved. You don't have to go into the details, obviously, but somehow the flavor of the many pretty complicated thoughts of the "ancient" geometric guys should be in the lead. This wish corresponds to some guideline "do not dumb it down", right?

Dang, the more I think about it, especially in light of the question which "glasses" (acc. to Gg below) one wears, the more I come to the conclusion that outlining the solution methods, and somehow showing that the problem is a very nice example of how (some techniques in) mathematics evolved over time, is a must. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another statement I miss a bit in the article is a qualitative comparison of the methods. As far as I personally see it, the geometric methods are terribly complicated, the algebraic is pretty nice (and by way of introducing these coordinates, the problem is almost trivial, which could be a nice info for the lead, too), finally the Lie sphere idea puts the other ones to shame with respect to elegance and simplicity.

• Of course I share your view that the Lie sphere approach puts others to shame by its elegance and simplicity, but it is important to realise that the beautiful algebra involves solving quadratic equations, and classical geometers were interested in "geometrical" (for them, straight edge and compass) constructions. Solving quadratic equations is ugly from this point of view, and so the other geometrical solutions (which are indeed terribly complicated) are actually simplifications of the direct translation of the algebraic solutions into classical geometry. What is simple and what is beautiful depends upon the glasses we use. Geometry guy 20:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm aware of this. Anyway, some evaluation should be in the article. Even saying that the problem amounts to solving quadratic equations is a good hint, and should be understandable to many, what the problem's nature is like. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree. However, our ability to include evaluation is limited to what reliable sources have to say. Here I leave the discussion in Willow's capable hands. Geometry guy 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're getting a little subjective here, no? Perhaps there are other ways of viewing the the complexity/elegance of the solutions? I need to 'fess to my own pair of glasses here. I've a childhood love for geometry (at least those that I can visualize easily) and true love lasts a lifetime; I find the geometrical solutions cool and fun, even a little bit racy, like a good paranormal romance novel. On the other hand, I find the algebraic solutions, well, a little anticlimactic, rather like a textbook on accounting. Sure, they're true — but are they Art? ;) I'm not this way, but a jaundiced eye might see Lie spheres as just a convenient tool for 5-column bookkeeping. (gasp — forgive me, G-guy! ;)

That said, I'm open to discussing the methods more in the lead, provided that it engages and doesn't scare off potentially interested readers. I think that might be possible; where there's a will — and people of good will and good sense — there's surely a way, don't you agree? :) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective, moi?! ;) Alas our poor eyes, jaundiced or otherwise, cannot fully appreciate the geometrical beauty of the Lie quadric, constrained as they are by having two dimensional retinas. If these were three dimensional instead, then those 5d column vectors would come to life as points in projective four space. We would then see the Lie quadric, a three dimensional hypersurface, criss-crossed with lines, stretching majestically out to infinity, just as easily as we can see its two dimensional analogue, the hyperboloid of one sheet. Now that's geometry! And perspective it is best painter's art. Geometry guy 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The wording "The eight solution circles differ from one another in how they enclose (or exclude) the three given circles; the eight circles correspond to the eight ways of enclosing or excluding the given circles." is a bit repetitive. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on orientation. In plane geometry there are two ways that two circles can be tangent: from the inside (one circle inside the other) or from the outside. In Moebius (or inversive) geometry, these two ways are equivalent, because an inversion, centered on a point which is outside one of the circles but inside the other, exchanges the two pictures. Lie sphere geometry resolves the ambiguity in a different way: by orienting the circles. For visualization, such an orientation can be viewed as little arrows or chevrons pointing either clockwise or anticlockwise around the circle. Now we can redefine "tangent" to mean "oriented contact" rather than just "contact": two circles make oriented contact iff they touch and the arrows on the two circles are pointing the same way at the contact point. Lie sphere geometry keeps track of the orientations by letting the radius of a circle have a sign. Willow has denoted these signs by the s's. Geometry guy 08:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would epsilon or sigma be clearer than s? Some people who do not understand Lie groups nevertheless have met the usual conventions of mathematical notation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would absorb the signs into the radii, but this may be a too advanced viewpoint. An ε would be preferable to an s at the college level, at least for math majors who've done permutations or tensor analysis. I'm not sure it would help the rest of the readership. Geometry guy 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly arbitrary section break

• Qualified support. I've given Willow way too much grief and not much help over this article! She has made it into an impressive piece of work. I'm happy to support it now modulo the scientific citation guidelines. A general citation would be helpful to the reader at the beginning of the sections on : "Statement of the problem", "Intersecting hyperbolas", "Inversive methods", "Pairs of solutions by inversion", "Gergonne's solution", "Ten combinations of points, circles and lines" and "Number of solutions". I also added two tags. I think these are easily fixed, and hope to cross out "qualified" very soon! Geometry guy 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've fixed all my concerns and a lot more besides. Change to "enthusiastic support". Geometry guy 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - these could easily be opposed issues, but I believe they will be easily remedied: 1. "Statement of the problem" has no citations, and a citation needed tag. Please provide at least a primary source to look at. Two or three references, even if broad, would make the section better. 2. "History" End of the second paragraph in this section needs a citation. 3. "Intersecting hyperbolas" there is text sandwiched between two images. I don't know what can be done to fix this, but it may cause problems. 4. The captions of the "figures" are lengthy, and might be best to be mentioned in the article and point to (figure 1, 2, etc) instead of being in the caption. 5. "Algebraic solutions" should have some citations to where these equations come from so people can look at them later. If they, and the next sections, are using the references at the very end, could you please make that clearer at the beginning (something to say, according to ___ the equations are: ). 6. Figure 7 and 8 are left formatted and cause some formatting problems. Perhaps move to the right, or cut the captons down as I suggested above? 7. Sandwiching problems with figures 9 and 10, which could be fixed if you cut the captions down in the way suggested above. 8. Figure 11 causes the subheadings to format improperly. It is because it was an image put before a subheading. Could you fix this? Thats it. All formatting issues and a few primary sources needed to be refered to more often for people like myself to go back and check more easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've fixed 1, 2, improved 3, and fixed 8. Regarding 4, other reviewers have pointed to the benefit of long captions, so I'm going to respect Willow's editorial choice here. Regarding 5, the general reference is at the beginning of the section per scientific citation guidelines. With no disrespect intended, the equations in this section are trivial. Regarding 6, what counts as a formatting problem is somewhat subjective. Regarding 7, I only get sandwiching problems on a widescreen browser, where it is not a problem: as I narrow the browser the sandwiching goes away. I've tested my improvement of issue 3 in a similar way. Geometry guy 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Further to this and Randomblue's comments, I've copyedited the captions (over 700 characters removed). Geometry guy 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Update: Thank you for everyone's thoughtful reviews and suggestions! I'll return to improve the article tomorrow. Per Sandy's advice, I've been working with Graham87 to address the accessibility of the images; I made {{Alt Image}} as a workaround, but the ever-resourceful Simetrical heard our plea and updated the MediaWiki software itself in r41364, which should go live soon (keep checking Special:Version!) I'm brooding over the lead and the formatting issues, which I'll hopefully amend to all your satisfactions tomorrow. Thanks for your patience! :) Willow (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I need an accessibility expert reviewing FACs :-)) I just sent the Germanium editors to see Graham87; maybe you can help out if you become knowledgeable in this area? So far, I suspect I'm the only one reviewing for WP:ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as I trust the concerns listed above (see G-guy, , Ottava etc.) will be addressed. Some potential wikilinks include:

• shrunk to zero [[radius]]
• generalizations to even [[higher dimension]]s
• tangent, although two [[Parallel (geometry)|parallel lines]]
• of distances to two [[fixed point]]s
• on the [[Sides of an equation|right-hand side]]
• [[Linear independence|linearly independent]]
• must lie on the [[Bisection|perpendicular bisector]] line
• pertain if the [[speed of sound]]
• is not [[Isotropy|isotropic]]
• boundaries of an [[infinite set]]

• are the [[curvature] and radius
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done except fixed point (mathematics), as this isn't the meaning here. Geometry guy 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support in terms of prose. I do hate whatever template produces those lines of clunky equations. Why do they have to be so big? Why does the font have to be so unattractive? I see at least one example where the template hasn't been used on stand-alone equations, and it's much nicer (although almost too small now). Tony (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support per Jakob. Randomblue (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The points I have raised are just examples, they certainly don't form an exhaustive list.

• 1) ref 34 has a date problem

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2) ref 43 has an inconsistent dot

  Sorry, I don't understand this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Willow's convention is to not put any dot in abbreviations of names. Fair enough, but it should be consistend throughout. For example, ref 43, "McMullen, Curtis T." needs to be changed. Randomblue (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ben (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 3) Why are Reye T and Gosset T redlinked?

  Unlinked. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 4) ref 52 and 53 have inconsistent dots

  And I don't understand this, either. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Schmidt, R. O. -> Schmidt RO, etc. Randomblue (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ben (talk)

• 5) the four instances of 'Ecole' should be 'École'

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 6) '(d=1)' -> bad spacing

  I don't see this, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  "which is higher than that of a regular (or rectifiable) curve (d=1) but less than that of a plane (d=2)" there is also d=2 which should be d = 2 :) Randomblue (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ben (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 7) "Apollonius of Perga (ca. 262 BC – ca. 190 BC) posed and solved this famous problem in his work Επαφαι ("Tangencies"), which has been lost." How can we know he actually solved the problem? Maybe write 'thought to have solved'.

  His solution was described by others in works that haven't been lost. This is noted in the history section. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, but to what extent can we affirm he solved the problem using "descriptions" of his proof? Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

    To the extent that this what the reliable sources say. :-) Geometry guy 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 8) "Many eminent mathematicians have developed various geometrical and algebraic methods for solving this problem". Why 'eminent'? Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

  I don't think many people would question it, but I've removed it anyway. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 9) "which has practical applications in trilateration". Why 'practical'? This seems redundant.

  Theoretical applications exist for many pieces of mathematics. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 10) "These eight circles represent the solutions to Apollonius' problem and are sometimes called Apollonius circles" I find this is misleading. When there are less solutions we still call them 'Apollonius circles', right?

• Reworded this the reduce the number of occurrences of "eight". Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 11) In the second paragraph of the lead I count 5 occurrences of "eight"

• See above. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 12) "difference d1−d2" wrong spacing

• I think I fixed this. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 13) "Viète solved all ten of these cases using only compass and straightedge" needs rephrasing. Viète certainly used other things to solve these cases (such as hard work, thought, paper, ...). What you mean is "Viète found all solutions to these ten cases, and the constructions can be made using only compass and straightedge."

• Ahh, I think the current wording is better. To solve a problem using only a compass and straightedge has a precise meaning, and a wikilink is provided earlier in the text to explain this if someone isn't sure. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say my wording was better, just that the current wording needs to be changed (to be specific, the verb "solved" needs to be changed). Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed by adding "constructions". Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 14) in the fourth paragraph of the "Viète's reconstruction" section, I don't understand the convention for explicitly describing the cases. For example, "CPP case (a circle and two points)" but "CLP case".

• A circle, a line and a point. The convention is noted in the first paragraph. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, I read over this again this morning and I understand what your point was now. It looks like the convention is to explicitly describe the cases the first time they're mentioned, and then just use the abbreviation after that. Ben (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• 15) "and again in 1936 by Nobel laureate Frederick Soddy" why is 'Nobel laureate' relevant?

• I guess it's not, but it is interesting. Removed it. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 16 "to construct H. Rademacher's contour for complex integration" is the text going to be consistent with the references with regard to dots in names?

• I can't find this sentence. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Very last section. Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. The text uses full names or surnames only. I've fixed H. -> Hans. Geometry guy 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 17) "Apollonius' problem can be framed as a system of three coupled quadratic equations." what is a 'coupled quadratic equation'?

• A quote from a book I came across while looking for a way to be precise: "problems describing different types of mechanics may be coupled through a variety of mechanisms with varying degrees of interaction. Both of these characteristics are difficult to generalise and quantify and lead to a certain vagueness when discussing coupled problems in general terms." Nevertheless, I had a go at clearing this up. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I feel a bit stupid, but I still don't understand what this means. Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Nor do I, but I do understand what a quadratic equation is and have wikilinked it. Here "coupled" simply means that the three equations involve all three unknowns x_s, y_s and r_s, i.e., they are not separate quadratic equations for each unknown. I've wikilinked it. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 18) "The three signs s1, s2 and s3" -> s1, s2 and s3 are not signs

• It's useful to be able to refer to the "signs" as a group, so I've reworded it a bit to make the definition explicit. I hope that is ok. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 19) "(2 × 2 × 2 = 8)" Maybe 2^3 would be a more appropriate.

• I think the point here is to visually highlight that each sign gives rise to two possible solutions. There is nothing wrong with 2^3 if you really think it would be better though. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 20) "The general system of three equations may be solved by the method of resultants." Good to know! So what is a resultant? I would like to take this as an example to show that the level varies extremely within the article. Some trivial points sometimes take 3 lines to explain ("Apollonius' problem can be framed as a system of three coupled quadratic equations.[23] Since the three given circles and any solution circle must lie in the same plane, their positions can be specified in terms of the (x, y) coordinates of their centers. For example, the center positions of the three given circles may be written as (x1, y1), (x2, y2) and (x3, y3), whereas that of a solution circle can be written as (xs, ys). Similarly, the radii of the given circles and a solution circle can be written as r1, r2, r3 and rs, respectively."), and then bluntly, in half a line, the reader is assumed to know resultants.

• The method is described in detail following that sentence. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, but I still don't know what a resultant it. Maybe add a wikilink. Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done (not by me). Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 21) images: 'succinct captions' is part of criterion 3. Clearly not satisfied for nearly all images.

• Agreed, but I think some leniency should be given for mathematical images. According to WP:CAP, make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture. The images in this article contain a lot of information that, with a good explanation, go a long way to help the reader see what is going on - even if the article is over their head. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, but a lot of useless (by which I means already explained in the article) appears in the captions. For example, in Figure 2, the following is useless: "In each pair, one solution circle encloses the given circles that are excluded by the other solution, and vice versa. For example, the larger blue solution encloses the two larger given circles, but excludes the smallest; the smaller blue solution does the reverse." Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've copyedited the captions (a reduction of over 700 characters), but I don't want to remove information that is useful to the reader in interpreting the symbols, colours, etc. appearing in the image. Geometry guy 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 22) "one example is the annular solution method of H. S. M. Coxeter" dots?

• Not sure about this one?

• Fixed. Ben (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 23) "using only a compass and straightedge" delete a before compass or add a before straightedge

  Done. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 24) "Many simple constructions are impossible using only these tools" 'simple'? POV. Actually, because they can't be perfomed using compass and straightedge, they could be described as difficult!

  Removed simple. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 25) "Therefore, van Roomen's solution—which uses the intersection of two hyperbolas—might violate the straightedge-and-compass requirement." 'might'. So we're not actually sure?

• Reworded. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 26) "Prior to Viète's solution, the mathematician Regiomontanus doubted whether Apollonius' problem could be solved by straightedge and compass." Is it necessary to point out that Regiomontanus was a mathematician?

• I guess not. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 27) "Viète first solved the simpler special cases of Apollonius' problem" What do you mean by 'the simpler special cases'? Do you 'some of the special cases'? Also, I'd avoid using "simpler".

• Reworded and added to the example simple case to show why it's simple. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 28) "Apollonius' own book on this problem—entitled Επαφαι ("Tangencies", Latin: De tactionibus, De contactibus)" why is the Latin title relevant?

• Some older books will refer to it by its Latin title. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 29) "Whereas Poncelet's proof relies on homothetic centers of circles and the power of a point theorem, Gergonne's method exploits the conjugate relation between lines and their poles in a circle. Methods using circle inversion were pioneered by Julius Petersen in 1879;[15] one example is the annular solution method of H. S. M. Coxeter.[16] Another approach uses Lie sphere geometry" In two lines you manage to fit in many 'sophiticated' tools with no explanation whatsoever. This could frighten people, who might expect a 'soft' introduction in the 'History' section.

• I think up until this point, the history section keeps things fairly straight forward for the interested reader. The point of these last two paragraphs is to note that other methods have been developed (with a hint as to how), with supporting wikilinks and references for the more experienced reader, and discussion of the methods later in the article. The less experienced reader can still take something away from the paragraphs, by noting that people have worked on the problem even in (relatively!) recent times. On the other hand, not mentioning these would leave a gap in the history in my opinion. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 30) "(In complex analysis, "infinity" is defined precisely in terms of the Riemann sphere.)" 'defined precisely', sounds redundant.

• Removed precisely. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 31) "In general, any three distinct circles have a unique circle—the radical circle—that intersects all of them perpendicularly" citation needed. Also, 'radical circle' could do with a wikilink.

• wikilinked Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 32) First sentence of 'Pairs of solutions by inversion' : "solutions to Apollonius' problem generally occur in pairs"; later in the section, "solutions to Apollonius' problem generally occur in pairs"

• Fixed Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to deal with as many of these as I could. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 33) "Inversion has the useful property that lines and circles are always transformed into lines and circles, and points are always transformed into points." -> reference needed

  This is standard, and covered by the general ref that I added to the beginning of the section. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 34) the serial comma is not respected throughout, see for example "three given circles of radii r1, r2 and r3"

  I prefer to neither respect nor disrespect the serial comma :-) It is useful where it adds clarity. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 35) still remains point problems in references 34, 54 and abbreviation problems in references 52, 53

  I've fixed what you call the "point problems." I don't know what you mean by "abbreviation problems." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  First names of authors in full. I've fixed them I think. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 36) the citations needed need to be dealt with

  I added the citations needed. And I've fixed them :-) Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 37) Mathematical facts should be referenced, as for the article Group (mathematics). For example, the whole "method of resultants" goes unreferenced. Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've added some general citations to cover standard facts. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 38) "Célèbres Problêmes mathématiques." The current spelling for 'problem' in French is 'problème', not 'problême'. However, the old spelling might have been 'problême', although I doubt it. Also, French titles usually only have a capital on the first word.

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 39) "Pappus d'Alexandrie: La Collection Mathématique" check capitalization.

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 40) "Traité de Géométrie" capitalization

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 41) "Inversion in a circle with center O and radius R consists of the following operation (Figure 5): every point P is mapped into a new point P' such that O, P, and P' are collinear, and the product of the distances of P and P' to the center O equal the radius R squared" -> 'inversion' and 'collinear' could do with wikilinks; why 'new'?, the point need not be new; why 'every'?, your definition does not apply to O
• 42) 'Lie quadric' could go with a wikilink

  Added a wikilink, but there is no page on this yet. I don't know enough about the space to create anything more meaningful than what is given in this article, but the description given in this article suffices for what follows. Ben (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've made this into a redirect to the beautiful article on Lie sphere geometry :-) Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 43) "This formula shows that if two quadric vectors X1 and X2 are orthogonal (perpendicular) to one another—mathematically, if (X1|X2) = 0—" why is 'orthogonal' not 'mathematical'?

  Reworded. Ben (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• 44) Geometry: Euclid and beyond -> capitalization of English titles

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 45) "Apollonius problem is to construct one or more circles tangent to three given objects in a plane, which may be circles, points or lines. Thus, there are ten types of Apollonius' problem" 'Thus' seems to be the wrong connecting word. The result ("there are ten types of Apollonius' problem") doesn't follow immediately from the premise. Also, the result needs a reference.

  Reworded. Still to look for references for this and the citation needed tags mentioned above and below. Ben (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the sources:

• "Statement of a problem" section could use a citation or two. Especially where the article cites GPS as an application of the problem, a citation could go there.
• There also is a citation needed tag in the applications section. I think a reference belongs in the beginning section of that paragraph.
• Otherwise, I think this article meets the FAC criteria 1c, which concerns sourcing. I did some looking around on Google Books and Google Scholar to see if key papers and books are included as citations in this article, and that appears to be the case. --Aude (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done. (Fixed my own tags and more besides.) Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Status? Does anyone know the status? WillowW hasn't edited since the 30th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead

• Reminder Since Willow seems to be on a wikibreak I just want (in case it's somehow lost in the long running of the candidacy) to remind those of you who kindly work on this article at the moment that there is still a central problem with the article, namely the lead section. Please see my comments above. For the moment this issue still prevents me from supporting this article being featured. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, good point. Luckily, I'm allegedly an expert on WP:LEAD. How does it look now? Geometry guy 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, is better. But could still be improved: first, it's still unbalanced: generalizations get lot of attention, inversive methods are not mentioned. I mean I don't wanna insist that every subsection has to be covered proportionally, but it's a point. More importantly, the lead doesn't flow that well (e.g. I'd incorporate the limiting cases in the description of the solutions, since this is factually linked. Likewise the number of solutions (8) should be connected to the (not yet extant) mentioning of the inversive strategy). Another example where the flow is interrupted is the line break after the first paragraph. It closes with history, and the next paragraph starts with history, too. Finally, I'd love to have a qualitative description of the development of the solution methods. Currently they are soberly listed, but convey little or no enthusiasm to people not acquanted to this stuff. Also "..., or additional symmetries" doesn't speak to me at all, instead it may even be distracting since people may wonder: "he? a circle is already pretty symmetric. what additional syms?". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to have a go at it? Geometry guy 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've given in another go, incorporating some of your suggestions, while also following Willow's view. Geometry guy 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, just at the same time I pasted my 2c (edit confl.). I tried to emphasize the evolution of the ideas behind the solutions, thus somewhat merging historical order with mathematical stuff. What do you think? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My rewrite also merged history with solution methods, so we seem to be broadly agreed on that. I like the "solutions by algebraic means" and the "pairs of solutions" stuff, but I find the last three sentences of paragraph three somewhat empty of content and would rather tell the reader something interesting instead. What do you make of my version? Geometry guy 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Good that we have the article history! OK, my sentence with Gergonne is not great. In principle I do like the following two ones, though. Rewording and adding a little more flesh may be in order, certainly. Your version: Giving some trendy keywords as you do with GPS and Hardy-littlewood (I don't know if the latter rings a bell with general readers, though) is certainly a good method to remedy aridity or emptiness. I would personally refrain from putting two much folklore like the poem and the letter to the princess. Are you up to merging the two drafts? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can give it a go. One reason I added the (reliably sourced) folklore is to replace assertions like "important special case" with some facts about the special case that might indicate to the reader that it is important and interesting, but I guess I overdid it. I similarly don't like "to great effect", but there are facts that can be deployed there. Geometry guy 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a shot. Inevitably, incorporating both our thoughts has added a few hundred bytes. Also inevitably, I've probably tended to favour my own structure. Geometry guy 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. Another issue I just refound when striking my above comment is the question with tangency of parallel lines (see above). I personally think they shouldn't be considered tangent (since their intersection multiplicity is one, not two, at infinity) but Willow seemed to be of this opinion. This is not that big of a deal, one could simply remove this statement if it is wrong (which I believe). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look above, but the discussion I found was under a stricken comment. Are you concerned that two distinct parallel lines are described as being tangent at infinity? Ben (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Perhaps I shouldn't have striked out the comment, but later I became aware of this being still an issue. For convenience I post it here again:

• Statement section: I don't understand why you talk about two lines being tangent or not. I did not check the details, but based on the common interpretation of tangency meaning intersection multiplicity two or higher, two parallel (distinct) lines do not qualify as tangent (use Bezout's theorem, for example, which computes their intersection multiplicity (at infinity) to be 1). I suggest finding a ref for this claim, if you consider it still right, so as to escape OR. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  You're thinking in terms of projective plane geometry, where there is a line at infinity, and parallel lines do indeed meet with multiplicity one. That's not relevant here: the natural geometry is Moebius or inversive geometry, where there is just a point at infinity (as in the Riemann sphere). In that case all lines meet at infinity (obviously!) and parallel lines are tangent at infinity. I corrected this issue some time ago. Is further clarification needed? Geometry guy 08:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • All right. That makes sense. I hadn't caught your edit there. The current wording "two parallel lines can be considered as tangent at a point at infinity." is still vague. With your explanation here it becomes understandable. So, perhaps add what you just explained me. A precise reference for this idea would be good, too. So, I'm happy to support this article being featured. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think Geometry Guy has already added a reference, but I've checked that it's discussed in Needham's Visual Complex Analysis so I can add another if you want. Ben (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  One ref per fact is fine! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  The Needham ref might be more accessible (in every sense) for more readers, so I don't mind if you want to substitute it. Anyway, thank you Ben, Jakob and Randomblue (et al.) for helping to do justice to Willow's fine work. Geometry guy 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 [94].

---

Operation Tractable

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)

This article concerns the Canadian half of the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy, from the capture of Falaise to the closing of the Falaise Pocket. Passed its GA on June 16, 2008 (followed by copyedits from User:EyeSerene and User:SGGH), passed its ACR 10 days later, underwent a peer review shortly after that. Minor copyediting for MoS and prose tightening have been ongoing throughout the last half week by myself. I believe that it meets the criteria for Featured Article. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://montormel.evl.pl/ (refs 11, 16, 20, 22, and 31) reliable?
  • Memorial Mont-Ormel is the memorial/museum/archives situated on Hill 262 commemorating the Polish 1st Armoured Division
• What makes http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/can-eve-rod-nor-cam-e.htm reliable?
  • Juno-Beach Centre, the Canadian memorial/museum/archives in Corseilles-sur-Mer commemorating Canadian actions throughout the Battle of Normandy. Both are the official sites of museums on the conflict, I would think that that would make them reliable enough for usage. Regards, Cam (Chat) 23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
• By contrast, Polish casualty figures for Operation Tractable are known. In their movements against Chambois and Mont Ormel, the Poles put their losses at 325 killed, 1,002 wounded, and 114 missing.[31][14] Prior to the Chambois and Ormel actions on August 14–18, they lost a further 263 men.[23] This brings the total Polish toll for Operation Tractable at 1,704 casualties, of which 588 were fatal. -> Is there any non-Polish source for Polish casualties, to compare and contrast?

I do know for a fact that Roman Jarymowycz mentions them in "Tank Tactics". I do not, however, have the pg. # for the statistic on me at the moment. I'll take a look if I can find the book again. All the best, Cam (Chat) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Operation Tractable began at 1200 on August 14, with 800 Lancaster and Halifax bombers bombing German forces." Awkward sentence structure.
• Time inconsistencies: "Operation Tractable began at 1200" but "At 7 pm on August 20, 1944".
• "On morning of August 20"—Needs a the.
• "Composed of close to 20,000 men and 150 tanks before the campaign, it had been reduced to a mere 300 men and 10 tanks." "mere" sounds POV.
• "Prior to the Chambois and Ormel actions on August 14–18," "Prior to"-->Before, it's simpler.
• "a 20 minute ceasefire"—"20 minute" should be hyphenated.
• "Although the first day's progress was slower than planned, Operation Tractable resumed on August 15, with both armoured divisions pushing southeast towards the hills east of Falaise." Awkward.

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All Fixed (I think). Cam (Chat) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Is the 2nd SS Panzer Corps the correct formation as 12th SS Panzer Division was part of the 1st SS Panzer Corps ? I can see where later in the article 2nd SS Panzer is correct with the details about DAS REICH etc.

Ah, probably should have been more clear about that. 1SS-PC was attacking from inside the pocket to try and get out, 2SS-PC was attacking from outside to try and get 1SS-PC out. Cam (Chat) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• On August 16, the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division broke into Falaise itself, encountering minor opposition from Hitler Youth units

This should be changed to opposition from units of the 12 SS Panzer Division. The Hitler Youth did not take part in any fighting in Normandy. The division was made up of ex member of the HY, who had to be over 18 to join the Division like many of the 18 year olds in UK & US divisions of the time. [ref]Reynolds, Michael. (2007). Steel Inferno: I SS Panzer Corps in Normandy. Spellmount Books. ISBN 978-1-86227-410-5(will find the page number if required)[/ref]

Fixed. Even then, some sources do mention Hitler-Youth battalions in Normandy (although that varies from source to source. Per Exemplar, Bercuson & Copp mention it, as does Van-Der-Vat, but D'Este, as far as I know, doesn't). Cam (Chat) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support If these points above can be clarified Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. My sourcing issues have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I found the article very engaging (I had to fight the temptation to skim ahead and find out what happened to the Polish forces on Mount Ormel!). I am, however, concerned about the sourcing. I understand that the websites referenced are official museums. However, unless the content that you are citing was written by published historians, I do not consider those to be exceptionally reliable sources. (I am, for example, working on the article Battle of the Alamo, and I will not rely on the website of the group that maintains the museum and archives).) They are essentially self-published by the museum. There is also a minor issue with the MOS: All measurements should be in standard and metric. There are several measurements given only in miles. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In Rebuttal:

• • Both of these source issues are relatively easy for me to fix. While I can't eliminate all of the references to those sites, I can definitely decrease my reliance on them (on account of having purchased a few books I didn't have when I first wrote the article). I'll do my best today & possibly tomorrow to reorganize some sources. I can also cite some stuff from the books I already used instead, although it will make for a much less diverse reflist. I'll also try to look a bit deeper into who wrote the Memorial Mont-Ormel site & JBC site. All the best, Cam (Chat) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I have almost completely removed the JBC from the reflist (only 2 references compared to 8 before). The section on the Battle of Hill 262 is proving somewhat more difficult, but the rest is proving relatively easy. Cam (Chat) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • I appreciate your hard work in resourcing much of the article. I am still troubled that a statistic (the number of deaths in the campaign), is sourced to a self-published website. The few remaining references to the websites don't really involve controversial data, but this one could be. Is there any way that could be sourced to something else? Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • fixed. I found it amid the footnotes of Jarymowycz's book on WWII Tank Tactics. Cam (Chat) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support

It's a good article, Cam, and I only have a few niggles to iron out before I wholeheartedly support the article.

• • 'The action at Falaise was the largest encirclement in the West during World War II, though it pales in comparison with the large encirclements on the Eastern Front, such as during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.' - That needs a citation
  • Some of those redlinks could do with stubbing out, IMO
  • Aftermath section could do with being a bit larger when I look at it; it seems a bit too brief really. Skinny87 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All conditions met, moving to full Support Skinny87 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Love the prose. Nevertheless sourcing needs work. (per Karana). — ceranthor ^(strike→) 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I see a featured article, although one that could perhaps have some work with the sources. At any rate, you got my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 [95].

---

PNC Park

Nominator(s): Blackngold29

I began working on this article in April 2008. It has since grown and received reviews from a number of users. I have attempted not to rush it into any stage of the process, but now feel it is ready for a FA review. I will do my best to address any comments. Thank you. Blackngold29 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://www.hoksport.com/projects/pnc.html reliable?
  • This is the official website of the company that designed the stadium. Here's a potential replacement. [96] This is a great newspaper article from when the stadium opened, and is a high-quality source by any standard. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that, if possible, it would be better to replace it with that newspaper article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Both of them (said article and official site) are currently citing the sentence. Is there a problem with leaving both there, as it is confirmed in multiple other sources and it is the company's official site? Blackngold29 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I suppose it would suffice if you added the newspaper article in addition to the existing source. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://chronicleconsulting.com/proj/sea.html reliable?

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Website of the company that inspects PNC Park. Not sure how reliable that makes it, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it seems to be the official site of the company. It isn't really a controversial claim and I would like to keep the statement as it's a one of a kind bit of info. I'll remove it if needed though. Blackngold29 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll leave this one up to the other reviewers to decide (not that I don't believe you, I just want to be sure that it's reliable). Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Comments - Finally, a topic that I'm truly an expert in, having attended 17 Major League Baseball stadiums, including this one. I'm quite pleased to see one of them come here, but think that it does need improvements.

• The Pirates' attendance in their first two seasons in the stadium is given, but I'd like to see what the figures look like now. A brief check of the ESPN website shows that average attendance is now down to about 20,000 a game. This is probably due to the team's failure; it shouldn't be hard to source that.
  • Added to the "Seating and ticket prices" section. Blackngold29 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• To our fine image experts: What is our policy on having panoramic pictures that take up the whole screen? Personally, I hope this can be kept because it's a beautiful photo.
  • Agreed, there are a few more that I could upload from FlickR, but I thought the current one was the best. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Didn't hear anything about this, so I'm striking it until given a good reason to do otherwise. I love the picture anyway. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Lead could use expansion to three paragraphs. First paragraph isn't that big either.
  • Expanded to three paragraphs, I generally dislike long intros, but it should be close if not adaquate now. Blackngold29 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "fifth home to the Pittsburgh Pirates," Picky, but perhaps replace to with of.
  • I like "of" better too. Changed. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Built in the style of classic stadiums, such as Fenway Park," Classic is a problem, because reviewers here think of it as POV, even though virtually all baseball fans would call Fenway Park classic (even Yankees fans like me). I'd prefer how this is handled in the body, with the term coming inside quotation marks.
  • I put quotes around it and cited it again. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Why no mention of the influence provided by Camden Yards and other new ballparks? To me, I see many of the new baseball stadiums as trying to imitate the success of these stadiums, and honestly saw more of them during my PNC visit than I did of Fenway and Wrigley Field (another ballpark I've seen in person).
  • I don't think I saw any sources that mentioned Camden. I'm sure there are many different parks that influended it, but I think Fenway and Wrigley were the most predominant. I'll look for a source, and add it if there's one out there. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The link I provided at the top does discuss Camden a bit and says that it "started the retro trend in major league ballparks". I'm sure that the success of the new stadiums inspired the Pirates owner to build PNC, but it's not a deal-breaker if the sources aren't clear enough to avoid OR. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Hyphens for second smallest and third cheapest.
  • Done. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Planning and funding: "Discussion about a ballpark took place, however, due to the possibility of the franchise's relocation to a new city;" Why is however used when there is really no contrast with the prior sentence.
  • I took the ; out, how's that? Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There was no change, but I'm satisfied that the other additions help create contrast. One thing: is "they" referring to the discussions or the stadium? Possible tense issue if it's the latter. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I re-worked the wording. Hopefully that makes it clearer. Blackngold29 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Couple of money figures need non-breaking spaces.
  • Bah, I got most nbsp, but forgot the money. Got 'em. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Design and construction: Why is foot linked? I know how long a foot is, and our readers surely do as well.
  • It came up in the peer review, I figured it couldn't hurt. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will track this and come back with more comments once these are addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Still in Design and construction: Two straight sentences start with "PNC Park was constructed..."
  • Altered. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• "In addition, all 23 labor unions involved signed a pact that they would not strike during building process." Should be the building process.
  • Added, also got the nbsp for "23 labor..." Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Opening and reception: Don't think there should be a hyphen in "high-ticket prices".
  • Removed. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Contractions like in "best he's seen so far in baseball" are bad unless they are part of a quote.
  • It was a quote from the article, must've forgot the quotation marks. Added. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Men's Fitness, as a printed publication, should be in italics. In fact, please check the references and adjust those as well.
  • Added. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Statues: Hyphens for "... foot" uses. And don't repeat Honus Wagner's first name.
  • Added and removed respectively. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Two days later, the official opening of PNC Park," Try "Two days after the official opening of PNC Park,"
  • Altered. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Alterations: "thu making PNC Park..." Typo.
  • Corrected. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Other events: "PNC Park has also hosted various concerts, including The Rolling Stones and Pearl Jam, in 2005." Has the stadium only held concerts in that year? If not, a little tweak is in order.
  • Tweaked. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One more picky thing that I touched on earlier. All printed publishers of references should be given in italics. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other newspaper articles should be changed. Not sure if this applies to books, though. I think they're fine as is. I'll support when this is done. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all. Book and magazine titles are automaticall italics due to their templates. Blackngold29 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments - overall, this is a good article, but there are some things to address before I can support.

• In the history section, the article should say something about the old ballpark. What was wrong with it? Why was a new ballpark needed?
  • Well, I would think wear and tear of 30 years would be assumed, but I added location and traffic issues too. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Discussion about a ballpark took place" - I think it needs to say "Discussions ..." (with plural).
  • Done. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "team studied the challenges of constructing a new ballpark" is followed by the sites recommended for the stadium. How is site selection a "challenge". What challenges did the team report about in the report?
  • Expanded on. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Kansas City-based HOK Sport designed the ballpark." - that's a very simple sentence, too simple. Something more could be said about their selection as architect, such as when they were selected.
  • This has been brought up before and I looked for further info, but couldn't find much on any bidding process. I added a quote from the cited article about HOK being the leading stadium architect; they were also awarded the New Pittsburgh Arena without much fanfare. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "PNC Park was constructed over a 24-month span–three months faster than any other modern major league ballpark" - I believe this is not true. It might have been built quicker than any stadium up until that time. However, ground was broken on Nationals Park on May 4, 2006 [97] and officially opened on March 30, 2008 when the Nationals played the Atlanta Braves [98] which makes the construction quicker than 24 months that it took to build PNC Park.
  • As of 2001 it was the quickest, clarified. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, I have only reviewed the first two parts of the history section, and will look at the rest later. --Aude (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments

• In the Opening and reception section, the article cites Ahjua as saying PNC Park is one of the "top ten places to watch the game". I'm not sure exactly how many MLB baseball teams there are, but it's around 30. So, PNC Park is in the top third of all stadiums. It's a new stadium being compared with Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum and other older stadiums, so not surprising it's ranked highly. But, I don't know how remarkable or notable it is to say it's one of the "top ten places to watch the game."
  • He didn't say "top ten major league park", there are hundreds of minor league stadiums across the US and I'm sure in other countries. I think he was implying top ten stadiums in the country or world, not Major Leagues. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Same issue with saying "In 2008, Men's Fitness named the park one of "10 big league parks worth seeing this summer."" - at the very least, this seems redundant with the Ahjua quote, and perhaps the article does not need both.
  • That was added to show that even years after it has been there it is still rated as one of the best in the game. It also re-enforces the notion that it is a widely held view that PNC Park is one of the best. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Many of the workers who built the park said that it was the nicest that they have seen" - compared to what else they have seen? I presume that workers on the project are local Pittsburgh construction workers who work on various other types of projects in the Pittsburgh area, which are not as high profile or notable as a stadium project. Thus, I'm not sure the significance of including that statement.
  • The article its cited to talks of one worker who has been involved in construction since Mellon Arena in the early 1960s. 23 different unions were involved and I doubt all workers were from Pittsburgh. I could take it out if you really feel it shouldn't be there, but I get the vibe that most workers were not local. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• In the Other events section, the article mentions the Pittsburgh Panthers. It's not obvious that this is a college team. Perhaps the two sentences can be reworded, to start off saying, "The first collegiate game at PNC Park was played on May 6, 2003, between the Pittsburgh Panthers and the Duquesne Dukes.." Then provide more of the details.
  • Reworded. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Images - I know there are reasons why you can't have a picture of a statue, but the "PNC Park at night" photo doesn't really belong in the "Statues" section. It could go in a different section. The PNC Park at night picture is forced at 200px, which overrides user preferences. Please don't force the pixel sizes. Otherwise, the photos work well with the article, and the sandwich looks good. :)
  • With the exception of the panaramic picture, they were thumbs when I added them, somebody must've changed them. Fixed and relocated. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

--Aude (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I'm satisfied with your explanation for including the various quotes in the "Opening and reception" section. I believe the article is factually accurate and comprehensive, with use of several books along with various news and other sources, and the sources are all reliable. --Aude (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image comments - There are some great images there, but I cant see Image:RobertoClementeStatueatPNCPark.jpg or Image:NLC-PIT-PNC.PNG meeting WP:NFCC#8 or the article meeting featured article criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not to learned in the picture area. Are you saying that they should be re-sized or eliminated? I think the Roberto one is a good picture, but I could understand removing it. The logo on the other hand, being that it is the building's official logo, should probably stay. I mean all sports teams have logos in their articles—Calgary Flames (an FA) has two. Blackngold29 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think that the logo is essential to understanding, if you look at WP:LOGO it discusses band logos, and I believe that stadia logos falls into the same category. A stadium can be uniquely identified visually with a picture of the stadium, most stadia don’t have logos, and the articles are fine without them. The m:mission is to create a free encyclopaedia, and this non-free material is not significant and it’s use is contrary to the mission of WP Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the logo. In addition, I have replaced the Roberto Clemente Statue picture with a free image of the Roberto Clemente Bridge with the Park in the background. I moved their locations so the Bridge would be near the prose that discusses it. With that, I believe all pictures are from the Commons. Blackngold29 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article meets criteria 3 in full Fasach Nua (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support While I am by far a bigger hockey fan than baseball, its good to see a sporting venue article get this sort of treatment. Good job. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - All my comments have been addressed, and I'm satisfied that the questioned sources are reliable enough for what they're citing (they seem similar to using Aramark to reference concession info). Looks like it meets FA criteria to me, though I did leave a couple more notes for you. Consider them opportunities to apply some extra polish. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many errors, including a missing verb in the lead; maybe Giants2008 will run through one more time. See my edit summaries and inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All inline queries have been taken care of. I'll run through again. I feel that intro's are the weakest part of my writing and it has been expanded since the FA review began, so that may explain some of the shortcomings. Blackngold29 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm stunned that I missed that. Bad job by me. I have virtually no experience with thorough copy-editing, but I'll take a shot at it later today. Please monitor my changes carefully so I don't mess anything up. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my first copy-editing pass, covering the lead and most of History, is done. I'll do more tomorrow, assuming that the first batch of edits is up to par. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes look great. I've been working on it for so long, I like to see how other people would write things. Yeah, definately keep going. Blackngold29 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My humble attempt to provide a copy-edit has concluded. Not to brag, but I improved it quite a bit. I did run into a couple little issues in Other events, which I'll post here.

You have definatley improved the article. Thanks a lot for your work! Blackngold29 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "During the game, late Pirate Roberto Clemente received the Commissioner's Historic Acheivement Award;". He couldn't have received the award, because he had been dead for 24 years. Perhaps change it to say he was honored with the award.
  • Reworded. Blackngold29 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• "A goal of the drill was to test the response of 49 western Pennsylvania emergency response agencies." Don't like the double response here. The source said it tested communication, but I didn't want to take such direct wording from it. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I had difficulty with wording in that section too. It now read, "...test the response of 49 western Pennsylvania emergency agencies." Which I think is suffic in getting the point across. Blackngold29 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support from Giggy. Only some very minor niggles.

• "which is considered to be the "leading stadium design firm in the [United States],"" - considered by whom?
  • The article doesn't really make it clear. From my understanding, they appear to appear to be unparalelled in their field. The only thing I could think to add would be "...acording to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette." Would that be alright? Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• "which relayed building plans 24 hours per day" - when you say relayed I expected a target (eg. "relayed plans from X to Y") or something like that - am I misreading?
  • It now reads "relayed building plans to builders 24 hours per day." Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Fans seated in the section are allowed "unlimited hotdogs, hamburgers, nachos, salads, popcorn, peanuts, ice cream and soda" for an entire game" - what's the catch!? If it costs more to get a ticket in that section you should probably say so
  • There is no catch that I can see, I don't believe prices were raised anymore in that section than others. It does sound almost too good to be true, but when your trying to attract people to watch the Pirates... Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Could a caption be added for the infobox image?
  • Would "A view of the field from the press-box" or something similar be acceptable? Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 [99].

---

Congregation Beth Elohim

Nominator(s): Jayjg ^(talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an extensively researched account of the history of a Brooklyn congregation. The article recently achieved GA status, and has been significantly improved since then. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images meet criteria; all free with proper license/date/author/publisher where applicable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tentative supportTony (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC); I've read only the top part, and found a few things that need explication. Please write for non-experts.
• Comma after the closing quotation marks (name).
• I'm distant from the topic, but the early objections to "practice" and the issue of reforming them sounds interesting. Perhaps it's too detailed to go into it, though. But other details seem not as important (someone was paid $150 a year, someone else $75 a year?).
• "Men and women sat together"—please write for non-experts. We're left to presume that this is unusual or undesirable under normal circumstances ... (at the time?)
• "Moderate reform services"—Now I want even more to know about this.
• "New accommodations"—a little precious; why not "a new building/location"? Does "accommodations" come from the source? If so, it's an ideal opportunity to avoid duplication. Tony (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your helpful comments. Regarding them:
    • Comma fixed.
    • The sources aren't really specific about which practices they wished to reform, but in general the kinds of changes congregations were making at the time were a result of the Reform movement in Judaism, and I've now linked the term to that article. Regarding the salaries, I thought they added some interesting color regarding salaries at that time; $6.25 or $12.50/month sounds like very little to today's ears. Also, it might be helpful for those with more knowledge to compare to other salaries at the time.
    • I've now added a phrase and link to the article regarding the traditional separation of mean and women in Jewish services.
    • Again, the source doesn't explain, but the link I've added to the previous mention should help.
    • I've re-worded per your concerns. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Has Tony been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Not by me, but I don't know if anyone else has. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there an organizational principle in the references? I'd really rather see them alphabatized by the first part of the ref, so that folks can find things. Right now, if there isn't an author, it's hard to figure out where to look for the full reference.
• Per the MOS, you need to put the link titles in the references in upper and lower case, there are a few that have parts in all upper.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note the link checker tool is showing some pages as a soft deadlink, but they worked fine with clicking on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Regarding the references, I've re-organized them, with helpful headings, and made them essentially alphabetical; what do you think? I'm open to other suggestions. Also, I've fixed the link titles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That works fine. At least the reader can now find the references easier with the subheadings. (It's not the way I would have done it, but it works for the reader and they should be able to figure it out so all is good!) Looks good, you're all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Elcobbola:
  • Image sandwiching in the "State Street" section. See MOS:IMAGES
  • Image:Congregation Beth Elohim stained glass window.JPG is a derivative work. Was this window made for the sanctuary (i.e. in 1910)? When did the artist die? As an unpublished work, it would not be PD if the author died after 1938.
  • Honorifics such as "Dr." and "Reverend" should not be used per MOS:BETTER. Эlcobbola _talk 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I think you've fixed all the image issues, except for the stained glass window one. I don't know whether or not there are copyright issues with this image, nor do I know anything else about it. I'm fine with removing it if people feel that's best. Also, I think I've now removed all the honorifics, but please let me know if I've missed any. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, if we don't have the information to determine that the window is in the public domain or freely licensed by the author, the image should be removed. Эlcobbola _talk 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Still there, need resolution on this from Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Per the advise of an image expert, I've modified the copyright information on the image, which should satisfy the concerns. I'm willing to remove it, if required, but in any event, shouldn't the discussion of the copyright status of the image be happening on Commons, not here? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Elcobbola is a Commons admin and good at resolving issues; has he been asked to revisit? (If I understand correctly, Elcobbola is saying we need the date of death of the author of the window; has that been added?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
              • No, they haven't been. I'll just remove the image from the article, and let the issue get settled on the Commons. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
              • O.K., the image is gone. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Re the section heading "Recent events", see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think I've fixed it now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I was too brief :-) I see you added those as of linked years: I don't know when those awful things crept back in to MoS, but someone should see if Tony's paying attention. I was only referring to the title itself: "Recent events" needs a more precise heading, avoiding the use of recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've changed the title to "Events since 2006" and removed the linking to "as of 2008". Does that fix the issues? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I think there has been a misunderstanding here. See my comment here. The initial edit you (Jayjg) made to add the As of 2008 link is indeed deprecated, per Wikipedia:As of, but the correct change would be to add {{As of|2008}}, which will still put the article in the hidden category stating that the article needs updating, but will output plaintext. This is not 100% certain, as the MOS link to Wikipedia:As of may date from the time the old Template:As of (in 2006) was being used, not the version created in February 2008. I've asked on the template talk page for comments. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
          • O.K., I've added the "As of" template where required, and it appears to be working. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The "as of year" links are deprecated per WP:As of and the discussion regarding it that took place at the Village Pump. However, they should not be outright removed as they still serve a functional purpose. Instead they should be converted to the {{As of}} template as appropriate. Links of the form [[As of Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year}}, and links of the form [[As of Month Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year|Month}}. This will output the plain text "As of [Month] Year" and categorise the article appropriately, but not create a wikilink in the article. See the template documentation for more options and information – Ikara ^talk → 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Per above, I've added the "As of" template where required, and it appears to be working. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Kablammo:

Lede:

• "currently located at". Why not just “located at”?

• "attempted four failed mergers". It makes it sound like the congregation was attempting failure in mergers. Can this be rephrased?

• "currently the largest". As above. This may not age well.

Early years:

• "$150/year". Use prose, as you did later on in paragraph.

• "the congregation became known as the ‘Pearl street synagogue’". Check caps here.

• On the events of 1882–83, you mention in successive paragraphs that only heads of household were members. Are both mentions needed?

State Street:

• Second paragraph, first sentence-- I suggest last clause be changed to "Sparger moved there in 1891", or else recast the sentence. Then clarify which “congregation” is meant in the following sentence.

1909-1929

• Second paragraph: "was 'doomed': in his words," seems oddly punctuated. Replace the colon with a full stop, and make the next part "As Lyons said at the time:", or some similar construct.

• Fourth paragraph: "and in 1928[2]–1929"— the distracting footnote could go at the end of the sentence.

• Last paragraph of section, last sentence: Maybe split this into two, and clarify what the members were resigning from—the committee or the congregation?

1930s

• Second paragraph, first sentence—why not split this into two at the colon?

WWII

• First sentence, fifth clause— "by then" seems unnecessary as the time is clear.

In general, the article would not be harmed and probably would be improved by splitting some of the multiple-clause sentences into shorter declarative sentences. That may be a matter of personal preference, but there seem to be a lot of colons and semicolons in the article.

These comments are suggestions, and not an Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough review. Regarding your comments, in order:

Lede:

• "currently located at". Why not just “located at”? I used "currently located at" because this is its fourth location, but I've now removed the word "currently", since it's been at its "current" location for almost 100 years.
• "attempted four failed mergers". It makes it sound like the congregation was attempting failure in mergers. Can this be rephrased? Good point. I've rephrased it to avoid the misleading implication.
• "currently the largest". As above. This may not age well. Yes. Re-worded to avoid aging issues.

Early years:

• "$150/year". Use prose, as you did later on in paragraph. Fixed.
• "the congregation became known as the ‘Pearl street synagogue’". Check caps here. Yeah, I didn't like it either, but it's a direct quote, and I was reluctant to change it.
• On the events of 1882–83, you mention in successive paragraphs that only heads of household were members. Are both mentions needed? Good point, missed that, fixed now.

State Street:

• Second paragraph, first sentence-- I suggest last clause be changed to "Sparger moved there in 1891", or else recast the sentence. Then clarify which “congregation” is meant in the following sentence. Good point, done.

1909-1929

• Second paragraph: "was 'doomed': in his words," seems oddly punctuated. Replace the colon with a full stop, and make the next part "As Lyons said at the time:", or some similar construct. Fixed.
• Fourth paragraph: "and in 1928[2]–1929"— the distracting footnote could go at the end of the sentence. Fixed.
• Last paragraph of section, last sentence: Maybe split this into two, and clarify what the members were resigning from—the committee or the congregation? Thanks, I have clarified.

1930s

• Second paragraph, first sentence—why not split this into two at the colon? Because it's an example, backing up the claim made in the first clause of the sentence.

WWII

• First sentence, fifth clause— "by then" seems unnecessary as the time is clear. Good point, removed.

In general, the article would not be harmed and probably would be improved by splitting some of the multiple-clause sentences into shorter declarative sentences. That may be a matter of personal preference, but there seem to be a lot of colons and semicolons in the article. I like semi-colons and colons; they make writing more interesting, and help tie thoughts together. :-)

--Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support promotion to FA. No major issues, although I would expand the meaning of the word shamash to mean beadle or sexton. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I've made the changes you suggested. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment footnotes need to be consistent - some simply say "NYT" others have "TNYT". YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Good eye, thanks! All fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Although the linkchecker shows that all seven reference links to the Congregation Beth Elohim organization's site are forbidden, empirically they are accessible without any problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - nicely done, mazel tov! dvdrw 03:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 [100].

---

Crush (video game)

Nominator(s): MASEM

Bringing this video game article to FA. On the shorter side, but it is one of those games that got some but not a lot of attention despite the critical reception for it. I've double checked prose/references/images, and had a few others copyedit on the prose.

I will note (knowing their reliability will likely be questioned) on two of the references used: MoDojo is under Federated Media Publishing (website), while blog-style posts, the article is an interview with the game's producer. SegaNerds is also a blog-style source under B5Media (website), but also, the article used here is a interview with the same person. --MASEM 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Initial comments - David Fuchs
  • Image check: I'd like to see the fair use rationales beefed up, especially the 'purpose' section.
  • The lead doesn't mention much beyond the Escher bit about development.
  • Is there anything more to the plot? You can go to two paragraphs, you know :P

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've talked more about the purposes of the images in both FURs and captions (to id gameplay elements). I've added a note about the coincident element with SPM to the lead to expand it out. As to the story -- well, it's told over maybe about a half-dozen 1-minute cutscenes in the game; I'll go back and play through the cutscenes (there's no good story references out there beyond what I have, even at sites like Gamefaqs) to see if it can be fleshed out more (like, what exactly was troubling Danny to drive him to insomnia). --MASEM 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. Also, if the images are at the actual resolution, they aren't really low resolution; you can descrease the size slightly (say, to 350 or 400px without decreasing the visibility of items mentioned in the text significantly. Also, explain why no free replacement is available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationales for game screenshots have been expanded, and images at 400x2xx something (same aspect ratio) have been uploaded over the old ones. --MASEM 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, image concerns met. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The final line of reception should be merged in somewhere, not left by itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Merged at end of previous paragraph (there's not much where else it can go) --MASEM 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and copyedited, clarified, and added inline comments when I was confused. Take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, I fixed the "primal" thing. --MASEM 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The present "Story" section is a bit unclear on at least one point. It states that Danny's insomnia is caused in part by repressed memories, but then later states that (further?) repression of childhood memories offers a cure for that insomnia. Not quite sure what to make of this apparent contradiction. Perhaps there's some nuanced explanation that needs to be unpacked here? D. Brodale (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrected; Danny ends up facing those memories as the game progresses. --MASEM 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's still no expansion of the lead and any longer of a plot summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded these both from before as much as reasonably possible with the information provided. Again, the story in the game is all of about 6-10 minutes long told between levels, so the length of plot is appropriate for the game. The lead appropriately touches on the major points in the article and really cannot be made longer without starting to duplicate too much in there or unbalancing information in it. --MASEM 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Redundancies a problem. And 1a more generally.

• My pet hate is "in order to", and there are two instances in the very opening para. Please remove the first two words in the second instance, and check through the rest of the article for this (usually) redundant little urchin.
• Second para: "mechanic" is someone who fixes your car. I think it has to be plural here, or maybe just removed (what's wrong with the "gameplay" alone?). And here it is again, twice. Is it a mechanism? Process? Facility? Function?
• "Game's"—redundant.

Is Deckiller around? He might know the right person to come afresh to this and massage the prose. Try reading this and undertaking the associated exercises; I usually shy from promoting my own stuff, but here I think you'd benefit from developing a "radar". Tony (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I will give Dec a buzz to see if he can work any more out, but I did take the advice to heart to work some things out in the current prose. I will note that gameplay mechanic (singular) is a term used by both board/table games and video games arenas to describe one particular facet of a game's rules or logic ("gameplay" refers to the game as a whole, while "gameplay mechanics" refer to mulitple features), but yes, it can (and has here) been replaced with "feature", "element", or other appropriate words to avoid the issue. --MASEM 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Followup to say Deckiller has given this a passthrough and I've corrected a statement based on a comment he left. --MASEM 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't really give it a pass; I just corrected maybe five or six things. Sadly, I don't really have time to sit down and copy-edit article right now. — Deckiller 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I note the sources noted above and those sorts of things should be decided by each reviewer.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the story section needs a bit of expansion. At the moment it basically tells of the problem with Danny and how it's fixed, but doesn't touch on what the player actually does in game to achieve the end result ("during which he is able to organize his thoughts and face his childhood fears" is not enough). Giggy (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Some of Danny's thoughts, represented by glowing neon icons, are only activated when the world is crushed in a manner that properly completes them and remain in view" - might just be me but I had no idea what this was saying
  • The latter point, I've basically stated what the manual states (which is simpler than the above); thoughts activate when crushes, are no obscured, and are on-screen.
  • On the story, there's a very very loose connection between it and gameplay. I've expanded to point the weak connection of marbles (as in "losing ones marbles") and monsters so that they come up in gameplay. Also had to play the last, annoying level again to get the story ending (which is as vague as it seems) right. --MASEM 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Giggy (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Support:

• "The protagonist is Danny, a teenager suffering from insomnia, who uses an experimental device to explore his mind and return his life to normal". What is "back to normal"—life before insomnia or life before the device?
• "This gameplay element was coincidentally similar to one in Super Paper Mario" It may be best to remain neutral and remove "coincidentally", as, unless a point is trying to be made, is pretty much redundant as both were made in 2007. Seems to be pre-emptively countering some assertion, if that makes sense.
• Lead could be beefed up with a litle bit of development info; the Eshcer reference seems insufficient.
• A minor query: is Danny's actual age revealed in the game? Where is his home set?
• "he is able to regain control on his sanity by". Should it not be "of" as opposed to "on"?
• "semi-intelligent female persona" This intermediate could mean anything to me, so I don't know what this device is actually like. Maybe you could elaborate or be more specific.
• I'm uncomfortable with this trend for novel-length captions. It serves a purpose here, but you could cut it down if able.
• "Crush spans forty levels spread across four worlds". "spans" and "spreads"? I don't know, maybe you could say that it contains four worlds, with ten levels in each.
• "The goal of each level is to collect marbles" Remeber to specify this as the player's goal, and not just "the goal".
• "Danny possesses limited jumping ability". I've yet to see a VG character that can jump infinite heights; I know it helps the phrasing to flow, but it doesn't mean anything in its present state.
• "Scattered throughout the levels are spheres and cylinders, which the player can roll when crushed appropriately, and can be used as platforms or to depress switches." Just generally an awkward one. Could you reword please?
• "Mottram noted that at the time during the development of Crush, the gameplay of Super Paper Mario had not yet been revealed, and thus were surprised to learn that the two games shared a similar feature" Not sure about this sentence. Seems to be missing a statement of who were surprised, although it is obvious.
• "received,[4] however". Should there not be a semi-colon here?
• ...There seems to be a growing consensus not to use review tables now; I must have missed that one. Could you explain the reasons for me, Masem?
• I don't know why the main text of this section is sandwiched between two one-sentence paragraphs. They cover different subjects, but still.
• "this was made up for by". Watch out for informal phrasing.
• Again, I'm not sure, but I didn't think that external links are supposed to be in the main body of text. Correct me if I'm wrong.
• I know it's an interview, but I'm not sure how reliable "Segar Nerds" is. An author is given for this; a surname is not stated, so I'm not sure if the name should be given.

Okay, generally a decent article. I'll give it another look once the amendments are made. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All points (other than the following) have been corrected. On review score tables, it is not that the project is moving away from them, but they aren't always necessary: a more "complete" table can be found going to the linked aggregrate review sources (MetaCritic and GameRankings); this is also closer to how movies tend to organize their reception section. It is not that I couldn't add it here, but I feel it wouldn't really add much (thus, consider this more an experimental approach to see if the lack of a review table still gives a good read). On Sega Nerds, if it was anything but an interview, I would have replaced it, but it is an interview, they've seen to have done such in the past, and based on the Mottram interview, details are consistent with the few other details from other reliable sources (eg Gamasutra), so this is where I feel the source is reliable for the information it is providing: the developement section. --MASEM 11:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to support. One things still bugging me: "Large spheres and cylinders are scattered throughout the levels which the player can roll when crushed appropriately, and can be used as platforms or to depress switches". How about: "Large spheres and cylinders are scattered throughout the levels which the player can roll when crushed appropriately. These can also be used as platforms or to depress switches, required to...". But if you're alright with it how it is, then just leave it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I caught your edits and when through to verify the punctuation w.r.t. to the quoting, and also took some of the longer quotes to shorter snippets (such that all are partial sentences, thus putting the punctuation outside the quotes); the one ellipse was actually from the original quote but I nixed that. I also double checked the spelling again. --MASEM 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the ellipses; I think Tony says it's OK to change dashes and ellipses to our house style even when original source is different, but it's no big deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said above, I don't really have the time to sit down and copy-edit an entire article; I might make a tweak here or there, but that's really all I have time to do. — Deckiller 03:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:26, 11 October 2008 [101].

---

Colton Point State Park

Nominator(s): Dincher and Ruhrfisch

We are nominating this article for featured article because we believe that is represents some of the best work that wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows three FAs as models (Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, and Leonard Harrison State Park - its sister park) and has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Juliancolton and Finetooth). We also want to thank Pat for information on Henry Colton, and all reviewers here for their input. Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• What are you doing here? Get back to peer review! :P Anyhow, images all meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking the images - I will work on some peer reviews next (I take this an actionable request) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm being sarcastic :P god knows you've done enough PR's for twenty wiki-lifetimes... :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I knew - just forgot the emoticon ;-) to show it (and I had neglected PR a bit to get this ready too) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks as always for your reference check and all of your work at FAC and PR Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - As ususal, an excellent article on an interesting subject.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind words and support Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much (and for your peer review)! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Questions: I do apologise to the nominators, but I need a bit of help! What does "situated on the west rim of the Pine Creek Gorge" actually mean? Does it mean within the gorge on its western side, or outside the western boundary of the gorge? I know the map ought to tell me this, but the map doesn't show the limits of the gorge, only the creek. Also the words "Colton Point State Park" are squeezed into a small corner of the pale area of the map, but that can't be he whole area of the park. I'm sorry to trouble you, but can one of you help a poor befuddled Brit lost in the depths of rural Pennsylvania? Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The park is on the slopes and at the top of the gorge. Will look at the map next. Dincher (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Colton Point State Park is the cream colored area on the west side of Pine Creek. Dincher (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing this out. Colton Point State Park is the ivory colored region west of the creek in the map in the article. The ivory area to the east of the creek is the neighboring Leonard Harrison State Park. On the same map, brown is private land and green is state forest. For a map with topographic contours (sadly beyond my capabilities as a mapmaker), see the official park map here, which is listed as the first "See also". It also shows both parks together.
• As for geography, the park extends from the creek in the bottom of the gorge up to the rim and part of the plateau to the west. The park's man-made facilities (picnic shelters, overlooks, latrines, etc.) are almost all on the plateau above the gorge - the overlooks on the map are on the rim itself and the picnic pavilions are all very close to the rim. Only the Turkey Path trail descends into the gorge itself. The word "situated" was added in Peer review - it used to just read "is on the west rim of the Pine Creek Gorge". Referring to the parks as being on the west or east rims of the gorge is pretty common in the literature. Any suggestions on making this clearer are greatly appreciated, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm beginning to get the picture, although I daren't use the official park map link you suggest, as my computer goes into meltdown for some reason whenever I try to take it into PDF. Before I settle down and read the whole article, I wonder if there isn't just a bit too much general information about Pine Creek Gorge in the first section, especially the last paragraph which isn't about Colton Point State Park at all? The adjoining map is fine, but the text refers to many locations which aren't on the map, and the map refers to places not mentioned in the text. Hence my geographical confusion. A bit less information on the gorge, and a bit more on the location of the park within the gorge, would in my view help. But I'll get on with the rest of the article now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The park is within several overlapping layers of protected areas. The oldest is its status as a state park, then it became part of a National Natural Landmark, then a State Natural Area and then the State Scenic River. Scenic River status also protects much of the walls of gorge within the park: quoting Owlett (p. 80), "Under the state system, the width of the protective corridor only encompassed the land visible from the opposite shoreline, instead of protection from ridge to ridge. [as the federal system would have done]. The problem is how to make this clearer without greatly expanding the section. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I tweaked the first sentence of the Scenic River paragraph to read Within the park, Pine Creek and the walls of the gorge "visible from the opposite shoreline"[11] are also protected by the state as a Pennsylvania Scenic River.[12] to make it (hopefully) clearer. Is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Would this work to make the park boundary more clear? "It is on the west side of the Pine Creek Gorge, also known as the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, which is 800 feet (244 m) deep and nearly 4,000 feet (1,219 m) across at this location. The park extends from the creek in the bottom of the gorge up to the rim and across part of the plateau to the west." Finetooth (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply Thanks to both of you - I have made the chaqnge Finetooth suggested in the first paragraph of the lead, and also tweaked the park map caption to hopefully make that clearer. As for the emphasis on the Pine Creek Gorge, that is the main reason for the park's existence and the main reason people come to the park. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: My previous confusions have been largely allayed by some thoughtful rearrangement of the content. I still have a few issues, but not of sufficient importance for me to withhold support from what is a thoroughly researched and beautifully presented article. The large panorama was a joy to behold - I wish I was there. Anyhow, a few inevitable quibbles:-

• Bearing in mind the title of the article, the first three subsections of the History section are really the park's prehistory. That's OK, but I found the "lumber" section in particular rather long, and wonder if that much detail is really necessary in the park article. It's quite a long time after the lead before we meet the park again.
  • I will work on trimming it a bit - I am always amazed at the ecological holocaust the Gorge has recovered from and we may have given a bit too much detail to show what was lost. A similar comment came up at Peer review, so time to get out the chainsaw, as it were. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I trimmed a bit and moved three sentences on spars to a note. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Couple of tiny points in the lead: "...who cut the timber..." Is "the" necessary? And there is a slight ambiguity in the sentence "The CCC built the facilities at Colton Park before and shortly after its opening", in that "its" could be thought to apply to the CCC. The sentence could be amended to read "before and shortly after the park's opening".

Edited per your suggestions. Dincher (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• History (Modern era): This reader would be interested to know why the start date for work on the park is so vague - "either in 1933, or in June 1935". Why the lack of precision - it's not that long ago. Some people alive today might even remember!

My educated guess there is that work began in 1935. Considering the sources. The PADCNR work is largely PR and the work of the Millner fella would be more precise. It's his job to be precise DCNR wants to tell a good story. Many of their articles about PA state parks that were constructed by the CCC give 1933 as the starting date. Dincher (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, two reliable sources give two different dates. I agree on the 1935 date as being much more likely - I also read that the CCC (which began nationwide in 1933) worked on improving Leonard Harrison first, then worked on building Colton Point, which seems more consistent with 1935. Would it make sense to just use the 1935 date? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so; nothing really gained by having the two dates, unless you want to say: "...in 1935 (1933 according to some sources)", but pesrsonally I'd just give more likely date. Brianboulton (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1935 it is. Dincher (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Finally, its probably that Brit thing again, but "concession stand" doesn't indicate to me what was operated by the CCC up to 1953. I assume they sold things, but a few more words of explanation would clarify.
  • They sold food and drink and souvenirs / trinkets - I will add a phrase next. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on a monumental article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful comments, support and good advice. I will leave the other two comments for Ruhr to ponder and answer. Dincher (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too for your kind words and support and help. It is a wonderful park and I am glad the article does it some justice, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang

Thanks for the support and the thorough review, suggestions, etc. Dincher (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• "Colton Point State Park is a 368-acre Pennsylvania state park in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, in the United States."

I would be surprised if a Pennsylvania state park is not in Pennsylvania... Perhaps, "Colton Point State Park is a 368-acre state-protected park in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, in the United States." The link to the "List of Pennsylvania state parks" does not seem necessary in light of the navbox and infobox.

There are 120 Pennsylvania State Parks articles, four of which are FAs, all of which start with a version of this sentence. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, although I would not be convinced by an "other articles do this too" argument, establishing a consistency for a topic (Pennsylvania State Parks) is convincing. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "and have led to the entire park being listed as a historic district"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "and have led to the park's listing as a historic district"

done, thanks

Native Americans

• "including one just north of the park near what is now the village of Ansonia."

Could "is now" be rephrased? The language would not be precise if Ansonia was merged into another town five–twenty years from now.

While I understand your point, I do not see this happening. Ansonia is an unincorporated village and does not have a sepearate legal or political existence. As such it has been there over 100 years. If you insist, we will change it to "as of 2008" or some such wording (eeek! a word ending in "ing" (and another one) ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not fret, it is but a suggestion (the whole precise language issue is still debated on, so I would hardly call this a "must-act" when considering settlements. Fads and other more temporal stuff, however...). Anyway, if you do wish to change (and avoid "as of"), would "near what would later be the village of Ansonia" be acceptable? If not, I am willing to ignore this. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That works for me - thanks and hope I did not come across as grouchy - I really appreciate all of your careful work and suggestions on this FAC, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Native Americans almost entirely left Pennsylvania, although some isolated bands of Natives remained" (contradiction: regardless, even though)

Suggestion: "Native Americans almost entirely left Pennsylvania; however, some isolated bands of Natives remained" (contradiction: nevertheless)

done, thanks

Lumber era

• "The first lumbering activity to take place close to what is now Leonard Harrison State Park occurred in 1838"

It sounds a bit funny... as in "The first lumbering activity occurred in 1838", treating the activity as a natural phenomenan than a man-made activity... Suggestion: "The first lumbering activity close to what is now Leonard Harrison Park was in 1838 when [...]"

done, and changed it to Colton Point, thanks

• "the General Assembly passed a law allowing splash dam construction and clearing of creeks to allow loose logs to float better."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "the General Assembly passed a law which allowed construction of splash dams and clearing of creeks to allow loose logs to float better."

changed to " the General Assembly passed a law which allowed construction of splash dams and creeks to be cleared to allow loose logs to float better" to get rid of both -ing forms, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1879 Henry Colton, who worked for the Williamsport Lumber Company, supervised the cutting of white pine on the land that became the park, which was then owned by Silas Billings."

Suggestion: "In 1879 Henry Colton, who worked for the Williamsport Lumber Company, supervised the cutting of white pine on the land owned by Silas Billings; this land would later become the park."

done, thanks

• "When that burned in 1905"

The subject (lumber) never switched to the mill, I believe... hence, it could have been misread as "when that lumber on fourmile run burned in 1905". Suggestion: "When that mill burned in 1905"

thanks for the good catch, done

• "which became a fire hazard, so much of the land burned and was left barren."

Could it be rephrased as "which became a fire hazard. As a result, much of the land burned and was left barren." Instead of reading it as "so, much of the land" (conjunction—therefore, much of the land), I read it as "so much of the land" (exaggeration—Very much of the land); hence, my short span of confusion here when I consider the comma that separated the clauses.

done, thanks

• "Disastrous floods swept the area periodically and much of the wildlife was wiped out."

Perhaps "disastrous" can be dropped? Floods could be beneficial, and in this case, the reader can judge the effects of the floods (the eradication of wildlife ) for themselves.

One of the floods of the era was the Johnstown Flood that killed over 2000, but I can see how disastrous might seem POV, so it is dropped, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Conservation

• "one of the first to criticize Pennsylvania lumbering and its destruction of forests and creeks."

Suggestion: "one of the first to criticize the Pennsylvania lumber industry and its destruction of forests and creeks."

• "almost all of the virgin forests"

For a more formal tone, how about "almost all the virgin forests"?

• "after a 6-mile buggy ride, he then had to hike 7 miles"

Drop the "then"; the sentence already started with "after".

• "At least he reached 'The Point',

"At least" (implying he could have gone further—which did not get elaborated—but did not) or "at last" (end of his journey)?

All done, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern era

• "The CCC was founded by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, and created jobs for unemployed industrial workers of Williamsport, Jersey Shore and Wellsboro."

I am not too sure, but I think it is a violation of parallel structure to adopt an active for the first clause then a passive for the second. How about "The CCC, founded by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, created jobs for unemployed industrial workers of Williamsport, Jersey Shore and Wellsboro."?

sounds good, thanks (and done)

• "The work of the CCC at Colton Point is still visible today and is one of many examples of the work of the CCC throughout northcentral Pennsylvania."

Consider more precise language. Their work might not be around 20, 40 years from now. In fact, as noted later, some of their works no longer survive (what about later)? Generally I think "now" and "today" are frowned upon. Suggestion: "The CCC's work at Colton Point is one of the many examples of their activities throughout northcentral Pennsylvania."

Changed to "Much of the work of the CCC at Colton Point is still visible as of 2008, and is one of many examples ..." Is this OK? One of the unusual things about the park is how little it has changed since the CCC built it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1936, the same year the park opened, Larry Woodin of Wellsboro and other Tioga County business owners began a tourism campaign"

Drop "same", it seems redundant.

Dropped, thanks

• "while pavilions 2 and 5 have log columns supporting a pyramidal roof."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "and pavilions 2 and 5 each has log columns that support a pyramidal roof."

Changed to your version, thanks

• "The CCC also built six rustic latrines with clapboard siding and gable roofs in the park"

Since we are focused on the park, there is no need for "in the park", right?

Well the CCC as a whole built way more than 6 latrines ;-) but I see your point. Dropped "in the park", thanks

• "Three overlooks were constructed by the CCC, as was a rectangular gable-roofed maintenance building with wane edge siding and exposed rafters made of logs."

Suggestion: "Additonal structures constructed by the CCC include three overlooks and a rectangular gable-roofed maintenance building with wane edge siding and exposed rafters made of logs."

Not sure what was wrong with the other version, but it is changed to your version, thanks

• "Workers used locally-found, natural materials in construction that minimized interference with the natural surroundings"

"Workers used locally-found, natural materials in construction that blended with the natural surroundings"

Changed, thanks

• "As of 2004, the park does not have telephone or electrical lines, but does use solar cells for limited electricity needs."

Suggestion: "As of 2004, the park does not have telephone or electrical lines, although it uses solar cells for limited electricity needs."

Done, thanks

• "changes in the rail line"

Should it not be "changes to the rail line"?

It should and now it is, thanks

• "Conrail abandoned the section of the railroad passing through the gorge on September 21, 1988."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "On September 21, 1988, Conrail abandoned the section of the railroad that passed through the gorge."

Attempted no more, now changed, thanks

• "Another Times story on the West Rim Trail in 2002 cited the park as a starting point for hiking it and noted the beauty and wildlife found there."

Suggestion: "Another Times story in 2002 cited the park as a start point for hiking the West Rim Trail and noted the beauty and wildlife found there."

"Start point" sounds really odd to my ears. If you insist, we will change it, but I have not done so yet Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is okay not to consider it; I just felt that the West Rim Trail was too far from "it". On further reading, I think "found there" could be ambiguous: the trail or the park (I presume it should be the park)... Suggestion: "Another Times story in 2002 noted the park for its beauty and wildlife, and cited it as a starting point for hiking the West Rim Trail." Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Colton Point and Leonard Harrison were each part of the twenty-one state parks chosen by the DCNR Pennsylvania Bureau of Parks for its "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks" list. They are the only two parks treated as one unit for the list. The DCNR describes the parks together,"

It seems abrupt to see the article state twenty-one state parks for a "Twenty [...] Parks" list. How about "DCNR Pennsylvania Bureau of Parks treated Colton Point and Leonard Harrison as one state park in its "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks" list. It describes the two parks together,"?

No. It does not say they are one state park and gives separate links to their separate official web pages. I cannot change the fact that the DCNR is unable to count, but they did publish a list titled "20 must see parks" with 21 parks on the list. It took a lot of work to come up with this wording and I do not see your suggestion as an improvement (much as I appreciate your effort). I have replied to everything to this point, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, darn officials should take up arithmetic lessons. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pine Creek Gorge

• "and added public access points to reduce abuse of private property."

How does the addition of public access points to a state land help to reduce abuse of private property? A bit of explanation perhaps?

Added by trespassers to this sentence. Dincher (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay... so the intent is for people to enter the park through the public access points instead of traipsing through private property to get to the park. Perhaps "and added public access points to reduce incidences of trespass on private property by park visitors."?

Not quite - the public access points are for the creek, which is a state scenic river through the whole gorge. So this applies to access to the whole length of the creek (not just the mile or so in the park), not access to the park. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh... so how about:

Suggestion A: "and added public access points to reduce incidences of trespass on private property by visitors to the creek."

Suggestion B (after thinking on how do you protect against an activity): "It refused to allow dams to be built on the creek or power plants to draw water from the stream. The state also added public access points to allow people to visit the creek without trespassing on private property."

Suggestion C: "No dams were allowed to be built on the creek, nor water to be drawn from it by power plants. To allow people to visit the creek without trepassing on private property, the state added public access points." Jappalang (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the suggestions, I used A with the word "trespassing" from C, i.e. and added public access points to reduce trespassing on private property by visitors to the creek. Is this OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Geology and climate

• "gorge itself formed only about 20,000 years ago"

Drop the "only"; the statement started with an "although".

Done and thanks

• "near the present village of Ansonia,"

Suggestion: "near what would later be the village of Ansonia,"

Done, thanks

• "and the lake's glacial meltwater overflowed the debris dam, which caused a reversal of the flow of Pine Creek."

Suggestion: "and the lake's glacial meltwater overflowed the debris dam, reversing the flow of Pine Creek."

Clear and more concise, thanks

• "While the gorge and its surroundings appear mountainous, these are not true mountains: instead years of erosion have made this a dissected plateau, causing the "mountainous" terrain seen today. The hardest of the ancient rocks are on top of the ridges, while the softer rocks eroded away forming the valleys."

Suggestion: "Although the gorge and its surroundings seem to be mountainous, the area is a dissected plateau. Years of erosion have cut away the soft rocks, forming the valleys, and left the hardest of the ancient rocks relatively untouched on the top of sharp ridges, giving them the appearance of "mountains"."

Works for me - thanks

• "Five major rock formations are present in Colton Point State Park, from the Devonian and Carboniferous periods."

Suggestion: "Five major rock formations present in Colton Point State Park are from the Devonian and Carboniferous periods."

Changed to your version, this section done I think, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecology

• "The forest was up to 85 percent hemlock and white pine, with the rest hardwoods."

"The forest was up to 85 percent hemlock and white pine; hardwoods make up the rest of the forest."

Done, thanks

• "Many animal species that are now vanished inhabited the area."

More precise suggestion: "The area was inhabited by many animal species, most of which have vanished by the end of the 20th century."

While I understand this sentiment, the sources do not specifically support most species now being extinct. There are still over 40 species of mammals in the Gorge today, so would something like "The area was inhabited by a large number of animal species, many of which have vanished by the end of the 20th century."? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better. Please put it in. Jappalang (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is in, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Pine Creek was home to large predators such as Wolves, Lynx, Wolverines, Panthers, Fishers, foxes and Bobcats; all save the last three now locally extinct."

Why are "foxes" non-capitalized and "Wolves" capitalized? Furthermore, the last clause is an incomplete sentence. Suggestion: "all are locally extinct except for the last three as of 2007."

The MOS convention followed is that species names are capitalized, while genera are not. See Wikipedia:MOS#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms "In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalisation should be used for species names. This could involve the use of: ... title case for common names of species throughout (per WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history;" Changed to your suggestion for last phrase, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, although I have to say it still sets up some confusion (me not being an biologist and all...). In light of this, I rearranged the list a bit to place those non-capitalized terms at the rear instead of in the middle (aesthetic reasons). Please revert if this messed up the meaning or intent of the original structure. Jappalang (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am confused over the capitalization of the species here... per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms, I think it is acceptable for all the non-birds to be not capitalized.

See above please, and the talk page for this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_102#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The virgin forests cooled the land and streams. Centuries of accumulated organic matter in the forest soil caused slow percolation of rainfall into the creeks and runs, so they flowed more evenly year-round. Pine Creek was home to ..."

Each of the first two sentences seems to be disconnected from the sentence following it. Could the flow be improved?

I tweaked these four sentences so they now read The virgin forests cooled the land and streams. The creeks and runs flowed more evenly year-round, since centuries of accumulated organic matter in the forest soil caused slow percolation of rainfall into them. Pine Creek was home to large numbers of fish, including trout, but dams downstream on the Susquehanna River have eliminated the shad, salmon,[c] and eels once found here by blocking their migrations.[2] Habitat for land animals was destroyed by the clearcutting of forests, but there was also a great deal of hunting, with bounties paid for large predators. Is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "dams downstream on the Susquehanna River have eliminated the shad, salmon, and eels once found here."

Can it be briefly expounded on why dams would eliminate the fish?

They migrate to the ocean and back - dams stop most of this. Will try to add something, stopping for the night now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Add once found here by blocking their migrations. with migrations linked to Fish migration. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

State Natural Area and wildlife

• "Within this Natural Area, all logging, mining, and oil and gas drilling are prohibited, and only foot trail access is allowed."

Suggestion: " Within this Natural Area, logging, mining, and drilling for oil and gas are prohibited. Furthermore, only foot trail access is allowed."

Changed. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Despite the logging, there are still some old-growth hardwoods and hemlocks on Fourmile Run."

I think due to "despite", "still" can be dropped.

Still has been dropped

• "The current population of deer in Pennsylvania are descended from the original stock introduced beginning in 1906, after the lumberman had moved out of the area."

Suggestion: "The current population of deer in Pennsylvania are descended from the original stock introduced since 1906, after the lumberman had moved out of the area."

Changed. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Despite the fears of anglers, their diet is only 5 percent trout."

Suggestion A: "Despite the otters' diet of 5 per cent trout, anglers fear the animals would deplete the game fish in the gorge."

Suggestion B: "Although trouts make up 5 per cent of the otters' diet, anglers fear the animals would deplete the game fish in the gorge."

The fears preceded the reintroduction of the fishers, the studies followed their reintroduction. Thinking of a way to say this better - thanks for pointing out the problem, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reread the original in Dillon and I did not recall this correctly. I used a tweaked version of A, namely Despite the otters' diet of 5 percent trout, some anglers fear the animals would deplete the game fish in the gorge. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "They are generalized predators and will hunt any smaller creatures in their territory, including porcupines."

Suggestion: "They are general predators, hunting any smaller creatures such as porcupines in their territory."

General predators doesn't sound correct to me. Generalized sounds better. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am not certain of the distinction either (I based it on the greater Google hits for "general predator", which of course may not be correct form). Can someone provide a third opinion? Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked both refs on fishers - ref 59 (DCNR) does not use the words "general" or "generalized" in conjunction with predator, but ref 60 [102] calls them a "generalized predator", so I think that is what we should go with. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can accept assurances from one of the sources. Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Gypsy Moths, which eat all the leaves off trees, especially oaks"

I think "all" can be dropped; "off" would suggest the removal of the leaves from the trees.

When you take your shirt off do you take off all your clothes? Not always. Dincher (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another point. The caterpillars in question do strip the leaves from the trees. They are left bare. The word all is important in getting this point across. Otherwise one might think that just some of the leaves are eaten. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the key point is that the caterpillars will strip all the leaves in the trees no matter what, right? If that is the case, there is no issue with this (my initial assumption was that the caterpillars only ate their fill and would cause severe but not total devastation of the leaves). Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Important Bird Area

• "The woodlands are inhabited by the Ruffed Grouse, Pennsylvania's state bird, and Wild Turkeys."

A likely problem with serial commas: there is the ruffled grouse and wild turkey, but what is Pennsylvania's state bird? How about "The woodlands are inhabited by Wild Turkeys and Pennsylvania's state bird, the Ruffled Grouse."?

Changed. Dincher (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Trails

• "Colton Point State Park has some challenging hikes in and around the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, with 4.0 miles of trails that feature very rugged terrain, pass close to steep cliffs, and can be very slick in some areas."

"Challenging" is subjective (and not the opinion of the source either)... problem is that if this is dropped, it could likely mean the elimination of the first clause... so, "Colton Point State Park has 4.0 miles of hiking trails that feature very rugged terrain, pass close to steep cliffs, and can be very slick in some areas."

• "Turkey Path is a difficult trail"

Likewise, "difficult" is subjective and not mentioned by the source.

I have been on the trail. I dare say that the only creature that would not find it to be difficult would be a mountain goat. Dincher (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This source [103] "Hiking Pennsylvania" on Google books gives the Turkey Path 5 boots, or its "most difficult" rating. I can add it as a ref if this is OK. Perhaps "Hiking Pennsylvania" rates Turkey Path as a "most dificult" hiking trail"? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:V would prefer a verification from a published reliable source (if several hiking guide books stated or classed the trail as difficult, that would be good). I am not challenging your claim, but I wonder would other hikers have a different view. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the ref to challenging and difficuly and left the text as it is. Dincher (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "However, there is also a Turkey Path from Leonard Harrison State Park on the west rim of the gorge down to a point on Pine Creek just downstream of the end of this trail."

Is this the same path (i.e. Turkey Path runs through both parks) since the Path connects the two parks...?

It is. See the map. Dincher (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... so it is not original research if the article just states that the path (as one) runs through both parks instead of saying "However, there is also a Turkey Path" (therefore a different path)? If not, can it be phrased that way? Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have thought about this point for quite some time. I don't understand what the issue is? It seems pretty plain to me that it is essentially the same path. Dincher (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises from the DCNR officially calling them two separate trails of the same name (probably to avoid saying that hikers should ford / wade across Pine Creek, which can be dangerous, esp. when water is high). Other sources tend to refer to them as one path though. Again different reliable sources say different things on the same topic. We tried to show this, hope this helps make it clearer. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise that I did not explain my concern clearly. What happens is this: on reading "Turkey Path is a difficult trail", I immediately had "Turkey Path (Colton Point)" in mind (using Wikipedia naming terminology). The subsequent text talked on this subject. I then read "However, there is also a Turkey Path from Leonard Harrison State Park". This made me think of "Turkey Path (Leonard Harrison)"; that would in effect means two Turkey Paths (imagine if you write a Wikipedia article, that would be two different articles), which might not be the same path. What I was trying to clarify was: are these two paths the same (in Wiki-terms, why not delete-merge the two articles into just "Turkey Path")? If they are, then instead of "However, there is also ... ", the sentence should have read "The path continues further downstream across the creek into Leonard Harrison State Park ...". Are there no sources that can confirm the two paths are one and the same? Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Found this page[104] in Fergus' Natural Pennsylvannia. I think that source conclusively states they are the same path (hinted at by the other sources). Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Added it thanks. Dincher (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it to read Turkey Path is a difficult trail,[62] 3 miles (4.8 km) long (down and back within the park), that follows Four Mile Run down the side of the canyon, descending over 800 feet (240 m) to Pine Creek and the rail trail at the bottom of the gorge.[9] [...] The park website classifies it as a "down and back trail" since there is no bridge across Pine Creek.[9] However, the Turkey Path continues in Leonard Harrison State Park, going from a point on Pine Creek just downstream of the end of the trail in Colton Point up to the Leoanrd Harrison overlook on the east rim of the gorge. According to Owlett and the DCNR Pine Creek Rail Trail map, the creek can be forded with care when the water is low, and the Turkey Path connects the two parks.[16][23][40] Is this OK? I also note the Leonard Harrison State Park official web page calls the Turkey Path a "difficult trail" here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "When the West Rim Trail opened in 1982, it was only 21 miles long and ended just south of the park, but it was extended 9 miles north in 1985, passing through Colton Point."

I think "only" is an unneeded emphasis and can be dropped.

Only is gone. Dincher (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Camping and picnics

• "Camping is a popular pastime at Colton Point State Park, with 1,989 persons using the rustic camping facilities in 2003. The campsites are rustic, which means that there are no modern amenities like flush toilets or showers."

Awkward explanation of "rustic", and I see noun plus -ing. Suggestion: "Camping is a popular pastime at Colton Point State Park; 1,989 persons have used the camping facilities in 2003. With no modern amenities like flush toilets or showers, the campsites take on a rustic nature."

• "An Organized Group Tenting area can accommodate up to 90 campers. This is for use by organized youth or adult groups, and 1,490 campers used these facilities in 2003."

Suggestion: "An Organized Group Tenting area, intended for organized youth or adult groups, can accommodate up to 90 campers. 1,490 campers used the area in 2003."

• "The park has approximately 100 picnic tables and five CCC-built picnic shelters which can be reserved. Some 15,379 picnickers used the park in 2003."

Suggestion: "The park also has approximately 100 picnic tables and five CCC-built picnic shelters which can be reserved. These facilities were used by 15,379 picnickers in 2003."

Done, done and done. Dincher (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hunting, fishing, and whitewater

• Is the hunting and fishing seasonal?

Yes, but I don't think we need to spell out when it is permitted. The seasons vary by the game in question, etc., Perhaps we could change it to seasonal hunting, but then one might as for the particulars of the season. Dincher (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that might be opening a can of worms when unintended. Jappalang (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "which is Class 1 to Class 2 whitewater"

Should it be clarified as classification... "which is classified as Class 1 to Class 2 whitewater" or is this suggestion redundant...

Classified it is. Dincher (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nearby state parks

• "Colton Point State Park is entirely within Shippen Township"

"Entirely" seems redundant.

You are correct. Fixed, corrected, etc., Dincher (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

• Image:Pine Creek Gorge Cabins Crop.JPG

Is this cabin "Wetumka" or "Osocosy"?

Reliable sources sadly do not say which it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just my comments, opinions, and suggestions. I must say that some sections really engrossed me, and I had to frequently tear myself from it. This is a good start. Jappalang (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your very careful reading and comments, I will make most of the changes and reply to those where the changes are problematic today (busy in real life). Just wanted to get an initial thanks and reply in, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Do rebut if my suggestions would make things worse or are faulty in assumption. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All queries (and my nutty suggestions) have been resolved. Remembering the engrossing time I had reading it, I am fully backing this article for Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of your careful; work - this is one of the most thorough reviews I have ever seen at FAC and the article is better for it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support All my concerns were addressed in the article's PR. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your peer review, edits, and support - any chance you're related to Henry Colton? ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed I am, though I doubt he's the correct one. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, now that the dust has settled. As noted above, I peer-reviewed the article. I thought it was impressive then, and it is more so now. I'm especially impressed by the close attention to detail in this article. I could give many examples, but two will suffice. The main map's little picnic tables showing locations of picnic shelters is one. The other is the richly-detailed explanation of the gorge geology. Finetooth (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind words, peer review, edits, and support. Glad someone noticed the picnic tables on the map. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and kind words! Dincher (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:26, 11 October 2008 [105].

---

Khan Noonien Singh

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets criteria. The paragraphs of plot are balanced by an extensive design section and three paragraphs of reception and response. There ya go. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an expert at sources, but they appear to be fine. I can, however, say for sure that the links check out with the link checker. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images check out fine. Giggy (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would reluctently agree with Giggy, however, a question, could Image:Khan-and-company---star-tre.png be replaced with an image taken from the trailer, rather than the more tightly commercially controlled film, per WP:NFCC#2? (I haven't seen the trailer in years so the answer could be no)Fasach Nua (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, why do both images have copyright dates of 2008? Space Seed was broadcast in 1967 and Wrath of Khan released in 1982, no? Эlcobbola _talk 16:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The trailer didn't have any good shot of Khan which showed his glove, a significant portion of his costume, and some of his followers (either way, the trailer's quality wouldn't be conducive to proper identification.) Elco, you're right about the dates, I went back and fixed that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Prose was/is a problem. FACs shouldn't have this number of simple typos. Perhaps you could try using a spellcheck program in future? Things I couldn't correct:

• Erricsen or Ericssen?
• "he uses McGivers's attraction to him in getting her to revive the other supermen", three verbs in one phrase is too many, this should be changed.
• "The character of Khan was critically received." This could be misread that he was received unfavorably, again this should be changed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

His name was given as Erricsen, then Ericssen; it's not a mispelling. I fixed the other issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A few spot-checks show that much of the prose is OK (within reach of the required standard). During candidature, it would be nice for an unfamiliar editor to carefully run through it. There are things to admire in this nomination.

• "While most of the supermen were killed or sentenced to death, Khan and 84 others escape Earth via the sleeper ship SS Botany Bay." Check past tense here.
• "and nearly kills Dr. Leonard McCoy."—odd way of expressing it. Vague. Does he try to kill him?
• I hate "meanwhile" in plot accounts. Just remove it.
• "Spock sustains a lethal dose of radiation repairing the Enterprise, allowing the ship to escape the Genesis weapons' effects just in time, but Khan believes he has doomed his enemy before dying himself." Urky-purky.
• Whilst ... what's wrong with "While"? Tony (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that... I had fixed those issues previously, but I was having issues with my copy and paste (it kept on pasting an entire article in whenever I performed a word search, go figure.) The above have been fixed now, and I've asked a couple users to look over the prose when they have time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

Otherwise sources look fine, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a search for citation, and I can't find any mix of {{citation}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit tab shows the citation template in use at the bottom. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about being difficult, Eald, but I've gone through all the refs and I only see cite journal, cite news, and cite web. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not being difficult, but something is calling the {{citation/core}} template. Any idea what might be calling it?

Can you check it now? I reverted to an earlier version of {{cite journal}} as I noted it was randomly not formatting volume/issues correctly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

that did it ... weird. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure if the revert was the reason; adding a pages= parameter to one of the journal cites may have also done it. *shrug* Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've done a bit of copyediting, and I've read the article a couple of times, and found nothing of concern. The article appears to be quite well-written. Well done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support looks good from what I could tell, went through twice. if you make it more clear what actors play what. This would reduce any "in universe"ness and can be achieved by "(actor's name here)" after a character name. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Added in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:26, 11 October 2008 [106].

---

Rosetta@home

Nominator(s): Emw2012 (talk)

I'm nominating this article because I think it fulfills the featured article criteria. I've been working regularly on the article for the better part of three months, and now feel that it does justice to an interesting and important example of distributed computing being used for protein structure prediction. During my time working on the article, it has become listed as a good article and undergone two peer reviews (one before and one after GAN). David Baker, the head scientist on the Rosetta team, has read the article and called it an "outstanding job"; I've incorporated his emailed suggestions. Thanks in advance for comments and suggestions. Emw2012 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by jimfbleak No time to read properly yet, but I notice that all of the images have forced thumb sizes which override user settings. Can these settings please be removed? Also, MoS suggests that images should all be right-aligned or alternate - why is one image left aligned? jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Alignment has been fixed and forced sizes have been removed for all images, but I think the image in the Project significance section (especially) and the image in the Volunteer contributions section (currently 180px × 122px and 180px × 83px) are now too small to convey their intended information. According to WP:MoS#Images, there are exceptions to the policy on forced sizes: "Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image" (e.g. the detailed screensaver in 'Project significance') and "Detailed maps, diagrams or charts" (e.g. the bar chart in 'Volunteer contributions'). Considering that I'd like to restore the previous sizing for those images (300px × 203px and 450px × 207px, respectively) or very slightly smaller. Please let me know what you think. Emw2012 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My default is 180 px, and I expect to have to click on images if I want more detail - that's the whole point of thumbs. I'm not going to oppose just on this issue, and for time reasons I'm unlikely to be able to do a full review, so probably won't support either unless it's still here in two weeks time. Really just wanted to raise the issue (if it hadn't been FAC I would have just removed the forced image sizes). jimfbleak (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unless anyone objects, I'll keep off forced image sizes per your suggestion. Emw2012 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image question - What efforts have been made to get the publishers to release the non-free screenshots on a GFDL licence? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Originally, all of the images were non-free. I emailed the creator of the Rosetta@home logo; he said something to the effect of "it would be fine to use the image on Wikipedia", but did not respond when I asked him to fill out the standard free license release form. Considering that I haven't made an effort to get the screensaver freely licensed by the Baker lab. I will email them again later today. The next two images, superpositions of solved and predicted protein structures, were both made by me in PyMOL after a fairly long search for the atomic coordinates of the predicted structures. The bar chart in 'Volunteer contributions' took a while to get appropriately licensed, but now all images on http://boincstats.com are under a free CC license. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the Rosetta@home screensaver image ([107]), would a free license apply to only that particular screenshot of the screensaver, or all screenshots of that type of Rosetta@home screensaver? Emw2012 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, if an image (e.g. the Rosetta@home logo) were not under a free license, would it not be shown on alongside the lead if the article were to be made 'Today's featured article' some time in the future? Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://boincstats.com/

• The site converts XML data exported by distributed computing projects on the BOINC platform into various charts and tables (see http://boincstats.com/page/faq.php#9). It is included in a list of sources for "More detailed statistics for Rosetta@home" on an official project page here: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/stats.php, and is almost certainly the most widely used of those sites. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/suppmat/0887-3585/suppmat/prot.21636.html gives me a "forbidden" message.

• I saw that on the link checker as well, but somehow could still access the site. I'm not sure what's going on there -- perhaps I should remove the link and only include the other reference information? Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no problem accessing the site. Perhaps link checker is incorrect in this case. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't blindly trust the link checker, I always try to click through to the article itself. In this case, I'm still getting a 'forbidden' notice, perhaps you both are on an academic network? It's a Wiley Science reference, it appears, so by chance is this an scientific journal accessed through a database? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not on an academic network. Just an ordinary, commercial IP. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I too had no problems with this. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=669&nowrap=true#10910 is a forum thread, but it's their own forums and their own maintained FAQ. Borderline, but probably okay.
• http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=3934&nowrap=true#51199 is likewise from the forums, it needs a publisher

• Done. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, the "Rosetta@home forum" links, need to be investigated by other reviewers to make sure that they are legitimate uses of the forums, and they ALL need to give a publisher outside the link title.
• Current ref 27 (David Baker ... Publications on R@H's Alzheimer's ..) needs a last access date.

• Done. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 35 (Liu Y et all ) needs a last access date.

• Done. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 36 (David Bakers's Rosetta!home journal archives message 40756) has the author and the publisher run into the link title. They need to be broken out from the link.

• "David Baker's Rosetta@home journal archives" is the actual title of that page, but I've added proper author (David Baker) and publisher (University of Washington) information. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise all the forum posts need to be audited against the content to make sure that they are allowed usages under WP:V and WP:RS.

• All cited forum posts are authored by either project scientists (e.g. principal investigator David Baker; project scientists are listed as such under their username in each post) or, in one case, a moderator of the forum (moderators in this forum are liaisons between project scientists and project volunteers). I'm aware of the WP policy against using forum posts as references, but consider this particular kind of forum posting both verifiable and reliable considering that they are made project scientists or forum moderators appointed and endorsed by project scientists. I have only used these forum posts in cases where they provided information that is otherwise unavailable, for example in the project website, the scientific literature, or other sources. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention one forum post that was by a regular user, current reference #61 ("Foldit forums: How many users does Foldit have? Etc. (message 2)". Retrieved on 2008-09-27.. Considering it simply explains how to estimate the number of Foldit users by multiplying the number of users on each page of the list of all users by the number of pages in that list (i.e., 50 users/page * 1189 pages = 59,450 users), I think it is verifiable. Also, since the author is pseudonymous and the site's publisher is uncertain, I've omitted values for those attributes of the cite template. Emw2012 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment was looking for a direct mention/link of Levinthal's paradox in the article but failed to spot one. Shyamal (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Great point -- I've incorporated a sentence on how it relates to Rosetta@home in the Protein significance section. Emw2012 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I peer-reviewed this article a week or two ago and all my major concerns were addressed. My only remaining minor quibble is that the disease-related research section lacks flow. I suggest experimenting with deleting the sub-headings. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note, many citations are incorrectly formatted. Please assure that all citations list a publisher so they can be checked for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I could've sworn I added publisher information for all forum references in a recent edit, but guess I hadn't. That's now done. In keeping with practice in scientific publications and what I see in other featured articles in the sciences, I have omitted listing publishers for journal citations. I have also left references to http://boincstats.com without a publisher, since no such information seems to be available (it is a website made by a single man, who I have listed as the author; rationale for reliability is in a previous comment). If they should be there, please let me know, along with anything else I should add. Emw2012 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments and almost a Support - this is quite a comprehensive and well written article but I put myself in the shoes of an enquiring reader and found a few thing that could be answered:
  • The computing section does not make it clear how it distributes work on say a single protein to different user machines to ensure that they dont actually search the same conformation space, perhaps this is part of the BOINC platform but it seems to me more domain specific and worth explaining.

• I've added an explanation of that in the last few sentences of the ' Computing platform' section. Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • To minimize power consumption or heat production from a computer running at sustained capacity, the maximum percentage of CPU resources that Rosetta@home is allowed to use can be specified through a user's account preferences. The times of day during which Rosetta@home is allowed to do work can also be adjusted, along with many other preferences, through a user's account settings. - I would suggest that the primary motivation is more likely to allow other background processes to execute rather than to prevent heating of the CPU.

• Since Rosetta@home is run as a lowest-priority task, it throttles back whenever background processes (e.g., ripping/burning media files, virus scanning, etc.) request resources that Rosetta would otherwise be using -- see the sentence preceding your quotation. In light of that, the most important things would be power consumption and heat production, no? Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Protein 3D structures are currently determined experimentally through X-ray crystallography or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The process is slow (it can take weeks or even months to figure out how to crystallize a protein for the first time) and comes at high cost (around $100,000 USD per protein). - my understanding is that there are proteins such as GPCRs which cannot be crystallized in their "real-life" conformations.

• While a few GPCR proteins have been crystallized, you're right that GPCRs (and membrane proteins in general) are especially difficult to solve in terms of structure. I've added information on what Rosetta@home is doing on this front in last few sentences of the second paragraph of the ' Project significance' section. Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • In other words, Folding@home's strength is protein folding, while Rosetta@home's strength is protein design and prediction of structure and docking. - I find it hard to see this contrast, is it that it reverse engineers the structure of a "locking protein" from a target's active site ?

• Folding@home is interested in modeling (via molecular dynamics) the trajectories of the backbone and residues as the protein folds to native state. Although better understanding of those trajectories could possibly help structure prediction, Rosetta@home is much less interested that, and instead focuses on the position of all parts of the protein in its native state. Rosetta's methodology for protein docking prediction is described in the third paragraph of the ' RosettaDock' section. Let me know if and perhaps how I can further clarify this. Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. I have some minor concerns about the compliance to WP:RS but I hope this stimulates the project team to publish a proper description report and help replace the citations to the discussion forum. Shyamal (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Shyamal (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I am waiting for these issues that are above my technical expertise to be settled so I can register my support. I have been following this article since its GAN days and find it fascinating. I have always wondered what Rosetta@home was and this is a wonderful (and for me, satisfying) explanation. (I did some minor copy editing a while ago.) —Mattisse (Talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm close to support. However, I reviewed the section on Alzheimer's disease, and it was kind of inaccurate. What the project was doing was quite accurate, but it was less so on describing the biochemical nature of AD. I corrected it, but I wonder if the same thing is wrong in the other sections on what is being done with the work here. Also, and I consider this important, is how much bandwidth does this project use? With some ISP's limiting the amount of bandwidth that can be used per month, will this project be hurt. It may not be germane to the article, but if I were seeking out information, I'd wonder. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• There isn't much information out there on how much bandwidth Rosetta@home uses per day (or per workunit). I've initiated a conversation at the Rosetta@home forums here: Daily bandwidth usage for Rosetta@home. Unfortunately neither a project scientist nor moderator has dropped in, so there may be reliability issues. And though possible, it would be probably be difficult to verify. Let me know what you think about including information from that Rosetta@home user regarding bandwidth usage. Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear to be much, but I don't think a forum passes the WP:RS test. It appears that it takes 1-2Gb per month, which if you're limited to 200Gb, is kind of significant. I wish there was something more reliable as a source. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that there may be reliability (and verfiability) issues in forum posts by users who are neither project scientists nor moderators. Given the criteria at WP:SELFPUB, however, there may be a case for including the post in question.

Also, I'm not sure how you got to a bandwidth usage of 1-2 GB per month, considering that 1024 MB was the maximum requirement for the most bandwidth-hungry computer being measured (which had eight CPU cores, making it an outlier). The remaining computers being measured (all single core, 2.8-3.0 GHz CPUs) used around 250 MB per month on average, i.e. one 800th of a 200 GB-per-month capacity.

I agree that this is somewhat important information, but a well-vetted source seems simply unavailable. There is other equally important information that is unavailable for this and similar projects: how much extra power per hour is consumed by running the project, how much heat, how much RAM does an average workunit use, etc.? Because of a lack of reliable information, these questions may be beyond our current scope.

Finally, I want to reiterate that all but one other forum post referenced are written by project scientists and moderators, not miscellaneous users. So I think other forum references used hold significantly more weight. Excluding all forum references would seriously deprive the article of non-controversial and in my opinion acceptably-sourced information. Emw2012 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, bad math on my part. Dammit, I'm a doctor, not a computer scientist. (Can't use that Star Trek reference enough.) 250 mb is less than .1% of some of the limits I've read, unless you're using a cellular access to the net. Not really worthy of adding to the article.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note, this FAC has been up for almost a week. It is not clear to me that reviewers have checked individually sourced statements as suggested by Ealdgyth, I am uncertain if images are cleared, and it is not apparent that any reviewer has checked Scholarly sources for any coverage of any criticism, controversy or weaknesses per the information in the nominator blurb: " David Baker, the head scientist on the Rosetta team, has read the article and called it an "outstanding job"; I've incorporated his emailed suggestions." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding images, a recent comment on Fasach Nua's user page seems to imply that s/he thinks the article fulfills criterion 3. I've asked for help vetting sources at Wikiproject MCB's talk page. Emw2012 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are still missing publishers and incomplete information about sources, and no response if any potential criticism has been adequately researched and covered, considering the Baker endorsement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• In my previous response to your concern over lack of publisher information, I said: "In keeping with practice in scientific publications and what I see in other featured articles in the sciences, I have omitted listing publishers for journal citations. I have also left references to http://boincstats.com without a publisher, since no such information seems to be available (it is a website made by a single man, who I have listed as the author; rationale for reliability is in a previous comment). If they should be there, please let me know, along with anything else I should add. Emw2012 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)". I just reviewed every reference again, and, among all the references needing a publisher to my understanding, found one without a publisher; there was also one without an author and one without an accessdate. Since several websites do not list an author, I have omitted that attribute to corresponding references, listing only publishers. Let me know whether you think the information on references is now satisfactory; if it isn't then please let me know which references to add to and what you'd like me to add. I will search around for any potential criticism and incorporate any findings before the end of Friday. Thanks again, Emw2012 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a sample of the work needed, from two sections only; it should be apparent to reviewers when a statement is sourced to an internet forum or a self-published source, so they can evaluate the statements for reliability. Boincstats.com as publisher was missing on several in those sections only, forum sources weren't identified, and there were other misc citation items like missing accessdates. Please complete this work thoughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I couldn't really make up my mind. My problems with the article center around the "Disease-related research" section. My problem with this section is with the tiny paragraphs and each given a subsection while not being that large. I have a similar problem with "Comparison to similar distributed computing projects". I would recommend removing the subheadings, having it in one large section, and finding a way to merge the paragraphs in a more fluid way. Sorry if I couldn't be more of a help with a better review. It was an interesting article and I didn't really see anything that didn't appeal to me besides the above. Ottava Rima (talk)

In light of there now being two experienced editors who have suggested removing subheadings in the 'Disease-related research' section, I'll take care of that soon. I will expand the subsections in 'Comparison to similar computing projects' to at least two paragraphs each; I think they can be filled without simply adding fluff. Emw2012 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - If the "new rules" are that a decision to promote has to be made within a week, then I will register my support now, having no problem accessing the source cited as "forbidden" above by Ealdgyth and accepting Ealdgyth's and Shyama's evaluation of the sources as RS, as well as my own evaluation of the matter. Also, per GrahamColm's support. Was waiting for Orangemarlin's response, but with the week deadline I will not wait longer. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is no such "rule". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Thorough and well written. For the references that cite the forum, you can use the Template:Cite web with publisher="boinc.bakerlab.org". Forums can be reliable sources, depending on who's contributing and who's moderating. There is a general rule not to trust user generated content, however, there are exceptions if the user is an expert writing in their field, especially if there is editorial oversight to ensure quality and accuracy. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• New comment-I just cleaned up the citations in the medical section. I checked them to make sure they verified the statements, which they did. But the citations were kind of hard to use, lacking PMCID and PMID in almost every case. Not being a computer person, the rest of the article is not very clear to me, but someone might want to do a citation clean-up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I was hoping you would also clean up PMIDs from the top of the article, so I won't have to do that work. (Pointing to PMIDs is preferable to pointing to journal abstracts or journal free full text, as the journals sometimes take down abstracts or free full text. Also, it makes the citation method consistent with other bio/med articles, using Diberri's PMID template filler, and avoiding subscription only URLs. We should, however, link to the journal URL when it provides free full text not provided at PubMed Central. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is turning out to take up quite a bit of my time. I noticed that citations were messy even outside of the section I reviewed. For example, there are a lot of citations that use "et al" using just the main author and not italicizing the et al. At this point, this article should not be promoted to FA until the citations are cleaned up. I'll work on them, but usually with articles I read the abstract or source to see if it confirms the statement. This may take me a long time. I should have looked more carefully.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on those, Orange; I was chipping away at a few of them myself, but it is time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:Raul654 22:48, 7 October 2008 [108].

---

Samuel Johnson

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk), User:Malleus Fatuorum (talk) and User:SandyGeorgia (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it use to look like this. After 700 edits, and an addition of citations from many major scholarly sources on the subject, an extensive peer review, and constant reviewing on the talk page with full scale MoS check, plus a full scale image and ref check, I think it may be FA standards. If not, well ... User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:SandyGeorgia performed over 400 quality edits in the push to FA status, examining every minute detail with punctuation, grammar, language and MoS. They are the main reason why this is not simply a GA, and why I feel confident that this is FA quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary of declarations on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment During a conversation with his biographer, Johnson became infuriated at the suggestion that Berkeley's idealism could not be refuted. In his anger, Johnson powerfully stomped a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, "I refute it thus!"[200]

Presumably this interpretation of Johnson's emotions is based on a misunderstanding of the word alacrity? 86.44.27.122 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was based on the language in a contemporary biography, but I think that reference was dropped when reffing to Boswell directly. Regardless, I reworked the paragraph, as it was too long for something explained in the quote box. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.samueljohnson.com/index.html? (Why not quote it directly?) It's probably a marginal source, but it kinda stands out in the otherwise excellent sources used!

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is only hosting the primary source and nothing else. It was just nice to link to an online version. If you want, I can replace it with a hard copy and page numbers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a courtesy link; in this case, it's probably better to cite the hardcopy, and add that link to External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the links and put in books. I thought it would be best to use biographers who string those line together as to avoid any possible "OR" claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good compromise, that site works REALLY well as an external link. Perfect for it. And let me compliment again on the excellent quality of the sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This gave me an opportunity to buy three biographies that I didn't have and really forced me to spread out in order to accommodate a few people that were wondering why ___ was relied on while ____ was not. I think, out of the original list of random biographies grouped at the bottom of the page, there were only 4 works not chosen (but no major biographer was left out, and all other writers were given prominence on individual article pages that related). Johnson has a huge amount of criticism, and I think every single piece will make it in some form on Wikipedia after I am done. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• Image:Dictionary2.jpg and Image:Dictionary3.jpg - Could you add the complete publication information to the source field? I would, but the image resolution isn't high enough.
• Any images that are in the PD could be moved to Commons. It would be nice to share these images with other projects.

I look forward to reading and reviewing this article! Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Added the printing information. I think Elcobbola might be able to help with the Commons. I tend to stick to Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can do about copying them over in a week or so, after I return from my vacation. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola is working on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

File Upload Bot is my hero. I moved all but one (Image:Pembroke_Lodge.jpg - the bot, apparently, doesn't move previous versions and we'd want the original, uncropped version; I'm too lazy to do it manually at the moment). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I moved the uncropped version to the Commons. Do we care about the cropped version? It doesn't appear that much was cropped. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue of overly dense citations was discussed here. Now capped for FAC readability. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• (comment) I commend the nominator for the effort put into this article, but the level of citation in this article is excessive. I oppose the nomination on the grounds that the over-citation is a hindrance to reading and suggests that wikipedia is a sentence-paraphrasing service. (Any critical reader without a background in wikipedia's politics would be very confused by the amount of attribution; the article would have her believe that "Johnson was born in the family home above his father's bookshop, near Market Square in Lichfield, across from St. Mary's Church" is a point of contention. It's like putting a question mark in the reader's mind after each sentence.) Specifically, you do not need to cite commonly attainable elements of biography, yet essentially every sentence in Biography has a citation. I am not opposing to make a point, and if this objection is felt baseless, that's fine. However, I will note that the article does not follow one of the core policies of wikipedia, attribution—while the policy clearly notes what we consider worthy of citation, no discretion in attribution is apparent here. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• I should also add that if the consensus of editors is that removing citations would make the article worse, then don't (but admit that you've adopted an a priori position). I have not written the above in the "do this to get me to support" sense. It's an opinion, and one that is I think supported by the policies of wikipedia, regardless of how far citation is carried as a matter of practice. Certainly I won't be commenting further unless others feel the position is warranted, and specifics become worth discussing. Whiskeydog (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that this objection is actionable. The WP citation policy sets a minimum standard of what should be cited, not a maximum. There are advantages to a heavily cited article:

• Allows the reader to find the source for the information so they can read more information about that particular tidbit.
• Ensures that there is no confusion on what a particular citation covers. If a controversial fact is embedded in a paragraph, we don't want to confuse readers into thinking that the whole paragraph comes from that source, when it might only be relevant to the controverisal fact
• Makes verifiability a whole lot easier. Anyone can add any information to the article; with the sources clearly noted for every piece of information it is much easier to see if someone is adding unsourced information, fake information, or is twisting the source to say something completely different.

Karanacs (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add - I don't consider any information on an individual who has been dead for 200 years as "common knowledge". Such assumptions would have Washington chop down cherry trees and other confused tidbits thrown in. I believe that dates and locations before 1900 always need a citation. These are the things most easily confused. This is just my thoughts on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is a mythology surrounding Johnson, it is particularly important to separate fact from fiction. Having extensive citations allows readers to verify these distinctions for themselves and increases Wikipedia's legitimacy as reference source. Awadewit (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Going with that theme - FAs never really needed to be cited. Then ten cites were enough. Then twenty or so were enough. What if this progresses to the point that in the year 2120, Wikipedia would require at least 240 citations? Well, we are in luck. Always thinking about the future. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK then. I don't get it, and every time I make another effort to "get", or comment on, the way wikipedia works now, it's clear that there are just entirely different mental sets involved. So, there is no point in me participating in FAC—I refuse to sanction the idea that this death by a thousand citations is a good thing. We've got people who complain that every tiny MoS "violation" affects readability, but no one seems to mind a footnote-stop cutting every sentence off from every other. Karanacs' arguments I've seen before in many places, and I find them entirely hypothetical, conjuring a reader who interacts with the article in a way that I highly doubt is realistic. Those who agree with my position don't come here, and so the self-selection continues. Anyway, over and out. Whiskeydog (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people agree with your mentality, Whiskeydog. There is an old tradition of it. It would probably be easy to have a version of such pages that is "clean" that someone could click on and would be the same text without any of the citations. Who knows. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling it an "old tradition" is a classic device of rhetoric (I don't know which 'un). Now, how about I introduce a new measure of citation density? Samuel Johnson actually has 378 footnotes, over 10,519 words=0.036 citations/word. If the average sentence is 17 words (17-sentence), we have 0.61 citations/17-sentence. Let's compare that to the recent FA Tulip mania, surely an article whose abstract humanities overlay requires good citation. With 73 footnotes and 3545 words, it has 0.35 citations/17-sentence. I am proposing a limit of 0.40 citations per 17-sentence. Please add this to the featured article criteria forthwith—See?—all I had to do was please the quants. Now it's actionable, dude. Whiskeydog (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the comparison made above does not reflect the academic reality, nor deal with comprehensiveness. Furthermore, his numbers are clearly off, as they have no regard to material that needs to be cited, nor does it acknowledge that some sentences run over multiple lines while sharing the same citation in order pages, which this does not have such instances. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear whether this is a general comment about FAs, or a specific criticism of this article. If the former, then the issue would propbably be better raised on the talk page. If the latter, can you provide some examples of spurious citations Whiskeydog? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whiskeydog was specific enough that his point can be applied to this candidacy, and to be fair he did make disclaimers. Ironically though, the second next cmt kind of underpins his argument about self selection, but also reinforces Malleus words "would propbably be better raised on the talk page" : It the treatment of titles is a small point, fix or put a note on talk; if it is substantial enough to posit as a deal breaker on FAC and is followed by five or six posts; well then we might as well all go home. I suggest this broad conversation is taken else where, either to this FACs talk, or better, the FAC talk. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I left "facetious" in the edit comment for my last comment; I'm sorry that still wasn't enough. (Neither my sense of style nor humour translates here well enough, and the last place I should therefore hang out is FAC.) Good luck with the nomination! For the tallying, I've struck the oppose and put 'comment'. Oh, and thanks SandyGeorgia for the citation reduction; definite improvement! Whiskeydog (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, Whiskeydog! Tony1 did a small bit of copyediting (finding little to change) and Ottava Rima reduced some of the citation.[109] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Working on coalescing and combining refs from the same page range, saving these versions for posterity:

• Version initially viewed by Whiskeydog: [110]
• Version after Ottava Rima removed duplicate citations: [111]
• Version after I finished coalescing refs: [112] (diff)
• Diff from fully-cited version to current: [113]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support—Well done indeed. Tony (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Capped comments, ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: MOS:BETTER advises against honorifics; there are several instances of "Dr" and "Mrs" that might best be dispensed (if not used within a quote, obviously). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  The only instances of "Dr Johnson" are in quotes (he was/is often referred to as Dr Johnson); I'll leave Mrs Thrale to Ottava. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue on what to do about that - there is the Henry and Hester, which could have the repeated first names. Other uses: 1) "Mrs Harriotts", it sounded silly having Harriotts, as it could have been mistaken as the plural, but this could be dropped. 2) "a young woman, Miss Morris," I don't know her first name and Wain/Bate lists her as "Miss". 3) "Miss Frances Reynolds" to note the feminine reading of the name. 4) "Rev. Strahan" George Strahan. 5) "Dr Warren" Thomas Warren. 6) "Dr John Paradise" John Paradise. 7) "Dr Delap" John Delap. 8) "Dr Samuel Swynfen" Samuel Swynfen. 9) "Dr Christopher Nugent" Christopher Nugent. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the MoS page that seems to discuss it in-depth. If someone could help make heads or tales of this, I would be much obliged. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. If you think removing the honorifics will cause confusion to the reader, go ahead and leave them in. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Dr Johnson, that MoS page states: "In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included." That would be the case for Johnson. With the Thrales, we have the two of them (him and her). With Frances, again, it's because Frances could be a him, etc. There are a few cases where we need to WP:IAR here, similar to the Reagan and Clinton articles, where it was difficult to distinguish him and her and consensus was to ignore naming conventions. I'm not sure, though, why we need the honorifics on Strahan, Warren, Paradise, or Delap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed excessive titles, rewrote a section, and hopefully there is no problem. When a title mattered, I just put the job behind the name. The MoS seems to say that if two people of the same name are in the same sentence, to use the full for the first name, and then the first name for the next, but that seems rather confusion. I don't know. I put possible changes up. Others can respond on what they think. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Involved support - I was so excited to see the improvement in this article that I copyedited it last month and again just before the FAC nomination. Fine work, and certainly meets FAC standards. Maralia (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

However, you were only ranked 5th. :D Thanks for all the work. I don't care if this page makes FA or not, I just like strong, critical pages. The FA thing is just a nod for Sandy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well done, surely this is a worthy FA. Dincher (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Capped comments, Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I am very sorry to have to oppose this article, but it is far from comprehensive. It has an excellent and thorough description of Johnson's life but only a cursory discussion of Johnson's works and no discussion of his influence on other authors. A reader coming to this page will not leave it understanding what kind of a writer Johnson was. Considering Johnson is notable for being an author, this is a serious omission.

• The first part of the "character sketch" section should be deleted - it is a just a list.
• The "Depression" section should be broken up and inserted into the article where appropriate.

• I find the TS section out of all proportion to the article. I would put most of this information in a footnote. The article should indeed have a paragraph on this posthumous diagnosis, but hardly an entire section. SJ is famous for being an author, not for being ill, however, the space devoted in this article to his depression and his TS makes it seem like he is more famous for being ill than for being a writer.
• There is no discussion of SJ's artistic legacy - how did his writing affect other authors? He was a huge influence on 18th-century literature and the scope of that influence is not explained in this article at all. (Johnson's influence on novel-writing in the second-half of the 18th-century was enormous, for example.)

• I think more on this could be added, but I think this section is much improved. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are many places in the article where IDs have been left out that would help a reader unfamiliar with the 18th century. Here are three examples, but a review of the entire article is necessary:

• Explaining the title years later, he told his friend Joshua Reynolds - Explain to the reader who Reynolds is.
• Samuel Richardson, enjoying the essays greatly, questioned the publisher as to who wrote the works; only he and a few of Johnson's friends were told of Johnson's authorship - Explain to the reader who Richardson is.
• However, Johnson slowed on the work as the months passed, and he told Charles Burney in December 1757 that it would take him until the following March to complete it. - Explain to the reader who Burney is.

• There are many places in the article where the use of quotation marks is confusing. Here are some examples, but the entire article needs to be reviewed for this problem:

• Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation" in the community, having opened a parchment factory which produced book bindings - Why is "reputation" in quotation marks? It is unclear whether this is an actual quotation or whether these are scare quotes.
• When Johnson turned four, he was sent to a nearby "school" on Dam Street, where "Dame" Anne Oliver, the proprietor, gave lessons to young children in the living-room of a cottage. - Why are "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks?
• However, John Taylor, his friend, dismissed this "praise" because Johnson's father had already published the translation before Johnson sent a copy to Pope - Why is "praise" in quotation marks?

• Ottava has done more work on these; this should be addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a long list of prose copyedits. If the editors would like to go through them, I will put them on the article talk page. For me, the primary problem with the article is that it does not describe Johnson's works in any detail or his literary legacy. For models, see other recent biographies of authors that have become FAs: Emily Dickinson, Honoré de Balzac, and Edgar Allan Poe. Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "only a cursory discussion of Johnson's works" You are under a mistaken impression that "comprehensive" means something that is not covered by "summary style". Please see Wikipedia:Summary style. 2. "no discussion of his influence on other authors" There is nothing in a biography that would demand such, and Wikipedia policy has always put such in the other pages, with a link back. Its not a two way street, as the redundancy is frowned upon. 3. "Considering Johnson is notable for being an author" You are quite mistaken. 4. "it is a just a list." Your definition of "a list" does not match either the Wikipedia definition nor the dictionary. 5. "be broken up and inserted into the article where appropriate" Except that it is a general overview based on a long history of psycho analysis and not part of biographical history. This was clear from reading the section. 5. "I find the TS section out of all proportion to the article." Then I would suggest you read WP:WEIGHT which would require it to be of such a significant size. 6. "There is no discussion of SJ's artistic legacy - how did his writing affect other authors? " This is a biography page, not a works page. If a work affected someone else, then that work is discussed. A writer is not a work, and a work is not a writer, and the two are separated on Wikipedia. 6. "Explain to the reader who Reynolds is." Joshua Reynolds is his friend in that context, and thats all that is necessary in that context. This is already mentioned in the article. 7. "Explain to the reader who Richardson is." Except that it doesn't matter, and would be adding in unnecessary and redundant text. MoS explains what the "wikilinks" are for here. 8. "Explain to the reader who Burney is" Same as above. 9. "Why is "reputation" in quotation marks? " All subjective terminology would be in quotes, but this is from a source, so it wouldn't matter. 10. "Why are "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks?" Because it wasn't an actual school and she wasn't an actual dame. 11. " Why is "praise" in quotation marks?" Because its a quote.

I would suggest you read up on the MoS and clear up your confusion about "comprehensive". You made this same mistake during the Tolkien review. MoS is clear on what links are there for: "Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles." Ottava Rima (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. "Comprehensive" means "neglects no major facts or details" and "accurately represent[s] the relevant body of published knowledge" (see WP:FA?). This article does not do that, considering there is so much scholarship on Johnson that focuses on his works and a large portion of Johnson's importance relates to him as an author. I am arguing that the general reader does not get a good picture of Johnson the author from this article - they do not really know what he wrote about or how he wrote. I understand very well what comprehensiveness means. Links are for deepening understanding, not acquiring it in the first place. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• 2. Influence on other authors is a key part of Johnson's legacy and all of the recent author biography FAs have had this. There is no Wikipedia policy that discusses this topic. It has simply become common practice because it makes sense to include this crucial topic in the biography.
• 3. SJ is probably the most important English author of the 18th century. He is indeed notable for being an author. That this idea is not conveyed in the article is really scandalous. Let us not be silly here.
• 4. It is a prose list.
• 5. The section contains elements that would make much more sense in the chronological history, as they are told in date order. Besides, SJ didn't exist in a static depressive state, as the section makes clear, so it would make more sense to tell the story of his depressive episodes within the biography itself.
• 6-8. You need to explain who these 18th-century figures are so that it is clear what having a friend like Reynolds means. You cannot assume the reader understands this. This goes for all of these examples.
• 9-11. Why it is necessary to quote individual words? It is very confusing and suggests scare quotes. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "neglects no major facts or details", see "summary style" and "wikilinks" above to show that it is not "neglected". We have these for a reason. Each major work is mentioned, and all given lines according to their weight. Everything else goes onto the subpages, as per MoS and WP:WEIGHT. 2. Prove the influence. You can't. There is a difference from respect and influence. The only possible thing that could have "influenced" anyone, would be his biographies, which are already given a significant portion of the page. 3. "SJ is probably the most important English author of the 18th century" I guess Pope and Swift can pack up their bags and go home, because they no longer matter. Poor Fielding and Richardson, you no longer matter. Wordsworth, your style was interesting, but obviously wasn't good enough. Good bye you Federalists, your contributions don't matter, just like you Signers. 4. Still need to rely on an actual definition of a list. 5. WP:WEIGHT - you cannot apply later diagnosis upon a history. That would also violation WP:OR. Can you find a concern that isn't in direct opposition of Wikipedia guidelines or policies? 6. See the Wikilinks entry of MoS above to show that I don't. 9. "Why it is necessary to quote individual words?" Are you serious? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made my arguments known. People can take them or leave them. Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have had change my statement to "strong oppose" because the discussion below has revealed the editor is utterly resistant to changing the article to include a discussion of Johnson's works or his legacy which he could easily research in works of literary criticism. His claim that Johnson was not an influential author is false (anyone on Wikipedia can check the Jane Austen article for one example of an author Johnson influenced) and anyone with access to the MLA database can see the long list of articles and books that connect Johnson to multiple literary traditions. The fact that the Wikipedia article on Johnson is inferior to the Britannica article, which is written by Robert Folkenflik, a world-famous expert on Johnson, is of course to be expected. However, we could certainly do better by including a discussion of Johnson's works and his legacy. I would like to point out that Folkenflik himself reads the Wikipedia article on Johnson frequently and has commented about its quality on a listserv that I belong to of 18th-century professors. Wouldn't it be nice if the next time he looked at it, it was beyond reproach? Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reread the article because I know that substantial changes have been made. I am impressed with expansion with the "Legacy" section, however, I am still opposing because I feel that the article's coverage of Johnson's works, particularly their themes and style, is insufficient and the use of quotations is confusing:

• I'm happy to see that more information has been added on the works. However, I still do not feel that this information is well-integrated yet. For example, Rasselas is happily now no longer just described as a philosophical novella: The Idler did not take up all of Johnson's time, and he was able to publish his philosophical novella Rasselas on 19 April 1759. The "little story book", as Johnson described it, describes the life of Prince Rasselas and Nekayah, his sister, who are kept in a place called the Happy Valley. The Happy Valley in the land Abyssinia was a place in which there were no problems and any desire was quickly satisfied. However, the constant pleasure does not lead to satisfaction, and Rasselas escapes, with the help of a philosopher named Imlac, explores the world to witness how all aspects of society and life in the outside world are filled with suffering. They return to Abyssinia, but do not wish to return to state of constantly fulfilled pleasures found in the Happy Valley.[136] Rasselas was written in one week to pay for his mother's funeral, and to settle her debts; it became so popular that there was a new English edition of the work almost every year. It appeared in many works of fiction through characters reading the book, such as Charlotte Brontë 's Jane Eyre, Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford and Nathaniel Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables. Its fame was not limited to English-speaking nations, and Rasselas was immediately translated into five different languages (French, Dutch, German, Russian and Italian), and later into another nine.[137] - The plot, themes, and publication history of every work cannot be described. It takes a lot of time to figure out what to discuss and what to leave out about the works. This article has a lot of details right now that would be hard for the general reader to stitch together into a coherent narrative. I believe that this article can be absolutely wonderful, but I think it still needs some more careful pruning and perhaps slight reorganization. Just adding these details doesn't quite cut it. We have to make sure that general readers come away with a sense of Johnson the man and Johnson the writer. Right now, the details are just clouding the general picture.
• There needs to be broader discussion of the themes of Johnson's works, either in a separate section or in a coherent way that the general reader can understand in the biography. In the "character sketch" section, the article states that "Johnson's Christian morality permeated his works", however, the reader would not necessarily know this from the descriptions of the works and the statement ends there, not offering an explanation.
• There needs to be a broader discussion of the style of Johnson's writing - what kind of a poet was he, for example? What poetic genres did he write in? How did he write as a critic? Was he acerbic, compassionate, etc.? We need to give readers an idea of his language.
• Confusing quotations:

• There are still isolated words in quotations that are confusing. For example: When Johnson turned four, he was sent to a nearby "school" on Dam Street, where "Dame" Anne Oliver, the proprietor, gave lessons to young children in the living-room of a cottage. Johnson especially enjoyed his time with Dame Oliver, later remembering her fondly, and when he reached the age of six, he was sent to a retired shoemaker to continue his education. - Why are common words like "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks? If these words are important to quote, why is "Dame" not quoted later? This tendency to overquote and not make it clear who is speaking occurs throughout the article. Rarely are these quotations cited - the reader does not know from whom the quotations are coming.

• Ottava has done some work on this, should be addressed now. All text has always been cited, although we did substantially reduce the citation density at the request of other reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• The interviewers were surprised that "a School-boy should know Macrobius", and he was accepted immediately - Here is an example of why it is important to know who said the quotation - is this a twentieth-century biographer's description or a direct quote from the interviewers? The reader is not entirely sure.

• No longer in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• This first love was not to last, and Johnson later claimed to Boswell, "She was the first woman with whom I was in love. It dropped out of my head imperceptibly, but she and I shall always have a kindness for each other." - Is this a quotation from Boswell's biography that is quoted in a twentieth-century Johnson biography? If so, the note should read "Qtd. in..." - There are numerous examples of this problem. Awadewit (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• No longer in the article, AFAICT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "school" and "Dame" are in quotes because they are in quotes in every biography on Johnson. It wasn't an actual school. She wasn't an actual Dame. These were the names given to them by others. It is common to put such things in quote. 2) "Rarely are these quotations cited" All quotes are cited. "is this a twentieth-century biographer's description or a direct quote from the interviewers" This would not matter, because this is a fact of a situation and not dialogue. Only dialogue or opinion needs to have direct citations, and this is per MLA and Chicago method standards. The reader is easily able to determine where the quote came from because of the reference at the end. Anything else would be redundant and unnecessary per both methods detailed. 3) "If so, the note should read" Or not, because it is not necessary per standard convention. 4) "There needs to be a broader discussion of the style of Johnson's writing - what kind of a poet was he, for example?" The use of the term "imitation" and other such words are already there to describe these. If you think they are inadequate, then it really can't be helped. 5) "There needs to be broader discussion of the themes of Johnson's works" Utterly impossible. Not even Donald Greene who had his whole career to discuss such things was capable of doing so. Not only is there not a unifying theme between his tens of thousands of writings, that if you did attempt to even talk about more than one or two individual works at a time, you'd fill books. His politics is discussed. His religion is discussed. You ask for what does not have a basis. Why isn't Shakespeare's themes there? He only wrote a handful of plays! Johnson wrote for 60 years, having regular news paper columns, diary entries, speeches, books, prefaces, etc etc. Each different. Each varying. And yet Shakespeare is an FA without such. Your standards do not match. 6) "The plot, themes, and publication history of every work cannot be described." And yet you asked for it. With these contradictions, I believe that your oppose has no grounds. Therefore, you will not be given any further responses from me until you sort out your own thoughts and apply actual FA standards based on actual comparable FAs. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The quotes are unclear to readers. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2) I gave examples of quotations that have unclear sources - it is important to know if a quotation comes from an eighteenth-century source or a twentieth-century source or the reader will be misled.

4-6) It is not utterly impossible to discuss the themes of an author's multiplicity of works. See, for example, Balzac. The problem with this article is that it is overwhelmed by details, as I have tried to illustrate, and the lay reader cannot understand the kind of writer Johnson was. Other reviewers agree with this assessment. To be clear, at no time did I ask you to add a plot summary, publication history, and theme description of every work. There are many ways to describe the works of an author in an article. I am pointing out that, so far, the integration and coverage of that topic is not up to FA standards. Considering all of the other recent author biographies that have become FAs have had significant discussions of the author's works in some way, this article is not comparable. (And please do not compare this article to William Shakespeare, which has sections on "Plays", "Poems", and "Style", just the kinds of sections that this article is lacking.) Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "he quotes are unclear to readers." Then I would wonder at their ability to read English. Sorry, but this is a very old and very standard convention. People even use "air quotes" while speaking. We have a "simple English" Wikipedia for those who may not understand these standard conventions. Every major biographer uses them. 2) You gave examples, but that does not mean you are correct. Once again, standard English conventions do not support you. 4-6) I'm sorry, but you couldn't even talk about Proserpine in context of others who were cited as being compared to Shelley's version, so your objection is absolutely absurd. Shakespeare is the only acceptible comparasion to Johnson. Shakespeare is the only one even close to Johnson in mass. Shakespeare does not have what you want, therefore, what you want does not qualify under FA standards. Don't like it? Try to put Shakespeare up for an FAR review with your objection, if you truly believe what you are claiming. Otherwise, your objections are pure nonsense, as I have already demonstrated above. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And Awadewit, for you to have an objection under 1b, you have to prove that there is a detail missing, then you have to prove that it qualifies under "major". You have done none of this. You can't even put forth specifics. Therefore, you cannot even begin to claim that your oppose is actionable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the point about the quotes - I am trying to point out where the article fails to communicate to readers. If you do not want to improve the article, so be it. Continuing to discuss this matter is apparently fruitless.
  • Should be addressed now; please let us know if you see other instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• You misunderstood my point about William Shakespeare. If Samuel Johnson had as much discussion of Johnson's works as the Shakespeare article does about Shakespeare's works, I would have no trouble supporting it. I reiterate my point - please note that the Shakespeare article has extensive sections on Shakespeare's plays, poems, and style. The Samuel Johnson article does not have any such sections or their equivalent.
• You wrote on my talk page "you are still treating him [Samuel Johnson] as an author, when he was a in fact a scholar". As far as I know, Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres. Those works were influential and need to be talked about. He is taught in literature classes. Scholars in English departments have made careers studying him. The introduction to the Cambridge Companion on Samuel Johnson calls him "a great English writer" (2) and describes him and his influence this way: "The attention he has received is the mark of many things: it is a sign that his personality continues to fascinate, that his works continue to speak to the experience of modern people, and that he and his works represent a complex cultural authority that provide some readers with deep,intelligent instances of moral, social, and literary insight, while symbolizing for others the worst excesses of absolutist and ethnocentric rationalism prodcued by the Enlightenment." (1) Notice the emphasis on both his person and his works. I do not understand how your claim regarding Johnson can be reconciled with this summary statement, which accurately reflects the scholarship of this entire volume.
• The Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson discusses Samuel Johnson's styles and themes in a broad fashion, something you have claimed is impossible. In fact, the introduction states that this is the entire purpose of the work: "the essays are designed to approach single works and general themes in Johnson's thinking from a number of different yet complementary persepctives" (2). I will give sample quotes from Howard Weinbrot's essay entitled "Johnson's poetry" to illustrate how this is possible and some ideas that are missing from the article:

• Helpful summary of poetic genres: "Samuel Johnson's preeminence rests upon the extraordinary intellectual and moral achievements within his prose. That truth universally acknowledged nonetheless admits a complementary truth - Johnson is a great prose writer in part because he is a great poet. Johnson wrote poetry throughout his life....He wrote a blank-verse tragedy, translations, adaptations of classical poems, satires, love poems, poems warning of the dangers of love, elegies, epitaphs, comic parodies, serious prayers, odes, sonnets, meditations on his inner psychological and spiritual being, and in the nature of things, poems that combined several of these genres." (34)
• Theme: "The intimate relationship between the general and the particular, the author and the reader, informs much of Johnsons's literary theory and poetic practice" (35)
• Style: "Johnson also uses questions pleasurably to involve us in his poem and in our own education" (35)
• Style and theme: "Johnson's poems frequently exhort us to examine, look, mark, observe, remark, see, survey, and then apply the fruits of discovery to our actual lives." (36) - "Johnson figuratively embodies his empiricism" (36)
• Theme: One aspect of Johnson's inner and outer empirical world was its Christianity that so improved classical pagansim" (36-37)
• Style and theme: Johnson's poems "often engage readers in their own education and encourage response and partnership with a humane, experienced guide. He urges toward a specific moral end while also recognizing variations in the path we may choose to take." (37)

Using works like the Cambridge Companion helps us write articles for the lay person because Johnson scholars, who have spent years introducing Johnson to lay audiences, have already done so. As you can see, these kinds of statements would give general readers a much better idea of what kind of poet Johnson was than the fragmented, overly detailed information currently in the article. In addition, they would provide an overview of the kind of poet Johnson was. However this is just a beginning. The Cambridge Companion has essays on several topics that would be helpful, such as Johnson's essays, his conversation, important themes such as Christianity and imperialism, etc. Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "I am trying to point out where the article fails to communicate to readers" And it is a common English feature, so you would have to not understand basic English to get it. It comes up in news papers every day. It comes up in books. It comes up in coversation. Its a standard English convention. 2) "had as much discussion of Johnson's works" Johnson's actually has more discussion than what Shakespeare's page does. It also has a lot more history, because we actually have biographies of Johnson and know who he was. 3) "Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres" Then once again, you have proved your ignorance. Being a writer is not being an author. Writing news stories, essays, and other prose works is not the same as a major poet or a major novelist. 4) "he Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson discusses Samuel Johnson's styles and themes" Before you start making stuff up, please realize that I actually own this work and used it in the biography. Chapter one "Extraordinary ordinary: the life of Samuel Johnson" biography. Chapter two "Johnson and the arts of conversation" biography. Chapter three "Johnson's poetry" which does not say much beyond what is already in the page. Chapter four "Johnson, the essay, and The Rambler, a 14 page chapter which talks about his newspaper career, which has already been discussed in the page. Chapter five "Johnson and the condition of women" biography. Chapter six, "Johnson's Dictionary" part biography, part talking about the origins of the Dictionary which is covered in the page. Chapter seven, "Johnson's politics" part biography and covers what is already discussed in the page. Chapter eight "Johnson and imperialism" is the same as seven. Chapter nine, "The skepticism of Rasselas" does not cover anything beyond what is already discussed and is mostly biography. Chapter ten, "Shakespeare: Johnson's poet of nature" covered in the page. Chapter eleven, "Life and literature in Johnson's Lives of the Poets" already covered in the page. Chapter twelve, "Johnson's Christian thought", already covered in the page. Chapter thirteen, "From China to Peru": Johnson in the traveled world" biography. Chapter fourteen, "Letters about nothing": Johnsona nd epistolar writing" biography.

So far, all you did was prove that most of the essays on Johnson deal with his biography. Furthermore, your quotes are not objective, but opinions thrown out without any proof and cannot be used in a biography. Now, if you have any real arguments, please provide them. The fact that you didn't even acknowledge that the Cambridge Companion is used is utterly disturbing to say the least because it reveals that you didn't even bother to look at the article, which negates any claims you may have to object. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Awadewit, having a 10 page essay in the Cambridge Companion does not mean that it falls under weight. There are three other books that collect essays on Johnson, and there are plenty more works on his biography. You still haven't been able to acknowledge WP:WEIGHT, which clearly says "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Also, your statement above seems not to acknowledge that there is a big section on his philosophy of poetry which goes into his two major poems. That reinforces the fact that you haven't actually bothered to read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres" Then once again, you have proved your ignorance. Being a writer is not being an author. Writing news stories, essays, and other prose works is not the same as a major poet or a major novelist. - This distinction is not supported by the scholarship. There is no distinction between "writer" and "author" in literary criticism. There was in the 1950s, but we are no longer in the 1950s. You are insisting upon imposing your theoretical views of literary criticism onto the article. This is a departure from WP:NPOV, which states that we have to represent all major views in the article. Clearly, that Johnson is a major English writer in many genres is an important view of scholars, found throughout Johnson scholarship.
• Before you start making stuff up, please realize that I actually own this work and used it in the biography. - These personal attacks do not become you. I used the CC because I saw it in the "References" and thought you would have easy access to it, because the essays are written by important scholars in the field and represent a diversity of opinion. The book therefore is not just the opinion of one scholar, but a collection of the most important voices in Johnson scholarship. Do not cavalierly dismiss it under WP:WEIGHT, especially when you have used it yourself.
• You have apparently misunderstood my argument. You list many things that are covered in the article. Mentioning them is not enough. I gave the example of poetry, where the general statements regarding Johnson's style and themes were missing from the article, but could easily be added. Rather than try to the improve the article so that it is easier to follow, however, you chose to dispute every single thing I said.
• Furthermore, your quotes are not objective, but opinions thrown out without any proof and cannot be used in a biography. - These are quotations from scholars - we use literary critics' arguments in articles about writers.

Throughout this review, I have only offered suggestions to improve the article. At this point, however, I no longer feel like subjecting myself to the personal attacks that I am constantly undergoing here. If the article changes again, I will be happy to review it again. As of this point, I am unwatching this page. Awadewit (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• A great read! Excellently written! Therefore, I support but I have to stress something I think Awadewit already mentioned. The "legacy" section treats the posthumous works about Johnson, but not his real (artistic) legacy, namely his influence on the next generations of writers. And I think this is a serious flaw that should be taken care of.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy has been rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And what do you suggest? There is nothing even close to establish his influence. Did someone write a similar dictionary? No. Are there any notable influences within Johnson criticism? No. See, thats the key. The "influenced" has to be notable to Johnson. There isn't a direct influence. No one followed his poems. No one followed Rabelais. Find a notable work that can be said to follow Johnson. The Romantics did their own thing. The Modernists did theirs. Johnson was know as a character. He was known for his biography. All of the criticism out there focuses on this. WP:WEIGHT demands that it is the focus of the article. If you can find a legitimate author who relied on one of Johnson's works to write another important work, please provide proof. Otherwise, stop speculating. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There are entire books written on Johnson's influence - I found them in the MLA database last night. See Reception history of Jane Austen for one example of Johnson's influence. Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but reception history is not the biography page of Jane Austen, and thus you contradict yourself. Furthermore, WP:WEIGHT would not have such a section. This is a biography. The pertinent sections where his life caused works has been cited to those of significant sources. Furthermore, Jane Austen is a novelist, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And if someone may think that she has a point that Johnson influenced Austen, there is no such critical claim found. There are only comparisons, which are not influences, nor do they have weight. Even her own page says "Bradley emphasised Austen's ties to Samuel Johnson, arguing that she was a moralist as well as humourist", but doesn't have a real influence. They are connected only through analogy, and analogy is not critical. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have your own section. Don't hijack what others say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(I believe I am allowed to comment anywhere on the FAC.) Here is Johnson on the Jane Austen page. I am not comparing apples to oranges - you asked for a writer who was influenced by Johnson. I gave you one that is cited here on Wikipedia. There are many more, of course. Writers of all stripes were influenced by Johnson because he was so influential. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Support for a beautifully written, comprehensive encyclopaedic article. It is a difficult task to write about Johnson without it turning into a book—such was his life and influence. What the editors have achieved here is awesome; one of, if not the best encyclopaedia articles about him. The FA process is about presenting our best work to the world and setting the paradigm for content, style and quality to less-experienced editors. This is the best FAC I have seen this year. My congratulations go to all editors involved. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure that the many editors will greatly appreciate those kind words. A lot of people have been putting in a lot of effort and its nice for it to be recognized.Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question for all reviewers - To achieve consensus on this point, I would like to know whether the community believes that an author article should discuss the author's works in some depth (e.g. Balzac and Mary Shelley) or if mentioning each one in a few lines is enough (e.g. Samuel Johnson). I have argued above that the Johnson style is too cursory since authors are notable for their writings and Ottava Rima has argued that readers can read other articles and this style is WP:SS). Please weigh in on this important issue. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Should this be on the talk page and not here? Graham Colm ^Talk 14:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering it is a point of dispute in this FAC, I believe we should talk about here (it is the main reason I am opposing). Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you done making a point? Does this disruption have a purpose? London has three lines devoted to it. The Dictionary has a whole section. The Rambler a paragraph. Vanity has 3 lines and Irene has 5. His Shakespeare and his Lives have multiple lines and paragraphs. The Idler has a paragraph as with his The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides. His political pamphlets are given two paragraphs between them all. Every major work has a section devoted to them as per their WP:WEIGHT. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm no literary scholar, but I think Awadewit has a fair point. I'm in no position to judge whether Johnson's literary works had influence or (apart from the dictionary) were any good. It does strike me that most of the publications are noted in the context of Johnson's life and we learn about the publiciation from an external POV (did it make money, when did he write it, it was translated, etc). We learn very little about the literary work itself. For example, Rasselas is described as a "philosophical novella" but we learn nothing more about its contents. Such things could be written without reading the poems or opening the books. I'm not saying the editors or sources haven't done this, but they might as well not have is the point. We learn a lot about Johnson's character and life, but next to nothing about the literary works themselves.

The "Legacy" section isn't what I would regard as such, for an author: a list of biographies is followed by an "in pop culture" paragraph. If Awadewit is right, and that Johnson's literary works have influenced future writers, then this is the place for that to be covered. The influence of his dictionary on the English language certain deserves mention. Colin°^Talk 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries and similar things were reduced based on a few editorial requests during the peer review. It was determined then that there was significant redundancies and that it would take far too much to explain the plots. By the way, Awadewit isn't right about him "influencing" future writers, as he wasn't a fiction writer or regarded as such. He was a scholar and a "character". And those biographies were some of the most celebrated works of the 18th century, so I wouldn't dismiss them so easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because Johnson wasn't primarily known as a fiction writer doesn't mean he didn't influence fiction writers (that is fallacious reasoning). Besides, it was Johnson's moral essays that influenced novelists. Johnson also influenced other essayists and poets. His influence was profound. I urge all those that have access to the online Encyclopedia Britannica to compare Wikipedia's article to theirs. Unfortunately, at the moment, theirs is superior because it explains the kind of writer Johnson was (comparing the section on Rasselas is particularly illuminating). If anyone would like me to send them a copy of the EB article, I will. Just email me. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. You only have statements in which people compared the two. This does not mean that one influenced the other. And if you think Britannica's is superior, then why not stick to reading that one. They are allowed Original Research. They are allowed baseless conjecture. They are allowed to do whatever they want about weight. And they don't have to rely on sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Austen scholars have indeed said that Johnson was an influence on Austen. The citations are there for you to follow if you do not believe me. I am offering Britannica as a comparison because we often do that, to check the quality of our articles, since EB is written by actual scholars. I'm not sure what you think is baseless conjecture in that article or why you think the Britannica doesn't rely on solid scholarship, but I'm not sure others will agree with you. EB is usually viewed a relatively decent tertiary source. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Austen scholars" - you still haven't proven this. As I pointed out, the closest thing was not actual evidence. Furthermore, you haven't actually provided real citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

They are in the article. Read the article and check the citations in the footnotes yourself. Or, you can see all the notes we have amassed on Austen here. They contain statements such as Austen "developed her mastery of balance from Pope, wisdom and playfulness from Johnson, gendered power-struggle and immediacy of representation from Richardson, relation of books to life from Lennox, pathos and domesticity from Cowper, grotesque from Burney" (203) from Isobel Grundy in the Cambridge Companion (there are many more). This is tiring. Here are some citations from Johnson's influence and legacy. I have only done the briefest survey of the MLA database (and only books) as there are thousands of Johnson entries, and here are three different books on Johnson's importance, dealing with three different areas:

• Philip Smallwood, Johnson's Critical Presence: Image, History, Judgment
• Nicholas Hudson, Samuel Johnson and the Making of Modern England
• John Needham, The Completest Mode: I. A. Richards and the Continuity of English Literary Criticism

I am not going to do extensive research for this FAC because I don't have the time at the moment since I am on vacation. Awadewit (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you did any research, you would realize that those books don't provide what you think they provide. They discuss Johnson and his works, but not people influenced by Johnson's works. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For those wondering - Needham's book is ignored by Donald Greene, who, in 1989, talked about the major contributions to the area of Johnson's studies. Regardless, Needham talks about Johnson in the 18th century. Hudson's work does the same (a quick view at Amazon demonstrates this: "this volume will give you a better appreciation of the author of The Rambler, Rasselas, and Lives of the Poets, by presenting, not 'the Age of Johnson,' but 'Johnson within his Age.'" Albion, Paul Monod ). Note the word "within". The other, Smallwood's work, is a side by side analysis, but does not demonstrate influence, only context. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But context is important and these books demonstrate the influence that Johnson had on his society. This is exhausting, OR. There are countless articles and books that demonstrate Johnson influenced other writers in addition to the entire society. This point is not made in the article. You know it and I know it. Do not try to claim that scholars haven't made this point when entire books have been written about it. Awadewit (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:WEIGHT carefully and then reread Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Wikilink#Internal links for why that action cannot be done. Weight must follow the predominant thought by the predominant scholarship, and be given proportion based on the predominant scholarship. In an article on his biography, the stress is placed on his biography. Not for speculation. No section to say "here is what the rest of England looked like in comparison" or anything else. Those works can serve as primers to students needing to learn context. But they are not scholarly works that analysis Johnson's actual connection in a way that deserves more prominence in this biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I definately agree with Awadewit: any author at FAC, save perhaps quite recent ones, should cover literary criticism and the author's artistic legacy, based on the scholarly literature. This article does not cite a single source of either type. Biographies are only one type of work that should be used in such an article, nor should the article be weighted based on biographies. The scholarly literature on the author should also be summarised. Biographies provide details about the person's life. Different books and articles analyse the writings and legacy. The more you scream that to even look at such articles would violate undue weight, the more you look completely ignorant of basic facts about academic scholarship. Particularly after Awadewit has pointed you towards books by name that you could use, which you dismissed out of hand as not being covered by biographies! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson is not "any author", let alone an "author". Regardless, the page doesn't cite a single source dealing with Johnson's works? Are you serious? 1. Clingham, Greg (1997) - deals with Lives of the Poets, 2. Griffin, Dustin (2005) - deals with his political works, 3. Hitchings, Henry (2005) - deals with his dictionary, 4. Lynch, Jack (2003), - also a great essay on Johnson's dictionary, 5. Watkins, W. B. C. (1960), - an important comparative critical work, 6. Weinbrot, Howard D. (1997), - all about Johnson's poetry, 7. The many biographies are all written by literary experts in the field and all contain some critical analysis of works. Greene's work even includes a bibliographical analysis of the critical studies in Johnson from 1970-1989. I don't think you have actually read the page at this point based on what you just stated above. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clingham is used to cite this: The work was finished in March 1781 and the whole collection was published in six volumes. As Johnson justified in the advertisement for the work, "my purpose was only to have allotted to every Poet an Advertisement, like those which we find in the French Miscellanies, containing a few dates and a general character. That is the only citation to Clingham. An entire book analysing the Lives to the Poets, and you don't cite a single biot of its analysis, only Johnson's stated intent.
• Griffin: This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism and This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. Again, a pretty trivial usage.
• Hitchings: Used only for history of dictionaries:
  • On the morning of 18 June 1746, over breakfast at the Golden Anchor tavern in London, Johnson signed a contract with William Strahan and associates to produce an authoritative dictionary of the English language. The contract stated that Johnson was to be paid 1,500 guineas (£1,575), ... in instalments based on delivery of manuscript pages; all expenses relating to the project—ink, paper, assistants, etc.—were to be paid for by Johnson
  • Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, published in 1604, was the first monolingual English dictionary. Again, you have an entire book on the subject, and ignore the content except to fit it into a solely biographical framework.
• Lynch: This is an INTRODUCTION to an edition of the Dictionary. It's used somewhat, (actually far out of proportion to the weight you should give an introduction to a mass-market edition of a book), but, again, no to little discussion of the dictionary itself occurs using it, only the history of its creation.
• Watkins: Not once used to discuss Johnson's works. It may well be an impoprtant comparative work. So why didn't you use it?
• Weinbrot: Used for one sentence that discusses a single poem: "The poem is an imitation of Juvenal's Satire X and seeks to be "the antidote to vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes""

If you even read these works, then you should have actually used them in a significant way in the article. You cannot claim your sourcing is fine because you used major literary analyses if you don't actually use them to provide any literary analysis. Particularly, your claims that you used a major comparative work, Watkins, when you never actually use to cite any comparison whatsoever, is outright fraud on your behalf in your claims about the article.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid excess markup, per WP:TALK guidelines. Will someone please remove the markup? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the Britannica article, thanks to Awadewit. I now oppose this FAC on the grounds of not being comprehensive and not giving due weight to the areas one would expect in a literary biography. [see below] On three areas (details of his life; description of his character; analysis of his works) this article is over-specific on the first, light on the second and virtually absent on the latter. For example:

• • His "Final moments" are covered with great precision as to which dates he was at which locations. The EB article mentions a stroke, his "dread at the prospect of death and judgment, for he feared damnation" and his "late conversion". Does one really need to know "He soon left for Islington to visit George Strahan"?
  • The article describes school director Hunter's brutality in an awkward way which leaves the reader wanting for more information. In contrast to the insipid "disatisfied with his education", EB says Hunter's regime "instilled such terror in the young boy" that years later he "trembled" when reminded of it. The EB uses the priceless quotation about Hunter, who "never taught a boy in his life—he whipped and they learned."
  • The section on the dictionary mostly covers everything but the dictionary. We get his life while writing it, plus mention of other works he wrote at the same time. In contrast the EB article tells us quite a lot about the dictionary itself.
  • I may have missed its mention here, but the EB says Johnson was tall and, latterly, huge and strong. Some physical description is warranted.
  • The EB describes him as "the foremost literary figure and the most formidable conversationalist of his time" neither of which are apparent from the article.
  • The EB says "Johnson is well remembered for his aphorisms, which contributed to his becoming, after Shakespeare, the most frequently quoted of English writers." Neither of these facts are mentioned here. This is surely a topic for his Legacy section!
  • The EB says "Johnson's criticism is, perhaps, the most significant part of his writings." I don't see anything on his literary criticism.
  • The EB goes on to say "As a critic and editor, through his Dictionary, his edition of Shakespeare, and his Lives of the Poets in particular, he helped invent what we now call "English Literature."" This bold statement is far stronger than the "he made lasting contributions to English literature" in our lead.
  • The EB gives merely one word each to his depression and his TS. I think that, or a footnote as Awadewit suggests, is too little. However, the TS section could spend less time detailing the various 20th century physicians who posthumously diagnosed Johnson. The section tries to prove the case in front of the reader, rather than describe and state the conclusions to which authoratative minds have agreed. The article says Johnson had "signs consistent with several diagnoses in the DSM" yet only gives us one: TS. The wording "It is not without interest that" should be avoided.
    • Colin, I can only respond on the TS section, as it's the only section I've worked on and represents the only sources I have access to. I've reworked the section a bit; please have a look. I combined and eliminated some wording as well as mention of specific physicians unless they are known to contemporary readers. The wording "It is not without interest that" is a direct quote from one of the reports; eliminating it will be awkward. I've tried to leave text that satisfies three needs: 1) to demonstrate that Johnson's posthumous diagnosis is as strong as it is precisely because of the writings of Boswell and others, 2) the need to contrast his diagnosis with other speculative and not well accepted posthumous diagnoses (such as Mozart), and 3) to provide the context for understanding his life, work and personality. If EB gives one word each to this, they clearly miss the mark in placing the work of Johnson in the context of contemporary understanding, and we should be aspiring to do a better job than EB has done. Please have a look, but I think that cutting any deeper will eliminate the context we provide that makes this article superior to EB and explains Johnson's life and work in the context of current understanding. We have the opportunity to write a much better article than EB: we should do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Further discussion of the Tourette issue on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You say (on this FAC discussion) "those biographies were some of the most celebrated works of the 18th century" yet this isn't clear to the reader. Wikilinking them doesn't give them "celebrated" status for every episode of Lost has an article on WP! It is possible to become so familiar with one's subject that one forgets what other people don't know.
  • Lastly, the EB covers his literary works in a way that gives the reader a real flavour of what sort of author this was and where his works fit within literature. All I get from this article are dates when and locations where he wrote.

The where and when stuff really doesn't help the general reader and should be trimmed to that which is necessary to build a picture of his life. Spend more time describing Johnson the character and more time on his literature itself, and the reader will come away with a better picture of the man. Colin°^Talk

1. "this FAC on the grounds of not being comprehensive and not giving due weight to the areas one would expect in a literary biography" Weight is based on criticism, not Genre. Please read WP:WEIGHT. 2. "Does one really need to know "He soon left for Islington to visit George Strahan"?" I'm sorry, you are favouring the vague and inaccurate Britannica account that doesn't give any real understanding of how he died why? 3. "EB says Hunter's regime" Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research which adds "flavor", otherwise known as "falsities". 4. "The section on the dictionary mostly covers everything but the dictionary." Except that the first three paragraphs contradict this claim. 5. "Some physical description is warranted." Where? When? When did Johnson become tall? When did he become "robust"? Perhaps you are favouring one of the greatest flaws of Britannica. 6. "neither of which are apparent from the article." I guess you didn't read the "Character sketch" section which makes this clear. 7. "Neither of these facts are mentioned here." Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research. Britannica does. 8. "The EB gives merely one word each to his depression and his TS. " More proof of why the Britannica fails as an encyclopedia. Every major biographer talked about his depression, and every major biography after 1985 talks about his TS. 9. "yet this isn't clear to the reader." Read the second sentence. 10. "Lastly, the EB covers his literary works" The Britannica is not Wikipedia, and has different standards. They ignore criticism to provide a general tool for a childish intellectual understanding. They aren't scholarly. Furthermore, the Britannica works pages completely differently, and if you prefer the Britannica's style, then why bother with Wikipedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Please don't tell me to read WP:WEIGHT. I'm quite familiar with it thank-you and I wasn't referring to it. A biography on a literary figure should spend some time discussing his literature. This article spends virtually none.

2. I didn't say I favoured the Britannica article. It's coverage of his death is slight. However, WPs is way too detailed yet somehow misses off aspects the EB found time to mention.

3. You are saying the "trembling" and/or quotation is false; that EB just made that up? You might be right. I can't argue that point.

4. No, apart from the last two sentences, the first three paragraphs tell me nothing about the dictionary. If you can't see this then I suggest you take a break and look at it with fresh eyes. The first paragraph is about the contract. The second and beginning of the third paragraph is about other dictionaries.

5. Eh? Are you telling me none of your sources tell you about physical aspects of the man? Are you saying EB is wrong and he was short and slender?

6. I had read the "Character sketch", thank you, and I've read it again. It says nothing about him being "the foremost literary figure and the most formidable conversationalist of his time". He loved his cats, apparently.

7. You are saying that EB's scholars are the only people to have mentioned Johnson's aphorisms!! Come on, even I've heard them. As for the 2nd-most-frequently-quoted statement, again, you are saying the EB just made that up? Perhaps they did; that's quite an allegation.

8. I agree with you that the EB article is too short on these aspects. I gave some practical suggestions on how the TS section could be more focussed IMO.

9. Ah, the second sentence in the lead. Which is supposed to be a summary of the body. So where does it say that in the body?

10. I've been around WP long enough to know the restrictions it imposes. It can be a handicap. But there are some serious holes in the coverage of Johnson's literary work that this article should fill. I don't prefer Britannica's style and don't subscribe to it. A scholarly work will have more detail than an encyclopaedia for the general reader, which is what WP is. I don't need to know what Johnson had for breakfast on the day he signed the contract for his dictionary. Colin°^Talk 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I would suggest you read the William Shakespeare page. You will notice that works like Richard III receive very little mention. 1. "I'm quite familiar with it thank-you and I wasn't referring to it." I was, and it contradicts your desire for certain pieces of information. 2. "I didn't say I favoured the Britannica article." Then don't mention it in an oppose. 4. "tell me nothing about the dictionary." So, the time table of how long he worked on it tells you nothing? And the comparative claims to show what he was working against? Or the fourth paragraph detailing how he had to retain assistants tells you nothing? Or do you mean it doesn't tell you whats inside of a dictionary, then I would point out that its a dictionary. 5. Unless you can provide when and where it matters, then it doesn't. He grew. He changed sizes. There are mentions of his scars. There are mentions of how people reacted to his mannerisms. That is scholarly. What you ask for is Britannica junk that is put in there to entertain children. 6. Because such claims are speculation and unverifiable. We discussed his communication skills and intelligence. The rest belongs in an opinion column. 7. "to have mentioned Johnson's aphorisms" To have lodged such outrageous and unscientific claims about them, yes. 8. They aren't very practical, as the section covers a lot of medicine in a very brief timespan, and would warrant an expansion based on WP:WEIGHT. 9. It doesn't have to be in the text at all as there is a significant coverage of Boswell within the work, which is what the line is about. 10. Mock as much as you want, but the signing the contract during breakfast is an important character detail and included in all of his major biographies. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm about done here as it is evident you are more interested in arguing that finding if even one of my points is worth pursuing. If the most you want to say about the dictionary (yes, the words on the page) is that "It's a dictionary, duh" then I really give up. I imagine all of Johnson's biographies mention his stature, yet you refuse to mention it because you think such comments are childish? Opinion of Johnson does deserve mention here, though in WP it needs to be attributed rather than directly stated like on EB. I'm afraid the reader really does need the help of others in working out whether he is considered the greatest/best/etc because few of us are so well read as to make that judgement ourselves. The claim about his quotability might be outrageous, but his aphorisms are well known and a reason he is well known to the population -- yet the word doesn't appear in the article. I'm glad the biography is now celebrated in the body text, despite what you wrote above. Finally, my "what he had for breakfast" point is gentle mocking but apt. There are lots of things that one would expect to find in "all of his major biographies". Those are books and this is an article.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea: I think this is generally an excellent article. It is well written (though the detail of his comings and goings really bogs the reader down at times) It is clear that those who have worked on this have done their research, are using high quality sources, and care passionately about the subject. Colin°^Talk 08:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've just seen the note on my talk page about changes made to the article by Ottava: "I trimmed out 3k worth of text and then added in 9.5k worth of text in terms of elaborations of plots/subjects of works, influence on contemporary works, more detailed explanation of biographies, added a section on his influence on criticism and response, and organizations/celebrations based around his character." I'll have a look later at these changes. Colin°^Talk 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read the article. Regarding the works, there is now some information in those places where there was none. The legacy section is also much improved. I would have preferred a little more about the dictionary (perhaps a definition or two and a brief comparison of his approach when compared to modern dictionaries) as it is his most noted work. Some of my other points remain unaddressed (for example, there is no mention of his stroke which is the subject of at least one medical paper). Since I'm no literary expert, and improvements have been made, I feel I should retract my oppose. Given the otherwise evident quality of the article, I now support it for FA status. Colin°^Talk 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I added this. It needs to be cleaned up, but it makes clear that this was a stroke. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Awadewit. When the editor who has raised two dozen other articles on related subjects to the featured level asserts that the candidate article lacks appropriate attention to the subject's work, we should take notice. She makes a very good argument regarding comprehensiveness: her objections are reasoned and specific. So opposing per criterion 1(c). Durova^Charge! 18:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the "two dozen other articles". Thanks. Bate never brings them up. Greene never brings them up. Wain never brings them up. They are the main Johnson scholars. Striking because you can't do it, as actual critics never used Awadewit as a source, and thus would be OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I had written this: I'm referring to Awadewit's 24 featured article credits, which all relate to English literature from this period and slightly afterward. She knows her stuff and it very much looks like her suggestions would make the article more informative. Suggest you address these points through improvements to the article. Best wishes, After seeing that edit conflict, strongly suggest a change of approach. Straw man arguments and sarcasm aren't likely to improve anything. I don't take that kind of behavior personally, and I hope neither does Awadewit, but it's not constructive or suitable. Durova^Charge! 18:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You think that Sandy and Malleus would have let it go if it wasn't already comprehensive? Or the extensive Peer review? Or the people on this list don't have more experience than her? If you had a real objection, you would have made it. Instead, you are basing it off of favoritism, which the FA process is not about. Awadewit failed to produce any actual proof. None of the major biographers mention anything even close to what she says. I have 24 biographies on my desk right now. I have 5 book collections of articles, plus loose articles. You want to say the page is not comprehensive? Get some real proof instead of defending someone who is throwing out baseless accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You attempt to reverse the burden of evidence and make a very serious allegation of misconduct. Please withdraw the claim, you are basing it off of favoritism. You cannot know what motivates me and that assertion is a violation of WP:AGF. Your response also insinuates that a positive peer review and SandyGeorgia's allowing a nomination onto FAC constitutes some expectation of promotion. Of course that doesn't always happen. Please, let's interact on a more productive and collegial level. I can be persuaded to change my opinion, but not by such tactics as this. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If saying that one user's comments are more highly respected than others, thats the definition of favourtism. You stated it yourself. You also disrespected the countless editors who worked hard on this piece and have far more FAC experience. And the "burden of evidence" is not on me. You don't have to prove your innocence. If she thinks that there is something missing, she better find it and point it out. Otherwise, it cannot be added. Right now, the work covers every single major biographer and Johnson scholar. All it takes is a quick glance through the reference section to see that. "SandyGeorgia's allowing a nomination onto FAC" Also, its her nom. Its not her "allowing" it onto FAC. Its her putting in over 200 edits towards making this FA worthy and going through every single medical article she could to actually fill out a topic held by the majority of scholars, a topic which Awadewit said didn't belong. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, a second attempt to sway this opinion with the straw man fallacy is no more persuasive than the first try. It would be favoritism if my trust in Awadewit's opinion were unmerited. Her two dozen featured articles on closely related subjects are an objective measurement of her knowledge in this field. I know a bit about Johnson, and a bit more about Austen--enough to appreciate what she's saying, and her argument is well-reasoned and sensible. Your responses look hotheaded and are logically flawed. Now I'm not the sort to hold a grudge. So if you'll just give the material another pass and deepen the treatment of Johnson's works and influence, I'll be glad to change my vote. Other than that, to paraphrase Elizabeth Bennet said in Pride and Prejudice, 'Keep your breath to cool your porridge, unless you exhale to swell the article with (critical) song.' Durova^Charge! 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You already said "per Awadewit". As I have explained above, her point is non-actionable, and any said actions would violate both policy and guidelines. If you are unpersuaded or not, that doesn't matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that you simultaneously accuse me of favoritism, and attempt to sway my opinion by a combative manner. If you really suppose both my ethics and logic are second-rate, wouldn't it be more practical to apply honey instead of vinegar? She raises a legitimate criterion 1c objection and substantiates it far better than most such objections get raised, and I simply am not satisfied by your rebuttal. If I were actually acting upon personal bias then your manner would entrench the opinion. As it is, I'm a bit puzzled and disappointed by your decision to undermine so much of your own hard work by refusing to make a few additional improvements that could earn this effort the recognition it almost deserves. That's your choice, though. Durova^Charge! 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I never attempted to sway. I pointed out that you favored Awadewit's response. It is clear that you did from your first line. I stated clearly above that your objection cannot be met, because Awadewit's objection cannot be met. It would go against policy and guideline, thus, I don't need to convince you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Weak support. Criticism and influence has been expanded. Although still a bit on the low side per WP:UNDUE, and despite main contributor's comments that would justify a WP:NPOV objection due to concerns that existing scholarly criticism may have been underused. The explanations about posthumous diagnosis are satisfactory. And although I would have objected at the consensus that moved nearly all of Boswell to a subordinate article, I won't stand in the way on that basis after the fact. I still don't quite get the rationale for citing a sometimes unreliable source for facts within the article without also providing a summary within that same article about the reasonable limits of trustworthiness for that source. That leaves the quote boxes, and the explanations for quoting Boswell exclusively within those quote boxes are wholly unsatisfactory from a historian's perspective; shifting the rationale to illustration is no improvement. Disappointing as that is, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. FAC's approach to illustrative media is often unsatisfactory to those of us who contribute other types of featured content and it wouldn't be fair to single out this nomination from others on that basis. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

neutral apologies for the flip-flop. Subsequent discussion at this FAC has deepened my concerns about NPOV. Durova^Charge! 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but NPOV requires Weight, and there has been no evidence to suggest that any of Awadewit's claims are even founded in scholarship, let alone be allowed under Weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I strongly suggest you consult with your mentors about this FAC. I am not one of your mentors, so please allow what I intend as a face-saving disengagement, and please refrain from further jabs at the competence and diligence of one of Wikipedia's top three most prolific contributors of featured articles. Durova^Charge! 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not one of Ottava's mentors either, but I would strongly suggest that you moderate your language nevertheless. "Prolific" does not equate to "knowledgeable". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Durova, let me make this clear right now. Over 14 admins have contacted me during this FAC expressing their disatisfaction with you, especially with you coming in and using Awadewit's oppose without any basis. These admins remember that you have been in contact with Awadewit and know that you talk to her off line. This page has also gone through an extensive Peer Review and had the involvement of many people, including many admin who feel that your claims are not supportable. Furthermore, these admin all know that you and Shoemaker have a history together. Furthermore, your claims that Awadewit is "prolific" is frivelous, as you have exposed easily that the FAC system can be gamed. Your comments above, combined with your actions, are not becoming of an admin. I recommend that you strike your comments and step away. I have put up with you long enough, and played your game. At the very least, you owe myself, Malleus, and Sandy an apologize for disrupting this FAC. I am done with you, and this is the last response you will hear from me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means such people are welcome to contact me directly. None have. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd never heard of Samuel Johnson before, and having read the article I'm not sure why I should have. No doubt it's great for Samuel Johnson fans, who are already familiar with his life and work. Specifically it fails criteria 1a) "engaging prose" because reading the endlessly cited minutiae of someones life was very dull and 1b) being comprehensive, because I've no more idea about why this man was important at the end of the article than I had before I started it. Suggest the biography section is heavily edited with more emphasis placed on whatever it is this man actually did that made him notable. --Davémon (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Did you read the second sentence - "Johnson is the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English"? How about the beginning of the third paragraph - "After nine years of work, his A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755 and brought him popularity and success."? If reading someone's life was dull, why not skip out of the clearly marked "biography" section? "on whatever it is this man actually did that made him notable" so, the whole section devoted to his "Dictionary" does not exist? The paragraphs on his edition of Shakespeare I guess don't exist either? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Malleus has beefed up the lead. The current lead includes:

• Beginning as a Grub Street journalist, he made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer. Johnson has been described as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history". He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. ... After nine years of work, his A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755 and brought him popularity and success.

• With a subject like Johnson, it's necessary to avoid WP:PEACOCKery; I hope this satisfies Davemon's concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear that Davemon has revisited; I'll ping. [114] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the shout! I think others have pointed out that the issue is best addressed in the lede, so that's what I'll stick to. It has improved, but I think it could be even better. Surely the "Tourett Syndrome" reading/diagnosis of his biography is post-hoc to his fame/notability, and something of an aside rather than being fundamental to understanding the subject. OK so he wrote a dictionary and some journalism pieces but the article should show how these writings are significant to the world - just a few words ("a highly influential dictionary" or "ground-breaking journalism") which are then fleshed out and cited in the main body would be good. --Davémon (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I will leave it for Ottava to respond to the rest; I'm responsible for the Tourette syndrome text and accuracy. The TS is not an issue of his fame or notability, rather a matter of understanding his life, work, character, personality in context. The "Health" section, where the TS diagnosis is established, is later in the article, as putting it earlier wouldn't result in a logical flow. Mentioning it in the lead provides context for the other aspects of his life and personality as one reads through. It actually is fundamental to an understanding of Johnson, as contemporary knowledge of his TS puts the rest of his quirky and compulsive behaviors in context. If it's not mentioned in the lead, we'd have to somehow move the Health section up in the article, which would make less sense. Hope this helps explain, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Does it satisfy any concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having re-read the whole article, it might be a good start for an essay or a start of an academic paper for eng-lit, but as a general encyclopedia entry it fails. It over-emphasises trivial detail over significant facts, and for that reason, I still oppose this article becoming an FA. --Davémon (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. The article has now nailed it for me, the lede especially summarises the most significant information and explains why it is significant. Brilliant. Well done everyone. --Davémon (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Strong Oppose It doesn't really cover him as an author, beyond the dictionary, which gets trivial coverage as a work of literature, the section concentrating on the contracts and biographical aspects of the dictionary. Nor does it even discuss the importance of Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson at all. Boswell's Life is probably the most famous biography every written, and it is not discussed - quoted, but not discussed - at all. If this was moved to, say, Samuel Johnson's Life with another article started at Samuel Johnson's Works, with an article at Samuel Johnson summarising them and The Life of Samuel Johnson, and if the Legacy section was expanded enough that his importance became clear, then it would be an excellent featured article. But with the current scope, we have an article on an author that does not cover his works, and one that does not discuss the biography that cemented his fame. This cannot be considered comprehensive, and comprehensive is a key facet of a Featured article.

The long and short of this is that the coverage of what is covered is excellent, top rate even workable - but there are problems, for instance, when discussing Johnson's refutation of George Berkeley's ideas, you fail to say what those ideas are. However, an article on Samuel Johnson without discussion of his works or the effect of Boswell's biography on his legacy, and which also fails to discuss his own influence and legacy to any depth simply cannot be a featurable main article on the subject. If the scope was changed by making this a sub-article, then it would be fine, excellent even. But it cannot stand on its own with such glaring ommissions Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Struck oppose per this diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You do know that Boswell's life is included within the text, right? And its a famous biography, but that fact doesn't make it notable to Johnson's page to analyze it. The named pages are for biographies. Your suggestion goes against MoS. Do you have any actionable changes that don't violate MoS or Wikipedia standards? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Boswell's Life is discussed in detail in its own article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quoted, yes. But the Life of Johnson is probably one of the keys to Johnson's enduring legacy. I really don't see how you can get away without at least a paragraph or two discussing how it affected perception of Johnson. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I kept in the original section, I discussed Boswell's life. And no, it wasn't the key to his enduring legacy. The work was mostly fictional, and has been since dismissed. See the works of Donald Greene for this, or better yet, read about it here where it belongs. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

...So, you're saying you don't have to discuss Boswell's life because of problems with it as a source, then use it constantly throughout the article. If there's strong scholarly debate about the accuracy of Boswell's Life, then it is vital to the article that it gets discussed, and the accuracy of our knowledge of Johnson's life is made explicit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment above was to tell you the reality behind the source. Boswell's passages are contained in image boxes because they add "flavor", but do not provide as much truth. The passages that do describe actual events and not questioned have been used in the text itself. However, Boswell's work was just one of many, and has been replaced by other biographies that are included as references. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. Indee,d in one place you've chamnged a quote from Boswell's Life from being referenced to Boswell to being referenced to Lane "This first love was not to last, and Johnson later claimed to Boswell, "She was the first woman with whom I was in love. It dropped out of my head imperceptibly, but she and I shall always have a kindness for each other.") By insisting you don't have to deal with the issues you are making the article far worse. Please stop. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - William Shakespeare's page, FA, limits Richard III to only a couple lines, with no actual description on it. Thus, there is no FA standard that says that works need to be devoted anything more than a few lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. William Shakespeare from section 2 to section 6 inclusive is discussing his works and him as an author. Samuel Johnson has a single short section discussing one of his works, his dictionary. If you're going to insist that everyone but you is wrong, and try to claim that because an article on a prolific author does not discuss every single one of his 40+ works in great detail (while spending about half a dozen pages discussing his works in general) that you have no need to discuss more than one of a different author's works in any detail - and even the section on the Dictionary never describes the Dictionary itself, its importance, or anything but how it was created - then we may as well close this now as not promoted, because there's no way in hell it ever will be. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Works. This biography contains just as much information about his works. The individual works receive little over one or two lines. thus, your point doesn't correspond to the appropriate models. "that you have no need to discuss more" Actually, all of his major works are discussed into the detail appropriate according to the Shakespeare page. And this - "never describes the Dictionary itself," - is absurd, because saying the word "dictionary" is enough to give someone 95% of the knowledge of what it is. Everything else is covered in the dictionary's page. Any more would be redundant and thus violate MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You need, at a minimum, a section on literary criticism from Johnson's age to ours, and a section detailing the themes and style of his works. The legacy section also needs to actually detail HOW he influenced other authors, and detail how the Johnson school of criticism developed.

You clearly are interested primarily in the biography aspects, and are pretty competent at dealing with them. However, you don't seem to understand what literary criticism even means, thinking that a few words about the plot or argument of some of his works is the same thing as discussing his works. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but WEIGHT and size issues say otherwise. Shakespeare is a model and does not do as you say. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

...Okay, you are clearly either delusional or a troll, and there is no point talking to you further. The Article on Shakespeare is about half to two thirds on Shakespeare's work, legacy, and the like. I am not going to feed the trolls any further. Contact me on my talk page if someone actually interested in hearing what reviewers have to say wants to talk. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this personal attack unstruck after almost two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close as not promoted: Nominator obviously has no intent of listening to anything anyone says. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may need to reread how FAC work. Its not done by consensus, nor do you say things like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the people involved with the article are only going to use FAC to belittle reviewers and refuse to deal with any of the problems of the article, then the process is being abused, and this should be closed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support that "any of the problems" were not dealt with as ones that could be dealt with were. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit has given you references to several books and articles on lierary criticism and Johnson's legacy. You attacked her for that, and screamed that your biographies are sufficient. You have also said profoundly stupid things, like claiming Johnson did not influence later authors, in the face of people trying to point you to scholarly articles and books that show otherwise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose (biggest concerns addressed) Article reads like a giant eulogy, which I find annoying, being Scottish. ;) You;ve got a part like "Johnson attacked the claim that James Macpherson's Ossian poems were translations of ancient Scottish literature on the grounds that "in those times nothing had been written in the Earse language".[157] This claim brought swift reaction from Macpherson, who threatened Johnson with physical violence", distorting the correspondence as well as downplaying Johnson's rampant anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic sentiment; meanwhile the article ignores lesser moments for Johnson, like when he was fooled by William Lauder (a Scotchman) into proclaiming John Milton a fraud, before consequently being made to look ridiculous by John Douglas (another Scotchman ;) ). Not FA content, in terms of balance. Before being accused of bias myself (of which I freely admit), I would have opposed the article anyway based on the other concerns here. Article needs a content overhaul before being stamped FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, I would reread the article, because I already added far more detail from the works, which places it well above every other authorial biography and this as after people demanded more about the works and more about his legacy. As you can see, I removed 3k worth of text and then added 9k here, and am currently over the MoS word limit, so not much can be added. Also, the above about Johnson and Macpherson comes from many sources, so its not downplaying or anything. If you have another source with another version, please provide. However, Bate and Wain seem very much agreed that Macpherson threatened him, and that Johnson was correct. And anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic? It doesn't seem to be either from the accounts of his visit from my sources except for a handful of early quotes in which he made fun of Scotland (which are better suited on Wikiquote). If you can provide from sources to what you say, then I can easily add to the section (it is part of WikiProject Scottish Islands, so it does deserve to have more). Ottava Rima (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate with these FAC's you get stuck between rocks and hard places. Your compliance with a demand from one person oft leads to condemnation by another. Anyways ...

The "threat of violence" is attested only in Johnson's "response". You might want to read, Fiona Stafford's "Dr Johnson and the Ruffian: new evidence in the dispute between Samuel Johnson and James Macpherson". As the article has it, 'tis a pretty unbalanced way to represent the whole Johnson MacPherson dispute, which consisted mostly of ad hominem attacks on MacPherson and Gaelic culture on Johnson's part, rather than any literary insight, with some responses from MacPherson and his supporters. Despite being opinionated about the culture, Johnson learned no Gaelic, couldn't read the language, didn't understand the culture, and offered little critical insight into the Ossian matter (that role fell to other men with no obsequoius biographers). And as it happens (since you mentioned it), it has been shown by modern research that MacPherson did use older Gaelic sources, his crime was embellishing them not forging them.

As for being duped, in 1750 a guy called William Lauder published a pamphlet arguing that John Milton plagiarized his great works from older authors. Johnson, who hated Milton, got excited, added his voice of support and even attached himself to it by authoring the preface. For the details, see Chapter 9 of J. A. Farrer, Literary Forges (1907). James Clifford and Bertram Davis, modern writers about Johnson, use this episode to highlight Johnson's frequent literary incompetence.

My impression of sycophancy in this article may be down to my own prejudices. I could take your advice and read it again tomorrow ('tis well written for sure) and see if I was wrong, and if so, moderate or change my vote, but other users above have expressed valid concerns too. You do have my sympathies, as those concerns have very little to do with your efforts, just the relationship between your choices and peer expectation you didn't foresee. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I added indentations so my response will format, so I hope you don't mind. The article right now is trying to cover a very long life and a lot of works. I can add a line here or there, but we are way over the limit. I took out a lot of material to make a page devoted to his "portrait", or analysis of his character. He was known for occasional instances of outbursts that could be discussed further with anecdotes and analysis of the sections you have above. We should discuss working on a line or two even out any bias, and I welcome you on my talk page to discuss it further. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing it as:

Johnson entered the dispute over the authenticy of James Macpherson's Ossian poems, claiming they could not have been translations of ancient Scottish literature on the grounds that "in those times nothing had been written in the Earse [i.e. Gaelic] language".[157] There were heated exchanges between the two, and according to one of Johnson's own letters, MacPherson threatened physical violence".

takes out a bit of the bias here. Noting that he is widely associated with anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic sentiments, while noting some scholars feel this exaggerated, I guess covers this to an acceptable level I guess and without undue weight or bias. The links I sent you are sufficient reference, though you'll find yourself even more well-covered if you search on google books "Samuel Johnson anti-Scottish" "Samuel Johnson anti-Gaelic", etc. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your request on our talk pages for examples of euologizing, well, it permeates, though having read it again it isn't doesn't seem as bad, considering it is his biography. Still, the long (considering its importance) praise of his Pope poem and praise of him in his student life is for instance one of the other pieces I found unnecessarily euologistic. It's not biggie, sure you have reasons. You have de-POVed the MacPherson thing ... so after all that I feel I can withdraw my strong oppose at least. I'll abstain in fact, but won't be changing to support though as, not being a literature expert, the concerns above make me too unsure. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Pope thing was an important moment in Johnson's life, and the two instances of Johnson's involvement with Pope (who was considered the greatest literary figure at the time) contrast against each other. If there is anything other particulars, please mention them and I'll see what I can do. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• A a science nerd who has worked hard to get the facts straight in Francis Crick, I look at Samuel Johnson with envy. I know nothing about Samuel Johnson, but as a non-expert I found the article to be informative and easy to read. Thanks to the editors for all their hard work. Can I "hire" you to spruce up Francis Crick? --JWSurf (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another major problem: Not all of the sources have the details. For instance, Reference 56 is "Warner 1802, p. 105" - the details for Warner's book aren't given. Ditto: Reverence 179 (Whiltshire 1991, p. 51). Also, the references are not all linked to the bibliography - consistency is needed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. All that is left is the occassional reflist error, which is not an issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Those two minor mistakes have been corrected; I'll be working later on the Tourette section, to incorporate new and even stronger sources uncovered in the discussion on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They're easy to fix, but it's a major problem if they aren't: The reference becomes inherently uncheckable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One-two omissions is more than 200 citations do not constitute a "major problem"!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, no need to exaggerate about WP:V, unclickable doesn't mean unverifiable; the information was there, just a dead Harvnb link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• support:This is monumental undertaking to write a comprehensive article on an author. My feeling is that may be some sections are big enough that may be they can be broken into sub articles ?. Taprobanus (talk)

During the last couple weeks, I made a page for each of the literary works, and moved bits of information over and expanded, with the last being the The Plays of William Shakespeare page. There is a page devoted to biographies on him, with their individual pages, also. We just made a split off of the health section. There might be another or two later. Johnson could probably have his own WikiProject by the end. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• oppose support All concerns addressed - consider that the article is now as worthy of FA-status as any article I have read, and am incidentally concerned by the extent to which this talk page is turning into a fight. Lexo (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to oppose this article getting FA-status, because I have worked with its main nominator on other Johnson-related articles, and I have found him to be a generous and learned contributor, way more learned than me on the subject of this article. But I do not consider this a useful general article about Johnson. It is a potted and well-sourced biography, but not much else. It tells me that he is a notable subject, but does not demonstrate why he is so. There is too much trivial biographical detail. I can remember what it was like to know absolutely nothing about Johnson, and this article mostly tells me the story of his life - not why he is anything more than a figure on English literary history. Lexo (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which subjects have not been discussed enough? He also lived to 80, and these are the most important moments of his life, which is very important, so you will have to be very specific here. Also, how does the section on London and his involvement with Pope not make it notable? How about how his Life of Richard Savage "remains one of the innovative works in the history of biography"? Or his Dictionary section? His meeting with the king? Descriptives about his Shakespeare edition from one of the most important Shakespeare scholars that praises Johnson's edition? His involvement with the Club? Works by those like Miss Lennox that defend him? The countless biographies listed written after his death? Some of the most known quotes like "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."? Multiple movies being made on his life? 8 major "societies" devoted to analysing his life? Praise from T. S. Eliot? Even just one of those above establishes him as a notable person, and if you can't see that he is notable, then I don't really know what to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The major problem here is the weighting. For instance, looking at just one of the things you mention:

On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."[142] This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. - I believe this is the only quote discussed in any detail, but the only discussion of it is to criticise unnamed and hitherto unmentioned people for taking it out of context. If you want to cite it as a major source of notability, it is necessary to actually establish it's notable in the article text. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability only has to "be established" on a page devoted to the quote. All of those lines are cited. You say its a weight issue, without actually stating anything that is part of weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone was curious to see if the quote is widely known, just look here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Another issue: Samuel Johnson made Francis Barber, originally a Jamaican slave, his heir, as well as educating him and so on. This is very surprising behaviour for someone from such a racist time. The article riefly mentions the event, but without any vividness, detail, or even treating the event as unusual. Indeed, the article consistently fails to establish the importance of significance of the events it describes. It badly needs a full copyedit and rewrite to turn it from a selection of facts into a vivid portrait. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson didn't think the event was significant. Writers did not think the event was significant. Before you start throwing out lines like the above, actually get some proof. Otherwise, you are demanding original research and asking for things that aren't allowable on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Really. You're telling me not one biographer discusses Francis Barber in any detail. Strange that we have an article on him with extensive quotes from Boswell, and a bit of Hawkins too. Clearly they must be fabrications. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Barber was a servant. He is mentioned on five pages in Bates, many times in passing. He was not a notable part of his life, and there was nothing to do about "racism" when hiring him. There is a page on Francis Barber that contains information that is proper to the weight on his page. You really need to reread what WP:WEIGHT says. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." From WP:WEIGHT. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As determined by the Great Arbitrator (you), of course. However, weight isn't the issue here, it's that the facts are poorly chosen, the explanaitions of why the facts are relevant non-existant, and nothing is put in context. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets see - you lack any references. You lack any substance to prove your point. And then you arbitrarily take pot shots at the article. Not only do you lack an objectionable point, you don't even have basis beyond OR, which would violate Wikipedia standards. Weight is an issue here. Your attitude is an issue here. Your lack of having actual evidence is an issue here. Now either come up with real, reliable proof, or stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This FAC is beginning to remind me very much of the Roman Catholic Church's various attempts. Some want more biographical detail, some want less. Some want more about Johnson as an author, some want more about his legacy, some want less about his medical conditions, but very few seem to recognise the size constraint placed on wikipedia articles. I think that Ottava has bent over backwards to deal with the myriad of conflicting demands placed on this article, which in my view is fully deserving of FA status. This recent trend of holding certain types of articles to far higher standards than others does not bode well for the future of FA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sense of similarity, but it reminds me more of To Kill a Mockingbird, a literary article where everyone knows a bit and everyone has an opinion. One substantial difference between this FAC and the RCC is that sourcing here is solid, there are no ongoing MoS issues and constant cleanup and prose needs, and there are no significant POV allegations, stability and length issues as there were in the RCC FAC (the RCC FAC had concerns spanning 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and 4; the depth and breadth of concerns were substantial, and that is not the situation here). From the point of view of concerns expressed, the two FACs are quite different. I agree with your general concern, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The Roman Catholic Church was probably a poor comparison. I would call on those still opposing this article to be specific about which of the FA criteria they believe it fails. I believe that it fulfills all of them. In spades. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The main argument of those opposing is "comprehensiveness". Therefore, I wouldn't agree with Sandy that these concerns are not "substantial". They are! If they are correct or not is another issue to be judged. I personally believe that the article fulfils FA criteria, and I supported it, but I cannot call the concerns of a user like Awadewit presenting a series of arguments about the article's lack of comprehensiveness (exaggerating IMO but this is another issue) as not substantial.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made myself clear, or I've been misunderstood. We were discussing this FAC in relation to the RCC FAC, where there were substantial (about a dozen) opposes across the full range of WP:WIAFA, including almost all points: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and 4. That FAC had a breadth and depth of opposes. This FAC has several opposes centered around a difference of opinion on basically one issue, comprehensiveness, and differing opinions over how to employ summary style relative to 1b, "neglects no major facts or details". With Johnson, there are many major facts and details; different editors have different and contradictory input about what should be included and how summary style should be employed; some have failed to consider size limitations, but the opposes revolve around basically one concern, while many opposes focused on the full range of WIAFA in the RCC FAC. That was all I meant in the comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

SJ's interaction with Barber was critically important when seen in the context of his politics as a noted early very strong opponent of slavery, and there are excellent quotes for the purpose available "Here's to the next insurrection of the negroes in the West Indies." and, with respct to the American revolutionary leaders, "Why is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of negroes?" and quite a few others, as wll as abundant secondary discussion. I think the article considerably underestimates the importance of Johnson's politics in general. But I don't consider that a question of NPOV, just of further work to be done. If the people trying to remove articles on fiction ever let up, I might even be able to write something. MF is quite correct about standards. For articles on academic subjects, its easier to be very critical, because that's what we are taught to do with such subjects and habitually do when discussing them. My view of SJ is different from that of OR in a number of respects, and the same for that of Durova. This isn't the sort of thing about which there is a real synthesis to be expected. But nonetheless this is a high quality article. DGG (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I :agree that his opinions on slavery, the American uprising, and his general political thoughts deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia, but they cannot be given any respect in the format we have. It would need to have a page devoted to it, which I always intended to write (because there are many pamphlets not discussed). There are over 70 essays, along with 7 pamphlets, and some other items that give minor ideas and thoughts that would be hard to generalize. Greene, in his attempt, only 23 true pages on the topic and another 15 to general "journalism" while devoting half of his 19 page poet section to poetic theory, his biography section of 25 pages to theory, and 31 further pages on general literary criticism in a work used to summarize Johnson's works (or, as Greene says, to describe him in terms of being a man of letters). There would probably need a page devoted to his Anglican beliefs. And for the record - my experience with Johnson has been of him as a critic and him as a personality. He intersected with most of the poets of the 18th century, and these intersections have come up the most. I feel that the best that can be done to describe his politics on the general biography page is what is done currently: discussion of London's politics (2 lines), his view on the Seven Year's war (1 line), views in Rasselas (2 lines), politics with the pension (1 line), his later pamphlets (2 paragraphs), and his generalized views (2 paragraphs). Added together, it forms roughly one section on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two daughter articles added, per summary style: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Main articles: Samuel Johnson's politics and Samuel Johnson's ethical views

Malleus, I agree that this page is horribly unwieldly and it is hard to tell what objections reviewers still hold. I've tried to strike mine out and note improvements as I have reread. Looking at the FAC, however, I'm not really sure that there is a lot of disagreement among the opposers - to me it looks like there are two major threads: 1) not enough discussion of the works; 2) too much biographical detail. If we could get all of the opposers to weigh in on this statement, that might help. If indeed, these are the only major two issues, I believe there is light at the end of the tunnel. Awadewit (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except that I think the core problem is that a lot of the detail that is covered is not covered well. My point about the Francis Barber statementsd, for example, was that discussion about him was begun, but in a somewhat random location, and without taking enough time to make bringing up Barber interesting. This article very regularly reads like a collection of random bibliographic facts, and if it covered half as many facts, but covered them well, it would be much better article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, what really doesn't help is attacking the reviewers. Can this please stop before I'm forced to pull in the Mediation cabal or ANI into a FAC? Because this really is not on. I don't want to cause more drama, but I will not allow FAC to be turned into a farce by having an article promoted by means of attacking everyone who opposes until they give up, then declaring victory.

I did not want to uissue an ultimatum, however, if the featured article team cannot make Ottava rima show even the minimal level of civility towards the reviewers who disagree with him, one of whom, Awadewit, is a graduate student with a speciality in 18th century literature who he is treating as if she knows nothing and is a meddling ignoramus, then I will find someone who can. Because this is discredit to the entire FA process. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither ANI nor a mediation cabal has any place at FAC. Yes, Ottava's responses could have been better (but I have seen much worse from other nominators), and I have left him a message to that effect with suggestions on how to better phrase his responses. However, on this FAC reviewers have also contributed to escalating the conflict. I encourage all parties to this FAC to focus on the issues and stop posting any personal comments - either in support of or objection to any editor who has posted. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well. allow me to state my objections to the article itself plainly, in an itemised list

1. The article reads more like a collection of random facts than a coherent work. Things are mentioned, but not elabourated on, leaving their importance unclear. Organisation is poor - for instance, Francis Barber is said to have visited Johnson as he lay dying long before who Barber is is mentioned.

   Addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. While some definite improvement has been made to the literary criticism, there's still gaps. Particularly, the dictionary's discussion is concerned almost entirely with the contractual history of its writing - discussion of the work itself is minimal. Not even one definition from the dictionary is quoted, nor is the dictionary's impact, nor the dictionary as literature discussed in any depth.

   I'm having a hard time understanding how a definition from a dictionary will add to the article. The dictionary discussion has been expanded, and additional detail will be included at A Dictionary of the English Language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

3. The literary criticism section is also cited almost entirely to one author, Greene. Is this [115] the Donald Greene work used to cite most of the section on Johnson's works? If so, it doesn't look like the references check out. If it isn't, can you clarify which book by Donald Greene it, in fact, is, and perhaps clarify, e.g. giving a subtitle as well as the title. Regardless, the section really could use a second major source.

   John Needham was added as a source to the newly titled "Critical theory" section, and the Donald Greene works are fully cited, including title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Historiography is not covered very well. Particularly, while there's a little discussion of Boswell's Life of Johnson, pulling it all into its own subsection of Legacy would make for better summary style, as it would then be clear that there's an important sub-article on the work. Also, a brief discussion of how modern scholars view the biographies that were published after his death would be useful.

   Detailed discussion of Boswell's biography was removed at the request of others. There is now a complete {{Samuel Johnson}} template of related articles, icluding Boswell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

5. The article lacks clear focus to many of its sections. For instance, this is the first paragraph of "Early career":

   There is little record of Johnson's life between the end of 1729 and 1731; he most likely lived with his parents when experiencing bouts of mental anguish.[38] Although it is not known when Johnson first displayed the signs of Tourette syndrome, we know that following this time he exhibited the various tics and gesticulations associated with the disorder.[39] To further complicate Johnson's life, his father was deeply in debt by 1731 and had lost much of his standing in Lichfield. An usher's position became available at Stourbridge Grammar School, but Johnson's lack of a degree saw him passed over, on 6 September 1731.[38] At about the same time, Johnson's father became ill; he developed an "inflammatory fever", which ended his life in December 1731.[40] Johnson tried to start a career and eventually found employment as undermaster at a school in Market Bosworth, Leicestershire. The school was run by Sir Wolstan Dixie, who allowed Johnson to teach even though he did not have a degree.[41] Although the arrangement may seem congenial, Johnson was treated as "a kind of domestick chaplain".[42] Still, Johnson found pleasure in teaching even though he thought it boring. By June 1732, he had returned home, and, after a fight with Dixie, quit the school.[43]

   This entire section appears to be an attempt to include every single fact known about this period of Johnson's life, however, it is not a particularly notable period of his life, and summary style would call for this to be spun off to a sub-article, and greatly compressed. For such a long article, it's hard to justify the extreme detail given in this section, when much of it has little to do with Johnson's notability.

   More aggressive use of summary style has now been employed, with text moved to daughter articles, making way for new text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

6. There's a lot of random interjections of facts. For instance, near the end of the section "A Dictionary of the English Language" - which is somewhat misnamed, as much of it is actually on other subjects such as The Rambler - we get this:

   ...Although the production's run had a rough start, Johnson received nearly £300 for the manuscript and the performances.[98]

   Johnson's wife died shortly after the final issue appeared. During his work on the dictionary, Johnson made many appeals for financial help in the form of subscriptions: patrons would get a copy of the first edition as soon as it was printed in compensation for their support during its compilation. The appeals ran until 1752.

   It seems simply bizarre to mention the death of Johnson's wife in the middle of an unrelated discussion, then never mention it again. Did his wife's death have no effect on Johnson whatsoever? That's the impression given.

   Rearranged: [116] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support by Moni3: (comments given on article talk page) --Moni3 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• None too excited to enter a fray, if my comments help at all that is the reason I am giving them. I enjoyed the biography. I found it sympathetic, well-written, and engaging. I was mostly unfamiliar with Johnson's work before reading the article and found him to be portrayed quite roundly and humanly.
• He was born at 4.00 on a Wednesday? Any particular reason for such detail? I see articles as being general yet comprehensive overviews of a subject's life, giving the reader the most important and influential portions of the life in question.

• Addressed (removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Johnson first displayed the signs of Tourette syndrome, we know that following this time he exhibited: this royal "we" is not quite encyclopedic. I mean, I don't know what he exhibited, so I cannot be included in that pronoun. Was this structured in such a way to avoid the passive voice? I'm ok with the passive voice in this instance, otherwise it reads more like a familiar tone of authors speaking directly to readers instead of an encyclopedic authority. Similar point in the Legacy section with It was no wonder that immediately following Johnson's death in December 1784...

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I get confused about the switching of times after he met Tetty, then was penniless, then brought her to London.

  Rearranged: [117] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Now I'm totally confused. If his wife is well off, why is he so poor?
• Gosh, he wrote a dictionary that became influential in the English language. Should that be in the lead? I would think so.

• In the third para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest for those in the Deaf community that the title for the school for the deaf be in capital letters, as it includes "dumb" (Edinburgh School for the Deaf and Dumb), or the word be changed to "mute".

  Since it's not the actual name of the school (proper noun), changed to "mute". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• How does Johnson resolve his impoverished past with his comment that if Americans wanted representation they should purchase an estate in England? Surely this logic was as misguided in 1775 as it is today, or am I simply an unfortunate obdurate helpless American?
• It is my limited understanding that Tourettes sufferers cannot control their tics, regardless of place or circumstance. The detail about his movements upon entering a house, therefore, sound more like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Has anyone suggested this or a combination of the two? I see the quote with "obsessive compulsive" but that seems merely a description of the tics, rather than a posthumous diagnosis.

• Replied below, pls let me know if you think I should add more clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• At this time I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough to comment on Johnson's literary works. I'd like to be able to read similar articles within the next day or so. --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  It is my limited understanding that Tourettes sufferers cannot control their tics, regardless of place or circumstance. People with Tourette's don't usually consider themselves as "sufferers", rather individuals or people :-) For a full understanding of the semi-voluntary, temporarily suppressible nature of tics, please see tic or Tourette syndrome; yours is a common misunderstanding. Although the minority of people who have severe TS may have less ability to manage or suppress tics, most people with tics are quite able to "manage" the expression of their tics or control and suppress them to some degree for some amount of time (perfectly consistent with the descriptions of Johnson's TS). Posting from the plane (how cool is that); if you feel this needs more clarification within this article, I can do that when I get home, but I feel that might be going off-topic just to clear up a common misconception about tics and Tourette's that is already covered in their own articles. You can also see in the Tourette syndrome article that a subset of OCD (tic-related OCD, distinct from classic OCD) is thought by most researchers to be etiologically linked to Tourette's, so again, covering the TS/OCD connection in this article would amount to providing basic background detail about Tourette's, when the amount of space devoted to his Tourette's has already been criticized. If you feel we should again add back some info on his TS, I can work on that when I'm home, but that would be contrary to what other reviewers have already requested wrt minimizing the TS info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You like that? You like how I took the issue of Deaf people, and then cockblocked the Tourette's Syndrome folks? I'm awesome that way. Point taken. Imadork. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1) I didn't realize that the 4:00 PM comment was still there. Its quite comical now. Originally, I was going to put the time in which the doctor was rushed form, baptism, etc, since it all happened very quickly. "If his wife is well off, why is he so poor?" Its one of those mysteries of life. Perhaps they lost a lot of money from various things, or Johnson's lack of income caused problems. The same mystery happened to his father. If someone can figure this out, they are welcome to put it in the biography. I could never find the answer. :) 2) "Gosh, he wrote a dictionary that became influential in the English language. Should that be in the lead? I would think so." Isn't it? Paragraph three, I think. 3) "the title for the school for the deaf be in capital letters, as it includes "dumb" (Edinburgh School for the Deaf and Dumb), or the word be changed to "mute"." It wasn't a school's name, and I don't think a school was directly made after his advice. I could be wrong, but if there was one, the proper name should be put in its place, or introduced. 4) "How does Johnson resolve his impoverished past with his comment that if Americans wanted representation they should purchase an estate in England?" He died. Thats how. :P 5)

Support. My initial reaction was “you must be joking – where are all the references to the most important aspects of the man’s life" – such as his kind remarks about Iona Abbey and Flora MacDonald (which I note doesn't yet appear in the former article either...)?

However, I reluctantly accept that this article is not Samuel Johnson and Scotland and that the things that are of interest to me may have to be glossed over here. I can’t find significant fault with the text from a technical point of view and I realise we could spend all day arguing over the relative importance of the sections. Happily, prior to reading the article I knew very little about the man beyond his excursion to the Hebrides and less about literary theory. I am inclined to agree with some of the grumbles about the length of the early life section.

The Early life section has now been shortened, with more aggressive application of Summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments. * I presume "threw more light on his authour" contains an archaic spelling rather than a typo

• Correct, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the use of italics in the William Gerard Hamilton quotation

• Per WP:MOS#Italics, when the quoted text is in italics, we should also italicize. It's italicized in the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable that "Literary philosophy" uses a single authority as a reference.

  John Needham was added as a source to the newly titled "Critical theory" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• "Johnson was willint to discuss Shakespeare's faults" has a typo

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay" and "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" are nonsenses and if MOS supports such usage, it should be changed.

• Yes, those are the correct article names, apparently dictated by Wiki naming conventions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I too found the "dead wife" a little odd.

• Rearranged.[118] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There seem to be unnecessary spaces in refs #20, 23

• I can't find these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, ha; thanks, Ben MacDui.[119] (Although the end result should be the same.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nae problem hen. (English: It was my pleasure ma'am.) Ben MacDui 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 95, 207 aren't linked and 96 lacks a date and a link

• Fixed (silly Harvnbs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 173 and 198 may be missing something

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Murray and Pearce refs - I usually see (pdf) placed outside of the link, but its probably fine the way it is.

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• " Leavis, FR" and " Watkins, W. B. C." - apparently inconsistent use of periods.

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, well done to Awadewit for persisting and attempting to summarise the unresolved issues. I understand that some stupid bot explodes if sub-sections are used in these discussions, but it's my view that they work for us and not the other way round. Anyone wishing to use one like "List of unresolved issues" here will get a round of applause from me (presumably it could be removed again at the end?) Ben MacDui 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out some of the minor citation issues; literary articles on Wiki apparently all use a citation method which is utterly foreign and nonsensical to the standard used on medical articles, so we've ended up with some slipups and text that can't be translated between articles without completely changing citation style. Now, putting on the FAC delegate hat, when reviewers refer to specific ref numbers, it's hard to track them down because often the article and ref numbers change before the next person can check them. I found some of the issues you refer to,[120] but wasn't able to find them all (for example, I can't find any missing spaces). There are two citations that need to be sorted by Ottava, who has the literary sources. It would be helpful if reviewers specified the exact citation rather than the citation number, as they often change in Wiki articles. Also, with respect to summarizing work remaining and speaking as the person who has the pleasure of reading these 100KB+ FACs, usually when a FAC grows too long, it's a good indication that reviewers have placed a lot of line-by-line commentary on the FAC that might be better summarized on the article talk page. Unless someone summarizes remaining issues to the article talk page before I get to it, I will do that on article talk tomorrow. Although I'm not aware of much work remaining; reviewers should be striking issues as they are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more Scottish related information should be present somewhere on Wikipedia. I think that I could put it into his political views page, which I am slowly developing. If you have any bits of interest that you would like seen, place it on my talk page or on this page's talk page so I can work on it. 1) "contains an archaic spelling rather than a typo" Yes. 2) I didn't understand it either. I assume it was shouting or some emotional inflection that is hard to capture in words. 3) "uses a single authority as a reference" That authority, Donald Greene, is one of Johnson's bibliographers, biographers, and someone who has devoted his while life. Yeah, I could mix it up a bit, but a few of those quotes are actually Johnson's words or Johnson's writings that were not in an easy publication to quote, or were just unattributed by Greene. By the way, he was one of the main editors of Johnson's complete works (fifteen volumes). He worked with Bate 14 other scholars to put together a complete edited works, so hes a strong authority. It was hard to put him in anywhere else, and he devoted a book to the topic, so, yeah. Otherwise I would have to cite Bate even more. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. He may have been a Scotophobe, but at least he took the trouble to visit the Gaeltacht and I think of him as a likeable rogue rather than perfidious Albion personified. I am told that "Late but Live" is wonderful. I have a few quotes dotted about the isles and if time permits I'll cut and paste a few. My favourite can be found at Ulva: "When the islanders were reproached with their ignorance or insensibility of the wonders of Staffa, they had not much to reply. They had indeed considered it little, because they had always seen it; and none but philosophers, nor they always, are struck with wonder otherwise than by novelty." Ben MacDui 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I will add in some stuff from John Needham into the section, split it off onto its own page, and contain a little about Johnson's political philosophy and ethical philosophy. I would then rename the section philosophy, so it will have three literary philosophies, general moral philosophy and general politics. I need to go now, but tomorrow morning I will have something put together. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I found this an interesting and compelling article - perhaps more in-depth discussion of his work can be found at the Works of Dr. Johnson but until such time there's enough meat on the bone for me, the lay-reader to enjoy a general discussion of his life and works. Excellent stuff. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks Joopercoopers! There's a lot for Ottava cover (I'm only responsible for accuracy of the Tourette syndrome content, and Malleus is the expert copyeditor). Ottava has now built an entire template of Johnson-related articles at {{Samuel Johnson}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've always hated that word "expert", but thanks from me too Joopercoopers. IMO Ottava has done, and is doing, a great job. I just hope it's going to prove to be enough to satisfy at least the majority of the gainsayers, as I think he deserves it and the article deserves it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support with two of the smallest of gripes. First, the section entitled "Final moments" covers two-and-a-half years! Isn't this extending the definition of "moments" somewhat? I'd suggest something like "Last years" may be more appropriate. Second, should "Health" be a subsection of "Character" - they seem to be independent aspects of the man? Notwithstanding these quibbles, this is a first-class article, fully deserving of its promotion which I trust to see soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Good points, Brian; thanks. Will see what Ottava wants to do with those two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  I split the difference and changed it to "final years". If last years sounds better, replace it with that. I boosted "health" into a primary subheading instead of a secondary. If you think it is not appropriate, then I can change. However, I think the character sketch matches more of the personaly, where health matches more of the physicality, of the man. Does that seem appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Fine by me Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I am happy to support this comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written article. I applaud the teamwork and effort that have gone into improving it over the two weeks, but I particularly want to congratulate Ottava Rima on a job well done. Thank you for writing an excellent article on this important man of letters from a century we are both clearly fascinated by. Awadewit (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that Christopher Smart is pretty important, but I didn't think it was that well written.... Thanks Awadewit. Sorry about the tension. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Editorofthewiki
  • Character sketch
    • First off, is "Character sketch" an acceptable heading title? Why not something like "personality" or the like? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "Hogarth thought Johnson an "ideot, whom his relations had put under the care of Mr. Richardson"." Is this the actual quote, or is "ideot" a misspelling of idiot? If it is a misspelling, then obviously it should be corrected; if not, then you should add {{sic}} to it. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Major works
    • What is your definition of "major"? Can you list all of his works? Since this would possibly be too long, you could split it into something like Bibilography of Samuel Johnson. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Character sketch" title has been there since the beginning. I don't know who created it. I don't know what to call it. It mostly just deals with the type of character he was, or at least how people think of him. If you have a better suggestion for a title, vet it and see what people think. The word "ideot" is Hogarth's spelling. I would feel awkward putting a template about a quote. I don't know what is standard procedure for such. His major works right now have all of his published collections except for a few things that would be hard to add. Mostly, if it is mentioned in the Biography, it made it into the Major Works. There are more per Greene (such as some stray poems), but the section is mostly reserved for pages that would meet Wikipedia Notability. A bibliography page of Johnson would be nice, but unwieldy. There are over 15 volumes of his "complete works" by Yale, and this is with trimming. This does not include the various publications and various altered publications (different editions, different titles, etc). It will have to be something discussed and put on hold. If you have any suggestions, please place them on the talk page so we can remember. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I read the entire article, I made some minor wording changes to improve flow that you should feel free to revert if you prefer the previous wording. I found the article comprehensive and informative, a very nice one page view of Dr. Samuel Johnson. I liked the lead which I felt summarized the article very well. I liked the quotes that used the actual spelling - such as "ideot" and the like - the old English and old American quotes are full of these what we would call misspellings when compared to present day standards and it is refreshing to read them in their original form. Ben Franklin used the word "shew" instead of "show" - when we use actual quotes, we can more readily hear the person actually saying the quote. A bit of research proved that the sources were very good. I think the article is worthy of FA status. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Nancy. Many of your trimmings and rewordings were very insightful. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Potential wikilinks:
• English literature
• Walter Jackson Bate
• John Hawkesworth (book editor)
• Jacob Tonson
• Topham Beauclerk
• William Gerard Hamilton
• Yvor Winters
• F. R. Leavis
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added some - the Tonson is the wrong one. It was his nephew's son of the same name. I will have to create a page when I can wrangle an 18th century printer's book from a rare book's librarian. I don't have 300 dollars to buy one myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support A thorough and valuable reference, well worth FA status. My only disappointment is that there is no quotation from Johnson's splendid letter to Lord Chesterfield: couldn't you add a short excerpt? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added. I think I chose the most powerful lines. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Spot on. Thank you—and good luck. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very impressive and comprehensive article about an important subject, together with the related articles that the nominators have been developing.--Grahame (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support; well written and well referenced. The above opposition does not concern me. Giggy (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. (Disclaimer: I gave input to Samuel Johnson #Health.) The article is a bit too long, but is clearly FA quality. I suggest cutting Samuel Johnson #Legacy first; do we really need those boring lists of Johnson societies and Johnson biographies? Also, one nit: the quote "is the finest gentleman I have ever seen" appears twice; surely once is enough. Eubulides (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the double quote. Also cut the listing of societies. The biographies are important enough to deserve a line or so, as the ones listed are only the notable biographies of Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. I like it. I like it a lot. I have uploaded two of the public domain sources onto Wikisource, and two others that looked like they might be useful sources. SEE s:Author:Samuel_Johnson#Transcription_projects. e.g. s:Page:Johnsonian Miscellanies II.djvu/168 is Hoole describing Johnson's death as "the most awful sight" in print. A tour through the northern counties of England, and the borders of Scotland is mentioned in the articles list of references, but I cant see it being used in the article; has something been lost? The two volumes of that book are now available on Wikisource. Nice work Ottava. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing eye. The Warner ref was used in the page until the beginning sections were cut and Samuel Johnson's early life was created. It comes up under [Early career] - "Richard Warner kept Johnson's account of the scene". Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

171 kbs! Wow! What a FAC! Isn't it time to close it as keep (don't count me again!) as it obviously deserves it?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is fantastic. I'll be eager to see the good Dr grace the main page of the Wiki talk shop. The writing is clinical—I enjoyed the absence of interjection that I have found in some of our older lit FAs. The desolation of 'Final years', for example, is allowed to speak for itself.

In an article so large I suppose it's perverse to suggest more is needed... The Preface to the Dictionary might deserve a bit of extra attention, such as his views on the role of language in shaping national identity. One thing that does need a sentence is the playfulness of some of the Dictionary entries (think "oats"). Marskell (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you leave a message on the talk page of the Dictionary page to remind me? I need to clean that up (in general) and expand it some more, and your comments would be helpful and much appreciated. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested a few on the Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I read a section at random, and the prose was generally excellent. I took a look at the rest of the page, also, and I have no concerns about comprehensiveness. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support I read the entire article and what is there is FA quality, although I can be persuaded that it lacks something. Re the reactions to Awadewit's question to reviewers, and opposition to the FAC, I say Awadewit is entitled to both. In answer to Awadewit's question, I prefer that an article about an author stick to the author and summarize the author's works only to the extent necessary to explain the important points of the author's life. I am left with some questions about Samuel Johnson. Why did he have so many friends? Was it because of his mannerisms? Or despite them? Did he have friends because he was a celebrity, or was he a celebrity because he had friends? I doubt that an examination of his own works would answer those questions; I think his friend Boswell's works had a lot to do with it. I would prefer that the Major works list be in strict chronological order; the subcategories do nothing for me. I would rather see the categorical information in a note after each item as is done for the Messiah entry. --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  To balance this opinion I would like to proffer my own tuppence worth, and say that I like the works being listed within genre. This way we know what eg "London" is. In a single list a description would be required by half the items saying eg "Periodical" or "poem" or "pamphlet" etc etc. IMO that would be tiresome. Also, if any man can shew any just, citable source for the issue of how come Dr Johnson had lots of friends, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace almost-instinct 10:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  PS Support, with admiration[121]

  I would prefer a strict chronology because it shows more clearly the smaller works he was working on while incubating the larger ones, or vice versa. Or, categorize the major works without dates, and add a separate chronology that includes things such as his major trips, his various jobs, when he started working on something, etc. In effect, I have in mind two navigational aids instead of one that tries to do double duty. --Una Smith (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting. Such is the importance of this bio, I felt I needed to come back for another look. There was something that didn't sit right with me about the lead. Thinking it through:

• Johnson's specific works (at a minimum the Dictionary) need to be mentioned in the first three or four sentences. "... viewed as the preeminent British dictionary" tells us it was important, but I almost feel it should be more emphatic. Along with the major sources of vocab (Bible, Shakespeare, Milton), and the codification of orthography by the London printing presses, Johnson's dictionary is the most important influence on Modern English. The lead and body need to make that clear.
• In turn, TS needs to be shuffled to the end of the lead and it should be decoupled from the Boswell mention. Life of is mentioned in one sentence and TS in the next breath, suggesting that scholarship has elevated this aspect. Not so. The 'Health' section itself I find good and well balanced. I'm sure Sandy put all of her TLC into it.

  Actually, Colin and Eubulides get the credit for the final version, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This does (eek) amount to major surgery on the lead. My overall support doesn't change. Marskell (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Dictionary - I know its important. You know its important. However, it is hard to track down a statement like that (or one written by a reliable scholar that can be trusted). If someone wants to put forth a proposal for the lead, feel free. I backed off from editing it (the lead) when a bunch of people starting having various suggestions and I could no longer keep up with who wanted what and where consensus was going. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I found some sources while browsing my local library online the other day, but I passed them over as they all seemed to verge on WP:PEACOCKery and I thought Ottava's sources to be superior. If we need to add some superlatives to the lead (which may also satisfy Davemon), I can search again, but I'd prefer we use Ottava's sources. Marskell: a question. The reason Boswell and TS are "coupled" is that it is precisely the strength of the evidence in the various writings about Johnson, including Boswell's detailed descriptions, that allow for the retrospective diagnosis. We can uncouple them if you think that best, but that is the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think if we try and rank the importance of the Dictionary, as I do above, we need a source. But if we simply write "...had a lasting impact on Modern English" it would clearly qualify as unlikely to be challenged.

We don't necessarily need to decouple. But between the sentence introducing Boswell and the TS sentence, we need a third sentence that describes the Life on its literary merits. Not doing so leaves a due weight issue in the very first paragraph. Marskell (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, yes, I see; will leave the addition of that that clause or sentence to Ottava. I left some (rather useless) comments on talk here; Ottava likely has better sources for addressing these two issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this in Bate (p. 240) - "Johnson pushed aside his hesitations and started on his monumental Dictionary of the English Language. The finished work, nine years later, easily ranks as one of the greatest single achievements of scholarship, and probably the grreatest ever performed by one individual who labored under anything like the disadvantages in a comparable length of time." on Boswell's Life (p. xix) "Johnson's own conception of the 'uses' of biography changed the whole course of biography for the modern world. One by-product was the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature, Boswell's Life of Johnson, and there were many other memoirs and biographies of a similar kind written on Johnson after his death." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marskell's proposed changes to the lead. Re the importance of the dictionary, the article later says it was a best seller for a very long time. I think that information belongs in the lead. --Una Smith (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Already there, ala "The Dictionary brought Johnson popularity and success; until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary, 150 years later, Johnson's was viewed as the preeminent British dictionary.[3]" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for more. On reading again at the section about the dictionary, I don't see that it was a best seller at all. That was my own supposition. Isn't there any information about the size of the print runs? The number of copies sold? --Una Smith (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"At the time of Johnson's death in 1784, and thirty years after its first publication, there were about 6,000 copies of the complete English editions of the Dictionary in circulation, in addition to a few hundred copies of two limited Dublin issues of 177 and 1777. This is not a great number." (Hitchings, p.211) almost-instinct 08:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But I see that information is already in A Dictionary of the English Language page almost-instinct 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New content about the Dictionary and Life of Johnson was added, but Samuel Johnson is currently at 10,000 words and uses Summary style to cover the abundance of information about Johnson. Details about the Dictionary are at A Dictionary of the English Language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it now. I might still prefer the Dictionary mention in the first paragraph, but on the whole I see no due weight issues in the lead anymore. Marskell (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dictionary is far more important than the Tourette syndrome business. In fact, I suggest moving the lead and body text about the latter to Retrospective diagnosis, and leaving here just a sentence about his mannerisms and post hoc diagnoses thereof. The relevant text necessarily goes into a lot of background information about the syndrome, and into the history of discussion of Johnson's mannerisms, and both topics strike me as tangents outside the scope of this article. --Una Smith (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not be in favour of such a reorganisation. This is the biography of a man who happened to be an author, not an author who happened to be a man. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a simple question is this - how best do you understand an individual: is it through their work, or is it through the way in which they acted and reacted towards others? Every biography on Johnson (there are over 200 as of now) discusses his personality and that "persona" was dominated by his TS. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looking again at the lead, I was struck by the unnecessary repetition in the sentence He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, described as "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature". Shouldn't the words one of the most celebrated biographies in English simply be omitted? We know it's in English; and if it's the most celebrated in the whole of literature, it must also be the most celebrated in the subset that is English literature. (This in no way detracts from my support for the article.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See my further comments on the Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• tl;dr but provisional Support ;) – looks good, but tripped over some irritating phrases so have raised that on the talk page and hope to give the whole article detailed appraisal soon. [just kidding about tl;dr, only pressure of time is delaying my settling down to read it carefully] . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, Dave; changes on talk addressed, pls have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are "farreaching" and "preeminent" (in the lead) acceptable? I would expect hyphenation, and so would my in-line (inline?) spell checker. jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Preeminent and far-reaching. So, 50/50. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that an American dictionary? Samuel Johnson was English, so we should use English spellings. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My OECD has far-reaching and pre-eminent, so I suggest that's what we go with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone was wondering, Johnson's dictionary has preeminent and no "far-reaching" or "farreaching" in my edition. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support It appears to be FA standard to me, and meets all criteria. I am glad to see their is a hyphen now in pre-eminent! I think the page should be in conventional and accepted English - preeminent is not, no matter what Johnson's dictionary says. This spage has taken a lot of work and effort and seems to cover all aspects of Johnson's life well. Doubtless scholars will always argue over some aspects of his life and works, but that is no reason for it not to pass FA. Giano (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Has any FAC taken any longer than this to assess? (It's been more than a month...whoo!) Otherwise, support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hello everyone: why is this nomination still here after nearly six week, is it? This is a bad precedent. FACs should be through and out more quickly, IMO, or shunted to a holding pen for improvement. This one, it seems from my reading of the article and of this nomination page, should be promoted. Tony (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Raul can take as long as he wants, as long as this becomes an FA so it can be on the mainpage for Johnson's 300th birthday on 18 September 2009. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose per Awadewit. Are we really considering an apologia which contends that Johnson's relationship with Austen was not influence? Is there a time-machine to permit Austen to influence Johnson? Indeed, are we really considering arguments that FAC should not be based on consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Awadewit is supporting this article. Are there any of the points she raised – which she presumably feels were satisfactorily dealt with – that you do not?--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed one point that wasn't big, but I meant to slide it in and forgot. I remedied it: here. It could be cleaned up a little. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I note the recent expansion. I do not consider it sufficient; and I do consider that the hysterical incivility with which Awadewit was treated should disqualify in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• For myself, the writing is not what I would wish for our front page:
  • Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS),[5] a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians. Informed? No; nor should this be the lead sentence in its paragraph.
  • in the nursing care of Joan Marklew Surely, even for those too mealy-mouthed to use wet-nurse, as Johnson would have done, there are clearer ways to express this, less suggestive of a 21st century hospice administrator?
  • Johnson could not bring himself to regard the poem as granting him any merit as a poet. Granting? Poems do not grant; this is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.
  • However, not all of his work was confined to The Rambler. Why the inversion? Why suggest, as this does, that Johnson was published by other periodicals? Johnson also published outside the Rambler would be an improvement, and is probably not best.
    • If this were a proper introduction to his work for others, it would not be immediately followed by the self-published Vanity of Human Wishes; in either case, it should be clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • By acknowledging that he published a work on his own, then you acknowledged that his works were published in areas beyond the Rambler and you therefore have no point. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Is Ottava Rima really taking the position that a paragraph should have a topic sentence which has nothing to do with its contents? If so, this requires extensive review and rewriting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

These are four samples from a quick read. Doubtless many more lurk.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • He did complete one poem, the first of his tutorial exercises, on which he spent comparable time, and which provoked surprise and applause. Comparable to what? Was his time unusually long, short, or average, and what was it? For that matter, what poem was it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • To quickly dismiss: "I do not consider it sufficient" Read WP:WEIGHT then. "Informed? No;" Incorrect. "Surely, even for those too mealy-mouthed" Mere opinion. "Granting? Poems do not grant;" Incorrect. "Why suggest, as this does, that Johnson was published by other periodicals?" He was. "Was his time unusually long, short, or average, and what was it?" Just as arbitrary. "For that matter, what poem was it?" Its lost. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for confirming the allegations made by others on this page; if Ottava Rima continues to dismiss the reaction of other editors, which this page is intended to elicit, I would suggest that xe be removed. (I will not make fun of the abuse of "its"; I hope that at least is a typo.()[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] PMAnderson 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I would ask for you to stop your hostile manner and to respect that Awadewit has struck her previous oppose. Otherwise, your comment is severely misleading and disrespectful to her. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • If this is a lost work, the article should say so; there is no need to explain to me, but the reader has a right to have things clear. (If the evidence for this is Johnson's memory, half a century later, that should be said too, perhaps in a footnote.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
        • "If this is a lost work, the article should say so" please provide a reliable source confirming this claim. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Let me see. I asked for details on this supposed first poem of Johnson's yesterday; if I read the article, I would want them. Ottava Rima replied that it was lost, implying that we don't know. Fine, I accept that in good faith; and if it is lost, we should explain that to the reader too. Today OR demands citation for the same assertion, for which I am taking xer word. What has changed since yesterday? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Johnson's Anglicanism and conservatism are reflected in his early work. Really? Is Taxation no Tyranny early?
• Boswell held an opinion contradictory to two of these pamphlets. Why? Why not Boswell disagreed with two of them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying something is found in early works does not preclude it from being found in later works. However, it shows how those early works are characterized. And a "contradictory opinion" means no compatibility, whereas a "disagreement" would allow for such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does not preclude; but there is a strong implication it is not found. What evidence do you have of so novel a claim as a change in Johnson's worldview? I shall tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so saying something exists in his early life is to say that it no longer exists in his later life, and that the person isn't that way? Please provide a reliable source to any kind of rhetorician, logician, or philosopher who has posited such a belief. I would expect that since you are so determined on it, that you will have one easily available, so I will give you a 12 hour deadline to produce such text. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The word's gone, the context is gone, both through OR's own edit, which has also materially tightened the text. What is OR complaining about?

Any submission to WP may expect merciless editing; it says so in the edit screen. That goes doubly for FAC; if editors think something is misleading, it has misled at least one reader, and should be reconsidered on that ground alone.

I will, however, make a last suggestion. If Ottava Rima stops defending every bit of xer prose, and goes and does something else for a little while, xe will probably come back to a better article; it may even have a star on it - and it will differ chiefly in recasting a few sentences; without a diff, it will be hard to tell which ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

+Support Sorry to be so late... back in the dark ages of yesteryear, I thought Awadewit had a point, that Johnson's influence needed some work. I am very happy to say that I join Awadewit in Supporting this article. Bearing in mind that no article of this importance can be all things to all people, and cannot ever be truly perfect, I think this represents a high standard of professional writing and an informative/insightful look into Johnson. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm sorry I took so loong to come back here, I decided to disengage for a while and see if it sorted itself out. It did! =) Consider my oppose above struck, and if you can find it in the wall of text, strike it yourself =) There are a few (very minor) points of grammar and style and that kind of thing that I think could probably make this just that tiny bit better: Lead:

• "Johnson was a devout and compassionate man..." - I'm not entirely comfortable with making unattributed value judgements. Can it be attributed in some way, even if rather generally, e.g. "Johnson was considered a devout and compassionate man"?
• "...he respected those of other denominations who demonstrated a commitment to Christ's teachings." - In the context of the time, this is significant - the mutual bad feelings and persecutions by Protestants of Catholics and vice versa pretty much define large parts of English history, after all - but I don't think its relevance is immediately apparent to those not familiar with the history of Christianity. Maybe leave it out of the lead, and just keep the discussion in the body, if that doesn't cause problems?
• "Towards the end of his life, he produced the massive and influential Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets, which includes biographies and evaluations of 17th- and 18th-century poets." - I know this is a manual of style thing, but it seems a little odd to switch between past and present tense in this way. Maybe it would be better to ignore all rules here and make the whole thing past tense.
• "Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS)..." - "have informed" seems a little awkward.

• "Have informed" is so medically precise for that sentence that I don't know how to change it; someone else may have an idea, but we already worked that over with Colin and Eubulides, so I'm not sure who else to ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Early life

• It might be good to say explicitly that kings were believed to be able to cure scrofula at the time, if the reader didn't know that, I would presume they'd be confused by the business with Queen Anne.
• I wouldn't abbreviate Tourette's syndrome to TS. It's slightly distracting. I'd save the abbreviation solely for the section on the disease.

• I didn't find a TS abbreviation in "Early life", but I did find and change one in "Early career". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a TS in the lead.
  • The mention in early life includes Although TS caused problems in his private and public life, it lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy". If this is about Johnson's childhood, it should say so; if (as seems more likely), it's about the whole of Johnson's life, it should be moved to Health. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Ah, thanks; now I see the instance he was referring to. Both seem to be correct applications of definition of acronyms: in the lead, right after the term, and in early life, also right after the term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Early career

• "Although the arrangement may seem congenial, Johnson was treated as "a kind of domestick chaplain"." - This sentence is actually rather confusing. What does "may seem congenial" mean, and is it bad to be treated as a domestic chaplain?
  • The answer is clear enough, but the article should state it; domestic chaplains in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century were treated as a sort of upper servant, not a gentleman. See any social history of the period, starting with Macaulay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• "He managed to finish a section but ran into problems, and to complete the work he dictated directly to Hector, who took the copy to the printer and made any corrections." - It's not really clear what the connection is between the two halves of the sentence. Did he dictate to Hector because he was running out of time? Because he found it easier? Something else?
• "A Proposal was printed, but the project was halted by a lack of funds." - It's not clear what this is a proposal for.
• "Edial Hall was a large house with a pyramid-shaped roof and a unique design in which a back room served as the schoolroom and Johnson's family lived in the rest of the building." - If this is in one of the daughter articles, I'd cut this sentence to be better in line with summary style. It's not that important of information, or not obviously so. Or you could put it into the caption of the image, though I suppose some of the description is obvious from the image. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to stop there for the moment, but I will get back to this later on today or tomorrow. I think it just needs a tiny bit more polish to be great. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I made many of the changes per this. I didn't touch the "informed" part. I would leave the medical wording to Sandy to decide. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• We should not use medical wording; we are written in colloquial English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No. We have to be true to the source. We are not allowed to introduce OR, which would include "colloquial English" when describing something based on medical articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Copying a source's wording is not "being true to" the source; it is plagiarism. Perhaps even more seriously, it is a failure to understand, and communicate, what the source means. There are few things more harmful to the encyclopedia.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a grip here. Nothing has been plagiarized; I introduced the word "informed" to this contested statement back in July.[122]. I am not a medical expert, but use of the word in this context makes perfect sense to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? If I have to go find a medical dictionary to check this obscure sense, I will, and then substitute the definition as plain English; but if you understand it, you should be able to express it for the lay reader - as we are, after all, expected to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, but can you explain how it could be "plagarism" when the sentence is cited? And informed, according to dictionary.com is not "obscure", nor is it used in anything but the modern sense. I used the idea of being "informed" quite often. It means, after all, "To give or provide information.", so it serves as a "colloquial term" quite easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines plagiarism as "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Unauthorized and unacknowledged close imitation is plagiarism, as long as it does not have quotation marks. As a notable instance, Doris Kearns Goodwin did footnote the works whose prose she reproduced; the controversy is precisely that she failed to acknowledge the imitation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Ottava. "Informed" has no particular medical meaning, and was used quite colloquially. However, I've rewritten the offending sentence to avoid use of the word anyway. I'll let the (baseless and offensive) charge of plagiarism that has been laid against me rest for the moment. (Will this FAC never end?) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I will move it to the second sentence, since the subject of the paragraph is Johnson's appearance and manner; the modern diagnosis is secpndary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say plainly that my goal is to add a little final polish to the article in the last stage of FAC, all major problems having already been dealt with. Now that the FAC has become productive and polite, can we avoid a return to hostilities over my comments on two words, particularly one where I simply thought it inelegant, not actually confusing? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to concur. My only advantage here is that I see the article as it now stands, freshly and apart from past controversies. It is not uniformly well-written; this article above all should be, for we are competing with Johnson and Boswell for the reader's attention. If I could identify more serious deficiencies, I would have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I now doubt all major problems have been dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I missed all the fun. I was going to consult others on a revision for the wording, but it seems resolved now. I'm sorry to see such concise, precise and perfect wording lost to satisfy FAC, but such is the Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, it's not something I have strong feelings on. If you honestly feel the original wording is better, I'm not going to oppose over it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about it either, but I did think the previous wording was just right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm afraid that beyond suggesting that the first two sentences of "A Dictionary of the English Language" get combined (They seem to duplicate information), further evaluation will have to be tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've merged those two sentences, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors and omissions

As a result of these discussions of phrasing, I consulted the original sources cited for two of them. In both cases, I was surprised by what the source actually said; this is perhaps the worst thing an article can do.

• Although TS caused problems in his private and public life, it lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy". in the section on early life.
  • The name of the author cited is wrong: Robert DeMaria; and the volume before me is copyright and first published 1993, not 1994.
  • DeMaria says that Johnson's efforts to teach were almost certainly ruined by his physical appearance and his failure as a tutor was almost inevitable (with a reference to the contemporary expectation that a tutor would be above all a model of behaviour and deportment). This happily pressed Johnson towards the invisible occupation of authorship.
  • DeMaria also cites Oliver Sacks to the effect that TS occasionally lends its victims great verbal and vocal energy. Those who can harness this energy sometimes perform with superior strength and speed
  • He then goes on to speak of the "ideot" episode, which ends with Hogarth imagining that the ideot had been at that moment inspired, as a suggestion that Johnson was thus fortunate - but no more.
  • DeMaria's POV is clear: that any diagnosis of the dead is anachronistic and problematic; but that something like TS would explain much, and is certainly preferable to anachronistic Freudianism. We need not adopt his POV; but we certainly should not deny it while citing him.
• He did complete one poem, the first of his tutorial exercises, on which he spent comparable time, and which provoked surprise and applause.
  • Bate tells, loc. cit. of Johnson's first tutorial exercise, a Latin prose oration, which Johnson composed (two drafts and fair copy) on the morning it was to be submitted. (This may be mere carelessness; it immediately follows, in Bate, the story of Johnson's Latin poem, Somnium.)
  • He was expected to repeat it from memory, but failed to memorize it, so he improvised the oration on the spot.
  • Our authority for this is Mrs. Thrale's Life, repeating the story he had told her.
  • Her words are that this added "astonishment to the applause of all who knew how little was owing to study." [Italics added].

Neither of these is what our text said; I fixed one, and propose to fix the other. But I cannot now rely on any of this article to represent its sources correctly or completely; it is not the burden of a reviewer to check all hundred footnotes - I am, however, willing to check any one more that Ottava Rima may specify, if I have access to the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page here, Pma. Demaria is one source only, and we covered the TS in great detail on the talk page here. Demaria cites Oliver Sacks for information you want to include, a dubious source at best for TS info, although perhaps applicable for some info which enjoys broad medical consensus (there are some points upon which he is in line with medical consensus, although he's generally not a recognized TS clinician and not well regarded by TS experts). We went over all of this in detail weeks ago. I realize this FAC has been open extraordinarily and unbearably long, but multiple editors who do know TS and who are up on current research and do know what kind of a source Sacks is discusses this in detail on the talk page of this FAC at least a month ago. You have introduced inaccurate text; please catch up on the talk page discussions. The posthumous diagnosis is based on much broader and more solid sourcing and enjoys widespread (to my knowledge, unanimity among published sources) consensus. Read the talk page, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the discussion. The nature of TS is not the omission that I find most serious, and I'm perfectly willing to compromise.

In order to omit DeMaria's reservations, we need at least a citation that TS sufferers normally have great verbal and vocal energy, rather than occasionally; which one of the many articles cited says that? More importantly, we need to cite it in Samuel Johnson; the reader should have sources before him, not in the talk page of a FAC. And we should mention that DeMaria's POV exists; he is a reliable source, and probably has more knowledge of Johnson's symptoms that the doctors do. (All this is the sort of thing that should go in footnotes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. We don't need to digress in this article into an analysis of the problems with citing Oliver Sacks who is not a highly regarded clinician among his peers in TS research. You have introduced inaccurate text because you don't know the field and you don't know the sources and you want to introduce information that doesn't enjoy any medical consensus because you came across something that you think makes this text inaccurate. The TS info in this article is well discussed here on talk by two of the other three people on Wiki who know TS research almost as well as I do and who had full access to all sources. We don't introduce inaccurate text and then disclaim it in a footnote, particularly when it's a minor part of the overall bio. If it interests you so much, you can go over to the article about Johnson's health and delve into all the problems with using a person known for his bizarre literary medical interests, but Sacks doesn't belong here as a source. Please read the talk page. But I must thank everyone who deteriorated or questioned the TS text in this article for opening my eyes to content issues that occur at FAC when reviewers who are unfamiliar with the topic or the research introduce inaccurate text. This has given me greater faith in the content experts who actually write the articles. You are wrong and you have introduced in accurate text against consensus already developed here on talk, and there is no middle ground or compromise possible when it comes to including text that is simply wrong. And because of my level of the understanding of the TS research, and how wrong you are, that calls all other literary criticism of this article into question as well. By seeing the level of inaccuracies FAC reviewers tried to introduce to the TS portions of this article at FAC, I've gotten a good eye opening to the other second guessing of knowledgeable content experts that has gone on at FAC. Thanks: this experience will make me a better FAC delegate, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You propose to cite DeMaria for wording with which he expressly disagrees. He is not the best authority on the subject, and he is following Sacks, a populariser; therefore we may be entitled to do so. But we really do have to indicate that DeMaria does not say what we do, and what authority we cite to overrule him. That need not be difficult; but unless we do so, we are not being verifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Errors and omissions" This is wrong. There are no "omissions". There is summarization. Many of the details wishing to be add would not qualify for the page even if it had space that could be put in, as these are not notable details. These are also summarized sections of larger pages. There is also a serious weight issue. Your wanting additional information does not mean that the footnotes do not cite the information that actually exists. These footnotes have been checked by many other reviewers, and your comments above, as with your claims of plagarism, are highly misleading and improper. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

These "summaries" discussed the wrong work, in the wrong genre, and omitted both the point and the authority of the story about it. We are all of us careless; no doubt I have been; it is the point of FA to find and clean up these errors before they embarrass all of us. If Ottava Rima is not willing to be mercilessly edited, or is tired of it, xe is free to withdraw the nomination; isn't this why Sandy introduced a two-week limit, now long past? The article has plainly improved; take a rest, come back, and improve it again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see very little evidence that any of the sources have been checked, and none for this one. Diff please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yesterday your accusation was plagiarism. Today's it's that none of the sources have been checked. These are exactly the kinds of deliberately abrasive remarks that put so many off coming to FAC. I've really had more than enough of this particular one, anyway, so I'm unwatching it. It's way past time somebody made a decision to close this one way or another, and I really couldn't care less which way it closes now, just that it closes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Many FACs do not check sources; for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs, in which I was one of the lax ones. There's nothing inherently wrong with this; I would not have checked sources here had I not been curious how to word the passages better. I still see little evidence that reviewers have checked any; which ones have you consulted as co-nom? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• If you dare insinuate that I lied about a source or stole from a source one more time, I will drag you to ANI. Not only are such things a breach of Wikipedia policy, they are an attack on my standards as a scholar. They are uncalled for and outright false. I have already submitted to others scans of Demaria so they can see that you were wrong above. I am prepared to do such with Bate. You already violated Fringe source guidelines that are part of WP:WEIGHT by moving Demaria down and expanding. This is wrong. You changed Pembroke to Oxford, while ignoring that Pembroke is part of Oxford. Bate constantly refers to it as Pembroke, so this is intellectually dishonest, especially when you claim that I lied about the source. Furthermore, an Oration is NOT NOTABLE, especially when there is nothign on it, and no scholar studied it. Furthermore, you claim it is 90-96, when it is simply not on those page numbers. I will not tolerate someone calling me a liar and blatantly misattributing information to Bate like you just did. So stop it now. This is your only warning from me on this issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say lie; I assert that what you said is not what Bate or DeMaria said, but I think this nothing more than carelessness. Bate tells three stories:

• Sliding in Christ-Church meadow
• The poem Somnium
• The oration.

We can include any of these, or none; none of them would be to leave the generalization without an example, which would be a shame; I have substituted the first, because I believe it best known. But the text to which you have repeatedly reverted confounds the last two, and is simply inaccurate.

As for the page numbers: Bate has a long section on Pembroke, which is of course a part of the University of Oxford. Bate does not even begin to discuss Johnson's college friendships until p. 96; now I review the passage, p. 100 would be more accurate as a citation for the assertion that Johnson had many college friends. Therefore, if the entire sentence is to be cited, we require a page range - or two footnotes. Feel free to divide the footnote if you see fit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments show a misunderstanding of WP:WEIGHT and Summary Style. You are inserting in wrong information . You also act as if you don't understand what a "clause" is, nor that the first part of the clause doesn't need to be cited, as the citation only deals with the clause starting with the word "but". If you want to change text, go form a consensus. Otherwise, your edits are showing a disrespect to everyone involved, and your constant filling this page with your POV is getting out of hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know either of those things; they are not true. A footnote can apply to a single clause - indeed, it can apply to a single word; the only footnote on a sentence, at the end, is, however, presumed to apply to the sentence. No semicolon can prevent the assertion that Johnson made friends at Oxford from needing a source; it is surprising for so unclubbable a man. Since Bate sources it, that should be noted. But feel free, again, to split the footnote into two if your scruples require it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you really expect me to cite that Johnson made friends to a source, I'm definitely going to have to take that to Geogre. He would love to see that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't expect you to cite it; it's already cited. However, if it's notable, there's no reason not to cite it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A few points based on a quick review. (As for the above, WP:TLDR. My sincere apologies if this has already been mentioned), as it probably has.

1) The text states: Also, Johnson opposed the poetic language of his contemporary Thomas Gray. His greatest complaint was that obscure allusions found in works like Milton's Lycidas were overused; he preferred poetry that could be easily read and understood. While this is true as editors may recall from Johnson's Life of the Poets, he specifically singles out Gray's Elegy as possibly the finest poem in the English language. I cannot remember his precise words, but it is along those lines. Also, I am unsure that I would agree that his greatest problem with Gray was overuse of classical allusion. This can be quickly resolved by an excursus ad fontes.

2) The conflict over Ossian is too slight. This was part of Johnson's larger fight against what we would term today ethno-nationalism and I think more context ought to be provided in terms of how important the disproving of a Gaelic primitive style was in this context. Is this due to perhaps overreliance on Bates as a major source?

• • It is in part a response to a Scottish reviewer higher on the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

3) While I appreciate that Vanity & Rasselas & the Rambler have their own articles, I feel that the discussion here is a bit too vapid, even in the context of a summarising review. The strongly moral dimension that Johnson promotes in these writings is almost totally absent; this speaks to Johnson as a person and is not of mere literary interest, so I wonder if a slightly more engaged discussion might be warranted.

4) There are some details of his life which might add some colour to the description of his personality, such as: a) Johnson was basically a drunk, or at least he was a heavy drinker and huge bon-vivant (as editors will recall from Boswell.) b) Every year he solemnly abjured further "self-abuse" which he admitted to indulging in frequently, but which he viewed as highly sinful. c) He liked to roll down hills; d) Johnson had a very pronounced Lichfield accent, as Boswell relates (Boswell, I believe, gives as an example, poonch for punch) and David Garrick was famous for imitating Johnson amongst his circle (Reynolds, Boswell, etc).

5) I think it might be nice to provide a box with some of his most famous witticisms: e.g., dog on hind legs; King is not a subject; ship as prison; high road to England, etc etc etc.... They are enduring for a reason and a good treatment of the subject would not go wrong to include a smattering.

• • See {{Wikiquote}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

6) The discussion of Francis Barber comes across as extraordinarily slight, especially given his role as Johnson's quasi-amanuensis, his importance to Johnson's household and his heir!

Generally, a fine article. Eusebeus (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses. 1) This was based on Greene's view of Johnson. The nuances should probably be described on the Johnson's literary criticism page. Johnson also praised Milton for many things, which doesn't come across in the Bio section, because most of the critics focus on what kind of technique Johnson is looking for rather than broad praise or emotive response (dry, instead of emotional, I guess you could say). 2) The nuances are trying to be worked out for the politics page, so, it would probably be best brought up there. 3) There isn't any room, and we are already over limits. Its hard to cram everything in at once, and the sections are balanced per weight/coverage in sources. 4) Johnson also went stone sober, so, some of the descriptives would need to be carefully discussed, especially because Boswell was only one of many and described Johnson quite differently than others. 5) I think Wikiquote has most of them. 6) Barber isn't that important in most of the sources, so weight leaned against him being given more detail than what exists. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I now see that there has been some contention already about some of the issues I raise above. Two quick points. First, defending the rather vapid characterisation of Johnson's output by stating simply there isn't any room seems inadequate. Replacing a shitty sentence with a good one doesn't add weight, it adds intelligence. Second, Peter Fryer provides a good source for Francis Barber (in his important work Staying Power) and this can be rounded out with v. 2 of Lyell Reade's Gleanings, which is devoted in its entirety to Francis Barber. I see this was raised above and I am a bit bemused by the tone struck in objecting to adding further consideration. However, overall the article is adequate and I Support its promotion. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I may have been a little confusing - the weight issue is based on how much is granted to Barber in Johnson's biographies, as opposed to info granted to Barber in Barber based works. I relied on 8 biographies, a few collections with biographical analysis, and many, many articles to try and find a balance about what biographical figures should be mentioned and where. Barber tends to be ignored, and its hard to put in a lot. It would be nice if Barber's life would be expanded on his page (which is desperately needed). Could you place those two notes on the Barber talk page? Also, if you see any "shitty" lines and know how to replace them with a better, please add a suggestion on the talk page. :) Also, I'm a stickler for page size, because a good 50% of the time I am on a very slow dialup connection, and I just can't load pages that are too long. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Why isn't this an FA already? There has oviously been a great deal of umming and ahhh-ing over this - but the article actually knocks spots off a great many of the FAs already in place.--Tufacave (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, that is largely correct - and is FA's major problem; the award is all too often worth the star its paper is printed on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem, Anderson, is that the longer the nom is held open the stonger the likely-hood that a persistant crank and near troll with an individual hatchet to grind against FAC in general will find it and use verbosity and obtuseness to hold it open in an drawnout but transparent attempt to sink the candidacy despite overwhealming consensus (above). I know that sound unlikely; but it happens. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Almost as unlikely as that a FAC reviewer would actually consider the content of an article and check the sources. FA could indeed be a punctuation review, and not care what an article says as long as it looks pretty and has the superficial appearance of plausibility; I would find this perfectly acceptable, if it did not claim more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

o you are the first editor to consider content and sources in this, what, 5 week review? And pretty? Maybe read the above and consider other openions before your own hubris, if you have that ability. I get the impression if you were pretty you wouldn't be here, being the way you are; riddled in ANI, RFC and other things I'm to dainty to mention in polite company. But You sunk your openion when you moved from the specific to the general: "that is largely correct" and revealed your motive. You are searching for holes, as is your habit, but it doesn't fool me for a second. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit considered content, but did not check the sources actually used; her critique had no need to, really, since she was considering relative weight. She was responded to with a ferocious, and plainly unwarranted, personal attack, now in the decent obscurity of a capped section. I do not see any statement that any reviewer has checked them, until I did (which was largely by chance). If I have missed something, please add a diff.

I congratulate you on your telepathy; but your results are backward: I would prefer FA did not so often promote ill-written, ill-researched embarrassments, like this, or Daniel Webster. I would fully support a system that did not flourish on superficial reviews. I am not, usually, so pessismistic as to believe these our best efforts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Backwards? When you say "embarrassment" I know you are not a serious person looking for the best article we can work on together; you are just a bitter and angry crank who only wants to shoot down the efforts of others. Best of luck with that; sure it will keep you warm 10-15 years from now. You support nothing and are utterly pessismistic. Nice. Ceoil ^sláinte

Pmanderson - I think Ceoil's words were too harsh. However, I think it reflects a level of being insulted, as there are many talented editors that have weighed in on this FAC and also participated in the crafting of this page, and your words can be construed as an offense against these. You don't mean to say that these editors are incompetent, embarrassing, unable to research, and their opinions mean nothing, do you? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The reviewers haven't checked sources, as all too often happens. FAC has improved this article, in the aspects it has considered; by and large, the sourcing hasn't been. The first is FA's justification for existence; the second is why this article should not be promoted. Instead, a substantial proportion of the 245 footnotes should be checked; at that point, we will know how bad it is. When the errors have been found and fixed, it can come back here; but it would be unreasonable to keep this FAC open that long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

By "no", do you mean that you are saying that these editors are incompetent, embarrassing, unable to research, and their opinions mean nothing? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please do not use those words so that there wont be any confusion in the future over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said the reviewere were incompetent, embarassing or unable to research; I never said worth nothing; where the confusion may be, I leave as an exercise for the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"we will know how bad it is". Not exactly an open minded statement there, it seems you have not checked the sources, but are decided anyway.. At least we know where you are coming from and that you have already decided where you want to end. Not a very subtle approach for such an experienced editor. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page indicates an openion of 2428/2/2. Really, really, this should be closed. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your math may be off, its 28 now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - after addressing the comments, this article satisfies all featured article criteria. It is sourced to solid, reliable sources, it's well written, the images are good, and it meets the other criteria. I do believe the literary criticism section is adequate, with how the section talks about this now (compared with when the page was originally nominated). Further details might belong in a subarticle. --Aude (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the discussion above. My comments are below. I will not revisit this page. I will not discuss my comments. I will not "!vote". I will not explain my reasons for not voting.

• "later physicians were able to reach a posthumous diagnosis" -> "posthumously diagnosed".

• This was beautifully worded before FAC, but others have changed it. I reinstated the superior wording that the article had pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would prefer Pembroke College to be disambiguated as there are two.

• Malleus? I can't find this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm guessing this is referring to: "Samuel Swynfen, a physician and graduate of Pembroke College ...". There's a Pembroke College in both Oxford and Cambridge Universities. I'll try and find out which Swynfen attended. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It was Oxford. Fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "his posthumous diagnosis" -> "the posthumous diagnosis". He didn't diagnose himself after he died.

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "in his education" -> "at his studies".

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Who is Jorden? He's introduced in the sentence "Jorden left Pembroke", which is unhelpful.

• Good question. Ottava? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jorden is hJohnson's college tutor. More detail is on the early life page under college. This was slowly removed out by various users (including myself). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• In early life it says he developed tics at age 7, then in early career it says between 1729 and 1731. This is a discrepancy, as well as an unnecessary repetition.

• Another example of wording that came in to the FAC medically accurate and correct and has been damaged during FAC. I have restored it to the pre-FAC wording, which should no longer be redundant as the tics of TS are exacerbated by other illnesses. His tics began at the typical age for tic onset (7) and were commented on later in life by many observers, when he also had other medical conditions. I hope I've cleared this up by restoring the wording we came in to FAC with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Who is Robert DeMaria? Text should specify an occupation/profession.

• Added Biographer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I wish to know why John Taylor refused to read the sermon at Tetty's funeral.

• I believe the world would like to know also. There is speculation but lots of disagreement. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Reynolds was not Johnson's only friend, but he was close to two others at the time: Bennet Langton and Arthur Murphy." -> "In addition to Reynolds, Johnson was close to Bennet Langton and Arthur Murphy."

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The plot of Rasselas seems a little too long, unbalanced with the description of the contents of the other works.
• "In 1770 he" and "In 1774 he" (without commas) look odd in close proximity to "In 1771, his" (with a comma).

• I think that's OK as it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps William Dodd deserves a little more explanation? I would prefer not to have to click on the link.
• Why is the prayer for the Thrale family quoted in full?
• "stroke that was caused by poor circulation". Surely strokes are always caused by poor circulation? If this is meant to suggest that poor circulation was a chronic condition, then I recommend: "Johnson's poor circulation resulted in a stroke".

• Done, thanks DrK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Surgery was performed to relieve Johnson's gout," -> "He had surgery for gout"

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should Islington be linked?

• Probably it should. Linked now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "although this depiction is appealing.[206] Although Boswell, a Scotsman"; although, although.

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's too long, specifically in the health section, which can easily be shortened, especially considering that there is a daughter article duplicating the material.

• The health section has been substantially shortened; I'm not in favor of further cuts because of some of the misunderstanding and objections that were ironed out earlier in the FAC. I think we've now cut it to the most essential evidence and sources, that provide context for his life and behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "He had Tourette's syndrome" is insupportable. He was diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome by later writers. The diagnosis seems overplayed, as if the writers are desperate to prove their point by piling on more and more opinion. Compare the definite nature of the article with the more circumspect view of Pat Rogers: "The convulsions that marked his behaviour in adult life may have derived from congenital factors or from ... infant diseases; one theory is that his condition can be diagnosed as Tourette's syndrome." Also, compare with George III of the United Kingdom; yes, OK it is widely assumed that he had porphyria, but it is not certain; it takes six sentences to discuss it.

• Fixed, I hope. Again, came in to FAC cleaner, has deteriorated due to conflicting demands and editing from reviewers. Once again, I restored the wording we came in to FAC with. Contemporary TS researchers are more definitive about Johnson's TS than Rogers, supported by numerous and unanimous sources. Porphyria likely didn't influence George's entire life, work, behavior and bio to the extent TS/OCD did Johnson's; considering the accounts of Boswell, Thrale and others, I think the reduced size of the Health section is about right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The final paragraph appears to descend into trivia, and is a poor way to end the article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just commenting on DrKiernan's comments: "I will not revisit this page. I will not discuss my comments. I will not "!vote". I will not explain my reasons for not voting." Then what is the point of making any comments? If you have problems you want addressed, then surely you should pop back and see if they have been? If you don't want to vote, then why bother making a comment in the first place? Your comments completely bamboozled me - and, if this was my FAC, they would also irritate me. This article is far superior to so many current FAs. I really can't undertanad all this delay in promoting it - or even re-starting the nomination again in a couple of weeks.--Tufacave (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't badger the commentors; there is nothing wrong with adding helpful comments without a declaration. In fact, DrK has identified several patches of text that have deteriorated because of previous FAC demands and now need repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, a previous FAC reviewer went through and WP:OVERLINKed the article; thanks to DrK and Jbmurray for some delinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Is this FAC being held open to allow time for every single one of wikipedia's 7,989,534 editors to express an opinion on it? The article's quality has started to suffer because of this over-lengthy process (in my opinion), and a quality article is more important than a little bronze star. If this FAC is not closed soon then I for one would be in favour of withdrawing it, for fear of further damage. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article has deteriorated because of some FAC input, but DrK's comments are helpful. If the rate of deterioration continues, I'll remove my co-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• DrK's remarks were indeed helpful, and I hope it didn't look as if my comment was directed at his remarks. It was not, although it was prompted by them in the sense that we're now entering a phase of repairing damage caused by earlier changes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave the rest to Ottava and you, but I think another recent deterioration was the change in the Section heading from "Health" to "Posthumous diagnosis"; the Health section heading was introduced after lengthy debate with other reviewers and made sense. Then one FAC reviewer came along and changed it against consensus. The section deals with more than the posthumous diagnosis, and may be leading to comments (such as DrK's above) about the amount of space dedicated to TS; I suggest we go back to the consensus "Health" heading. Will the last one out turn off the lights (remove the sub-section on this page, so as not to muck up the FAC TOC?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima now insists that the posthumous diagnosis is the sole subject of the section. The title should match the subject; I wouldn't mind achieving this agreement the other way, by broadening the section, if that will make anyone happier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't misconstrue my words, please. I was pointing out the difference of placement regarding Tourette Syndrome. The biography was acceptable for placing the ideas within his life's biography. It was not acceptable in a place between multiple medical doctors who were diagnosing Johnson later, especially when many of those had to be cut for size. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • If the section is so narrow that the effect of Johnson's health on his career does not fit in it, it should have a narrower title, to indicate its actual contents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Pmanderson, please give one good reason why a biographer should not have biographical details in the biography section and instead of placed in the middle of medically trained individuals discussing medical related matters? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Because this entire article is a biography; it should cover Johnson's health as part of that biography. There is a separate article on Johnson's medical conditions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you read Awadewit's argument, the entire page is not a biography. Only the "biography" sections are biography. The entire page is an encyclopedia page, which includes biography, critical review, legacy, and medical analysis of aspects of his life. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• But this is a digression; such a section, even if it exists, should have a title which corresponds to its contents. Health does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Health corresponds to everything on Samuel Johnson's health page. Its a summary section and based on consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to Health—a much more obvious choice. Marskell (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I said the copy issues were minor and not terribly important, and I meant it. FA doesn't stop editing, they can easily be worked on after promotion, if any remain, and this is easily a credit to FA as it stands. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:58, 7 October 2008 [123].

---

SMS Von der Tann

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Von der Tann was the first German battlecruiser built before World War I, and the ship took part in most major fleet actions during the war. I've substantially expanded the article over the past few months. It passed GA in early July, was peer-reviewed shortly thereafter, and passed Wikiproject ACR slightly over a week ago. I look forward to any and all comments that will help to further improve the quality of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments I missed this at A-class review, so I've just given it a copyedit. I added nonbreaking spaces and reworked prose in a handful of places; I also changed the date formats in the infobox to agree with the format used throughout the article, and delinked a few dates. Some remaining issues:

• I really dislike the use of {{TOClimit}} here. I understand wanting to make the TOC tidy (especially with such long section headers), but these are useful links. I wanted to go directly to her WWI service, but couldn't.
• There are a lot of cases where you've used a unit of measure as an adjective ("38 cm gun") but not used the adjectival form ("38-cm gun").
• On a related note, the convert templates present the units of measure in an orderly fashion, but there are so very many of them (nearly 100) that it seems to be affecting load time on the page. Can we make them plain text? I'll help.
• The italicized note in the Jutland section (It should be noted that the times mentioned in this section are in CET...) breaks the 'third wall' by speaking directly to the reader. Why not (1) change that note to hidden text and (2) address it directly by adding a timezone to the first actual time?
• I converted the {{WWIGermanShips}} template to use {{Navbox}}, for more consistent formatting with other navigational footers. Does the {{Von der Tann class battlecruiser}} template really add anything here, though?

Overall the article is in great shape. The references look excellent (no work for Ealdgyth here!). Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and copyediting. I removed the {{TOClimit}}, and removed all of the {{convert}} templates in the text (only those in the infobox remain). The page is loading much faster now. As for the note that was in the Jutland section, I was never really happy with it as it was, I'm not sure why I didn't think to turn it into a footnote with a link to CET on the first mention of a specific time, but that's what I did here. Thanks for fixing up the {{WWIGermanShips}}, it looks much nicer now. As for the {{Von der Tann class battlecruiser}}, I'm thinking about deep-sixing it, the main reason I created it was to have consistency with {{Moltke class battlecruiser}}, {{Derfflinger class battlecruiser}}, etc. I won't be heart-broken to delete it.Thanks again for your comments and help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to axe the template; it's been deleted as well, as you can see. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I might suggest using the ref group parameter to separate your explanatory footnotes from the purely sourcing footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the ref group, can you show me an example so I can do it? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. Is it formatted properly? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would probably put the pure sourcing footnotes in a ==Footnotes== and the explanatory notes in a ==Notes== section above the footnotes, but yes, you got them separated correctly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for your help in getting that issue squared away. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support I'm doing some homework right now and do not have the nessicary time to check everything I need/want to before being able to support in full, but what I have seen so far I have liked. I will do a more thorough check a little bit later, schoolwork permitting. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Might I recommend using a different prefix like, say, "Note" rather than "exp" for the discursive notes? Much better — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the name of its article, I don't care for the "Blohm + Voss" styling of the name of the builder. It looks a little too trademark-y for my tastes. "Blohm and Voss" works well and is a common way of referring to the builder in books I've read.
  • The conversion for the torpedo ranges are from km to miles rather than the expected nautical miles.
  • For compound adjectives (related to Maralia's comments above), WP:HYPHEN recommends against the use of a hyphen when a unit is abbreviated. So it should, for example, be either "28 cm (11 in) gun" or "28-centimetre (11 in) gun", but not "28-cm (11-in) gun". It also looks like there are quite a few hyphenated that should not be (but if you continue to use only the abbreviated forms, that will be taken care of when the hyphens are removed).
    • (As an aside, the server load/load time of pages with lots of templates, like {{convert}}, was discussed at that template's talk page (archive link) a while back.)
  • In the "Armour" section the thickness would read a lot more clearly as "80–120 mm (3.1–4.7 in)" rather than as how it is now. {{Convert}} has a range functionality built in to it, so you could use {{convert|80|-|120|mm|in|abbr=on}} to produce 80–120 mm (3.1–4.7 in)
  • In section "Peace-time" —shouldn't that be "Peacetime" or "Peace time", by the way?—the phrase "with the engines at full tilt" sounds a little colloquial for my tastes.
  • In section "Battle of Jutland" there's a sentence beginning "As the ship was no longer firing her main guns…". Since as can have differing meanings, I would suggest either because or while as a replacement, depending on what is meant. Also, the "During the battle" that leads the final sentence of this section seems superfluous given that the entire paragraph is a summary of the ship's actions during the battle.
  • The folks at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop‎ might be able to make an SVG of the map in the article (in English, no less!). You might try posting a request there. (I found the graphists there to be most helpful in the past.)
  • The licensing of Image:SMS Mainz sinking (photo).jpg doesn't seem to match the author information. At the very least, I think the image ought to be PD in the US since published before 1923.
• Overall, though, this article's very close. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the explanatory notes, "Blohm + Voss" -> "Blohm and Voss", "mi" -> "nmi", removed the hyphens, fixed the armor thickness ranges, changed "full tilt" to "maximum output" and "As" to "Because", and opened a request to get the map SVG'd. As for the photo of Mainz sinking, this issue was raised at a deletion discussion slightly over a year ago. The author very likely is a member of the RN (the destroyer to the left is Commodore Keyes' flagship), so it's likely the license template is correct. However, because the author is unknown, {{Anonymous-EU}} may be appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The image licensing doesn't bother me greatly since it seems to clearly be PD, but the description text needs to support the license (and vice versa). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to Anonymous-EU, as that seems to be the best option, given the information we have (i.e., very little ;-) ) Thanks again for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In the lead, the writing is fundamentally very sound (excellent in places). It could do with a polish by someone new to it, but I'm pleased thus far. Here are examples from the lead that suggest the whole text needs a little loving care.

• "speeds in excess of 27 knots." That's the language of a speeding fine. Since they weren't excessive speeds, why not "of more than"?
• "Von der Tann was to be the workhorse of the High Seas Fleet Scouting Squadron"—OK, so already I'm thinking it was intended to be, but wasn't. We're left hanging. "was designed as"? (except I see that you've got that in the very next sentence)
• Parentheses within parentheses: can you avoid by using dashes for the outside ones?
• Lighter guns, but the comparison is of their length. Forgive me, I'm a non-expert.
• "fleet's fate" doesn't sound good; perhaps "the fate of the fleet"? I hope Jbmurray isn't around; he'd disagree with me.
• "the majority"—"most" is so much nicer (plain and short).
• Remove comma after "1919"?
• Remove "subsequently"? Tony (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I removed "to be" from the "Von der Tann was to be the workhorse of the High Seas Fleet Scouting Squadron" line, is that more in the direction you were thinking? The gun comparisons are diameters, perhaps a short explanatory note explaining to what the measurement is referring is in order? I added a short one, let me know if that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article both at PR & ACR several months back. The article has only continued to improve since then. Cam (Chat) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:58, 7 October 2008 [124].

---

Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)

previous FAC (15:51, 19 July 2008)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the only one of the Jack the Ripper articles which looks as if it could be ready to feature on the Main Page on 9th November, the 120th anniversary of the Ripper's final and most brutal murder.

The article has been edited significantly since the last nomination. Comparison of the two nominated versions.

There are two criteria that reviewers may wish to comment on specifically.

Comprehensiveness The article has two deliberate exclusions.

One is the "Lees" story. This refers to the psychic, Robert Lees, who supposedly identified Sir William Gull as the Ripper. This is excluded on the basis that it is yet more easily dismissed nonsense. If included, it would merely serve to confuse the reader by first attempting to explain Lees's purported involvement, and then saying why it is silly.

The other is the literary analysis applied to the stories (predatory aristocracy abusing the lower class; comparisons with Dracula; popular suspicion of surgery/medicine; penetration and misogyny; and so forth). This is excluded on the basis that it applies more appropriately to Jack the Ripper fiction and belongs in that article (which should be a proper article instead of an incomplete list). This article is about the actual theories themselves: their origin, development, and verifiability.

Neutrality The weight of opinion, and indeed the plain facts, are very strongly against these theories. They are not reasonable or potential solutions. Even the originators (Stowell, Gorman and Fairclough) have disowned them. Stephen Knight admitted in his own book that they sound like "arrant, if entertaining, nonsense", and Colin Wilson (who knew both Knight and Stowell) believes that Knight published his book for commercial reasons only and did not in fact believe its contents to be true. Though the theories' influence on fictional adaptations and subsequent analysis of the murders is undoubted, the article should reflect the prevailing, indeed overwhelming, consensus that as solutions they are insupportable rubbish! DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I wanted to be the first. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, for both supporting now and helping to improve the article before! DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Please note the links that require an academic subscription to access. (the doi'd one and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) This doesn't invalidate the use of the articles, as they are available in print also, but it's a nice courtesy to note the links require a subscription to the readers.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: No image concerns. Эlcobbola _talk 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments, tending to Support. There are numerous prose issues, small in themselves, which need fixing:-

Support: The issues raised below have all been settled satisfactorily and I am happy to support this excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Albert Victor is described as "one of the most notable..." Surely, the most notable?
  • (last line) Suggest "and the poet" rather than "or..." - he isn't an alternative to the first two

• Background
  • "...a series of terrible murders". All murders are terrible; I'd either leave the adjective out altogether, or replace it with something like "gruesome", which in this context would not I think be considered POV
  • "at least five murders ..." Suggest "at least five of these murders..."
  • (same sentence) "showed" fits the tenses better than "show"
  • "...was never conclusively identified..." "Conclusively" means with absolute certainty, a very high bar. Your phrasing suggests that some suspects may have approached this high level of proof, which I don't believe is the case. I'd drop "conclusively"
  • A similar argument applies to your use of the phrase "not likewise entirely persuasive". I'd drop the entirely.
  • "was first suggested" reads better as "had first been suggested". Also, 40 years earlier than when?

• Albert Victor as suspect
  • Comma needs losing after 1.45 am
  • "Over 500 miles (over 800 km)" I think the second "over" may be implied.
  • The sentence beginning "On the morning of..." reads awkwardly and needs some reconstruction. My suggestion s to split it into two, as follows: "On the morning of the 30th he attended a service at Balmoral, the royal retreat in Scotland. With him were his grandmother Queen Victoria, other family members, visiting German royalty, and the estate staff".
  • Stowell claimed his source was Gull. Gull died in 1890, Stowell was writing to the press in 1970. So either Stowell was extremely, extremely old, or there was an intermediary, who should properly be described as Stowell's source.

• Developments
  • (Heading) I'm not sure about development on a theory. "Of", or "from", might be better
  • "...Preferred the company of a woman". Who was she? Or does this mean "of women"?
  • In the final sentence of the first para I would suggest a full stop after "examiners", then a new sentence: "There is..."
  • Lord Salisbury and the Prince of Wales are already linked

• Claims of Gorman
  • (First line) lose comma after 1973
  • "Unfairly certified insane" - in the circumstances, "unfairly" seems a little mild, perhaps?
  • (same sentence) - suggest rephrasing, to avoid the repetition of "by Gull"
  • "He accused..." Suggest "Gorman accused..."
  • (same sentence) suggest "and claimed that after..." rather than "and claimed after..."
  • Comma after River Thames in para 2
  • "Unfair" again, in "unfair fallacies". Can fallacies be fair?

• Developments on Gorman
  • "little to no..." - "little or no..." is the accepted form.

I found this a pretty compelling read, and will certainly be ready to support after these prose questions have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for going through so carefully, and leaving a list of very detailed comments. I have made most of the changes required with the exception of the following, for which I would appreciate more guidance:

• "40 years earlier" than the accusation made against Sir John Williams.
  • I can see it now you point it out, but the reference to 2005 is way back in the paragraph and doesn't connect with the last few words. I would suggest that the last sentence is reconstructed as follows: ""Williams was a physician to the royal family; a royal connection to the Jack the Ripper crimes had first been suggested more than forty years before he was himself directly accused"
    • Yes, I agree. I've added "forty years before Williams was accused".
      • OK now
• "Albert Victor is the most notable": This depends on the definition of "notable". I would say Lewis Carroll is more famous, and other suspects are more likely culprits or more worthy of serious attention.
  • In 1888 Albert Victor was in precisely the position now occupied by Prince William...but he wasn't accused until the 1960s by which time few knew who he was. Whereas most people in the 1990s would have known who Lewis Carroll was...OK, I'm convinced, your wording stands.
    • Another option would be to go for: "Since then, the identity of the killer has been hotly debated. Over a hundred suspects have been proposed,[1][2] including Prince Albert Victor, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and the grandson of Queen Victoria."
      • That would work too.
• "never conclusively identified...not entirely persuasive". Some authors think they've identified the Ripper, and they've persuaded others that their claims and solutions are right, but the wider community has not been. These qualifying words are supposed to indicate that the solutions and suspects proposed are not accepted by the wider community, but may be accepted by a minority.
  • That's OK, too
• "Development on a theory": "Development of" means the origins of the theory to me, rather than how it developed after its formation.
  • I see it slightly differently, but it's not really an issue
• "the company of a woman": Ah, that we do not know or are not told. Possibly, a young lady, or possibly just his mother, or possibly several ladies. Harrison is loose on the point, and allows for all possibilities.
  • Then, your text should allow for a broader range of possibilities. "A woman" sounds finite and specific, and others will ask the question "who was she?" So I'd go back to my suggestion of "women".
    • Yes, it reads awkwardly too. I've changed it to "Albert Victor preferred female company and did not reciprocate Stephen's feelings".
      • OK now
• "Unfairly": Any suggestions? DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unwarrantably, insupportably, indefensibly, scandalously...all carry more punch than a somewhat feeble "unfairly". Not forgetting the unfair fallacies. Here, I would simply lose the unfair altogether.
    • How about "unjustly"? I've removed the unfair from fallacies.
      • OK now

Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Having read the article a few times now; and finding the above commentry a bit depressing: All murders are terrible, (First line) lose comma after 1973, Comma after River Thames in para 2. The article is well written, engaging and comprensive as far as I can see. I think the page skillfully represents source that presents a coherent and lucid narrative on a subject which even today never fails to draw drama. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "elderly British physician Dr. T. E. A. Stowell"

Is elderly needed?

• "all of the murders"

Leaving out "of" would be more formal, I believe: "all the"? This could be subjective though.

Background

• "Although Whitechapel was an impoverished area and violence there was common, at least five murders showed a distinctive modus operandi."

I am confused here; what was "common" and contradictory to the impoverished and violent environment of Whitechapel? Never mind, it is a case of my misreading of "violence" as "violent".

• "many can be eliminated from serious investigation."

Is this statement supposed to mean that "through serious investigation, many can be eliminated" or "many do not deserve any serious investigation"? If it is the latter, why not say "many can be readily (or easily) proved to be false."

• "Williams was a physician to the Royal Family, but a royal connection to the Jack the Ripper crimes was first suggested about forty years before Williams was accused."

I am unsure what the meaning behind this sentence is supposed to be. Williams was the royal physician (from 1886). Around 1965, someone suggested a royal connection to the murders. How would this make the 2005 accusation on William any less substantial?

• "author Philippe Jullian published a biography of Prince Albert Victor's father"

Out of curiousity, is it biography "on" or "of"? I know Google hits show 1,570,000 to 16,400,000, but I would say "I am writing a paper on magnetism" instead of "I am writing a paper of magnetism".

• "they were most likely derived from Dr. Thomas Eldon Alexander Stowell."

Why not drop "derived"?

Prince Albert Victor as a suspect

• "Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source, as Stowell shared his theory in 1960 with writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, who is loosely credited as a source of "hitherto unpublished anecdotes" in Jullian's book."

There are two consecutive "who"s. Could we go with "Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source. The doctor had shared his theory in 1960 with writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a writer-politican loosely credited as a source of 'hitherto unpublished anecdotes' in Jullian's book."?

• "By examining [...] it is possible to prove that"

Why possible? "An examination of [...] will reveal that".

• Consider the end of the first paragraph: "Stowell said his information came from the private notes of Sir William Gull, a reputable physician who had treated members of the Royal Family. Stowell knew Gull's son-in-law, Theodore Dyke Acland, and was an executor of Acland's estate." Now for the start of the third paragraph: "Stowell had claimed that his source concerning Albert Victor's death was Gull, but that was impossible since Gull had died on 29 January 1890, two years before Albert Victor." It seems to me that the first paragraph's mention of Gull can be moved to and merged with the third.
• "The first symptoms of madness arising from syphilitic infection"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "The first symptoms of madness that arises from syphilitic infection".

• "Consequently, for Albert Victor to have suffered from syphilitic insanity in 1888, he would have to have been infected in about 1873, aged nine, six years before he visited the West Indies."

The "aged nine" strikes me a bit strange on reading. Perhaps, "Consequently, for Albert Victor to have suffered from syphilitic insanity in 1888, he would have to be infected at the age of nine in about 1873, six years before he visited the West Indies."

• "Rather than name Albert Victor in the article directly, Stowell described his suspect in a roundabout way in a forlorn attempt to either disguise his identity or create a mystery."

"Forlorn" (desperate, hopeless) seems biased unless roundabout writing methods are truly a case of desperateness (if "forlorn" is sourced, we could put that in quotes). It could just be dropped.

Developments on Stowell's theory

• "and that Stephen's hatred"

We could break the constant usage of "Stephen" by substituting his profession in: "and that the tutor's hatred".

• "[...] because Albert Victor [...]", "[...] Albert Victor's death."

In the same light, perhaps we can replace "Albert Victor" in this statements with "the prince"?

Claims of Joseph Gorman

• "it featured fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor respectively, examining real evidence."

Though interrupted by the bit on the actors, a noun plus -ing situation exists. Suggestion: "it featured fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor respectively, who try to determine the identity of the Ripper through examination of real-life evidence."

• "Elwyn Jones's and John Lloyd's The Ripper File"

If it is joint-authorship, then it should be "Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd's The Ripper File".

• "Gorman said that his Catholic grandmother had secretly married Albert Victor"

Should his grandmother be named here instead of later?

• "Gorman claimed that his grandmother was Catholic although records prove this to be untrue. Confusing the issue further, if she had been Catholic, more weaknesses in the story arise because according to the Act of Settlement 1701 only Protestants who have not married a Catholic can inherit the English Crown."

I would not think that it confuses the issue, but rather that it proves the fallacy of Gorman's story. In other words, "Furthermore, Gorman's claim that his grandmother was Catholic, which is proven to be untrue by records, further weakened the veracity of his story. The Act of Settlement 1701 states that only Protestants who have not married a Catholic can inherit the English Crown."

• "Albert Victor was in Heidelberg from June to August 1884, and hence was not in London at the time of Alice's conception and could not have been her father."

Replace the ", and" with a semicolon, perhaps? "Albert Victor was in Heidelberg from June to August 1884; hence, he was not in London at the time of Alice's conception and could not have been her father."

• "Even if they had known her or her child, it is unlikely that prostitutes from the East End of London telling a tale of royal illegitimacy would be believed, so any attempt by them to reveal the supposed scandal would merely have been dismissed"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "Even if they had known her or her child, it is unlikely that anyone would readily believe a tale of royal illegitimacy told by prostitutes from the East End of London, so any attempt by the Ripper victims to reveal the supposed scandal would merely have been dismissed."

• "Stowell had mentioned rumours blaming Gull for the murders in his article"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "Stowell had mentioned rumours that blamed Gull for the murders in his article".

• "there is no documentary evidence linking Netley to the other characters."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "there is no documentary evidence that linked Netley to the other characters."

• "Gorman accused Anderson of being an accomplice, but he was in Switzerland at the time of the double murder, and so was clearly unable to participate in its perpetration."

We can add an "also" and move this to just after the sentence where the claim on Netley is disproved: "Gorman also accused Anderson of being an accomplice, but the policeman was in Switzerland at the time of the double murder, and so was clearly unable to participate in its perpetration."

• "Gorman claimed that Sickert had a studio in Cleveland Street, which was untrue, and that Sickert knew the Princess of Wales, of which there is no proof."

If the above was done, then we can add "Lastly," to this sentence and thus conclude the paragraph: "Lastly, Gorman claimed that Sickert had a studio in Cleveland Street, which was untrue, and that Sickert knew the Princess of Wales, of which there is no proof."

• The end of the "Claims of Joseph Gorman" does patter out with "Gorman claims this [but proven false]. Gorman claims that [again false]." Perhaps some rephrasing are in order?

Developments on Gorman's claims

• "Knight did appreciate that there were problems with Gorman's claims"

Suggestion: "Knight appreciated that there were problems with Gorman's claims".

• "although Fairclough later disowned his own book 'saying he no longer believes the theory'."

I feel the partial quote makes the sentence a bit awkward. I presume it is precisely what the Daily Express had wrote and so we cannot phrase it as "[...], saying '[I] no longer [believe] the theory." In light of that, how does "although Fairclough later disowned his own book on the basis that he no longer believed the theory." sound?

• "The Jack the Ripper royal/masonic conspiracy theories"

MOS discourages slashes unless it is part of a quotation per WP:SLASH. Can "royal/masonic" be rephrased?

• "and novels using the conspiracy theories"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "and novels that use the conspiracy theories"

Images

• Can the captions for the images be expanded to some form like the one for Lord Salisbury (i.e. add some pertinence to the image displayed)?

Overall, a solid read. I am tending to support based on the content. Jappalang (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! In answer to specific points:

• Elderly is there in order to explain "sudden and coincidental death".
• Changed to "for the murders".
• Changed to "eliminated from further investigation"
• I'm unclear what you're asking. There is no specific meaning behind the sentence, beyond what is written.
• Perhaps this comes from using "biography" as a replacement word for "life" rather than "book": I am writing the life of Albert Victor, but I am writing a book on Albert Victor?
• "derived" because they do not come direct from Stowell, but from Stowell through two intermediaries (Wilson and Nicolson).
• Changed to "who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a biographer loosely credited"
• Changed to "Newspaper reports, etc. prove"
• Yes, I see where you're coming from but the duplication is deliberate. The third paragraph was originally the second, hence the link. However, I want to structure the sections so that the paragraphs have clear topics. The first is Stowell's theory and evidence in favour of it. The second is Albert Victor's alibis, and the third is the medicine-associated evidence. It's easier to follow the story if structured in this way; the way it was before was confusing for readers new to the topic.
• Changed to "that arise"
• Changed to "infected at the age of nine in about 1873"
• "forlorn" removed
• I've deliberately avoided doing just that. Using "the prince" instead of Albert Victor, or "the tutor" instead of Stephen, is too confusing for readers. It's easier to follow the story if the same person is referred to by the same name throughout. Hence, Edward VII is always "the Prince of Wales", and the Duke of Clarence is always "Albert Victor", and so on.
• I don't really see the problem here. What's the point of using so many words, when fewer will do?
• Changed to "The Ripper File, by Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd in 1975."
• Again, she was originally but I prefer to name her later on. If named here, she breaks the flow of the sentence rendering "his mother" now confusing: who's mother? Albert Victor's or Gorman's? This has a domino effect throughout the paragraph making it necessary to restructure and lengthen it.
• "Confusing the issue further" removed.
• Changed to "1884; hence, he was not"
• "prostitutes from the East End of London telling a tale" changed to "their tale"
• Changed to "that blamed"
• Changed to "that links"
• That sentence used to be there, but it was moved to the end to link with Knight's realisation that Anderson was not one of the culprits in the next paragraph.
• Changed second "claimed" to "said"
• Changed to "Knight appreciated"
• Changed to "and told reporters "he no longer believes the theory""
• Slashes are deprecated where the relationship between the two words is unclear. Here the article has explained how both royalty and masonry have been introduced into a conspiracy theory.
• Changed to "that use"
• I'll see if I can come up with some. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have convinced me. I believe this article qualifies to be a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:58, 7 October 2008 [125].

---

Philitas of Cos

Nominator(s): Eubulides (talk)

A Good Article that has since gone through peer review, with one helpful review by Yannismarou and another by Wronkiew (thanks to you both!). It's ready for a shot at Featured Article status. Eubulides (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dr pda: Nice article. The prose is good, everything is cited, all the sources are reputable academic journals or scholarly publications, the lead is an appropriate length for the article, images alternate left and right without squeezing the text, and are not left aligned under level 3 headings, dashes are used correctly, as are  s before units, there is no mixing of citation templates and all external links check out with the link checker. However I have some queries about the images.

• Image:Antikythera philosopher.JPG—The image description page says the photograph was taken by B. Foley in 2004, however it was uploaded by Ishkabibble (talk · contribs) in 2007 under the GFDL, and the wording of the licence tag claims that s/he is the copyright holder. How do we know the photo is in fact GFDL-licenced?
• Image:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg—The file history indicates that the background image is derived from satellite data, but the image description doesn't indicate that where the satellite data comes from, or its copyright status. (I'm guessing its NASA and therefore public domain as a work or the US federal government, but this should be checked and/or explicitly stated.)
• Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg—The image description says "no known restrictions on publication", however the copyright page on the website listed as the source says Unless otherwise stated, all digital images of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri are © the Imaging Papyri Project, University of Oxford. The papyri themselves are owned by the Egypt Exploration Society, London. Images of them may be used for teaching and research purposes, but should not be published without the prior consent of the Imaging Papyri Project and the Egypt Exploration Society. Other digital images are © the Imaging Papyri Project, University of Oxford. If you are aware of any inadvertent misattribution or copyright infringement on our part, please tell us without delay. In addition the image is tagged with {{PD-old}}; while the text is certainly public domain, the image was taken within the last 60 years at least (going by the date of first publication) and is not PD, as the copyright statement from the website shows. You probably need to get the opinion of someone more knowledgeable about images than me as to whether we can use this image.

A couple more comments: Why is the character ϲ used for the letter sigma in the epitaph, but σ for the verses quoted, and the name of his vocabulary? Also WP:ACCESSIBILITY recommends providing a transliteration of any text written in non-Latin characters. I'm not sure how to handle this for the Greek you quote in <poem> tags (which incidentally were a new tag to me :) ); it would look ugly given that you provide the translation immediately afterwards. On the topic of WP:ACCESSIBILITY it also says that that horizontal rules, such as the one before the 1911 Britannica notice, are deprecated. Regarding the first sentence of the article, the claim "was the most important intellectual in the early years of Hellenistic civilization" definitely requires a source. Is it covered by the reference at the end of the next sentence? Also, while I understand that the lead need not be cited since everything it contains is in the article, as it stands the last sentence of the first paragraph appears to be the only part of the lead which isn't cited. For consistency it would be nice to have a cite there too.

The readable prose size of the article is around 7.5 kB, putting it in the shortest 1% of current FAs. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to say whether the article is comprehensive or not. If it is, I wouldn't object on length alone. On the topic of disclaimers I also haven't checked that all the doi's, ISBNs, OCLC identifiers etc point to the works they say they do.

I've added persondata, and I noticed that some ISBNs were hyphenated and others weren't so I hyphenated them all, for consistency. Dr pda (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Some time I'll have to learn how to hyphenate ISBNs. On to the questions:

• Ishkabibble (talk · contribs) uploaded both Image:Antikythera_philosopher.JPG and Image:Antikythera statue front.jpg on the same day (2007-08-05); both image pages say the image pages were taken in September 2004 by Brendan Foley, with the same camera. I see no reason to think that Brendan Foley (whoever he is; there are many Brendan Foleys) is not the user in question. Is that enough, or do further steps need to be taken here?
• I changed the text in Image:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg to make it clear that it's derived from a NASA image.
• I changed the notice in Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg from {{PD-old}} to {{PD-art}}, which is more appropriate since this is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work. PD-art means we need not ask permission to reproduce that image. Of course it wouldn't hurt to ask. Is that enough, or are further steps needed?
• That "ϲ" is a lunate sigma, not the Latin letter "c"; they are quite different letters, though they look similar. I added a footnote about that. Some sources use lunate sigma, some the modern sigma, and I thought it best to follow the source actually used here, as it's the most authoritative I found. For what it's worth, Philitas himself probably preferred lunate sigma.
  • And Philitas certainly preferred majuscule to minuscule, which did not exist in his time; why are we not using that, on the same "logic"? We are here to communicate, not to introduce pedantic obstacles to communication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I did say "for what it's worth" :-). But the main principle here is that quotations in Wikipedia must "preserve the original style, spelling and punctuation" (MOS:QUOTE), which is what's being done here. The cited source uses lunate sigma, so we should too. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see you fixed the horizontal line; thanks.
• I added transliterations of the four lines of Greek poetry into Latin text.
• The lead text "most important intellectual in the early years of Hellenistic civilization" was supported by Bulloch 1985, the source cited at the end of the next sentence. Bulloch has a section "Philetas and others" that leads with "The most important intellectual figure in the early years of the new Hellenistic world was Philetas from the east Greek island of Cos." I made this edit to try to make it clearer that all the claims in the lead are well-sourced.
• As far as I know, the article is comprehensive on Philitas' life. We know so little about him that it's no problem for Philitas of Cos to contain everything we know of his life (there is no "summary style" here: this is everything). A bit more can be said about his works (as we do have about 50 lines, and only 2 are given here) and later opinion of him, so I added some; hope this helps.

Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Antikythera_philosopher.JPG, google reveals a Brendan Foley who is a researcher in maritime archaeology at MIT. User Ishkabibble's contributions match this and some of Foley's other research interests. This, plus the fact that the image has metadata showing it to come from a digital camera inclines me to believe that Foley is the uploader. (Though it would have been nice if there were an explicit statement...).

Regarding Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg {{PD-Art}} will probably work. I notice that policy is that this assertion (faithful reproduction of 2D image) is good for all copyright jurisdictions, which avoids any UK-specific issues. However the "When to use PD-Art" page says it can't be used for anything which "casts a shadow"; not wanting to be super-picky here but I think I can see a shadow! I'd feel more comfortable if someone more experienced in images (e.g. User:Elcobbola or User:Awadewit) could cast an eye over this one.

Regarding the sigma, perhaps my question wasn't as clear as it could have been. I recognised it as a lunate sigma, I was just wondering why you used that form in one piece of Greek text, and the σ/ς forms in other pieces. However your reply above answered this anyway.

Regarding hyphenating ISBNs, just google for isbn converter; these convert from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13, and some of them put in the hyphens at the same time.

So, assuming the Oxyrhynchus image turns out to be OK, Issues resolved. Support. Dr pda (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked about the Oxyrhynchus image at User talk:Elcobbola #Copyright status of photo of ancient papyrus fragment. If the shadows are a real copyright issue I can remove them with the GIMP, but I'd rather not bother if we don't have to do that. Eubulides (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I answered on the talk page to keep the FAC clear of the "detailed" copyright stuff (i.e. so the FAC can stay focused on evaluation against the FA criteria). Эlcobbola _talk 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support for now. Interesting and polished prose, but it seems kind of non-broad in its coverage. Just my first impression from the article. :) —Sunday | Speak 20:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. As described above I added added a bit more detail about his work. More context could be added, though it'd be hard to add much more specifically about Philitas, as so little is known of his life. As someone new to the topic can you suggest areas where further elaboration would be most helpful? Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding (the other) images:
  • Image:Antikythera philosopher.JPG: although it's not optimal to have an author and user name mismatch, the typical copyvio red flags are not here (e.g. the image is higher resolution, the image has metadata, the Nikon E5400 is a consumer camera and was indeed available in 2004, image does not appear professionally done and subject's setting reasonably implies accessibility to the public). I don't hear any quacking.
  • Image:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg: needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP; how can we confirm NASA authorship? Эlcobbola _talk 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for checking that. I added a verifiable source to Image:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg and also added in a copy of the NASA terms. The source was the same as for Image:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg. Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not in its present condition.
  • It begins with an egregious WP:PEACOCK violation; an evaluation as the "most important intellectual of" [vaguely defined period]. That is not a consensus view; more importantly, does it contain any content which "royal tutor" (a badly chosen word; some readers will read in tutor/paedagogus, which would be false), scholar, and poet, do not say between them.
  • The first scholar-poet. I see what is meant here; but the implication that Pindar (or Empedocles) was no scholar is bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • the heir of the royal throne of Ptolemaic Egypt. is not idiomatic.
  • The "transliterations" do not transliterate. There may be other ways to represenr και than kai, but cae is not one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I changed "cae" to "cai"; thanks for catching that.
  • Why not kai? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Philitas of Cos uses the classical-style transliteration of Greek to Roman characters, as described in Romanization of Greek. This transliterates "κ" to "c" ("Cos" being one example of this). Sarton's Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries (ISBN 0486277402), which uses classical-style transliteration, uses "cai" on page 304; I assume that is good-enough precedent. Eubulides (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • That method is appropriate only for turning Greek into English (or other Western} text, not for transliterations, which should, to be of any value, represent Greek text exactly and consistently.
    • But in fact no consistent method is being used; no acceptable method would come up with esperioi, omitting the aspiration but being pedantic on the final diphthong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please feel free to alter the transliterations of the Greek poetry to use any consistent style you prefer. I don't care what the style is. Personally, I would omit the transliterations entirely, as I think they're distracting to almost all readers; they are there only because of WP:ACCESSIBILITY.
• Thanks for pointing out the problem with "esperioi"; I changed it to "hesperie".

Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I changed "tutor to the heir of the royal throne" to "tutor of the heir to the royal throne". Thanks for catching that as well.
• The cited source (written by A.W. Bulloch) wrote "intellectual figure", not "intellectual", so I changed the wording to say "the most important intellectual figure in the early years of Hellenistic civilization" which I hope is enough to remove the peacock tag. Bulloch is a classics professor at Berkeley and this source (the Cambridge History of Classical Literature) is a mainstream source; if this is not the consensus, can you please give an example of a contrary opinion among mainstream sources?
• The phrase "royal tutor" does not appear in Philitas of Cos. Philitas #Life does say that he was appointed "preceptor, or tutor". Does this not supply enough detail so that the expert reader will know we're talking about a preceptor rather than a paedagogus? Non-expert readers won't know either term, and "tutor" is the commonly used word for preceptor. Or are you suggesting that the article also mention "preceptor" in the lead, alongside "tutor"? That would be fine.
• The phrase "the first scholar-poet" does not appear in Philitas of Cos. It says he was "the first major writer who was both a scholar and a poet". Again, this is directly supported by the cited source, Bulloch, who writes "Philetas was the first major writer who was both poet and scholar, and secured an instant reputation in both fields." There is no intent to imply that Pindar or Empedocles were not scholars, but I don't see how the fact that they were scholars affects this issue. As far as I know, no major poet before Philitas was as famous for scholarly publications. Anyway, we do have a reliable source making the claim; is there some controversy among similarly reliable sources on this point?

Thanks for your review; hope this helps to answer the major points. Eubulides (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are misreading Bulloch, through not giving weight to and secured an instant reputation in both fields. Our article makes the assertion that no person combined the characteristics:

• Poet
• Scholar
• Major writer
• Before Philitas.

Pindar lacked none of these; what we say is therefore false. (The sentence from Bulloch is ill-advised, but defensible; Pindar did not obtain an instant reputation as a scholar, although how Bulloch knows Philitas did is beyond me.) Our text is therefore unsupported.

But this is not only dubiously factual: it is unencyclopedic to make any case of this kind. Bulloch is free to be a fanboy if he likes, although it would be traditional to edit the fragments first, which he does not seem to have done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Philitas of Cos does not misread Bulloch. Bulloch clearly states "Philetas was the first major writer who was both poet and scholar,". The next clause in Bulloch's sentence "and secured an instant reputation in both fields" amplifies this claim; it does not restrict it.
• Nor is Bulloch the only expert in the field who makes such a claim. For example, Peter Bing, professor of classics at Emory, writes 'The author of this last poem is none other than Philitas of Cos (10, p.92 Powell), whom Ptolemy I Soter made tutor to his son, the future king Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and who stands upon the threshold of the Age as a model for the new figure of the doctus poeta (the learnéd poet). Philitas is the first person described as "simultaneously a poet and a scholar" (Strabo XIV 657).'[126]
• Other sources along similar lines could be suppled.
• Bulloch is not a "fanboy" of Philitas. He is stating the mainstream opinion in a conservatively-edited reference book on the subject of Greek literature.
• Pindar is not an example of a doctus poeta. His poetry was second to none, but Pindar was not famous for his scholarship, and is not commonly cited as a scholar-poet among reliable sources.
• It sounds like you disagree with mainstream opinion, which of course is your privilege, but Wikipedia is supposed to reflect mainstream opinion, and claims in Wikipedia require support from reliable sources. So far, I see unanimity among reliable sources that Philitas is the first example of a scholar-poet.

Eubulides (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bosh. Since in addition to the above, the current edition of Pauly-Wissowa presents a different view of Philitas's life, laying much more stress on his life at Cos after his experience at court (when he taught Hermesianax), I cannot think this ready for prime time.

• I've now checked the English version of the new Pauly, and it lays equal weight on his court experience and on his life after court. It spends 33 words on the former and 31 words on the latter. So we should be OK here after all. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Pauly also makes clear that "first poet and philologist" (kritikos) is a quote from Strabo (14.2) ; it should be presented as such, and that wording would be much less subject to doubt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It makes sense to mention Strabo; I made this change to add a citation to his comment on Philitas. Of course the claim that Philitas was the first major scholar-poet does not rely entirely or even primarily on Strabo. It comes from a more modern consensus. Here's another example:

"Thus was formed that curious mixture the 'doctus poeta,' the learned poet.... There are four poets in this period, who are important not only in themselves, but for their influence on Rome.... Philetas of Cos (circa B.C. 340–circa 285), the teacher of Theocritus, heads the list, with his elegies on Bittis." Jesse Benedict Carter, Selections from the Roman Elegiac Poets (1900), OCLC 7425136, p. xi.

Other examples could be cited. I haven't found any reliable sources disagreeing on this point.

• We should certainly not use doctus poeta; we should not use Latin without necessity; nor is it reasonable to use it for a Greek writer. We are optimized for lay readers, not for specialists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that there's no reason to use doctus poeta here, and Philitas of Cos currently doesn't use it. My point was that there's consensus among modern sources that Philitas was the first major scholar-poet. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for mentioning Pauly-Wissowa, certainly a reliable source. It'd be helpful to use what it says. I don't happen to have a copy ready to hand, unfortunately, but I can go to a library and get one. Are you referring to the German edition or the English one? Do you have page numbers, or is this an online cite?
  • Both; Brill's New Pauly is a translation of Die Neue Pauly; in both, this is the article "Philitas". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, I got a copy of the English version, which is a bit better than the German one as it's a bit more up-to-date. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• According to Pauly-Wissowa, which events does Philitas of Cos omit, for Philitas' life at Cos after Alexandria?

• I added the events in question: they are that Philitas spent at least 10 years in Cos after Alexandria, and that Hermesianax was part of the group. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Currently, Philitas of Cos #Life gives equal weight to Philitas' life at Alexandria, and to his life at Cos after Alexandria. How does this compare to Pauly-Wissowa's treatment?

• I checked this. The new Pauly also gives equal weight, so we should be OK here. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I understand it from your comment, Pauly-Wissowa does not contradict anything currently in Philitas of Cos; in particular, Pauly-Wissowa is not skeptical of the claims that Philitas was the first major scholar-poet and that Philitas was the most important intellectual figure in the early years of the Hellenistic world.
  • Double bosh. Failing to assert such a claim is to contradict it by silence. Every Greek writer, especially those mostly lost, has some authority who ranks him high, even Nonnus. The position that we must find express contradiction is to make our articles a swamp of salesmanship; we need not say any such thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am unaware of any claim by any authority that any other person would qualify as "the most important intellectual figure in the early years of Hellenistic civilization". I'm quite skeptical that any authority would make a claim like that. I am not asking for someone who explicitly disputes Bulloch's claim for Philitas; I'm merely asking for someone who has made a similar claim for some other major figure.
• I think it quite implausible that someone would make that claim for Theophrastus, Demetrius of Phalerum or Megasthenes, who you've suggested as alternatives: Theophrastus is more of a holdover from the previous era, Demetrius is clearly below Philitas in his influence on Hellenistic (as opposed to transitional) civilization, and Megathenes is not even within shouting distance of these other guys. That being said, it doesn't matter what I think: it matters what reliable sources say.
• With Bulloch, we're not talking about some recent or obscure paper by a minor scholar: we're talking about a longstanding assertion in a standard reference work. Obviously you personally disagree with this assertion, but we can't base our edits on our own opinions: we need the opinions of reliable sources.

Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is scarcely less unreasonable; most writers would not assume that was a single "most important figure" of early Hellenisticism, unless perhaps they extended the period far enough to include Callimachus or Eratosthenes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• A nit: the claim is not "most important figure", it's "most important intellectual figure".
• Bulloch's claim is about the first few years of the Hellenistic world: that period does not extend to Eratosthenes (who was born a decade after Philitas died) or even to Callimachus (a generation or two after Philitas).
• With that in mind, would the following change satisfy your concerns (italics are new text)?: "most important intellectual figure in the early first few years of Hellenistic civilization"
  • The narrower the claim the better. It should be clear to the reader (as it was not to me) that Hellenistic excludes Greece proper. But I'll give it a fresh read; I hope FAC can wait till Monday. (Aristotle is not chiefly famous for his tutoring, so the analogy below limps on both feet, but I'll try to clear my mind.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I am planning to reword the lead in the light of Ottava Rima's more-recent comments below, and that may help with your concerns as well. I'll comment here when I'm done with that. Eubulides (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I reworded the lead to remove the "most important intellectual" claim. The claim is still in the body. Hope this suffices. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Within that fairly narrow period, Philitas stands head and shoulders above everyone else. He served as Aristotle to Ptolemy II Philadelphus' Alexander; admittedly this is not at all as big a deal as Aristotle and Alexander, but it's the closest thing the Hellenistic world has to offer. A major statue was erected of him (or perhaps two statues; it's not clear). He founded the Alexandrian school of poetry, and was the first major example of the scholar-poet. Propertius, a major poet, invoked him centuries after he died. Nobody else in the first few years of the Hellenistic world comes close to this kind of intellectual influence. Again, this is just my opinion, and what matters is what reliable sources say: but again, we don't see anything even hinting at a dispute about this among reliable sources.

Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) By the way, I want to thank you again for mentioning the new Pauly; I wasn't aware that the English "Phi" volume came out last year (which I guess shows how out-of-touch I am...). It has some other material about Philitas' works which I would like to work into the article, but I haven't had the time yet. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Then come back when the article is more complete. I'll help, and phrase the whole more to my liking, when I'm done recasting Iole. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll let you know when I've done that. Including the new material shouldn't take more than a day or two. The new stuff should be localized to Philitas #Works, so it should be independent of the previous discussions. Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, it's done, with these edits. It took longer than expected, as other comments came in during the meantime. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• No follow up three days after request: [127] [128] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am very supportive of this nomination and think it's well written. We are lucky to have Eubulides's expertise in the field. At the same time, I must say that Anderson's deep knowledge and content-based analyses are admirable. My hope is that you two can work it out, and that we get a superb addition to our FAs in this area. Tony (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I won't even try to insert myself into the conversation between Eubulides and PMAnderson. I may find some tidbits that I think are interesting though, and could well be added.. as for example "this which says "According to Hermesianax in his catalogue of poetic lovers, the citizens of Cos erected 'under a plane tree' a statue of Philitas singing of his Battis [or Bittis] (fr. 7.75-8 Powell) and... this creates a presumption that Philitas wrote first-person poetry on erotic subjects...". Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. I added the point about the plane tree here, and added more detail about love poetry and the Battis/Bittis/was-it-just-a-joke? controversy here. Eubulides (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The full poem by Posidoppus is on page 31 ofThe New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book by Posidippus, Kathryn J. Gutzwiller. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pointer. Is this a suggestion to use Nisetich's translation rather than Bing's? Could you please elaborate? Eubulides (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• I added a citation to Nisetich's translation. The text still uses Bing's, but it's nice to cite Nisetich too. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. :) However, I never let people get of that easy so... 1. You should probably say he is a poet and a scholar within the first line, because the "intellectual" comment would make me think philosopher (assuming I didn't know him). 2. Lempriere classifies him as a grammarian. 3. According to Lempriere (a great old source, btw, might be online, as Jayvdb), the lead comment is attributed to Ælian (V. H. 9, c, 14) 4. "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." I'd track down any text and rewrite it so you can remove that. Britannica is the true Wiki Devil. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Scholar, philologist, and grammarian all represent the same Greek word; of the three, I think I would use philologist. Philitas lies between Apollodorus of Athens and Dionysius Thrax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ottava Rima, for the comments. First, the issue about "grammarian":

• I expect that the "grammarian" comes from a translation of the Greek word to French, and thence to English. For example, we have Victor Hugo writing in Chapter 4 of Les Miserables (after being translated into English) "The most prominent man in Greece for fifty years was that grammarian Philetas, who was so small and so thin that he was obliged to load his shoes with lead in order not to be blown away by the wind." However, we should prefer translations directly into English, as opposed to going through a French middleman.
• In English scholarship of Philitas, the word is normallly translated as "scholar" or "critic" in this context. For example: "As far as we know, the first to whom the designation ποιητὴς ἅμα καὶ κριτικός 'poet as well as scholar' was applied was Philitas from the island of Cos in the last third of the fourth century and probably in the first two decades of the third." R. Pfeiffer (1955). "The future of studies in the field of Hellenistic poetry". The Journal of Hellenic Studies. 75: 69–73. Bing (cited in Philitas) translates the same phrase as "simultaneously a poet and a critic", but I think "critic" is in the minority here.

I plan to get to Ottava Rima's other comments soon. Eubulides (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to trouble you too much (as I like the page). John Lemprière is the Lempriere that I mentioned. I meant to say "ask" Jayvdb about it if it is not on Wikisource already. He knows how to track down online editions. The work is a 200 year old dictionary, and I use it a lot because it was a very famous and very popular dictionary of classical names (i.e. appearances of names within all surviving Greek and Latin works at the time). I'm not sure what Lempriere calls him a grammarian, thats just him. :) I can scan the page if you would like to see. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I found an 1825 English edition (improved by Anthon) on Google Books, and it didn't say anything we don't already have. I expect that the 2007 New Pauly entry, which Pmanderson pointed us at, dominates even a more-recent Lemprière edition. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I reworded the lead to mention "scholar and poet" first thing.
• I made these changes to remove the last traces of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
• I searched Google Scholar for "grammarian Philitas" and came up empty. I found one 1953 mention of "grammarian Philetas" (in Morris & Macgillivray 1953, PMID 13070000), but this is in a psychiatry research article and isn't authoritative for Philitas. It seems pretty clear that Philitas is not commonly called a "grammarian" in English now, though he was called a grammarian during the Victorian era. I guess terminology has changed?

Thanks again, Ottava Rima, for your helpful comments; hope this covers them. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by karanacs.

• This is not really encyclopedic: "Here are two of the fifty verses of Philitas that survive"

• I reworded the article to use what I hope is the more-encyclopedic phrasing "Fifty verses of Philitas survive. Here is an example fragment of two verses." Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Philitas was the first writer whose works represent the combination of qualities now regarded as Hellenistic" - it might be wise to expand on what those qualities are for those of us who are unfamiliar with Hellenistic poetry.

• Thanks, I added "variety, scholarship, and use of Homeric sources in non-epic works" to explain that. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; hope the changes have helped. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I'll give a full review later, but from what I can see at first glance, a copyedit of the comma usage is needed in my opinion. An example from the lead: He was caricatured as a frail old academic so consumed by his studies that he forgot to eat and drink. A comma is needed after "academic". Juliancolton (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I fixed that one, along with some similar problems. Another pair of eyes would be helpful. Eubulides (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. I did a bit of copyediting myself, so you might want to look over my changes to make sure I didn't mess up anything. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Question The statement in the opening para Philitas was later caricatured as a frail old academic, so consumed by his studies that he forgot to eat and drink.[4] is a fragment and out of context, not attributed to any person or period and seems so mean spirited it has to origonate from a politically motivated source. Can ye either contextualise or remove. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That caricature was about 500 years later, so I doubt whether it was political. It was a "thin-joke" (nowadays we prefer "fat-jokes" since obesity is now more of a health threat than wasting disease). Anyway, I made this change to attribute it to Athenaeus in the text. Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 October 2008 [129].

---

Fanno Creek

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)

I'm nominating Fanno Creek for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Peer reviewers commenting on it in July were User:Wackymacs and User:Ealdgyth. In August, User:Ruhrfisch made many additional helpful suggestions on the article's talk page. I have addressed all of the issues raised during these reviews. More recently, User:Blathnaid reviewed the article and promoted it to GA. I took most of the photos myself, and I made the watershed map using a public-domain U.S. Census map for the base. This is the third Portland-area creek article I've brought to FAC. One of my long-term goals is to complete a set of five high-quality articles about the most important minor bodies of water in Portland. This set would complement the two big-river articles (Columbia and Willamette) largely researched and written by other editors. Finetooth (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. I will come back for a more detailed read, but I've been watching this article through its remarkable evolution, and consider it one of the better creek/watershed articles I've seen. Well done Finetooth! -Pete (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your kind words and support. I also thank User:Northwesterner1 for creating the photo map for the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for checking these here and earlier during PR. Your consistent efforts are a great help. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support (from Ruhrfisch) As noted, I reviewed this article and agree it is FA worthy. I have made a few edits to this article and have a few minor quibbles / suggestions:

• I think metric precipitation is given in millimeters (not cm), so change About 50 inches (130 cm) of precipitation ...
• Would it make sense to give the percentage of total watershed area for the two stream gages (and perhaps split the area into a separate sentence). So The average flow of the creek at the Durham station from a drainage area of 31.5 square miles (81.6 km2) is 46 cubic feet per second (1.3 m³/s). could be something like The average flow of the creek at the Durham station is 46 cubic feet per second (1.3 m³/s). This is from a drainage area of 31.5 square miles (81.6 km2), or X percent of the total Fanno Creek watershed.
• Similarly would it make sense to say what percent of the area of Portland the 7 square miles drained by this creek represents?
• This is repeated twice Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) (once in vegetation and once in parks)

Hope my comments help and congrats on a job well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply:Thank you for your kind words and support. After a bit of checking, I have changed cm to mm. Indeed mm is standard for rainfall; with snowfall, interestingly, it would be cm. I fixed the duplicate THPRD and gave the city fraction of the watershed as a percentage. The drainage sub-basin calculation was a really good idea. The city of Portland gives the total watershed as 20,259 acres (31.655 sq mi), which I rounded to 31.7 and used for the total area and the sub-basin calculations. I plan to use this kind of sub-basin calculation for assorted other creek and river articles. Ditto for mm. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Nice work and a very interesting read. Dincher (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 October 2008 [130].

---

Flocke

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo)

In memory of the late Thomas Dörflein, the tireless zookeeper who cared for Knut, here is another German polar bear cub for consideration. It was a DYK back in May and received GA-status in July. Flocke is sadly less noteworthy than Knut, since she is cuteness personified 2.0, but I believe the article is fairly comprehensive and fulfills the FA criteria. I will endeavor to respond to comments as quickly as possible. Thank you! María (habla conmigo) 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sources look good; links check out with the link checker tool. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Images; All the free images are fine, and with so many of them, is Image:FlockeLogo.gif really necessary? The article stating "An official logo was subsequently released by the zoo" is fine, I think; the important element is that they made a logo, not the exact design of the logo (which is all the image shows). I don't think it significantly assists reader understanding. Giggy (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Aw, I was afraid of this. I'll be sad to see it go, but I've removed it as you make a good case. María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed Knut (polar bear) contains audio, which shows how to pronounce the polar bear's name. Could the same be done for this article?

• I'd love to include something similar, but I have no idea how to create such a thing. Would someone be willing to lend their expertise? María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I poked MacGyverMagic, who made the original one. The first German speaker that comes to mind apart from him is David Fuchs, if MGM is no longer around. Giggy (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I know how to pronounce her name, so that's not the problem. I'm just slightly technologically disinclined, meaning that creating sound files goes right over my head. Would an IPA pronunciation note help in case someone cannot create an audio? María (habla conmigo) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that'd be good in the meantime. Giggy (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, added. I think it's correctly written out. María (habla conmigo) 03:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I formatted the dates to dmy since the first one I saw was formatted like that. Let me know if you'd prefer them as mdy.

• Thanks! I wanted to keep it in the European style since this is a German-related article, but I missed the caption. Nice catch.

• I can't really put my finger on it exactly, but I found the lead's first paragraph awkward, and it didn't really feel like it was talking about the most pertinent aspects of the topic. If I can think of something more specific to say I'll come back here and do so.

• Please do; I'll try to clean it up a little and we'll see if we can meet in the middle.

• "At approximately the same time, another Nuremberg female polar bear, Vilma, gave birth to what was thought to be two cubs; because zookeepers decided not to disturb the animals, enforcing a strict non-interference policy, it is not known exactly how many cubs were born to Vilma" - you could definitely trim off the last two words, as it's clear what you're referring to.

• Done.

• Ref 3 needs a publisher.

• Added.

Giggy (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If there's anything else, let me know. María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (ec) After a read-through of this article, I found very little to fault. The article is very well-written, and is comprehensive as far as I can tell. Just one comment: in the sentence, At approximately the same time, another Nuremberg female polar bear, Vilma, gave birth to what was thought to be two cubs; because zookeepers decided not to disturb the animals, enforcing a strict non-interference policy, it is not known exactly how many cubs were born to Vilma., the "to Vilma" bit is redundant. Good work overall. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Giggy made the same suggestion above, so great minds think alike? Already fixed. :) Thanks for commenting! María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note I've removed the forced thumb sizes which override user preferences (WP:IUP) jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since MOS:IMAGE says that image sizes can be forced if they "need more than the default size", I think that two images (Image:Polar bear Flocke Aquapark Tiergarten Nuremberg DE.jpg in the lead and Image:Media circus in the beginning Polar bear Flocke Aquapark Tiergarten Nuremberg DE.jpg) should remain resized. Lead images are "often resized to about 300px" (it was 250px before your edit) in order to better recognize the subject matter, and at 180px the lead image looks like a throwaway. In the case of the second image, Flocke is completely indistinguishable; there's an enclosure with a small white speck that might be a polar bear cub, which is not satisfactory. Per the guideline, image sizes may be forced if "a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image". I've resized these two images based on my understanding of this guideline, but let me know if I'm incorrect. María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable explanation, and I'm happy with the current image sizes. I shan't vote simply because I'll be away for much of October. jimfbleak (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, with request

• Do you think you can expand this statement: The zoo quickly faced harsh criticism throughout Germany and from the worldwide media for seemingly allowing the death of the cubs. to give examples of how pervasive and severe this criticism was? It may be the English translation, but "Why Won't Anyone Save the Cute Baby Knuts in Nuremberg Zoo?" doesn't seem scathing or worthy to be placed in a high caliber newspaper.
• Otherwise, support. Interesting read. Grisly about the cub-eating. Points taken off for adorability, but added for comprehensiveness ;) --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Points taken off for adorability? I would have thought that would receive bonus points, or at least a few floating pink hearts and happy sighs. I added a quote and a little more detail about the criticism that was thrown at the zoo. As for the "Baby Knuts" quote, I moved it up a bit to hopefully give it some needed context. I don't believe it was meant to be scathing, since it happened before the announcement that the cubs were goners, and Bild isn't exactly a "high caliber" paper anyway. It's cheap and trashy, but quite popular; that makes it noteworthy enough to mention, I think. Thanks for the comments, as always, Moni. María (habla conmigo) 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it thought that I supported from wanting to cuddle the article, and speak to it in high-pitched tones often heard and understood only by dolphins. We're all hard-nosed FAC reviewers here, ahem. Like that otters holding hands and swimming picture should be featured, like, every single day. --Moni3 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I shall create Kawaii-pedia, where cuteness reigns 24/7. Screenings on the mainpage will consist of repeated viewings of She and Her Cat and YouTube videos of little hamsters eating Cheerios and sneezing baby pandas. Oh, and lolcats will be mandatory in every FAC discussion. Lulz. María (habla conmigo) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God. Image:Sea_otters_holding_hands.jpg is so cute I threw up on myself a little bit. Damn all you faceless powers! Feature it! --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 'Oppose Tony (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)'—not well-written enough. Here are random examples of why:
• Please remove "also" from the lead.

• Removed.

• "Evidently" is POV, believe it or not. If there's evidence, just make the bold statement in the lead and cite it when given in a more detailed context below.

• At the time there was no concrete proof that the cubs were eaten: one day they were there, the next they weren't. There was no news released if their bodies had been found, since keepers couldn't get into the bear's cave at the time and the media (like usual) quickly moved on and didn't follow up. So, news reports at the time stated that she "apparently" or "evidently" ate the cubs. It's commonly accepted that she did, but again, I didn't want to be bold without proof of evidence. Changed to "reportedly", is that better?

• Possibly "various" is not needed. What does it add?

• Removed.

• Why is "German" linked? Who on earth is going to interrupt their reading in ignorance of what it means? Why is a large article on the German language relevant to this article?

• I thought it was fairly common practice, but it's been removed.

• I see "United Nations" linked a lot. Do we really need it?

• It was linked only twice; once in the lead and once in the corresponding section. I removed the second link.

• "in order to encourage"—spot the two redundant words. Tony (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed "in order". Will work on the rest. María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I made additional changes to the prose, and have notified Tony. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm going to have a look at this article tomorrow or Saturday and see if I can help with the prose (if it still needs work). Scartol • Tok 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay; I've done a copyedit, although it appears that Tony already removed his objection. Hope it helped anyway. Scartol • Tok 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work! Prose is polished, and article is to the point. Of course, this can't replace Knut in our hearts... ;) —Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm afraid this article fails criteria 1.b, comprehensiveness. While the text goes into detail to explain the cub's fame, it entirely neglects the fact that Flocke actually turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment for the Nuernberg Zoo. I don't know to what extent this was reported in English language media, so I can only make my point by providing examples with German news stories: The zoo expected up to 20,000 visitors per day, even built a 500-person viewing platform [131], but on the morning the zoo first displayed Flocke, only two dozen people showed up, overall about 2,000 came to see the cub on each of its first two days of display, way below the zoo's expectations [132]. The zoo blamed bad weather and the first weekend saw a considerable increase with 13,000 visitors, but even that remained below expectations [133]. In September, a spokeswoman for the zoo said Flocke helped the zoo to reach its one million's visitor two months earlier than the previous year, but the onrush to see the cub was not as big as they hoped for [134]. Jaqu (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely agree that more can be added about expectations vs. deliverance. It's hard for me to judge what the sources say because I don't speak German and Google Translate can only get me so far; I also don't think the English sources have addressed these issues. Nonetheless, I've tried to address your concerns in these edits, using a couple of your provided sources (thanks!). What do you think? María (habla conmigo) 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's definitely an improvement, though I'm not sure it's factually accurate to claim they expected 20,000 visitors the very first day - I think that's more like the peak number they expected/hoped for. One more thing that might be worth including is the fact that Flocke was only displayed in short intervals during the first week (9 to 11 am, and 1 to 4 pm), and has had a siesta until very recently [135]. Only starting on 16 Sep, Flocke spent the whole day in her outdoor enclosure, as stated here in this press release by the city of Nuremberg [136]. In that, they also give Flocke's current weight (60 kg) and her current size (130 cm standing up) and state that they expect her to still triple her weight, which possible could also be mentioned in the text. Jaqu (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the suggestions! I've added some new info, which can be seen here. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Although I'm generally wary of short articles, I feel that the comprehensive research done here has made the quality as high as it will be in the near future. Two comments: The sentence During the first week, Flocke was displayed for short intervals, but attendance by zoo patrons was initially lower than expected. feels unfinished. Is there a cause/effect relationship between the length of the display intervals and attendance? If so, maybe we need another clause at the end: "...as a result, officials increased her visibility to..." or some such.

Gah, I smooshed the wrong two sentences together. It now reads: "During the first week, Flocke was displayed for short intervals with breaks at midday. Expecting a peak of 20,000 visitors, the zoo built a viewing platform, capable of holding 500 people at a time, in front of the enclosure, but attendance by zoo patrons was initially lower than expected."

Also, in the section called Current life and future (which maybe should be slightly renamed, since it doesn't seem to have much about the bear's future?), do we still need the following sentence? Although ticket sales increased due to Flocke's popularity, the numbers did not match high expectations. Seems like it's been addressed earlier. (Perhaps this is residue from the additions mentioned earlier here in the FAC?) Scartol • Tok 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I added it because of the suggestions above, yes, but I'm not sure if it's completely redundant; the bit I quoted above addresses the initial attendance let down, but the second bit should address attendance expectations for the entire year. I've tried to reword it to reflect this. Thanks so much for the copy-edits and support! You're a gem as usual. María (habla conmigo) 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [137].

---

Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk)

Peer review: [1]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to your attention an article on the one and only railway suspension bridge, the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge! Thousands of trains trundled across it safely from 1855 to 1897. Although it no longer stands over the Niagara River, the bridge has embedded itself into North America's history!

• Unlike other suspension bridges, its first line was laid across the river by a kite!
• Engineers dissed the bridge; those who supported a railway suspension bridge even fought among themselves to build it!
• It was part of the Underground Railroad, helping slaves in United States flee to freedom in Canada.
• It was a symbol of triumph, hope, and inspiration to the United States after the Civil War.
• It launched John A. Roebling's career, which culminated with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Please look through this comprehensive illustrated article on the history of one of Canada and United States's historic structure, and evaluate if it is eligible to be featured. Thank you all! Jappalang (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Giggy

• I must say I love the nomination :-)
• The infobox image caption doesn't need to include the image credit
• Other images check out fine.
• Linkchecker gave some results that I'm not sure what to make of. Ealdgyth will probably know, if you are in the same boat as me.
• "(the bridge was built slightly away from the towns, which later expanded to the bridge)" - the towns expanded onto the bridge? Or is rewording needed?
• "it was also known as the International Suspension Bridge for its American company." - um... might be easier if you name the company
• "in the histories of the Niagara region and the two countries" - the Niagra region is part of both countries. I'd change to "in the history of the Niagara region." and leave it at that
• "and they were integrated into the Niagara Falls cities" - cut the "they", it's clear what you're referring to
• "and they were replaced" - same again

Giggy (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the credit from the infobox image. I chose not to name the American company as it would be pretty much stating "International Suspension Bridge" twice in the same sentence (repetition); instead, I rewrote the sentence. The bracketed phrase was also reworded. The bridge's role was not restricted to the Niagara region. It was a national symbol for the United States (and part of Merritt's transportation vision for Canada). Hence, it is not exact to simply state its significance for the Niagara region alone. I believe that cutting out the "they"s would result in violations of the parallel structure. Nonetheless, the sentences do seem a bit awkward as they are, and I have reworded them. I hope the concerns are addressed. Jappalang (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Note that the Buck ref is not self-published, according to the Google Books link, it appears to have been published by the Niagra Falls Suspension Bridge Company. Title Page

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have corrected Buck's publisher. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I read through this article during it's peer review and I think it meets the criteria. I cannot see any problems with the images and, apart from Ealdgyth's comment above, the sources. It is a fascinating account that is well-written and well researched. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• • Merritt's dream would lead to the creation of a man-made structure, a railway suspension bridge, that spanned the Niagara River alongside the river's acclaimed natural feature, the Niagara Falls. - unsourced
  • Roebling would, however, achieve other honors in building his Niagara Railway Suspension Bridge. - unsourced
  • As a result many slaves crossed the Suspension Bridge to freedom before the United States was engulfed in civil war. - unsourced
  • Add the name of the Suspensiob Bridge to the infobox.

Otherwise, a very well done article.Mitch32^(UP) 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The first two (Merritt's dream, Roebling's honors) are chronicled in the text that follows. In other words, Merritt dreamt of a bridge, the bridge is built. Roebling, though missed out building the first permanent bridge across the Niagara, built the first working railroad suspension bridge that was acclaimed in both engineering and social circles. The statements are summations of the information in the sources. The same goes for the slaves, though their story was told earlier before the statement. As for the infobox, it is titled "Suspension Bridge" by its common name. Jappalang (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it should still be re-sourced, in my opinion - because others may bring it up.Mitch32^(UP) 00:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have resourced for Roebling. For Merritt, I shifted the preceding source to the end of the paragraph as the same source explains his dream and the parts that comprise it (including the bridge). For the slaves, Switala served the role. Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Thanks. Problems solved.Mitch32^(UP) 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Impressive article. Other than wishing there was a map, I have one quibble; under "Engineering", the third paragraph begins:

From the United States, side, the New York and Erie Rail Road's Canandaigua and Niagara Falls Railroad and New York Central Railroad's Buffalo and Niagara Falls Railroad crossed over the bridge and reached into Ontario and Quebec.

Quebec really? It's a he** of a long way to Quebec from Niagara Falls, and there has to have been more direct crossings. There's also an extraneous comma in the first 5 words of this quote. PKT 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence pointed out, I have corrected the commas ("side" was redundant and left in on oversight). I have also removed Quebec as it would likely be indirect connections as you have pointed out. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

response to Jappalang's question on my talk page regarding a map: ideally, a map could indicate where the bridge was located over the river/gorge, and vis-a-vis the towns at the time or alternatively compared to the locations of the current towns. PKT 13:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a map—took me several hours and several uploads (darn SVG!!!), but I got one up. Jappalang (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support That's just about what I had in mind. PKT 00:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I do have a minor question about the names by which the bridge is known. I get the impression from the article Niagra Falls that the footbridge was know by the name "Niagra Suspension Bridge" and the Roebling bridge was known by the name "Niagra Falls Suspension Bridge". I've seen many references to the Roebling bridge as the "Niagara Railway Suspension Bridge". Clearly, the earlier bridge was never called that. Do you know what the most common name was for the earlier bridge? If that could be made clear in the article, it would help. What ever that name was, it should redirect to the section of this article about the earlier bridge. Overall, this is an excellent addition to the articles about bridges. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. The bridge was known by several names. The most common was simply the Suspension Bridge (a proper noun and stated in the Infobox and the first paragraph of the lead). Note though that regardless of whatever name it took, there are sources that mix up "Suspension Bridge", "Niagara Suspension Bridge" or "Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge" between this railway bridge and the Falls View Suspension Bridge (by Keefer); however, when most sources (and the accounts they quote) mention "Suspension Bridge", it is about Ellet's and Robeling's bridge. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your response has helped me understand my issue with the article and the redirects. You have equated Ellet's and Robeling's bridges. They are two separate structures, albeit closely related. I'd suggest making the differences between the bridges clearer. There have been many articles about bridges that mention the ancestor bridge(s) in the same location. Sometimes (like with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge) they eventually get divided into separate articles. That is not an inconceivable possibility with this article. It wouldn't take many changes to make it clearer that this was an earlier structure. As it is now, the 1848 bridge is mentioned in the section on Ellet. Perhaps all that is needed is to divide that section and make a heading for the 1848 bridge. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I reworded Ellet's and Roebling's section headers to include the structure. Does that help? Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008 [138].

---

The Greencards

Nominator: Rootology (talk)

previous FAC (00:12, 18 July 2008)

Hi, I would like to try to renominating this. It has been up in July 2008 at the above link, and before that in June 2008. In the interim it became a Good Article. I want to try again, almost 100 edits later. Cla68 and Andreasegde have helped out on copyediting, and I think it's much better now. As far as I can tell, every criticism has been addressed. It's been physically restructured as well to have similar structures and layouts as other FAs for various bands. I was thinking of trimming back the historical information on the band members seen under The Greencards#Formation as I've replicated the material (and cut some already!) to the various subarticles for the band members and also a bit for the album articles. The history of the formation of the Greencards is a core part of the majority of the sources on the band, and a major aspect of the subject itself--three highly trained foreigners basically forming a niche supergroup that has redefined an extremely American musical style. What else does it need, from where it stands now? Thanks!! rootology (C)(T) 05:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to post this on the talk page, but saw it's at FAC so came here instead. A note on the images; if you have an image taken in (say) 2004, don't use it in the section on 2000 (the first year I saw in the Formation section). And if this means you have more images than you can fit into one section, it's OK, you still have your Commons gallery. Also, the infobox image needs a caption. Giggy (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I rotated the images around to fix this, and pulled the extraneous images. I captioned the image, too. Thanks Giggy. rootology (C)(T) 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a stack of edits to the article (copyediting, MOSing, other stuff), so please check over them! I'm popping out now but I'll take another look tomorrow. Giggy (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'll be mostly offline except spurts till Friday evening US time, myself, but will pick this up with any changes or suggestions then. Thanks again! rootology (C)(T) 06:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The reference [139] is dead. The wayback machine found [140]. Is that the right source? LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 07:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, that is the source, thank you--I updated it on the article with the archival url. rootology (C)(T) 04:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources addressed last FAC. I too note the dead link showing up with the link checker tool, otherwise looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Like I mentioned above, I fixed the issue of the dead link. rootology (C)(T) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Great to see some good music at FAC for a change! :)
• Often labeled as part of, and said to be representative of the "newgrass" movement, they draw from Irish traditional, European gypsy, rock 'n' roll, folk balladry, and Latin American musical sources. Links please. What is "European gypsy"?
• Raised in South London, McLoughlin began to perform country music shows with his family on weekends, influenced by George Jones, George Strait and Ricky Skaggs. Link Ricky Skaggs, and the others if they have articles.
• Young and Warner knew each other previously and, according to Warner, had been drawn to bluegrass and American roots music through an appreciation of George Jones and Merle Haggard. Would read more smoothly if the comma was before the "and".
• The third paragraph of the first section needs a copyedit. Seems as if every sentence starts or contains a "Before..." or an "After...".
• They named themselves The Greencards, for the fact that all three band members carried United States green cards. I don't quite like "for the fact" in this context.
• Given a noon to 3 pm time slot, they surprisingly began to fill the pub with patrons week after week, with fans there calling them the "Bluegrass Bunch". Which time zone? Also, "with" is a poor connecting word.
• Some more information in the "Movin' On (2003–2004)" section would be nice. Right now, it's the same block of text that's in the album's article.
• During the summer segment of the 2005 tour with Nelson and Dylan, Kym Warner wanted to have the opportunity to pick Dylan's brain, but never had the chance. What?
• Eamon McLoughlin is a regular blogger for Country Music Television.[2] After the Grammy Awards, he wrote about the band's experience at the event. Somewhat of a cliffhanger. What did he write?
• In the See also section, Bill Monroe, despite being the "inventor" of bluegrass, doesn't seem very relevant.

Well done article overall. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Julian, take a look now? I've fixed everything you mentioned, except expanding further (yet) the Movin' On section. That material actually was in the The Greencards first, and I'll start digging up more sources on that first album (it got the least press of all of them). And yep, their music was a wonderful find--my wife and I completely accidentally stumbled upon them attending a Paperboys show. We were very early, paid admission, and thought The Greencards were opening. Turns out, it was a totally separate show with their own openers on earlier! Pure dumb luck find. :) rootology (C)(T) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd like to see a little bit of more information for that one section, and then I'll happily support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got that section expanded out about as far as I might be able to get it for now without starting to dip into random blogs and sources that would be borderline RS for a featured article. They unfortunately didn't get a ton of widespread press until the second release of Movin' On, which came right before Weather and Water, when they sort of exploded all over. rootology (C)(T) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Maybe next time I'll see this at FAC? :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That is really tempting, since them and Bill Monroe should be FAs... after this and this... :) rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Greencards are a progressive bluegrass band that formed in Austin, Texas, and is currently based in Nashville, Tennessee." - need a consistent "is" or "are" throughout the article. Giggy (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC) A full review and a support soon, I promise.

• I got that (and I think) there aren't any others. Thanks for the help... rootology (C)(T) 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've left comments on the musical style section here. Giggy (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to expand that section by hopefully a good 1-2 paragraphs the next couple of days. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I replied on my talk to Giggy about the copyediting points he left there (I fixed them all) and have been expanding out the section further as requested. rootology (C)(T) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I helped copyedit the article and put the external links section in the web citation format. I think the article meets the FA criteria. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for all your help, Cla. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I originally read this: "...were invited to tour with Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson in the same year"" to mean that the band was invited by BD and WN separately in the same year; later saw otherwise... can move "in the same year" to an earlier position in the sentence?
• I also know what you mean by "is not as unlikely as it may seem", but I just can't find it in my heart to let that go.. it appears too WP:POV-ish, even if its idea is kinda self-evident. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's a direct take from the wording of Mario Tarradell, the author of the source I quoted McLoughlin's "it's ironic" bit from, here. Tarradell calls the idea outrageous, I used the wording unlikely. The idea of them being "foreigners" playing such an American form of music is such a major bit of all the stories about them, I didn't want to leave that off--it's like the perfect exclamation point to it all. Is that still too ORy since Tarradel basically says the same thing I did? How about this wording? It's built entirely from the literal quoting, wording, and attribution in the WFAA source, so I think that would nuke even any shade of OR. rootology (C)(T) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support but - 1. "Movin' On (2003–2004)" section, put the sample music under the main box per MoS. 2. "Weather and Water (2005–2006)" The left music sample may seem a little odd (this is aesthetic, and not an actual problem). 3. "Viridian (from 2007)" Image should be under the main template. 4. "See also" should be integrated into the text so people can see why they should look over at the other pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done 1 and 3. Left 2 and the other 3 (should that be 4?) for Rootology to decide. Giggy (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Haha, yes, it should be a 4. :) 2 isn't important (I just wanted to mention it), but 4 might be. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Looks very good, leaning support. Some things:
  • "The band was founded in 2003 by Kym Warner and Carol Young from Australia, and Eamon McLoughlin from England, who met in Texas." - it's very awkward with all the commas, but I understand what you're trying to say. Maybe break up the nationalities into another following sentence with some extra info so it doesn't feel so tacked on?
  • "early- to mid-2009" - check WP:DASH to see if that space should be there or not.
  • "with a worldly feel" - that tells me nothing. Do you mean with a style reminiscent of world music? 'Cause I could get behind that.
  • There are places where there are little introductions and flair language which doesn't enchance the prose, ex. "Early on..." - go through and remove these redundant elements
  • "is not as outrageous as it may seem" POV language - if this is what the talking head actually said, quote it. Otherwise rephrase.
  • fix instances of passive voice, ex. "Their first performance together as a band" to "The band's first performance"
• My overall suggestion is just get another editor not acquainted with the subject to give it a rundown. It's only some minor prose issues keeping it from being brilliant, IMO.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to try to fix some of these up real quick. For the worldly bit/comment, it's from this source. The world music would be accurate, I'd think, but I'm wondering if that would be OR to say if the source didn't? Dash there sorted by just eliminating it, and take a look at the "outrageous" passage now. I reworded it again. Going back for more... rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• All thats really left is the passive voice concerns you had, and the question of OR in linking worldly to world music, from that cited quote. Let me know what you think. I got some of the frilly language you mentioned, but I can't see anymore. I'll try to clean up the passive voice tomorrow if I can, but that sort of fine tuning isn't my strong suit... rootology (C)(T) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - What makes americanahomeplace.com a reliable source? Otherwise, the sourcing for the article looks okay. --Aude (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Aude, that came up on the first FAC (but it's buried, so super easy to miss--I had to look again myself). So... "Its one of the larger radio shows for that niche genre of music (Bluegrass, and specifically the forms that this band plays, aren't big market--the fact this band got a Grammy and the press it is has is monstrous). It looks like a smaller site, but thats like comparing a smaller-town newspaper to CNN, if you're comparing this scale of the music industry to MTV News." Sorry for the copypasta from there. :) rootology (C)(T) 05:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - It makes sense that a radio show for this genre might not have as much high-traffic/audience. I'm satisfied that the sourcing is okay, with a variety of news media and other such sources. It's also good that you were able to find several good quality images for the article, with proper licensing. I also believe the article is well-written. Nice work with this article. --Aude (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [141].

---

Stonewall riots

Nominator(s): Moni3, Dank55

previous FAC

What fun this article was to write. Never will you see so colorful a description of surreal rioting. I had a ball working on it, and I hope you enjoy it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 70 (Christopher Park..) is lacking a last access date.
• Same for current ref 140 (Dunlap...) and the National Historic landmark nomination ref.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Got 'em. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - for a well-written, excellently researched and engaging account. I can't see any issues with the images or sources but there are a few disambiguation links that need fixing—according to the checker. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a disambig for "hustler" that could mean any and all three of those listed in the disambiguation page. Similarly for "lighter fluid" I don't know enough chemistry to decide which one of those is most accurate, and my sources didn't specify. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Graham, but I've got questions about some of them. "They were the first instances in American history when gays and lesbians publicly protested against a government-sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals": well, I wouldn't say that, exactly. The 1965 Philadephia protest was public, for instance; it just wasn't something the media were interested in.

"During the last years of the 1960s, however, many radical political organizations": at the time "radical" was an even more charged word than it is now, and some will complain that calling the entire African American Civil Rights Movement "radical" is POV. I think that's probably why Moni put it the way she did.

"Police raids were routine on gay bars": I'd prefer "Police raids on gay bars were routine"

"Tensions ... tightened": tensions tightened? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a note in some of the edit summaries to revert any unhelpful suggestions. I didn't like "tensions exploded" perhaps it would be better to find another word for tensions? And, would it be a good idea to mention the the earlier protests? With regard to "radical" is it a non-neutral word? Graham Colm ^Talk 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying "erupted"; possibly trite, but the other ways I would usually try to fix this aren't available here. Spiro Agnew's favorite phrase was "radical liberals", and "radical" has been POV most of the time it's been used in American politics. I reverted. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: I did some copyediting for this article, and found it to be both well-written and exhaustively researched. In other words, it's a Moni3 piece par excellence. Well done! Scartol • Tok 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I don't think I have read an article with better referencing etc. Nice layout too. Dincher (talk)`

Comments I've just copyedited this again. It's very close. I left a bunch of hidden comments about some questions I had. Maralia (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• On your blind edits: in an article about how it was necessary for gay people to be secret and there were no places to go, I think it's worth pointing out that organizations like the DOB and Mattachine could only meet in private homes.

• Hm. Not to split hairs, but do you realize that we haven't explicitly said that about either Mattachine or DOB? Nothing is said in this paragraph about where Mattachine met, and about DOB, we only said that the women met in their living rooms to form it. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both Mattachine and the DOB formed in private homes, and met there for the first years of their existences. Let me think of how to incorporate that. If you're sharper than I am right now, Dan, feel free to add it. I'm drawing a spectacular blank. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can add a ref that covers it, Intimate Matters by D'Emilio and Freedman, later tonight. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I take that back, this might not be everything we need. The ref is "D'emilio, John, and Freedman, Estelle B (1988). Intimate Matters, Harper & Row. ISBN 0060158557". The quote from page 320 is: "During the fifties, these groups struggled to exist, as they operated with scanty resources, no models for how to proceed, and the ever-present threat of police harrassment. But they did survive, establishing chapters in several cities..." That's something but it doesn't talk about where they met. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Naw, man. I have the sources (Mattachine: Marucs, p. 24-25 and DOB: Gallo, Marcia (2006). Different Daughters: A History of the Daughters of Bilitis and the rise of the Lesbian Rights Movement, Seal Press. ISBN 1580052525 p. 1-5) but after my little drinking binge there, maybe I can take another look at integrating the fact that both groups formed in private homes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A'ight. I expanded at the pleasure of Maralia. --Moni3 (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be the dirtiest thing anyone has said to me all week. What have you been drinking? Maralia (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish cream. But my statement there was a play on presidential appointees who "Serve at the pleasure of the president". If you took it dirty, that's all you, guttertramp. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Elephant Walk Bar in San Francisco was famous in the mid 1970s, in part, for being the first gay bar to have plate glass windows out front. The plywood at the Stonewall was seen as necessary (as reported by my sources) to keep the police either from seeing into the bar from the street, or coming through the windows during a raid. While raids were routine almost down to procedural in the bar, the police didn't necessarily respect the property of bars they were raiding. Having to chop through plywood was a deterrent.

• Okay. Could we change "to prevent the police from raiding the bar" to "to deter police from raiding the bar"? Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what is causing the confusion in Rejection of gay subculture. If I can explain it here, I will. Just let me know.

• The section that confused me was this:

The Stonewall riots marked such a significant turning point that many aspects of gay and lesbian subculture developed before Stonewall were denied and forcefully ignored. Historian Martin Duberman writes, "The decades preceding Stonewall ... continue to be regarded by most gays and lesbians as some vast neolithic wasteland". In particular was bar culture, or reflections of secrecy and shame that were developed out of necessity.

The last sentence refers to something prior ("in particular was"), but it's not clear what. Additionally, "reflections of" doesn't make any sense to me. Is the gist of this bit (excluding the quote) something like "The Stonewall riots marked such a significant turning point that many aspects of prior gay and lesbian subculture, such as the bar culture and decades of shame and secrecy, were forcefully ignored and even denied"? I'm not asking you to adopt that phrasing - only trying to understand your intent so I can better explain my confusion. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you nailed it, Maralia. Done! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Everything else in a blind edit I will be changing here in a moment. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Here are some comments:

• Why is "undersecretary of state" in the first section not capitalized? I believe this is a proper title. And, who was the Undersecretary of State at the time, who made the statement. Since you are providing a quote, I suggest being more specific here.
• "The case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which in 1958 ruled that One, Inc. could mail its materials through the U.S. Postal Service." - might it be better to link "the case" or just "case" to the article on that case, rather than liking "went to the Supreme Court"? and the "Supreme Court" could link to the Supreme Court of the United States.
• "Tthe social repression of the 1950s " - typo there.
• There are some New York Times citations in the article. Are these articles available online? if so, they should be linked.
• The sources appear all reliable.

Not specifically related to this article, but I noticed the 1969 photo of Stonewall Inn was submitted by the "Contact us" OTRS system. Do you know if the New York Public Library submitted it? are they submitting others? or did the photographer submit it? Having this image in the article adds a lot, and it would be good to get others for other articles. --Aude (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Undersecretary capitalized, I think. Maybe I need Dank55's help on that. I don't know. I mean, an office should not be capitalized unless it's a title: The senator from Illinois said... vs. Senator Barack Obama said... similar with "president". Ack! Dan!
  • You're right on the money with "president" and "senator" Moni3, but anything would look slightly awkward here ... undersecretary of State? undersecretary of state? I'd go with Undersecretary of State X, where X is their last name. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'll get the guy's name in my source, which is at home right now. Give me 8 hours or so.
• If only because I wanted the Supreme Court case linked to a larger word than "case". Because "case" linked by itself seems like overlinking. If you want it changed, I can do that, though.
• I blame the Tt on Maralia's very helpful copyedit *cough* but it's changed.
• Some of the NYT stories are pay-per-view. Do you still want them linked?
• I contacted the New York Public Library (Tom Lisanti in the digital collections department) for this article and for the images in Barbara Gittings. I wrote a very humble and almost apologetic email asking for permission to use the images. For Gittings' article, he allowed only two from the Kay Lahusen/Barbara Gittings collection. But he seemed a lot more agreeable to use the Diana Davies image of the Stonewall Inn. So be nice if you contact him. I, however, submitted the actual image to OTRS. Image:Stonewall Inn 1969.jpg I actually uploaded to Wiki, attached it to the permissions given by the NYPL, but an OTRS volunteer also uploaded it to Commons. Li'l bit o' confusion there, but I sent them the image, which is what I think you were asking.
• Thanks for the review, Aude! --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - With the changes, the article looks good. It's well-written, solidly sourced, etc. Also, thanks for the answer regarding the NYPL. I have seen material from Library of Congress and other such sources appear on Flickr, so was hoping the NYPL photos were part of some project (that I was unaware of) to submit content to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, it's good to see they were willing to help out in this case. --Aude (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the OTRS aspect, Moni3 forwarded us the email with the photo attached, and since I couldn't find it on Wikipedia or Commons anywhere, I uploaded it myself. I probably shouldn't have put the source as the Contact us page, but I like to advertise that wherever possible. :) howcheng {chat} 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [142].

---

Farthest South

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

This is a departure from my normal menu of expedition histories and explorer biogs - a general account of the convergence on the South Pole from the sixteenth century to Amundsen's 1911 conquest. It may seem at times a bit like an extended school geography lesson, but I think it's more interesting than that. The article has been through GA and PR, and has been extended and improved since then, so I hope it's of FA quality now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Wikipedia seems to have quite the coverage of the South Pole. Very interesting articles, indeed. :-)
  • "To quite the coverage?" Something missing? Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed, whoops. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.mundoandino.com/ a reliable source?
  • This is a very large site which provides exhaustive information about South America, its islands, mountains etc. I have only really looked in detail at the Diego Ramirez page, where the information seems to be spot-on accurate from what I know from other sources, and very thoroughly and professionally displayed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, since the information is available in other sources, do you think you could replace it with those? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I can find nothing in or about mundoandino.com that indicates anything to make it a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, the more I look into it, this: Enjoy! Your amigos of MundoAndino.com. at the bottom of the page doesn't bode well for reliability. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, I've changed the source to Knox-Johnston. The MondoAndino site was essentially for travellers, but it did have some interesting information in it. However,I've transferred it to external lnks.Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/magellan.html reliable?
  • Well, it was prepared by the Applied History Research Group at the University of Calgary. It apears to be factually accurate, and I've no reason to doubt its reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Works for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP), from a Royal Bank of Canada Teaching Development Grant (TDO) ?? Reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Where is that? Did I miss that in the article? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Sandy, what is it about STEP involvement that casts doubt on the reliablity of the source? Or is it the Bank of Canada you are questioning? The reliability of a source depends, surely, on how and by whom the material was prepared. This site was prepared by a reputable University department, and is supported by a lengthy bibliography. I'd replace it if there were convincing reasons for suspecting it, but at present I don't see them. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
            • If we click on "Home" from the source and follow up by clicking on "The Applied History Research Group" link, we are brought to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/. I think we can rely on the information on that page to believe that the tutorials are reliable. Quote: "Given the inter-disciplinary nature of these tutorials, committees were formed to guide their content, design, and production. The steering committees are made up of subject experts from applicable departments and faculties at the University of Calgary, Red Deer College, and Mount Royal College. History students at the senior undergraduate honours level and graduate level make up the project teams and are responsible for the research, the narrative, and the web design for each of these tutorials. " Students might be the authors, but they are edited by professors of the relevant fields. Jappalang (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well I think it's an extended school geography lesson :P Image comments:
  • Image:Magellan 1810 engraving.jpg appears to have some vandalism/inappropriate cmts on the image page.
  • Image:James Clark Ross.jpg has duplicate headings.
  • All images have proper dates/licenses/authors, et al, but the image description pages are absolute messes. It would be nice if there were all formatted using templates and proper headings.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments—There are elements of beauty in the writing, but it does need fixing here and there. Someone else, very good, needs to go through it very critically. I almost wrote "Support", but I'd like to come back in a while and re-evaluate. It's very promising.

• • Thank you for those kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why the laboured title? Needs to be more explicit so that search words will locate it. Why the initial caps when it appears in the main text?
  • I'm surprised you think a two-word title is "laboured". I could call the article "Convergence on the South Pole", but that would be laboured. Or is it the parenthetical addition you don't like? As to the capitalisation, Farthest South as a concept is frequently capitalised in polar literature, and equally frequently not. To me the term lacks some impact when not capitalised. It's a question of preference, but I accept there are other views. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Rather than the sexist language, why not "reach by explorers"? There's another instance, "men", shortly after. Not necessary, and rather exclusionary nowadays.
  • Remiss of me to retain the sexist language. Both have been changed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Belief in this land persisted well into the 18th century"—Surely the 19th century (you've already mentioned 1773, so I'm confused; belief in the existence of this land"?
  • "the existence of" is good, and I've incorporated this. Belief in the existence of a fertile southern land persisted into the 18th century until knocked on the head by Captain Cook. Thereafter, although belief in the land continued to exist, they knew it would be barren. I have clarified this in the text.
• You give years for Cook's voyages (twice), but leave us in the dark for Weddell's and Ross's: "in the early 19th century"? (I'm guessing.)
  • You guess (more or less) correctly - first half of 19th century, now included in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Again, why R and P?
  • Less justification for these, so I've removed them. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "the honour of first achieving the ultimate Farthest South, by reaching the South Pole itself, fell to the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911"—No; this sounds as though he was somehow appointed to do it first. Reword. Tony (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (last point) Reworded.Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PS These are examples from the lead alone. Tony (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am arranging for someone is going to go through the text, as you suggest. Thank you for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support (from Ruhrfisch). I have read this and feel it meets all the FA criteria, as it is well written, has sound references and excellent images. My quibbles follow but are ideas / suggestions, and not actionable requests (except for the full stop):

• First caption - The Amundsen-Scott South Polar Station is shown in the background, across a field of ridged frozen ice, or "sastrugi" this is a complete sentence and needs a full stop. Also isn't all ice "frozen"? Is the word "frozen" really needed?
  • Agreed both points. Also I've wikilinked sastrugi.
• Would it make sense to include the fact that the South Pole is at 90 degrees south early on? Also in the "Other discoveries" section, would it make sense to give the degrees south for each of these places - most people will not be familiar with how far south the Falklands or South Georgia are? This might also be useful for some other locations described that are not new records.
  • To the first point, yes. To the second, I'm not so sure. This article is about the convergence on the South Pole, not, basically, about the general discoveries of land in southern latitudes, of which those mentioned in the article are just a few examples, to provide some historical continuity. To put extra information in on these marginal areas might smack of the "extended geography lesson" (see comments at top) which I am anxious to avoid.
• Would it make sense to briefly mention the subsequent activities at the South Pole - the establishment of the base there, etc? Perhaps a brief "Legacy" section?
  • Excellent idea - why didn't I think of that? It will be done.
    • The new section looks fine, I agree it should not be much longer. WOuld it make sense to add that the station was built and is now supplied by materials brought in by air? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Would a map of Antarctica and nearby land masses, perhaps with numbered dots to show the various Farthest South records, be useful next to the table of records?
  • I'd certainly consider this, but I would need help with the map-making. It could take a while.
    • I made a quick base map here Image:Antarctic farthest south map.png - would something like this work? If so we can discuss it on my talk page or the article's talk page. If not, I will delete the map. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I will discuss on your talkpage Brianboulton (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done overall and congratulations on a very interesting article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I have scrutinised every sentence of this fascinating article. I have made a few edits, but if I have introduced any errors please, please revert them. (I am not as gifted as Tony). Brian has a beautiful writing style; where others tend to write in absolute past tenses, Brian brings life to his prose and allows the reader to re-live the adventures. I fully support this article's FA candidature. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That is most generous - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I just gave this a thorough copyedit. I left one hidden comment on a very minor issue. This is well written and engaging; a featured topic just waiting to happen. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Maralia. I picked up the hidden comment re Puerto San Julian & dealt with it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "After such routes had been established and the main geographical features of the earth had been broadly mapped, the lure for mercantile adventurers was the great fertile continent which, according to myth, lay hidden in the south."

Should "south" be capitalised here?

I tend to capitalise "south" when it is a specific reference, as in "Deep South", or "Farthest South", but not when it is a general direction. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "despite occasional glimpses of what polar historian Roland Huntford describes as "the baleful truth", in the form of the icy and inhospitable islands that were discovered in the waters of Southern Ocean."

If these "occasional glimpses" were the discoveries, then would "that were discovered" be redundant? The phrase "waters of" might be redundant as well, considering we are talking about islands and an ocean (although the phrasing sounds nice).

You are right on both counts: you cannot "discover" glimpses, and oceans are made of water. A case of over-enthusiastic phrase-making, I fear. I have removed the redundancies. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts! Perhaps a moot point, but it was actually Huntford's "baleful truth" that was occasionally glimpsed. This truth was manifested by the discoveries of islands. With this in mind I have partially restored my original wording, but please feel free to comment further if you think it necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... so what you mean is that people believed in Terra Australis despite occasional glimpses of Huntford's "baleful truth", which is later backed up (proven) by the discoveries? In that case, "the baleful truth" needs clarification. I presume "the baleful truth" is that there is no temperate or tropical fertile land at the farthest south, and the "glimpses" were of the evidence to this truth. Could we go with "Belief in the existence of this land of plenty persisted well into the 18th century, people were reluctant to believe what polar historian Roland Huntford later described as "the baleful truth"—a cold, harsh environment in the south whose existence was borne out by the discoveries of icy and inhospitable islands in the Southern Ocean."? Jappalang (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have put the two versions - yours and mine - side by side, and quite honestly, to me either is acceptable. However, I like your reference to "a cold, harsh environment", so I'm going for your amendment, very slightly modified.Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "After the first confirmed landing on continental Antarctica was finally achieved, in the late 19th century, the quest for Farthest South latitudes became, in effect, the "race for the pole"."

Does "After the first confirmed landing on continental Antarctica in the late 19th century, the quest for Farthest South latitudes became, in effect, the "race for the pole"." read better?

Yes, smoother.

• "However, the first ultimate Farthest South, the South Pole itself at 90°S, was achieved by the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911."

Somehow, I think there is no other ultimate Farthest Souths, right (there is no more south than 90°S)? Hence, there could not be a first ultimate, but only the ultimate; so, "However, the first man to reach the ultimate Farthest South, the South Pole itself at 90°S, was the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911."

I made a somewhat hamfisted attempt to change this sentence in response to an earlier review comment. Your version is more elegant, and I'll use it. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Early voyagers

• "The early voyagers of the 16th and 17th centuries were not seeking high southern latitudes, but the expansion of trade routes."

Although the lead does introduce the article, it is a summary. I sort of feel that the first section should introduce the reader to the greater text. Something just did not click for me on reading this opening sentence. I would think of something like "In the 16th and 17th centuries, voyagers were seeking to expand trade routes and looked for various routes to shorten the travel time or new trading grounds. Knowing that the seas to the North are filled with ice, they viewed the unexplored South as a possible venue of new routes." By the way what are "high southern latitudes"?

I agree that the intro to this section was rather weakly worded, and I have strengthened it, though not quite in the way you suggested. I think it important to mention that Spanish-Portuguese maritime rivalry was the chief factor that precipitated the search for a SW route to the Pacific, and I'd rather not draw in the ice-filled waters of the north. I'm not sure at what point people realised that the waters of the north were filled with ice - Frobisher's voyages were 50 years after Magellan - and I don't want to lose the focus of this article. Tell me if you think the revised intro is stong enough. "High southern latitudes" means latitudes tending towards 90°, but the phrase no longer appears in the text.Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent introduction. I do have to clarify that my suggestion did not exclude the mention of the Spaniard-Portugeuse rivalry (it would have your original mention of them as follow-on sentences). Your change is much better. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan

• "Because little if anything ..."

I think we are generally advised against starting sentences with the "Because" conjunction...

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Here Magellan found a deep inlet which, on investigation, proved to be the strait he was seeking, later to be known by his name."

Could we work in a link to Straits of Magellan in there?

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The end of this paragraph is a bit abrupt when considering the subsequent sub-sections. Perhaps a "His discovery of this south passage round the continent encouraged other expeditions to explore this route." or such statement to connect the sub-sections?

I'm not too sure about this. His discovery was of a passage through, not round the continent, and was accepted for 50+ years as the only route to the Pacific (Hoces's accidental "discovery" notwithstanding). Investigation of the Drake Passage really only began with the Nodal brothers, 90 years after Magellan. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, on re-reading, the flow was fine. My initial reaction was overly-critical. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Francisco de Hoces

• Drake needs to be introduced rather than just named "Drake" here. "British privateer Sir Francis Drake" can set up the context for why he would plunder, not explore, in the next sub-section.

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Francis Drake

• "Following Magellan's route, Drake reached Port St Julian on 20 June, where he stayed for nearly two months before sailing south, with his fleet now reduced to three ships and a small pinnace."

Would breaking it up into "Following Magellan's route, Drake reached Port St Julian on 20 June. Harbouring for nearly two months, Drake left the port with a reduced fleet of three ships and a small pinnace." work?

Fixed - except I don't like "harbouring" in this context so I've slightly reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "driven far to westward and southward"

I am not certain "to ...ward" is sound. Am I right to say it is more customary to hear "driven far west- and southward" or "driven far to the west and south"?

Fixed (your latter suggestion) Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Garcia de Nodal expedition

• "... brothers Bartolome and Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal leading the Garcia de Nodal expedition. During the course of their passage the expedition discovered a small group of islands about 60 miles (100 km) SW of Cape Horn, at latitude 56°30’S, which they named the Diego Ramirez Islands after their pilot, Diego Ramirez."

I believe the "Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal leading the Garcia de Nodal expedition" is a case of noun plus -ing. Perhaps "... brothers Bartolome and Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal. Their Garcia de Nodal expedition discovered a small group of islands about 60 miles (100 km) SW of Cape Horn, at latitude 56°30’S, during the exploration of the Drake Passage. The islands were named the Diego Ramirez Islands after the expedition's pilot."

I've more or less followed your suggestion, with a slight tweak. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Captain James Cook

• "second great voyage"

Heh, a bit biased, perhaps?

Yeah - great no more. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

James Clark Ross

• "carry out work on magnetism"

Would replacing "work" with "research" be better?

The "work" was largely the recording of data rather than investigating it. They usually used the word "work" to describe their activities - the word "research" would have been thought of by them as effete and French ("recherche"). Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sits fine with me. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Carsten Borchgrevink

• "following Ross's route of 60 years previously"

I would suggest "following the route Ross had taken 60 years previously", based on a little joke I was thinking of how Ross took 60 years to travel his route (perhaps it is just my silly little mind).

Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Falcon Scott

• "The Discovery Expedition of 1901–04 was Captain Scott's first Antarctic command. The published objectives of the expedition made no mention of the South Pole, but a southern journey was within Scott’s remit to "explore the ice barrier of Sir James Ross [...] and to endeavour to solve the very important physical and geographical questions connected with this remarkable ice formation". <break> This southern journey was undertaken by Scott, Edward Wilson and Ernest Shackleton. Although, according to Wilson, the intention was to "reach the Pole if possible, or find some new land", there is nothing in Scott's writings to suggest that the Pole was a definite goal."

There seems to be a tad of redundancy: both paragraphs state that the expedition's publishings mentioned no objective on making towards the South Pole. The two paragraphs could be merged.

Agreed, and merged. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Polar conquest

• "Then followed the ascent, via the newly discovered Axel Heiberg Glacier, to the plateau, and the final march to the Pole."

Who is the subject?

Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is about all I can nitpick on. Likely, several are not actionable based on personal subjectiveness. Generally, the article is in excellent shape. Jappalang (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these numerous suggestions, most of which are now incorporated into the text. Where I haven't done so, I have explained why. I appreciate the care taken towards enhancing the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I, in turn, fully support this article to be a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support A very impressive article you've written. I've made a couple minor wording tweaks in the past couple days, but feel free to revert if you don't agree with them. While this looks like a drive-by support with little meaning, this is clearly one of the most well-written articles I've seen at FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [143].

---

Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings

Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)

The Age of Kings is arguably the best real-time strategy video game ever made. I've worked on this one a great deal lately as part of the V 0.7 push. It had a fair bit of copyediting done by Pagrashtak and I think it's ready now. Of course I'm happy to act on any comments raised here. Giggy (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment FA is above my ability so I'm not actively participating, but here's a few suggestions which may (or may not) be of relevance:

*Where are the images?

• • I read User:Angr#A parable and found it quite convincing. Since all the reviews linked (heck, most of the pages linked) as sources contain screenshots, I was seeing what reaction going without a screenshot would get. Do you think I should include one? Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*Do single and multiplayer modes need sub-headings? They both look like they would slide onto the end of the main gameplay section, multiplayer in particular is extremely short for a subsection.

• • Merged as suggested. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*I see the acronym RTS being used but it isn't listed in brackets after the first example of 'Real Time Strategy'.

• • Clarified (in lead). Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*"The three human classes of military" (when describing the rock-paper-scissors mechanic) shouldn't that be three classes of infantry? Standard infantry can be referred to as just that in order to separate them from the general infantry class. Using 'human' there almost leads me to expect talk of lizardmen or cat-headed women (whoops, wrong game).

• • I have it that way because that includes archers and cavalry, the latter of which doesn't really fall under infantry. (And because one of the classes is referred to in-game as "infantry", so it could get confusing.) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*"Resources can be converted to and from gold at the player's market." Resources can be bought or sold for gold at the player's market, causing the market price to fluctuate with every transaction?

• • Done as suggested. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Good luck with the nomination, Congrats and thank you for your work on this important VG article. Someoneanother 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking a look :-) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A comment: my guess is lack of images is due to the fact that there aren't any that are free that could be used appropriately within the article. The one of the cover is OK, but any more are simply decoration, and cannot be used as per our fair use rules. I'll see if I can give this article a look through. AOE rocks! (And yes, my nick is based on the cobra car cheat :D) -- how do you turn this on 00:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Free encyclopedia and all. (Love the username, incidentally ;-).) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments ref #31 needs a page number, though otherwise sources look good; links check out with the link checker. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Giggy (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I've done a copy-edit of the article, fixing some awkward phrasings and such. I plan to continue this later. Issues:
  • There are problems with the citation of references, however, specifically with datelinks. If you'll notice, half of the dates appended to the web refs are linked, while the latter-halfish is not. This should be remedied.
  • The section on Buildings section is poorly referenced, but I'm working on that now.

I'll come up with more comments soon. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All the refs should now be formatted consistently. For the buildings section see my 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC) comment to How do you turn this on. Giggy (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: "Where are all the images" is a long way from "I'm having difficulty visualizing some concepts". I encourage folks to judiciously engage NFCC#8 before adding or suggesting images. If the article can be understood without them, they probably won't be supported. Эlcobbola _talk 01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's fair enough, but considering how many points referred to in the article could be illustrated with a single screenshot, I think there's at least a case for suggesting one. For instance, the graphics themselves are given a lot of scrutiny in regards to their quality, the scale is praised, the formations are praised, a wealth of different units are on offer, the villagers being both genders are discussed. A single image could show a group of misc. units in formation in a walled town, next to a castle or wonder, with villagers working in the background - it wouldn't be decoration, it'd be a visual reference for several aspects of the game specifically highlighted in the article. Whether that's enough or not I'll leave to you guys. Someoneanother 01:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with someone here. A single screenshot could provide a ton of illustrative information if properly framed. If a review screenshot doesn't quite have all the contents you want, I'd go and take a screenshot of the game yourself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a screenshot. Giggy (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• "...highly popular Age of Empires..." Is it necessary to say it's highly popular?
  • Not a necessity, so I've removed it. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...The civilizations have varying strengths and weaknesses with regard to..." Should that not be "regards"? (I don't know personally)
  • Fixed. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...Civilian units, called "Villagers"..." Is villagers capitalized?
  • No, fixed. I don't think it's treated as a proper noun in-game. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...There are five campaigns in The Age of Kings, based on historically-based sets of scenarios..." Only three appear to be mentioned... and only briefly. Maybe a brief idea of what happens on each scenario would be good.
  • Uggh. Copyediting hasn't treated that sentence favourably. Improved, hopefully. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...Every player has a "population" limit..." Why is population in quotes?
  • Reworded that sentence. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why is Town Center capitalized?
  • It's treated as a proper noun in-game, if memory serves. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• ..."Extensive cheating in multiplayer games of Age of Empires..." Is cheating supposed to link directly to where it does?
  • Ooh, didn't know we have a Cheating in video games article. Improved link target. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

-- how do you turn this on 12:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've replied inline. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I also notice some sections have very sparse citations, and the Units section has only 2, and Buildings only 1. Is everything covered in those references (I had a look at the refs, all seem reliable). -- how do you turn this on 12:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally the gameplay sections are cited to the game itself. Those references are used for stuff that might be a bit more contentious, if I recall (just got on now, yet to look at the comments above in detail). Giggy (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (David Fuchs) - "arguably the best real-time strategy video game ever made", emphasis on "arguably", I'm sure the Starcraft fans might disagree :P (then again, I've never been able to win a game without typing in those cheats, so who am I to complain.)
  • Agree that there should be some more sourcing in the gameplay section. Just use the gigantic manual the game comes with.
  • "The sequel to Age of Empires, The Age of Kings continued its historically themed real-time strategy trend." feel this is unnecessary with the earlier paragraph's statements and awkward to boot. Hell the entire second paragraph needs some rephrasing. Why not point out the historical time period (the Middle ages) in the first sentence, and then talk about objectives?
  • No mention of campaign/gametypes in the lead?
• " Some reviewers were critical of the presentation of units, which were seen as bland and uninteresting, others with The Age of Kings' similarity to Age of Empires" the way this is phrased, "others" isn't exactly clear.
• "The game won multiple awards and has had a significant impact on future games in the its genre." Let's play spot the bad word addition!
• more to come... (reply to it all in a block below these, if you please.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they should all be fixed. But in order... I've lost my copy of the game (snifs) but I'm going to add a bit more sourcing to the gamplay section. The other stuff is reworded/done as suggested. Giggy (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said, there's the full manual on Replacementdocs, so you shouldn't have any issue citing statements in gameplay. More comments (reply in a block below them, please):
  • "Like many real-time strategy games" - who cares? Just talk about this game.
  • "There are five campaigns in The Age of Kings, each containing" - redundancy
  • "The four major resources" - are there more than four? Last time I checked...
  • "The Age of Kings supports multiplayer over the Internet, or via a LAN" spell out LAN
  • " A multiplayer game can incorporate up to eight players, with all of the single player game modes available. The MSN Gaming Zone supported the game, until the service closed on June 19, 2006. Alternative services, such as GameSpy Arcade, were recommended as a replacement.[9]" Why say 'incorporate'? Why not just state how many players. Also, what about the Mac platform multiplayer (Gameranger?)
  • "Walls and towers are defensive structures and cannot train units. Another type of building available is the Wonder—" Um, that was an abrupt change of subject, especially for the beginning of a paragraph.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again David. All the comments have been resolved. Giggy (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments (adding down here to prevent loss of my remarks from above):
  • Reception and legacy - last paragraph feels very short and disjointed. There are several references to points that I think need expansion. How did the tournament go? Is there anything more that could be said about it? How official is the guidebook really? The three key concepts also seem to be rather unrelated and out-of-place, and seem to constitute a somewhat weak and mispositioned end to the article (I know it requires no true "end", but why are those things in particular mentioned last?)

May be more soonish. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

About the tournament, what's in the article is all I've been able to find. Everything else refers to a tournament for the expansion, The Conquerors. The guidebook, as far as I can see, is "official" in the sense that the game's designer wrote it. He probably knows the game best. I see your point, however, but I, um, don't really have any ideas on what to do to improve it. Do you have any ideas? Giggy (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe integration elsewhere is needed. I'm not sure. I'll keep pondering. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've integrated it elsewhere. I think it is fine now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Great article. However, I suggest a table of civilizations would add more value and information to the article; something like this:

Civilizations in The Age of Kings
Britons	Byzantines
Celts	Chinese
Franks	Goths
Japanese	Mongols
Persians	Saracens
Teutons	Turks
Vikings

And about the images, I'm not knowledgeable about copyrights issues, but I used to see in video game websites tons of screenshots for each game. Did they all get permission to use them? Why isn't the case here? Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems to be leaning too much towards a game guide, don't you think? With the images, the review websites probably do get permission of some sort from Microsoft/ES. However, we work based on our own non free content criteria and a core aspect of that is to use as little non free material as possible. Hence there isn't a multitude of images. Giggy (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about it; that's why I didn't insert the table right away. The idea came when I was reading article, and it occurred to me to know out of curiosity which civilizations were included. Anyways, It's just a minor suggestion. Eklipse (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• A note: "...is a real-time strategy (RTS) computer game.." - is it not a computer AND video game, considering the PS2 release? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Also: many of the ref names have the term "Age of Kings" in them, but the web titles do not have the italicised form of the game's title. Should they be, or do we not bother with the italicising of web ref titles? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • VG stuff clarified. I'm not sure what the deal is with ref titles; I've never italicised them... some do, others don't. I don't know that it matters. Giggy (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - this article looks to be in pristine condition. Well done Giggy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Leaning toward support by karanacs. I thought this was a well-written article. I am actually a big fan of this game, though, so I may have missed places where there is too much video game terminology. Some comments:

• Should the article mention that a player can have multiple town centers, or is that too much detail?
• Quotes should have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means duplicating the reference in subsequent sentences. Check Reception and legacy for issues with this.
• There is no mention of priests/monks. I would consider this a special category of unit that needs it own brief explanation.
• What makes this about.com site a reliable source? Michael Klappenbach. "Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings Game Page". about.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-28. [144]

Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Karen. In order; I think the multiple Town Center stuff is probably too much detail (especially when it's not as big a deal in this game as in, say, Age of Mythology). I checked the reception section and fixed one quote/ref issue, let me know if I missed any. I added some info on monks. Re. the source, according to about.com they have experts in their field writing everything up, and Michael Klappenbach has some qualifications. I haven't found much about him, however, elsewhere on the Internet so I've tentatively removed that reference and statement it was sourcing. Let me know if you think the page linked to is enough for reliability. Thanks again for your comments. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that the about.com is reliable, so I appreciate you taking it off. Good work overall! Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments - David Fuchs
  • "The Age of Kings was to be similar in design to its predecessor, but the design team were careful not to make it too alike. Nonetheless, they attempted to appeal to the vast demographic who played Age of Empires." This doesn't do much for me. Rephrase to be less awkward? The design team was conscious of attempting to capture the broad appeal of the first game without making the game's design too similar" or something.
  • "Because the original AI did not "cheat"," - perhaps a parenthetical would help for non-gamers here, explaining what "cheat" means in this case?
  • "To overcome the other significant objection" - I'm sure there were other objections, so change to "another"
  • "he complained of" - complained about?
  • "It and the trigger system were able to interact, and this was used heavily in the game's campaigns" - passive voice, revise (definitely don't start a sentence with 'it' if you can!)
  • The last sentence of development should be put into a paragraph somewhere.
  • There are some places where refs don't come in the proper progression, e.g. [35][34]. Fix 'em!
  • Ditto with the lone sentence of the reception; doesn't really seem that important, so consider removing.
  • I suggest taking the influence of AoE II and expanding it into a subjection of reception, 'Legacy'. Then, I suggest adding information about the later games in the series, something along the lines of Myst. It doesn't have to be as detailed, but something along those lines.
  • I still think a general gameplay image in the gameplay section would be highly desirable, illustrating the villagers, et al. If you upload it I can write a kickass fair use rationale if you need it :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Most of these are done. The last sentence of development I just removed, it was originally in legacy but it really wasn't doing much anywhere (same with reception). The reception and legacy section (ironically :P) does talk about legacy but I added some extra details as suggested. Not sure on another image; the one being used contains some of the stuff you've asked for (if you want to move it and change the caption a bit, be my guest. The rest should be done. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Eh, really, I think a better representational image can be found. Also, it's so small as to make identifying game aspects impossible. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Is this the sort of thing you're after? Giggy (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • It's far better, yes. You can talk about the female villagers and the lot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
          • OK, added to the article. To clarify, do you think I should use it and the other screenshot, or just this one (leaning towards just this one)? Giggy (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah, axe the cathedral, it's not really that important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• support' Ok, that takes care of my issues, I'll support now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great game, great article. All issues appear to be fixed. -- how do you turn this on 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [145].

---

Steve Bruce

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

I've been working on this article on and off for what seems like about two years, constantly getting distracted and wandering off onto something else. I've now finally knuckled down and got it to what I feel is FA standard, feel free to agree or disagree :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.setanta.com/en/UK/
• http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=sport-qqqm=sport-qqqa=sport-qqqid=71937-qqqx=1.asp deadlinks

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• setanta.com is the website of Setanta Sports, one of Europe's leading sports TV networks. And examiner.ie is the website of The Irish Examiner, a daily national newspaper in the Republic of Ireland. I see no problem with either as a reliable source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, early morning typo. Didn't mean to question the Examiner, just point out that it deadlinks. Corrected above. And I'm in the heart of the Midwest in the US, I'm not always familiar with European news networks, thanks for the explanation! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The deadlink has now been removed, the sentence in question is still referenced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've just found the new URL of the Irish Examiner piece, so I'll put it back in........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

comment - I am unconvinced Image:SteveBruceAutoBio.jpg meets WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're probably right. I've now removed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - First off, assuming that they check out, I love the pictures. It's so rare to see a free photo from the 1980s here. That said, I'm a prose and MoS reviewer by trade. Let's see if there's anything to fix...

• Early life: Second Newcastle United link isn't needed.
• Playing career, Gillingham: The season links don't need to be piped anymore. En dashes are now in the titles. About time the soccer people made that change.
• Another Newcastle United link in there.
• Also an extra Football League Cup link here. And one for old Wembley Stadium.
• Manchester United: "was described in 2006 by the then United captain, Gary Neville, as the best in the club's history." "then United" needs a hyphen, I would imagine.
• "with the result that Bruce captained the team..." This seems strange. How about "which led to Bruce captaining the team..." I don't like which or the somewhat passive voice, come to think of it. You'll have to find something better, I guess. There's a reason I'm only a reviewer.
• "championsip of English football since 1967." And they've gone on to many more championsips since. :-)
• "at a time when Premier League rules restricted the number of foreign players which a club could include in its team." I'd really prefer "that a club could include in its team", as again I'm not a big fan of which.
• Extra Chelsea and Everton links. Also a Newcastle link again.
• "having agreed a contract valued at..." Missing word here.

My main advice is to audit for overlinking, because I'm catching a lot of it. A run-through for hyphens couldn't hurt either, as I'm seeing a few places where they could be added. One example is "twelve point" in 1995-96. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Both the photos from the 1980s were taken by myself, so they're definitely OK. And I'm just in the process of correcting the various typos, etc, in another window :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I will say, however, that the season links do in fact still need to be piped, otherwise you'd end up with things like "Bruce spent the 1978–79 in English football season in Gillingham's reserve team", which reads like complete garbage...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking it as 1978–79 season might make it clearer. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Anyway, I'm back to offer more comments.

• Picky, but a space between references [59][60] [61].
• Later playing career: "which fuelled rumours that the manager was to be dismissed..." Is "fuelled" British English? Not sure about this one yet. At least I know rumours is good.
• Style of play: "He was well known for carrying on playing even when injured..." Don't think the double ing reads that well. How about "He was well known for continuing to play even when injured..."
• Early managerial career: "The team continued to struggle at the start to the 2000-01 season,..." Tos are repetitive. I'd replace the second with of.
• Return to Wigan Athletic: The linked date in here should be removed.
• Other activities: Comma after autobiography? (don't mean the book, which already has one; I mean the word.)

That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments. Yes, "fuelling" rumours is perfectly good British English. Everything else I'll fix tomorrow morning, right now my wife wants to get online :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now, sorry for the delay -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments. Chris, the lead suggests that someone new should be brought in to copy-edit the whole text. It has promise as a nomination.

• "spell"—makes it sound as though it's a real let-down for him; "term"?
  • changed
• "Bruce was rejected"—the reader is tossed and turned back and forward chronologically. Can you iron it out, and alter the paragraph boundary too?
  • changed
• "and becoming"—remove "and"?
  • changed
• Comma after "field", probably.
  • changed
• "England" piped to the "English National Football Team". Is this hidden link wise? Readers are likely to spurn it as one of those useless links to commonly known countries.
  • changed
• "has been described as one of the best English players of the 1980s and 1990s never to appear for the national team." Since this is an ironic turn of phrase, I wonder whether "described by blah" might be better (citation not needed here in the lead if it appears further down). Otherwise, it sounds as though WP is being ironic, which is just a little POV and informal for us.
  • changed
• "Spells" again. I think of a spell in prison, or in the classroom corner.
  • changed
• More chronological jumble?
  • can't see where, could you elaborate?

My eyes strayed further down: "with Gillingham chasing promotion from"; see this. Tony (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Further to the above, I've asked other editors at the football project to provide a fresh set of eyes on my prose..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • .........and the article has now been copy-edited by User:Kevin McE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Late in the 1992-93 season, Bruce scored twice in a 2-1 win over Sheffield Wednesday (the winnier coming in the 96th minute). This was hugely significant to Man United's title win (it was the game that saw Ferguson and Brian Kidd dancing and celebrating on the pitch before full time). Probably worth a mention? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention made -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - With all my issues taken care of, this earns my support. I particularly like how his playing career is given appropriate space. It's easy to overlook this when writing about an active manager. Good job on it. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Bruce was among five former Premier League players signed by Birmingham manager Trevor Francis to add experience to a squad expected to challenge for promotion." I think you ought to say what division Birmingham were in either here or the last sentence of the previous sentence.
• There seems to be a slight inconsistency between styles for division names e.g. First Division or Division One.
• You might want to check for overlinkage. I've removed a couple of repeated links myself.
• "Birmingham made a slow start to the 2006–07 season in the Football League Championship and, after a 1–0 defeat at home to Norwich City, the team's fifth consecutive match without a win, there were calls for the manager to be sacked." Were these from fans again? Or from other people too?
• The prose looks good and the article is extensive. Peanut4 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • All points addressed now, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Above points addressed and it meets criteria 1, 2 and 4. I'm not particularly good at reviewing images at FAC, but as long as they're fine, I have no problem supporting this article. Peanut4 (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did the nominator cap the comments from me and Peanut? They're resolved, but it sets a bad precedent. Only the reviewer should be capping comments, and it should rarely be used anyway. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them. Giants, if you come across this in the future, please feel free to remove them yourself; it's stated clearly in the FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, saw it for the first time on another FAC and thought it would make the page easier to read, nothing untoward was intended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happens all the time. They cause a Template limits problem in arachives so we have to keep them to a minimum; you may have seen one from Ealdgyth, because I've asked her to continue using them, as her source reviews are often lengthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support with some things needing to be fixed. 1. Captions are long, cut them to just what they are depicting. For example "Bruce lifted the Premier League trophy on three occasions." should just read "Premier League trophy", and the body of the text should be responsible for explaining why its important. 2. The "Life outside of football" should be renamed "Personal Life" with no subheadings (all merged into one). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support but I'm not 100% happy with text squashed between images - some of the cup images are a little arbitrary - I know they're in to brighten up the overall article but avoid squashing text... And couldn't you simply say "League" instead of "Football League/Premier League" in the summary of his appearances? And " rifle through his dustbin" is a little tabloid for me... Otherwise, great work. No senior caps. What a crime (and that's a Tractor Boy talking...) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [146].

---

Germanium

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) & Stone & WP Elements

Aside from a few finishing touches, I believe the article is ready to become featured. Many thanks to various users, including Itub, Mav, Edgar181, Axiosaurus, and Jimfbleak. Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

question - Would it be possible to get an image other than Image:Lilit.jpg for the section, I would be happier if it didn't have trademark issues. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this one better? Image:Pet Flasche.JPG--Stone (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! Fasach Nua (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And me jimfbleak (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support and comments COI - I did the GA for this. It has been substantially improved since GA. However, I share the concern about the Lilt bottle, especially as it can so easily be replaced by a image of a PET bottle with the label removed. jimfbleak (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/elem/ge.html a reliable source? Granted, it's not exactly contentious information..

It lists all the references it uses at the bottom of the page. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the guy stopped updating the articles there several years ago, but I have used his articles and wherever I had to double-check his statements in the refs he gives, I did not manage to find errors. About fact-checking: is this ok? Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, it's on the fence in my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise http://science.jrank.org/pages/2398/Element-Chemical.html?

gone

• And http://www.mt-berlin.com/frames_cryst/descriptions/scintillators_gen%20.htm?

gone

• Please note the language where websites are in non-English languages.

added language tags

• Current ref 36 (Alpha Fusion Electrical Energy Valve) is lacking a publisher.

publisher added

• Current ref 47 (Brown, Jr. Robert D ...) is lacking a last access date

added accessdate

• Current ref 49 (Understanding Recordable & Rewritable DVD..) is lacking a publisher

added publisher

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes (such as ORTEC, etc.)

added full spelling to two abrevs

• What makes http://kubton.com/fuzz_guide.html reliable?

Jo the Fuzz gets expensiv this season .... I can not find a credible ref for that ;-)--Stone (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gone withe whole sentence that the pedals got expensive.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

gone

• Likewise http://www.stopcancer.com/germaniumstor.htm?

This ref is used to show that some dumb people take germanium thinking it is a miracle drug. How could anybody find a credible statement for such an idea? Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaced by a credible source--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref 47 doesn't really need an access date IMO because it is an annual report, not a website, and is not subject to change (but it should probably be cited using a different template). I agree with the points about reliability; in general a more established reference can be used instead. I'm a bit dubious in particular about the statement that germanium is the purest element ever obtained, which is attributed to one of these websites. I'd rather see a more detailed reference that compares ultrapure Ge with ultrapure Si side by side so we can really know the difference and the time when the comparison was made. --Itub (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to give access dates is to allow for the use of webarchives in case the link goes dead later. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Accessdate now.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick nitpick, please don't strike through others comments at FAC, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I'm not sure who struck my comments, but it wasn't me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!--Stone (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NO worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Almost support. The article is greatly improved since the last time I read it when it was at peer review (disclaimer: I've done a bit of copy-editing and fact-checking on this article myself). I think it is comprehensive and well referenced. The only caveats are the possibly unreliable references discussed above, and the usual minor inconsistencies in reference formatting (author names and such). --Itub (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked and found only one. Point them out an I get them! --Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are still a couple that appear to have the "firstname lastname" format: Gordon K. Teal and Masanori Kaji (I'm not sure about the latter, but it doesn't have a comma like all the other names). There are also several entries without an author. While in some cases there is truly no known author, at least "SiGe History" has an author in the page footer if you follow the link, and "Germanium for Electronic Devices" says W.K. (I don't know if those may be the author's initials or mean something else, maybe would have to check the full text). I haven't checked the other "anonymous" sources. --Itub (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

is this done?

Done. --Itub (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. The second paragraph in the Applications/Optics subsection is strange. The first sentence should be moved to the third paragraph. The last sentence duplicates the first paragraph and should be moved there. As to IR detectors, Ge is used rarely now—usually in for wavelengthes longer than 20 μm and the Ge's badgap is not so different from that of Si (1.11 eV v. 0.67 eV). I think the article should provide more complete review of Ge IR detectors. You can use this paper. Ruslik (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Right! I changed the paragraph. The point is that Germanium is not used as detector, but as optical element. So the reference you provided deals with the detectors not wit infrared optics, but I try to find a better ref.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

not done?

• Comment The pictures do not adhere to MOS. See here [147]Taprobanus (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one violates what rule?--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the guideline that says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other"? The layout looks OK if you have a big window, but not if it is say 800 px of less. --Itub (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

possibly the ones where information is in the label of the image but not in the text. perhaps move the organogermanim reaction in the uses section? Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For example Image:Renierit.JPG, is left aligned, they should all be right aligned when you begin a new section. Also dont sandwich material between two pics. Taprobanus (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The guideline about right aligning images at the beginning of a section doesn't apply there, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. This is neither the first section nor a "==="-level heading or greater. --Itub (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—It looks good, but unfortunately I have a few issues:
  • Why is it pure chloride GeCl⁴, rather than pure GeCl⁴ or germanium tetrachloride (as is used later)?

    done

  • "first major use were": was or uses?
  • "...was to be the first metallic material discovered to become superconducting..." seems awkward.

    rephrased--Stone (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "...at red heat." is vague.

    quote: Oberhalb Rotglut verbrennt es ( above redheat it burns....) Hollemann --Stone (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Then please either quote it or also give an equivalent temperature. Thanks.

all the very old references use this type of vague words...Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry to be persistent on this, but "red heat" just seems too vague. It's like saying an object is "heavy". There should be some reference that gives a solid temperature. Also, how is the reader to know that this is an old quote? It just looks like a statement of fact. By putting quotes around it and specifying the originator, the authority becomes clear.

doneNergaal (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The silicon article mentions that it remains a semiconductor at higher temperatures than germanium. You might discuss that in the Characteristics section and state at what temperature germanium stops being a semiconductor.
    • Does Figure 2.6.4 of this page help? It shows that the intrinsic carrier density of Germanium increases more slowly than Silicon for higher temperatures. But I'm not an expert so I'm unsure if I am reading it correctly.—RJH (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

not done Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the fact that Germanium is a semiconductor is a notable factor, and the behavior at high temperatures is an issue. It seems to me that this should be covered for comprehensiveness.—RJH (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The infobox lists the abundance of ⁷⁴Ge as ~36%. The text says ⁷²Ge is the most common at ~28%. These seem to conflict.

This was a conflict!--Stone (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The article should explain that β+ is a positron and β- is an electron, rather than assuming reader knowledge.

  done

  • "...none is mined because of its germanium content" is ambiguous. (it can be interpreted as hazardous, &c.)

    done

  • Please address the red links.

    done

    • Except for germanates.
      • According to SandyGeorgia, delegate of the FA director, "there's nothing wrong with redlinks and their removal is not required for FA status, unless the link is to a topic that is unlikely to attain notability". That said, I'd rather just remove the link until someone decides to create the germanate article. --Itub (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
        • So be it then; leave it as an eye-sore. ;-)—RJH (talk)
  • There are several single-sentence paragraphs. Can these be expanded or merged?

it should be ok now Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Enhanced levels of Germanium are generated by the s-process in asymptotic giant branch stars, and this shows up in planetary nebulae.[148]

done added short para--Stone (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Germanium is being used in the search for dark matter.[149][150]

the text already states that "Crystals of high purity germanium are used in detectors for gamma spectroscopy and the search for dark matter." Should this be expanded? Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Germanium sesquioxide is a herbal remedy and has medical uses.

    It's not herbal and if it is a remedy is questioned by a lot of articles. The peer reviewed journal mention it in the context of renal failure after excessive Germanium uptake and it is a minor use for germanium.--Stone (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Well it seemed to receive scholarly attention in terms of its anti-tumor qualities. (bis (2-carboxyethylgermanium) sesquioxide: CEGS.) Yes it appears to be hazardous, but it was used in the 1970s as a dietary supplement.[151] It might be worth a mention even in a negative context.

      Isn't it mentioned in the last section? Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

      fine, I added a note. Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a big issue for me. I just thought it would be good for comprehensiveness.—RJH (talk)

• Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support - Pretty good per WIAFA, but RJH has some valid points. My support is conditional to RJH being satisfied. COI - I destubbed this article in 2002 and paid a bounty on this article to get it to GA. --mav (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please see the WP:FAC instructions and remove the graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not done; OK, I did it myself. Will the nominator please do the cleanup on the FAC to help keep it readable? It is unclear who added the "not done" comments, as they are unsigned, and for me to step back through the diffs on every FAC is very time consuming. Please sign your entries, and avoid graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure why those were added; they didn't seem to help. Perhaps a bot could be written that will perform the graphics cleanup automatically? (At least for frequently-use graphics templates.)—RJH (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • The article does not look very aesthetically pleasing. There is major text squeeze in the history section, which IIRC is frowned upon.

not sure how to solve this Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move or remove one of those images? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

• • The lede seems a tad short at a quick glance - do you feel it appropriately summarizes the article?

pretty much yes-and the other element articles do a similar job. do you have something specific in mind though? Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • I was only checking if the lede covered everything. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
  • The first note (note A) needs a source.

done Nergaal (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • For accessibility purposes, the temperature units in the article (which are in Celsius) should have a corresponding value in Fahrenheit (in parenthesis). Make sure other units (weight, length, volume, when applicable) are in both metric and imperial.
  • Any need for the redlink germanates in the chemistry section? Is there another link it can go to? It's not a big deal, though.
• ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support -Excellent work. My only surprise, Mav's not here? ;) —Ceranthor (formerly LordSunday) · (Testify!) 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I paid a bounty to get this article improved while I was working on getting yttrium up to FA standards. :) --mav (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes; layout issues abound, and they are too non-standard for me to sort. Please go to the WP:ACCESS talk page and inquire if this layout is accessible and post the response back here. Also, resolve the non-reliable source: I am not a chemist, but a (map) historian much interested in the origin of names clearly does not meet WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean by layout issues, but I did post a request there. Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They'll know; I just need to know if a screen reader can process the way those images are laid out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the reference. Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed the last one in the footnotes 73 but we might substitute it by doi:10.1002/zaac.18960120138, when I have access to it.--Stone (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support on the prose. But why is "irritate" linked (to a DAB page, too)? "Nonetheless, none". Comma between "synthesized ranging". In generally, it's a little short on commas. Then again, I see commas that are unnecessary interruptions to the flow: "in the atmosphere of Jupiter,[39] and in some of the most distant stars." 1.66 ppm doesn't sound abundant. Tony (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Dablink fixed. Giggy (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • rephrased the ppm part Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The one thing that strikes me as odd are the "see also" links in the Characteristics section, which goes to the "Germanium compounds" category page, and the "see also" link going to the "Germanium minerals" category. Is there some Chemistry WikiProject style guideline for elements articles? Is linking to categories this way a standard thing for such articles? Otherwise, perhaps there should be articles to link to (stub articles okay), rather than categories.
• Otherwise, the article looks good to me and is understandable to the layreader. I'm not a chemistry expert, so can't say whether or not the article is comprehensive, or if it's citing the best sources for this topic. --Aude (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (conditional) but, you will have to fix these first - 1. The image with caption "Dmitri Mendeleev" is flush against a table. I would move the one image up and the other image down. I don't like images flush against tables because of potential formatting problems. 2. "Rinierite" and a table are under "Production". They sandwich in a subsection. This can be fixed many ways. One, remove the picture. Two, merge all of the sections under the heading "Production" since they have small paragraphs, and then move the table down so it no longer sandwiches text. 3. Remove the "see also" subheading and integrate it into the text somewhere if it is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Got rid of the "See also". Someone added it recently and I thought it was unnecessary, but then I forgot to remove it. As for the images, I'll leave that for someone with the necessary patience to play with it. Quite frankly, I think it is an insoluble problem--what looks perfect in my browser may look hideous in yours and vice versa. --Itub (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a sample version of image changes. With it, the Rinierite will need to be given a sentence in the text, otherwise, there is no in text reason for the image, which could confuse people. I hope this helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:33, 2 October 2008 [152].

---

James Russell Lowell

Nominator(s): Midnightdreary (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because, well, I think it should be considered for featured article. Let me know what you think; any help is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In James Russell Lowell#Marriage and family should "the was made up" be she was or possibly they were? ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for finding that! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I thought that might have been what it was supposed to mean. Hope the article gets FA status, for what its worth I think it deserves it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support from Maralia I made a few minor copyedit fixes here and there. Some other issues:

• Please choose 'anti-slavery' or 'antislavery' and stick with it throughout.
• "In the spring of 1845, the Lowells returned to Cambridge to make their home at Elmwood and had four children, though only one survived past infancy." - Here your habit of joining sentences got a bit out of hand, unless they really had four children in the spring of 1845 :)
• "He was asked to contribute half as often to the Standard after only one year to make room for contributions from Edmund Quincy." - 'After only one year, he was asked...' would make this clearer, I think.
• "A satire, Lowell published it anonymously and took good-natured jabs at his contemporary poets and critics" - Misplaced modifier.

• This remains an issue with the revised sentence. See dangling modifier for an explanation.

• "For six months, Lowell became depressed and reclusive" - There's a disconnect here between 'became' and 'for six months'.
• "Some speculated the offer was because of the family connection as an attempt to bring him out of his depression." - This needs rephrasing; I think it's trying to get two distinct points across, but it's not clear.

From a MOS standpoint, this article is in great shape. There wasn't a single hyphen where an endash should be, only one image needed moving, and the references are consistently formatted. Good job! I did find a couple free images you may want to consider: this shot of an inscription purportedly combining a quote from Lowell with a quote from Shakespeare; and this shot of Elmwood in 1920. Honestly I'm not sure if I'd use either, but I thought I'd let you know they're out there. Thanks for an interesting article. Maralia (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've made all the changes you've suggested (I went with "anti-slavery", by the way). Great comments (and copy edits)! --Midnightdreary (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have updated my comments above. One additional thing: the 'disambig links' tool in the box at right shows several wikilinks that link to disambiguation pages rather than specific articles. Maralia (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the disambig links; they've all been fixed. I think I've also fixed the remaining concerns from before. I made a mistake and completely misunderstood one of your suggestions. Sorry about that! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good; changed to support. Well done. Maralia (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - your thoughtful suggestions and copy edits were invaluable; I would never have caught them on my own. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• No mention of the Spanish Academy? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Err... you might have to enlighten me a bit. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• he was a member of the Spanish Academy, which he was very pleased about.
• the MLA has a prize named after him
• Currently looking for more stuff.. note that if i find many key facts missing, I'll have to Oppose based on 1b. But we're not at that point yet. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally; I would expect nothing less. I certainly didn't purposely leave out information and I try to be comprehensive with these articles but, really, that's never 100% possible. I haven't come across either of your two points in my studies of Lowell. I will look into verifiable information if it seems relevant. --15:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Found info on the Spanish Academy. I might just use the MLA web site as a source for the Lowell prize. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I added info on the MLA's JRL prize - but I'm not sure I formatted the footnote properly. I'm not much of an online source user here on Wiki. Can anyone confirm it is okay? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked both the reference format and the sentence/quote itself. Maralia (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are nothing less than awesome. Thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comments: Engaging and well researched, as usual. I only have a few nitpicks:

• He used his poetry, in part, for reform, particularly in abolitionism. A little clunky with the repetitive commas, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Any ideas?
• shortly after the groom published Conversations on the Old Poets, a collection of previously published essays. Of his previously published essays?
• "leaned for a long while against a tree weeping", according to the Longfellows, who were in attendance. This is the first time that Longfellow is mentioned, but he's linked and introduced later in the paragraph.

Hooray for the Fireside Poets! Perhaps this will be the beginning of a Featured Topic? María (habla conmigo) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Longfellow kept popping up in my research. I wasn't trying to make it look like it was a Longfellow/Lowell reunion but he just kept coming back! I'll make these fixes. And, yes, the Fireside Poets should definitely be a featured topic! Shall we...? My goal is to get a Poe FT first, though. Then maybe some Transcendentalists. So much to do!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once I've beaten Crane into submission, my American lit calendar will be free, free I tell you! Let me know if I can help. María (habla conmigo) 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, with requests:

• Can you explain who the Fireside poets are, briefly in the lead?
• You also might have to change abolitionism to "abolition of slavery" as many non-Americans don't equate the term "abolition" automatically with slavery.
• His poetry has been criticized for being forgettable? Harsh.
• I'm curious how Lowell got on in Spain and what he found so funny about social situations. Can you give examples?
• Never have I seen such a term as "Swedenborgianism". Please define it briefly to keep readers on your article lest they get distracted by a term that could only, by appearance, refer to Abba.
• Inner light and pacifism? Was he a Quaker?
• Well done, as usual Midnightdreary. I enjoyed reading it quite a bit. --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've added info on both "Fireside Poets" and the latest hit single from Abba. I'm also learning that not even Americans know what I mean when I say "abolitionism" so I've fixed that too. Yes, lots of Lowell's critics are quite harsh (and I hardly think A Fable for Critics is forgettable, but I'm a 19th century book nerd). I have no specific examples of any social situations in Spain (biographies seem to gloss over the diplomat years); apologies for that. No, he wasn't a Quaker (he was an Abba fan, err, Swedenbourgian). Thanks for taking a look! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes, per WP:MOSNUM, what is the limit on digits and spelling out numbers? The article has, in two sentences, 15, then fourteen and fifty-six. Why not 14 and 56 ?

• Beginning in 1834, at the age of 15, Lowell attended Harvard College, though he was not a good student and often got into trouble. In his sophomore year alone, he was absent from required chapel attendance fourteen times and from classes fifty-six times.

This occurs throughout the article. Why is the verse after "Lowell's character Hosea Biglow says in verse:" in WP:ITALICS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the article used spelled-out numbers throughout, which is certainly unusual but not against WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. Midnight, what was your intent? Maralia (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gee, don't give me too much credit; I doubt that I had any intention! It's likely I was just emulating the format or presentation of whatever source I was using at the time. Let me see how I can clean up the numbers. As far as The Biglow Papers in italics, I often see it that way (I can't say always_, possibly as an indication that this isn't quite the normal language (similar to the "foreign language words" noted as acceptable formatting under WP:ITALICS). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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