Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions
- Afrikaans
- Alemannisch
- አማርኛ
- العربية
- অসমীয়া
- Azərbaycanca
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Boarisch
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Cymraeg
- Dansk
- Deutsch
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- فارسی
- Français
- Frysk
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Ido
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Íslenska
- Italiano
- עברית
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Latviešu
- Лезги
- Lietuvių
- Magyar
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- Bahasa Melayu
- Minangkabau
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Napulitano
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Norsk nynorsk
- Олык марий
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- Pälzisch
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Română
- Русский
- Саха тыла
- Shqip
- සිංහල
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Suomi
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Xitsonga
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Zeêuws
- 中文
adding fac for Spyro: Year of the Dragon |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) pr |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter de Coventre}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter de Coventre}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Orange Box}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Orange Box}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Germany}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannon}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannon}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid (series)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid (series)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Double Seven Day scuffle}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Double Seven Day scuffle}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grim Fandango}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silverchair}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silverchair}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Timor Leste Defence Force}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canons of page construction}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canons of page construction}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheffield Rules}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheffield Rules}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Choe Bu}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Costello Music}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Costello Music}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tel Aviv}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tel Aviv}} |
||
Line 48: | Line 44: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancient Egypt}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancient Egypt}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of California, Riverside}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anarky}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anarky}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Bridgeport (AD-10)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 Pacific hurricane season}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 Pacific hurricane season}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia}} |
Revision as of 00:47, 26 March 2008
- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominating
Commenting, etc
|
Nominations
- 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 03:07, 30 March 2008.
Spyro: Year of the Dragon
A bit shorter than some odysseys that are video game articles, but it covers the previews, music, gameplay, and reception fairly well, methinks, better than some of the shorter FA game articles I’ve done in any case. Fire away your comments. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The audio sample should include the article the fair use rationale is for. It is a bit shorter than your usual, but it looks good with a quick skim, as you usually do it. If I feel it, I'll take a deeper look. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bit shorter? Then you haven't seen this one... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed fair-use for the audio sample. Salavat (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't comment on the shorter FA game articles you speak of, but, there are some things that can be done to improve this article (at least, prior to me going through it properly to decide which way to vote). There are a lot of terms used that should either be explained in the article, or if possible, in separate sub-articles. While I understand them, having played this a long time ago, an average reader may be confused. Rhynocs, "health bar" etc. are some examples. I also don't think it is comprehensive enough - you can give more details about the game. One place to start is the bonus-type areas, where you can skateboard. The skateboard doesn't just miraculously appear out of no where - you have to go through a certain ... To access each level, you have to go through a certain ... To access certain levels, you need to collect ... What are examples of these levels? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how rattling off the names of levels where you can skateboard improves the comprehensiveness of the article in a good fashion. As for 'Rhynocs' and 'heath bar', I've reworded and expanded, but I think if you read the gameplay section it's fairly clear that Sparx functions as a visual representation of your health. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for a person who has no experience or knowledge in playing games of this nature. So far, the article is quite vague in a lot of areas. I'll give more thorough review later, although, it may seem more like a criticism if I bring out its weaknesses in too much detail. Will look through it again before I do make such a review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good! Short but comprehensive, has images, NPOV, and well written. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support another great work from Fuchs. igordebraga ≠ 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Lack of sales data. This is not comprehensive. - hahnchen 23:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I believe there is some data. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
"The game was the last Spyro game Insomniac Games would make". Why not use "made" instead of "would make"?"Named for the animal of the Chinese zodiac". Surely it should be "named after"."after one hundred and fifty". Per MoS, 150 shouldn't be written out in full. Change for similar examples, such as "thirty"."The game was eventually followed by". "eventually" is redundant here."third person" should probably be hyphenated."Year of the Dragon is a platformer primarily taking place in the third person, and its gameplay is very similar to its two predecessors." Prose is weak here."These gems are used to pay off other characters". You probably should elaborate upon this as it leaves me none-the-wiser."will cause the player to lose and life". Should have been "lose a life". Please proofread."who has feelings for Hunter." I feel a bit iffy about this but I may be wrong. Any chance of rewording to make it seem less informal?"where Spyro and his kind are". Should probably change "kind" to "kin"."instead of tacking on more". If he actually said "tacking on", then quote it; if he didn't, then reword.Reception should include at least one sentence devoted to music, especially considering the composer. Much more than the passing reference to "rich sound".Actually, I'd probably feel more comfortable if the section was expanded in general. The last paragraph's placement in this section is dubious too.MobyGames link is questionable to say the least.Ref 17's title nees fixing
Okay, I hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed except for the reception section. What is your issue with the last paragraph? I can't exactly think of a better place for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Did we ever get a decision on Magic Box as a reliable source? Otherwise everything looks good on the sources.
- 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 03:07, 30 March 2008.
Ima Hogg
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is the most comprehensive single article on this fascinating woman, and it meets the Featured article critera. I did a lot of the research and writing, but this has been a team collaboration. Special thank-yous to: Elcobbola and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back for image help, Corvus cornix and SWTPC6800 for research, Nishkid64 for writing the lead, Yomangani and Maralia and Tony1 for copyediting, and SandyGeorgia for MOS help and general whip-cracking (and if I forgot anyone I am sorry). Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:LEAD and reformat with a four paragraph lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, it looks like a very interesting article. I noticed that two of the picture captions mention the entrance to her home, but I don't see that the significance of the entrance is explained anywhere. Why is the entrance notable?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention that the second one's caption is talking about how she restored the entrance, when the actual picture is of the back. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points, I added a sentence to explain why the entrances were a big deal at this home. What is now the front entrance used to be the back; the original entrance is now the back of the house. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, it looks like a very interesting article. I noticed that two of the picture captions mention the entrance to her home, but I don't see that the significance of the entrance is explained anywhere. Why is the entrance notable?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Hogg served as district attorney from 1880 to 1884. This article suggests there was an intervening election in 1882 (which he won after giving his daughter an amusing name). However, The Texas Constitution of 1868, Article V, Section 12, stated: "There shall be a District Attorney elected by the qualified voters of each judicial district, who shall hold his office for four years; and the duties, salaries and perquisites of District Attorney shall be prescribed by law."[2] Are we sure that the term of office had been reduced to two years, as of 1882? In other words, are we sure that there was an election in 1882?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what my source said, in discussion of her name. I checked several sources on Jim Hogg, and they all said that he was district attorney from 1880-1884 but didn't specify whether that was one term or two. I checked the Constitution of 1872 (which should have been in effect during the 1880s), and it says that if there is no district attorney, then a county attorney would have a 2-yr term.[3] It's possible that my source confused district with county attorney; I'm not sure. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source that definitely confirms he ran for reelection in 1882.[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We say in the article that "there are some who believe that James Stephen Hogg...." Do we know whether this is a fringe belief, the belief of a large minority, or a majority belief? For a Wikipedia article to say "some people say" seems weaselly even if the Wikipedia article is quoting some source saying "some people say." See what I'm saying?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a direct quote, and the source does not go into any more detail. The Hoggs are the subject of much legend in Texas; these stories are common knowledge and often discussed in schools. This is another legend, and I don't have any way of being more specific. If others think that this is also problematic we can take out that whole sentence, but I'd like to wait for further opinions. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't take out that sentence, but maybe rephrasing to: "legend has it 'that James Stephen Hogg....'" There seems to be a ton of evidence that this was mere legend. See Mary Kelly's book. Also, since this book by Kelly is available online (via Google Books), it would probably be a good idea to link to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in view of recent edits.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few small points.
- "Hogg worked on a volume about her father's papers" - the word "volume" is wierd and unclear to me in this context. Do you mean a single book in a set of books? If so, it's oddly worded.
- I haven't seen other articles have external links to pictures of the subject. I'm not sure if this is within Wikipedia standards so I think they should either be added if PD-US or the links removed. There's already a link to the Commons category, so PD images could be added there if the point is making a collection of images about her.
Overall, this article is very well written and ready to be featured. Royalbroil 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reworded to "Hogg worked on a collection of her father's papers", as it was actually a multi-volume set. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with you about the images, especially since several of them were poor images. I've removed all but her page at the UT Santa Rita Awards. Karanacs (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent article. --Laser brain (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments Wow, good work. The prose is what I would expect from the editors who worked on the article. I really didn't find anything "wrong"; below are some comments that boil down to preference so they are not dealbreakers.[reply]"Hogg successfully ran for a seat on the Houston School Board in 1943, where she worked to remove gender and race as criteria for pay..." Maybe pay rate?- Changed but feels awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to "...criteria for determining pay." Feel free to change back to the original; it's no big deal. --Laser brain (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed but feels awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Under Ima's supervision, the house was later remodeled and a portico was added to what had been the back of the house; Ima made this the new front entrance, orienting the house away from Varner Creek." This sticks out as a time you switch to calling the subject "Ima" when you normally call her "Hogg" or rarely "Ima Hogg".- changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"For the next year Ima nursed him..." Ditto.- Here, I changed a few, not all, because it's necessary in some cases to distinguish her from him. Please adjust if still needed ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hogg won with 4,350 votes, more than 1,000 more than the runner-up." That's a lot of mores.- Changed, please tweak as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Her first purchase, in 1922, was a 'Spanish foot chair'" Why single quotes?--Laser brain (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I removed those quotes, not necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Diff of changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed those quotes, not necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments before supporting.
I don't understand why some dates are linked and others are not. The ones that are don't add anything of value to the article.--GrahamColmTalk 00:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Full dates and month-day combinations are wikilinked to allow date preferences to work. Did I miss any of those? Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham, the date linking is correct. I saw a query about dates from you on another FAC where they were also correctly linked. I'll take this to your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Full dates and month-day combinations are wikilinked to allow date preferences to work. Did I miss any of those? Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's an art program?- I don't know how to fix this, Graham, since I don't know where the disconnect is. It's a program in the school for children to study art; someone probably had to start it. Is there a different use of the word program in British English? Can you suggest a fix? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham changed to art education programs; much better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to fix this, Graham, since I don't know where the disconnect is. It's a program in the school for children to study art; someone probably had to start it. Is there a different use of the word program in British English? Can you suggest a fix? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...works by Picasso, Klee, and Matisse, among others. She donated hundreds of these famed artworks.. wouldn't masterpieces be better here?- Changed, better? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WRT the differences between American and British English, the use of punctuation is suprisingly different. Could you please check the result of "defending, as she put it, 'my good name'". I would have written the result of "defending", as she put it, "my good name" .Hogg's mother attempted to teach her ladylike skills such as... I would prefer the chauvanistic word "ladylike" to be neutered by commas.Her mother also encouraged Hogg to read and to learn German .. is confusing. Does this mean to read German and learn German. Or to read period. And to learn German? A comma might help.- I think I fixed; pls tweak as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few occurances of purchase and its variants. Do rich folk purchase whereas ordinary folk buy?- Well, yes, when you buy property and art, it is usually called a purchase. I looked at each occasion and wasn't sure we should switch it to buy or bought, as it sounded very informal. Switch them if you'd like? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and she went on to serve 12 terms in that capacity - in that capacity, is redundant.- Removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
while getting into a taxi why the while?--GrahamColmTalk 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Removed the while, not sure it's correct, please tweak as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Diff of changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the while, not sure it's correct, please tweak as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having gotten the nitt-picking sorted out, now it’s time for the compliments. This is a masterpiece , a fine, encyclopaedic biography of one of America’s great philanthropists. I felt I knew Ima Hogg well after reading this and her portrait at the top of the article is worthy of being featured alone. I know have said this about other FAs, but this is a great Wikipedia treasure. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There may be some organizational quirks remaining from the “dump all information in now and sort out later” writing method. For instance, as Ferrylodge pointed out, there are events from 1914 in the “early years” section (Ima was in her early 30s). Also, the third paragraph of the “Education and musical interests” seems out of place, as the context (or, perhaps, just the wording) seems to imply that visiting “concerts and museums” was a merely a diversion from grief (i.e. not an action that should really be interpreted as supporting/indicating/etc. her interests). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think some of that can be resolved by moving some of the info that relates to her character and disposition into that section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Karanacs rearranged; better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A minor point, but I find the chronology unclear in the current version of the Description and disposition section::
- One morning, Hogg was awakened by a burglar in her bedroom. She confronted the man, who was attempting to steal her jewelry, and convinced him to not only return the jewelry, but "wrote down a name and address, handed it to him and told him to go there that very day to get a job".[96] When asked why she did that, Hogg responded, "He didn't look like a bad man."[96] Later that year, she sailed to Germany, alone.
- How old was Miss Ima during this burglary. "Later that year???" Later what year? The year of the burglary? A mediocre student of history would have to click on the Franz Ferdinand link to figure when these events occurred.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added citation to the burglary in 1914. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes more sense, at least to me. She was thirty-two! That would have been a much cuter burglar-thwarting story if she had been ten years old or something.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added citation to the burglary in 1914. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant contributor moral support. Karanacs gets the credit, and this article was a fun collaboration. I figure as a significant contributor because of my gazillion little MoS tweaks, ref fixes, etc. The article is soundly and reliably sourced, has free and properly licensed images, is MoS compliant, is comprehensive and engaging, and has been copyedited by many of Wiki's finest writers. Nice job Karanacs, on a fine tribute to a great lady ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, Sandy, for prodding me into getting involved, and then holding off everyone/everything else so I could finish. I really enjoyed myself. Karanacs (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saving the March 7 pre-improvement version here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, Sandy, for prodding me into getting involved, and then holding off everyone/everything else so I could finish. I really enjoyed myself. Karanacs (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unbelievably minor style issue, of the sort SandyGeorgia regularly rectifies.
The Fat Man spies some inconsistency among parenthetical metric units. In one place we see "fifteen miles [24 km]" whilst in another we see "5 feet 2 inches (157 cm)."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first had to be handled differently because it's within a direct quote, and the cm conversion isn't part of the quote, hence brackets. Suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite right, as usual. There's no other way to handle these, as long as all the non-quote metric units are formatted the same.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
The following sentences sound awkward when paired together: "Her interest in mental health came from her father, who had read widely on mental health issues; during his terms as governor, Ima had often accompanied him on visits to state institutions, including charity hospitals and asylums for the mentally ill.[51] While she was a student at UT, she became fascinated with mental health.[52]"
- So did she glean an interest in mental health from from her father when she was a child, or did she first become interested in the subject as a college student? We might want to re-word the second sentence to make it clearer that she continued to pursue her passion for mental health while in college (as long as we don't stray from the sources, of course).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks good, Karancs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Worthy article on an amazing woman. (Disclaimer: I provided some bits of information from the Iscoe reference—some of which were included and some of which were not—and also a few relatively minor edits, but was not otherwise engaged in the creation of the article) — Bellhalla (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Well-written, comprehensive, well-cited. Disclaimer: I copy-edited the prose a while back. Tony (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Amazingly well-written article about a great woman. -MBK004 05:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<off topic comment moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few nitpicks
- First paragraph of Name section, fourth sentence (starts "According to Virginia...") just seems awkward to me with the parenthetical bit at the end walled off by footnotes. Perhaps word the last part as "year where he was running in a close race for district attorney of the Seventh District in Texas,[3] which he won."
- I adjusted the phrasing as suggested, but left the attribution to her biographer. Because it's a belief, opinion, possibly unfounded, it's important to attribute the opinion. Maybe on article talk we can sort out a better way to address this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Early years section, last sentence of the first paragraph. Indignities? Sounds a bit POV to me. Can we quote her for that? Or a biographer? As written it seems like the article is casting judgement that children having to help clean unusual. (It better not be or my son would never clean his room...)
- Can't disagree with that at all; fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess--I love the word "indiginity" and use tend to overuse it. At least you didn't revert my translation from the Latin.[5] :-)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't do that <grin> If prying chewing gum is an indignity, my offspring will be calling for child protection services soon :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess--I love the word "indiginity" and use tend to overuse it. At least you didn't revert my translation from the Latin.[5] :-)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't disagree with that at all; fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention that one of her brothers was William, but refer to him as Will through most of the article. Perhaps put the nickname with the first mention of his full name to make things clear?
- Switched them all to William; less confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Education section, the last paragraph, seventh sentence. College Women's Club? Which college? Rice? St. Thomas? Another one? There are a number of colleges in Houston.
- I don't have the Bernhard book; pinging Nishkid64, who has the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book does not specify which college. Perhaps, this was just a group of female students from different colleges across Houston. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the Bernhard book; pinging Nishkid64, who has the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First paragraph of Name section, fourth sentence (starts "According to Virginia...") just seems awkward to me with the parenthetical bit at the end walled off by footnotes. Perhaps word the last part as "year where he was running in a close race for district attorney of the Seventh District in Texas,[3] which he won."
- Support – incredible article, beautifully written. Miss Ima is smiling. (Contributions - few edits early on and a few images), Postoak (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Charley (1998)
- 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 00:34, 18 April 2008.
Emery Molyneux
Self-nominator. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence in the lead doesn't make sense to me: The globes were the first to be made so they were unaffected by the humidity at sea, and came into very general use on ships. - what about them being the first to be made was relevant to humidity at seas?- Fixed: I've rephrased the sentence. According to one of the sources I consulted (Markham), Molyneux's globes were the first globes made in such a way that they were not affected by humidity at sea.
Is there any information about his life before 1557?- Comment: Unfortunately not, based on the sources I consulted. Don't forget we're talking about someone who lived during the 16th century.
Is there a different between being "the maker of the first terrestrial and celestial globes in England" and "the first English globe-maker"? To me, these seem to be the same thing- Comment: I believe what the sources mean is that Molyneux was the first person to make globes in England (i.e., no one else had done so; all previous globes in England were made elsewhere and imported into England), and was also the first Englishman to make globes (none of the previous globemakers who had made globes abroad were English).
Did he give Thomas Harriot a pilot, a ruttier, or a globe? Not clear from the sentence.- Fixed: According to Wallis (1951), it was a ruttier.
When did he start making globes, how did he learn to make globes, which did he started making first (terrest. or celest.)? How many globes did he make and how quickly did he work? Did he take orders and then create a globe for that person or did he create a bunch and sell them in a store or other method?- Comment: According to the available sources, none of this information is known.
Did Molyneux speak Spanish? It seems odd to me that an English globe-maker would put Spanish text on a globe, esp. during thie time period, when England was often at war (or feared war) with Spain.- Comment: None of the sources consulted state what languages Molyneux personally knew, but there are legends on the terrestrial globe in English, Spanish and Latin. I suppose it's possible that Molyneux had help from some of his friends who were explorers and mathematicians. We know, for instance, that mathematician Edward Wright helped Molyneux translate some of the legends into Latin, so perhaps Molyneux wasn't that familiar with the language.
If the dates of Thomas Blundeville's life are that uncertain it might be wise to exclude them from this article- Comment: Sure, I can do that if you think that would improve the article. Basically, what I did was to insert into the article (approximate) birth and death dates (obtained from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) of individuals that did not yet have Wikipedia articles about them.
Last paragraph of Terrest. globe section doesn't flow well either. I'd say the sentence that begins "thus, it appears" should be reworded and go before the description of the phrasing on the globe.- Comment: Could you please identify which paragraph(s) you are referring to when you speak of the "description of the phrasing of the globe"?
Legacy subheadings shouldn't be "on ..." but just the word ("Culture", etc)- Fixed.
What are "ruttiers and pilots"?- Comment: This is explained in the accompanying footnote.
The first paragraph of Terrest. globes section does not flow well and is confusing.- Comment: Could you be more specific?
- I think it is poor flow. It reads like this:
- Comment: Could you be more specific?
- a) He got information for his maps from writings and interviews with explorers (sentence 1)
- b) Quote in Spanish from one of his globes.
- c) English translation of quote
- d) two sentences talking about the expedition referenced in the quote
- e) one sentence that, at the very end, mentions how Molyneux would have known to write the quote.
To me, the most important information here is a) and d). The original Spanish would likely do better as a footnote. Regardless, going straight from a description of his research to a quote from one of his final products is poor flow - the reader feels that something is missing. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — JackLee 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions shouldn't end with a period unless they are full sentences.The further reading section needs work. This should be a list of works that is easily accessible to a reader wanting more information. Editions published in the 1500s don't really qualify for that. Please list only the newest editions of those books, with a note that it is a reprinting of a book originally published in 15xx. There really should never need to be notes for the Further reading section; it might instead be wise to create an article for the books that need more explanation and just wikilink to it.- Fixed: I think it's useful to have a section listing the 16th-century works that were written about Molyneux's globes. I've moved these books out of "Further reading" as you suggest into a separate section. This also solves the problem of the "Further reading" section having notes.
*Oppose. I think this is an interesting topic, but the article needs work to reach the FA criteria. The organization and focus of the article needs work, and once that has been revamped a bit, it needs to be carefully reread for clarity.
- I feel like the article is focused more on the globes than on the man, and since this is a biography that should not be the case. I think your information overall is useful and should remain in the article, but it might need to be organized or worded differently to make it more focused on Molyneux. For example, the first section title, "Making of the globes" is not person-focused ("Globe maker" is one alternative).
- Fixed: I considered creating two articles, one about Molyneux, another about his globes, but the problem is that so little is known about the man himself that much of the information would end up being duplicated. For example, the only part of the current article that would probably not be in an article on the globes would be Molyneux's final years in Amsterdam where he turned to the making of ordnance.
- I feel like the article is focused more on the globes than on the man, and since this is a biography that should not be the case. I think your information overall is useful and should remain in the article, but it might need to be organized or worded differently to make it more focused on Molyneux. For example, the first section title, "Making of the globes" is not person-focused ("Globe maker" is one alternative).
- Is the "he" in Ubaldini's report Ubaldini, or Molyneux
- Comment: From the first part of the sentence ("Molyneux accompanied Francis Drake on his 1577–1580 circumnavigation of the world; ..."), I believe it's clear that Ubaldini was referring to Molyneux.
- "legend in Latin on the terrestrial globe" -> which terr. globe? The one he gave Harriot? A different one?
- Comment: "[T]he terrestrial globe" is a general reference to all the terrestrial globes Molyneux produced from the printing plates.
- Is the "he" in Ubaldini's report Ubaldini, or Molyneux
Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I've made some changes to the article and responded to your comments above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several 16th century books (Hakluyt, Ramusio, Hood, etc, etc.) appear in the footnotes, although their only purpose is to list the full form of a book cited in the text by short form. This is redundant and misleading; a link to the list of sixteenth century sources would be better and clearer, and need no footnote.
- Comment: Can you explain why is this redundant or misleading? Also, are you suggesting that I put these works in the "References" section?
- Redundant because, AFAICS, you've already listed them as 16th century sources; you don't need to send the reader to the footnotes. Please don't list them as References, unless you used them; footnote listings are misleading to the extent they imply you consulted them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was what I understood the "References" section to be for as well. However, in the new "Early works on Molyneux's globes" section, I've only listed works that were directly about the globes, not works such as those by Hakluyt, Ramusio and others. I think they should stay in the footnotes as there isn't anywhere else appropriate to put them. — JackLee 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundant because, AFAICS, you've already listed them as 16th century sources; you don't need to send the reader to the footnotes. Please don't list them as References, unless you used them; footnote listings are misleading to the extent they imply you consulted them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you explain why is this redundant or misleading? Also, are you suggesting that I put these works in the "References" section?
- Wm. Sanderson's MS from 1656 is in the list of sources, although as far as I can tell it is only cited (far more plausibly) at second hand. Please remove.
- Fixed: I had initially referred to sources cited in earlier footnotes like this: "Sanderson, above, p. xxx". The GA reviewer advised me that if the works were placed in the "Reference" section, they could simply be referred to as "Sanderson, p. xxx". Anyway, I've removed the Sanderson work from the "Reference" section as suggested.
- You should not cite any work as a source you have not yourself consulted; there are unkind names for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed: I had initially referred to sources cited in earlier footnotes like this: "Sanderson, above, p. xxx". The GA reviewer advised me that if the works were placed in the "Reference" section, they could simply be referred to as "Sanderson, p. xxx". Anyway, I've removed the Sanderson work from the "Reference" section as suggested.
- We should consider whether last name first (especially in notes) serves any purpose. The normal order would simplify linking and be clearer.
- Comment: There doesn't seem to be anything in the Manual of Style on this (correct me if I'm wrong). I've simply been using, and following the format used in, citation templates such as {{citation}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. Is this a matter that needs to be raised on a Manual of Style talk page?
- No; the less the MOS has a chance to rule on the better. This one is merely a request for your consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There doesn't seem to be anything in the Manual of Style on this (correct me if I'm wrong). I've simply been using, and following the format used in, citation templates such as {{citation}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. Is this a matter that needs to be raised on a Manual of Style talk page?
- Comment. It won't affect FA, but in future, I suggest using first name second name for notes and second name first name for booklists/bibliographies. Most manuals of style (I don't know about ours) recommend this, and it makes sense, because the only point of second name first name is for easy location in an alphabetical list. qp10qp (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've indicated my comments above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Minor quibble, it's nice to see the references given in alphabetical order. Not a big concern, but it is the usual form in publishing and scholarship.
- Fixed.
- http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mosmd/17cnav.htm would be nice if the site gave sources for the information given.
- Comment: If this is a problem, perhaps this website doesn't have to be referred to. I cited it for the fact that Edward Wright had written in his book Certaine Errors in Navigation "about the use of the terrestrial and celestial globes that had been developed by Molyneux", but Wright's book is itself already cited in the Wikipedia article anyway.
- Minor quibble, it's nice to see the references given in alphabetical order. Not a big concern, but it is the usual form in publishing and scholarship.
- Comment: Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I was unaware of this guideline.
- Comment: I've noticed that there are no instructions in the documentation of the {{Citation}} for the use of this template for citing web pages. Does that mean that I should use {{Cite web}}? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to either use citation exclusively or cite exclusively. If you mix the two types, they won't always play well together. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, but my point is that {{Citation}} doesn't seem to be designed for the citation of web pages (there's no mention of how to use it for this purpose in the documentation). I'd like to use {{Citation}} throughout as it deals well with journal articles and chapters of books, but it seems that websites would still have to be cited using {{Cite web}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (grins) Do what I do, ask Sandy for help. I generally use the cite form so I'm clueless on citation. Might drop a note on Sandy's page asking for help on that, she's the expert. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't use citation; I don't speak citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (grins) Do what I do, ask Sandy for help. I generally use the cite form so I'm clueless on citation. Might drop a note on Sandy's page asking for help on that, she's the expert. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, but my point is that {{Citation}} doesn't seem to be designed for the citation of web pages (there's no mention of how to use it for this purpose in the documentation). I'd like to use {{Citation}} throughout as it deals well with journal articles and chapters of books, but it seems that websites would still have to be cited using {{Cite web}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to either use citation exclusively or cite exclusively. If you mix the two types, they won't always play well together. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unfortunately, you're right. I haven't been able to reference the fact that the Petworth House globe was restored between 1995 and 1997 to any other source.
- All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've put my responses above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent piece of work. I recognise the painstaking and time-consuming effort it takes to compile this sort of article, which is all about particulars. I found it interesting, illuminating, and convincing.
Three points:
In March 1593 Molyneux was issued with a royal warrant and the matter was considered by the Privy Council on 4 November 1596, when the Lord Admiral was urged "to speak to Molyneux, Bussy and the two Engelberts about their offensive engines"[45] as part of measures to defend the south coast of England from recusants. I am not sure what is meant by "recusants" here: which ones? I would have thought the security threat to the south coast was still from the Spanish, who launched a second armada in October 1596, in fact.- Comment: The information was from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The GA reviewer also raised a query about this: see my response to him at "Talk:Emery Molyneux#GA Review".
- Well, I rather agree with that reviewer: it is not enough that it comes from a source, it must be luminous to the reader, and this is not. You might get round it by removing the words "from recusants". Then the meaning would make sense to everyone, while at the same time not contradicting your source. qp10qp (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My catalogue of the Elizabeth I exhibition at Greenwich suggests that "the cartography for the celestial globe is based largely on the 52.5 centimetre celestial globe made by the Dutch globe maker, Jacob Floris van Langren. It shows the canonical forty-eight Ptolemaic constellations of the southern hemisphere, created by the Dutch cartographer Petrus Plancius". The present article only suggests influence on Langren/Langeren, not from him.- Comment: Hmmm, this is different from what Margaret Wallis said in her article on the subject. It's possible that new information has come to light since Wallis published her article in the 1950s. Does the Greenwich exhibition catalogue provide a reference for the information? What's the title of the catalogue? Will see if I can borrow a copy from a library.
- The reference is Elizabeth: The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum, edited by Susan Doran, Chatto & Windus in association with The National Maritime Museum, 2003, p 134. That entry is by Emily Winterburn and Kristen Lippencot. Their references (for the whole six-paragraph entry), are to Clifton, Globe Making, pp 46–47; Crinò and Wallis, Molyneux Globes, pp 11–18; and Lippencot, Power and Politics, p 138. I've said some more on the talk page. Since only four pages in this book mention Molyneux, just ask me any details you need and I can save you the trouble of borrowing it (although it's a wonderful volume to look at). qp10qp (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The catalogue also points out and shows that the royal arms were emblazoned across North America on the Temple terrestrial globe. Is this worth mentioning, given that Sanderson had funded Davis's search for the Northwest Passage and Raleigh's Virginia adventures? It would place the globe in the context of the new mercantile imperialism.- Comment: I remember something about this in one of the sources I read when preparing the Wikipedia article. Let me dig it up.
- The reference for this is to an essay in the same catalogue by Sian Flynn and David Spence, "Imperial Ambition and Elizabeth's Adventurers", pp 121–131 (specific pages, 127–28). There is also a full-page illustration of the royal arms on North America (present-day Canada, in fact) on page 135. qp10qp (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the information and the Armada Portrait of Elizabeth I to the "Publication" section of the article. — JackLee 25 May 2024 10:58 (UTC)
qp10qp (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. My responses are above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support—This is very good, but I suggest a run-through by a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text. Here are examples of issues at random, towards the top.
- "The globes were the first to be made in such a way that they were unaffected by the humidity at sea, and they came into general use on ships." When? Even "during the century after his death they ..."?
- Didn't like this sentence: "Only six Molyneux globes are believed to exist in the world today, and of these, three are in England. One pair, consisting of a terrestrial and a celestial globe, is presently owned by Middle Temple and displayed in its library, while a terrestrial globe is at Petworth House in Petworth, West Sussex." Perhaps "Only six Molyneux globes are believed to be still in existence. Three are in England, of which one pair, consisting of a terrestrial and a celestial globe, is owned by Middle Temple and displayed in its library; a terrestrial globe is at Petworth House in Petworth, West Sussex." Is that better?
- "Not much is known about the man himself." --> "Little is known of ...". But we still have "is known" × 2.
- "he had a reputation for being a mathematician"—kind of pejorative, like "Tony1 has a reputation for rudeness at FAC". Needs recasting.
- Long winding snake: "In making his terrestrial globes, Molyneux examined ruttiers (instructions for directions at sea)[10] and pilots (navigational handbooks),[11] such as the ruttier for Brazil and the West Indies he gave to Thomas Harriot in 1590,[12][7] and received advice and assistance from navigators and mathematicians.[13]"
Tony (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I've taken your suggestions on board, and my replies are above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; but have you had someone go through the rest of it? I immediately happened upon:
- "Molyneux emigrated to Amsterdam with his wife in 1596–97." What, it took them two years to do it?
- Fixed: They emigrated to Amsterdam in 1596 or 1597. I've inserted the word "or". — JackLee 25 May 2024 10:58 (UTC)
- "Emery Molyneux is regarded as being both the maker of"—Can you remove "being" without changing the meaning?
- Fixed.
- "the only way to caste [anything] whatsoever in perfecte forme... and yt is the perfectest and trewest waie of all wayes... and this was the wai that Mullenax did use to cast flowere [flour] in the verie forme".—Are the ellipsis dots in the original, or did you insert them? If the latter, please read MOS on the spacing. Perhaps you need to insert in square brackets if WP's dots, or if in the original, put a note after the quote saying [our ellipsis dots].
- Fixed: The ellipses were in the source quoted. I've added a space before the ellipses as required by the MoS. I don't think it's necessary to add "[our ellipsis dots]" or anything similar, since MoS doesn't require this. — JackLee 25 May 2024 10:58 (UTC)
- "Molyneux emigrated to Amsterdam with his wife in 1596–97." What, it took them two years to do it?
- "greatly-expanded"—No hyphen after "-ly"; see MOS.
- Fixed, although I'm doubtful about this rule. I would have thought that all compound adjectives should be hyphenated, whether they incorporate an adverb ending in "–ly" or not. — JackLee 25 May 2024 10:58 (UTC)
- "greatly-expanded"—No hyphen after "-ly"; see MOS.
It's a very good article; let's polish it, yes? I'm sure Sandy would like it out of the road as soon as possible. Tony (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked the GA reviewer if he will cast a pair of fresh eyes over the article for readability. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now given the article the thorough copyedit requested by Tony. But I would argue that this material requires the sort of close, careful detailing that precludes bounding prose. A certain pedantic accuracy is essential for topics like this, and there's no way round that. I have made one or two more comments about the wording, etc. on the talk page.
- Tony, I would very much appreciate it if you could have another look, since not only have your points above been addressed, but the thorough copyedit you requested has been done (I have never worked on this article except to copyedit). A glance at my contributions will show how long it has taken. Others have been copyediting too.qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still quite a bit of unstruck concern; has Karanacs been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-written, well-referenced and engaging. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "The globes were the first to be made in such a way that they were unaffected by the humidity at sea, and they came into general use on ships." Would the meaning of the sentence change if this was reworded to "The globes were the first to be unaffected by the humidity at sea..."?
- I'm not sure the first two paragraphs should fall under the "Construction" sub-heading. I'd suggest pulling those two paragraphs out of the "Globe-maker" section and placing them before under a separate heading, such as "Background" or something similar.
- "Thomas Cavendish also appears to have helped Molyneux with his globes, or it is possible that Molyneux..." Are the two mutually exclusive? Also the reference you give does not explicitly state either of these claims; it just says that he recorded Cavendish's tracks. Do other sources shed any light on this? Ah, I did some more reading, and it looks as if this came from Markham xxx. I was about to put this in myself, but noticed that your formatting of the abbreviated "Introduction", Tractatus de Globis does not give the author's name. Is there a particular reason for this?
- I found this a little awkward too and have said something about it on the talk page. I changed "or" to "and" because I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive. My guess is that this sentence is trying to say that Cavendish's voyage has informed the map but that it is not clear whether that is because Molyneux was on the voyage or not. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "were published after some delay in the late months of 1592 or some time between January and March 1593" Ambiguous position of "after some delay"; sentence should be recast. On first reading, I thought the dates referred to the delay instead of the publication.
- "When she was presented the celestial globe at a second entertainment, she said," Maybe it's just me being paranoid, but I'd prefer it if this would mention again that this quote is according to William.
- I've copyedited this part heavily. That particular bit is now: His son William later reported the Queen's words on accepting the terrestrial globe: "The whole earth, a present for a Prince..."; and on accepting the celestial globe: "Thou hast presented me with the Heavens also: God guide me, to Govern my part of the one, that I may enjoy but a mansion place in this other." qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1595 the merchant Robert Parkes purchased..." Should this be sourced to the DNB?
- Try to be consistent in comma use after introductory clauses. For example, I spotted "In the 1590s, Molyneux..." and "In March 1593 Molyneux..."
- What style is used in the citation format? I don't think I've encountered the square bracket notation for abbreviated author names before. This is just out of curiosity more than anything.
- Since you give the full citations for some of the sources in the "References" section, I don't see a particular need to repeat them in the "Notes" section. Giving the abbreviated form would be just fine, in my opinion.
- Please provide page numbers for paper references where possible.
- At times, the prose skirts a bit too close to the original sources for my tastes. I'd be more comfortable if either those sentences are further rephrased or they are edited to employ quotations for phrases that are lifted directly from the original sources. BuddingJournalist 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: "Recusants" I think this may be just a case of the ODNB exhibiting confusing phrasing. From the notes of the Privy Council, they were indeed worried about recusants collaborating with the Spanish, but it's clear that the mention of Molyneux is in reference to a possible invasion from Spain. I have pasted the relevant text below:
- Advice [by Lord Burghley] upon the best mode of defending the realm, on advertisement of the preparation of a Spanish navy ; viz. : [...] All recusants to be committed, even women if they are house-holders, and their houses and arms seized ; the parents of children fled out of the realm to be bound not to correspond with or relieve them ; the former forces of the clergy to be renewed ; all cattle and food removed from the sea coasts where the enemy offers to land, and the grindstones taken away from the mills ; field pieces to be drawn with horses, on first view of the enemy, to hinder their landing ; the roads blocked up, fresh water disturbed, fire-works prepared to burn their ships in the haven, and other means considered by the Lord General and council of war; the Lord Admiral to speak to Molyneux, Bussy, and the two Engelberts about their offensive engines. BuddingJournalist 06:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring
- 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 19:39, 6 April 2008.
Nahuatl
Self-nominator: User:Maunus I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has recently passed peerreview and GA nomination and several reviewers expressed that it was ready for the FA process. Also because I will be fully available to adress reviewers concerns within the next 4 days. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: to my reading this is an outstanding article on the core dialect of an important and historic family of languages. I am very impressed with the way a great deal of content is provided — informing linguists, but in language a casual reader can follow. Solid, but relatively available, sources are provided. Personally, I think this entry already stands as an example of the best we are looking to achieve at Wiki. I'm keen to see the FAC process push the boundary further, if possible, with a willing and capable editor (Maunus) standing by. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to request that you put a sample passage and translation into the article, though I don't believe this is required for the FAC to pass. HansHermans (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm going to support this article's nomination, but I have some preliminary questions and suggestions:
- MoS √: One thing that usually catches my attention is punctuation before citations. Since the article mostly follows that style, it should be consistent. I fixed those I found. Some of the citations don't have page numbers, is that on purpose?
- Examples √: I noticed that the examples in the Grammar section are from Classical Nahuatl, which you contrast with the modern spoken varieties. Would be nice to get an idea of what's going on with spoken Nahuatl today with examples. Also the part about oligosynthesis could use a citation.
- Syntax √: There is little information under that section besides word order. I suggest renaming the "Syntax" heading to "Word order" unless you're planning to write more about syntax. You already cover some morphosyntax under Nouns and Verbs. The information on word order is also somewhat confusing in that I came out with the impression that the language can have a free word order, or is SVO, or VSO/VOS. Does this vary by language/dialect, or is there one pattern that is more common than others? The information about "omnipredicativity" could use elaboration, perhaps illustrating with an example from the language.
- Phonology √ : Probably needs an overview of the most common phonological processes. You might want to consider separating vowels and consonants into subsections and briefly explain some sounds that stick out, including allophony.
A vowel chart would be a nice visual addition. I don't remember seeing something, but I suggest announcing the nomination on WP:Lang. Someone could probably help create a png image of the vowel chart.
Excellent work. — Zerida ☥ 05:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, those are all very good suggestions. I will not be able to apply them during the weekend, but monday and tuesday I will get to work on it. I have made citations to whole books or article when the entire topic of the book illustrates a particular statement, or to a page number when referring to specific statements or passages in a work. Can you be more precise in what you mean with "get an idea of whats going on with the spoken nahuatl today" - I have tried to make such differences clear, especially in the phonology section, particularly since the differences in grammar is an enormously complex topic. (Although I do mention some differences and present one example from a modern dialect with a novel grammatical category)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we make a .png-version vowel chart we need a published chart to base it on. Without one, it would be a pure guesstimate.
- Peter Isotalo 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, a vowel chart would not be maximally useful since we are dealing with a group of languages and not a single language. The precise realisation of vowels in classical nahuatl we cannot know, and it differs widely in all of the modern dialects. We have to stick to very general phonology and leave phonetics for the articles that deal with the specific varieties (e.g. Tetelcingo Nahuatl). ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I agree it wouldn't be very useful. Thanks for clarifying that; I have struck out comments/questions that have been addressed. It sounds to me like Nahuatl is in a situation similar to that of the Berber languages. From reading the article, I didn't get the sense that there was one particular modern variety that was more standard, or more socially elevated than others. BTW, to answer your question, I think the Grammar section should contain more examples from the modern spoken varieties. Right now there is one from Isthmus-Mecayapan Nahuat. I didn't mean that you should write extensive comparative linguistics; only to add a few more examples from at least one of the documented spoken languages since we already have an article on Classical Nahuatl grammar. If you plan on expanding Syntax, perhaps you could use more modern examples there. — Zerida ☥ 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, I will do that.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the section on syntax. I have also added a section describing the many changes introduced in modern nahuatl varieties by contact with Spanish - this also constitutes a large part of the literature so it was a needed section, it has several examples from modern varieties. I stroke the oligosynthesis paragraph - whorfs claims were never published and only exist in a microfilmed manuscript in the library of Chicago -The idea never had any impact whatsoever, I don't think it is notable. I am still thinking about what to do with the phonology section.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The section is looking better and more informative. Again crossed off points now addressed. With regard to omnipredicativity, the idea that a noun a can function as a full predicative sentence is interesting and unusual--I think a sentence where e.g. an NP carries verbal affixes, or some other way, would help others appreciate this concept better. Looking forward to seeing what you decide to do with phonology. — Zerida ☥ 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the section on syntax. I have also added a section describing the many changes introduced in modern nahuatl varieties by contact with Spanish - this also constitutes a large part of the literature so it was a needed section, it has several examples from modern varieties. I stroke the oligosynthesis paragraph - whorfs claims were never published and only exist in a microfilmed manuscript in the library of Chicago -The idea never had any impact whatsoever, I don't think it is notable. I am still thinking about what to do with the phonology section.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, I will do that.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I agree it wouldn't be very useful. Thanks for clarifying that; I have struck out comments/questions that have been addressed. It sounds to me like Nahuatl is in a situation similar to that of the Berber languages. From reading the article, I didn't get the sense that there was one particular modern variety that was more standard, or more socially elevated than others. BTW, to answer your question, I think the Grammar section should contain more examples from the modern spoken varieties. Right now there is one from Isthmus-Mecayapan Nahuat. I didn't mean that you should write extensive comparative linguistics; only to add a few more examples from at least one of the documented spoken languages since we already have an article on Classical Nahuatl grammar. If you plan on expanding Syntax, perhaps you could use more modern examples there. — Zerida ☥ 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, a vowel chart would not be maximally useful since we are dealing with a group of languages and not a single language. The precise realisation of vowels in classical nahuatl we cannot know, and it differs widely in all of the modern dialects. We have to stick to very general phonology and leave phonetics for the articles that deal with the specific varieties (e.g. Tetelcingo Nahuatl). ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have given the phonology section a go and I am fairly content with it. I haven't divided the a sections into separate sections on consonants and vowels - I don't think theres enough material to warrant it: nahuatl has a quite small phoneme inventory and almost no major phonological complexities (except for phenomena in modern dialects which are beyond the scope here). The section on omnipredicativity I don't know how well turned out - I would need you to tell me if its intelligible. The thing is that it is actually extremely complex and shouldn't take too much space in the already long article. If it is intelligible and informative as it is that is good, if not we'll have to work on it a bit more.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for providing examples regarding omnipredicativity What an interesting and unusual language. I suggest setting these examples off the main text like you do with your other examples. The phonology section requires a little bit of copyediting, and I think you forgot your citations (an FA criterion). I'm unclear as to why the process /j/ → [ʃ] is an example of devoicing--it sounds like there's more going on here than simple change in voice quality. Also, please note that aspiration usually has a more specific meaning in references in English; i.e. a type of secondary articulation. Is this based on a source? If not, I suggest sticking to lenition for this process as well, assuming the consonants in question become [h] based on your description. Please avoid statements that could potentially be interpreted as weasel words; e.g., "in certain kinds of syllables..." without being more specific. An FA is not a work in progress, so statements like these are subject to more scrutiny (though no need to feel rushed; FA reviews can take time). — Zerida ☥ 04:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have provided references for the pghonology section. I have provided a specific reference for the devoicing of /j/ to [ʃ] - which is the way it is described in most grammars (because the allophone occurs in all voiceless environments). I have often in english texts seen an /h/ sound with little or no friction described as "aspiration". I don't see how "certain kinds of syllables" could be seen as weasel words - there is simply no way I can be more specific - the kinds of syllables that are affected can vary from dialect to dialect - the only thing that is general is that only some syllables are lost and that which are lost is governed by some phonological rules. I don't see how i can be more specific here, or why I need to - if you have a better wording in mind I urge you to put it in. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re Weasling. Most weasles are negative qualifiers, not all negative qualifiers are weasles. I think there are two issues with weasles. They are a problem when used to inject POV by undermining assertions of a contrary opinion. They are also a problem when used to disguise lack of research.
- POV weasle: The US Defense Department claimed alleged progress in the "war on terror" in a recent press release.
- Fudging weasle: Some studies on climate change suggest man-made factors increasingly stand out against known background cycles and random factors. [only two direct studies cited and no meta studies]
- I expect there are other species of weasle and we should be ever vigilant to ensure their extinction.
- In the current case, I think this is a fine example of a valid searching challenge from Zerida, and a humble not guilty adequately explained by Maunus. Congratulations to both. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re Weasling. Most weasles are negative qualifiers, not all negative qualifiers are weasles. I think there are two issues with weasles. They are a problem when used to inject POV by undermining assertions of a contrary opinion. They are also a problem when used to disguise lack of research.
- Support I think the article is comprehensive and the prose is excellent. I learned quite a bit about Nahuatl, and now hope to see an article on Nahuatl phonology on Wikipedia. I edited out the part about aspiration, which seemed a bit iffy to me in the absence of a citation, but it's not necessary to specify a name for this process. I hope this is OK. As these are minor details, and the article meets FA critera, I feel comfortable enough to support. — Zerida ☥ 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: just noting a few misc. and minor points that could be tweaked, while the FA review is just getting underway in earnest:
- Lead section: "...dialect spoken by the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan becoming a prestige language throughout Mesoamerica in this period." Does "throughout Mesoamerica" need to be qualified here?
- History section: it's initially stated that proto-Nahuatl speakers came into Mesoam. "around AD 500", but in the next para the Pochutec are placed in coastal Oaxaca "possibly as early as AD 400." Not necessarily incompatible approximations I s'pose, but maybe cld be tweaked so it doesn't sound contradictory.
- Next sentence: "...Nahuan speakers quickly rose to power in central Mexico." The phrase "rose to power" prob. implies some sort of actual hegemony, but I'm not sure that (most of) the sources on this period (ca. 7thC) are really stating this. Perhaps reword?
- While on this topic of the early-mid Classic period discussed in this section, it might be appropriate to have a sentence or two on Teotihuacan. I realise history is not the main focus of the article, but I think the unresolved Q. as to Teo's linguistic affiliations is an important-enough topic to be mentioned, if we are trying to set the scene for Nahuatl's presence and spread in this region. In note #15 the reference to the hypothesis (eg Dakin & Wichmann's) of Nahuatl in Teo is a veiled one. Without going too much into it, it could be useful to at least note more explicitly. What do you think?
- Geog. dist. section: Citation for the statement that Pochutec died out in the 1930s is given as Boaz (1917). Seems to be a mismatch in the dates here, pls check.
- Comments
- http://www.public.iastate.edu/errors/inactive.html gives me a page error
- dead external link now removed- it wasn't that important
- Current ref 20 (See Jackson (2000) has a bald link at the very end. You should format it with the name of the site at least.
- Link now converted to bona fide citation/reference, also converted/formatted one more ext link in a footnote (I think that's all of 'em).
- http://www.public.iastate.edu/errors/inactive.html gives me a page error
- That guideline might be a reasonable sentiment, however the "cite x" family of templates are not entirely consistent within themselves, at present. In particular, {{cite news}} formats the publ. date to the end of the citation, instead of immediately following the author. In any case {{citation}} is not used in the bibliography section where I think formatting consistency would be important. It's used only once or twice in the footnotes. I think, this should not be a show-stopper?
- I'm not opposing at all (I honestly don't know enough about languages to review an article on them). I've just been told that mixing the two can at times lead to odd errors. I've never seen them, but Sandy said something about it once. It's an advisory note (grins), nothing more. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentThe article needs more copyediting, and the History section begs for maps showing a birds-eye view of the distribution of languages or dialects at major time points. Many people reading this article will need to consult a map to follow the text.--Una Smith (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the map which I had removed at an earlier point with the intention to reinsert it later (I then forgot about it).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead mentions "Central Mexico"; where exactly is that? --Una Smith (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Out of four editors who have had suggestions for improvement
threefour are now supporting -the fourth (HansHermans) has not been back, in fact his comment here is his most recent edit (I have placed this message on his user page).CJJLW is probably reluctant to support or fails the article since he is another major contributor to it. AlastairHaines did not have any comments except praise (he may also feel that as a peerreviewer he shouldn refrain from supporting, I don't know).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think this is on par with the other featured language articles. I will copyedit out any little problems that I find, but there don't seem to be many. HansHermans (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: there are a lot of little fixes needed still, see my edit summaries. It may help to ask User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check.
There's a faulty dash in the infobox that I can't locate; I asked Gimmetrow to have a look.There is a lot going on visually in this article, with about six different font faces in use (the normal one, bolding, italics, something different in sources and then two more at Nahuatl#Sample_text); are that many different font styles necessary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dash fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All fonts and formatting used in the article is present in other language FA's.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the fact that other articles have done it is a good reason for having six different fontfaces in an article, which is visually distracting and may not be good page design, but MoS doesn't seem to deal with this. Page numbers are handled inconsistently (example, ^ Lockhart (1992), pp. 327–329 and ^ Lockhart (1992), pp.330–335), I came across some WP:DASH and WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues, and there are some missing language icons; these things won't prevent promotion, but should be cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All fonts and formatting used in the article is present in other language FA's.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 15:31, 31 March 2008.
Diocletian
Self-nominator I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think that it's now more or less up to Featured Article standard. Comments welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While not being an expert in the Roman history I nevertheless have always been interested in this subject. So from my point of view the article appears to be comprehensive, well sourced and well written. I have only one concern with it. The lead contains the following words: "ending forty years of peaceful coexistence between Christian and Pagan, and resulting in a revanchist Christian Church.". The facts stated in this phrase are not mentioned in the main text of the article. I think you should drop it from the lead or explain in more detail what you mean by "peaceful coexistence" and by "revanchist church". Ruslik (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dropped the sentence, and added a little paragraph on the aftermath of the persecution. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "...known in English as Diocletian", may be simply "known as" because not only in English? And no mention of dominate in the lead. --Brand спойт 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dropped the "in English". I'm not so sure the dominate needs to be mentioned: few of the works I've read give it much press, at least, not by that name. I'll look over my materials again tonight (I don't have them with me), and see if I can justify the change. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written and comprehensive! You did an excellent job! I had read it a few weeks ago and was thinking that it's probably the best article I have seen on one of the Roman emporers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Hyphens aren't needed after -ly words, eg. "personally-led campaigns"
- Done.
- Some dates need linking, including in the footnotes.
- Done(?)
- "newly-built Christian church" - all churches are Christian
- Done.
- Some compound adjectives need hyphens, eg. "second and third century emperors", "five year census"
- Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.
- "one-thousand years" - hyphen not needed
- Done.
- Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "27 BC", "5 km"
- Done.
- "a looser administrative structure than that which was imposed on ..." - "which was" is redundant
- Done.
- "Prior to" is overly formal. "Before" is better.
- Done.
- Ref page numbers are inconsistently formatted, eg. "pp. 8–9." vs "p. 22–23.", "pp. 280–81" vs "pp. 134–5"
- Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.
- Sentences shouldn't begin with "but"
- Done.
- Some measurements are missing conversions
- Done(?) I think the km's the only one.
- An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
- Done.
- Some duplicate refs can be combined, eg. refs 23 and 27
- Done(?) Tell me if there are any I've missed.
- Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done(?)
- I think I've fixed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Current ref 49 (Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 281) is inconsistent with the rest of the footnotes, lacking the pages abbreviation (Yeah, it's REALLY picky, but...)
- Done.
- Same for current ref 69 (Codex Justinarius ...) the Barnes New Empire ref lacks a page number abbreviation.
- Done.
- Page abbr missing from current ref 88 (Barnes New Empire 255)
- Done.
- Current ref 152 is lacking a page number (Bleckmann)
- Done.
- Current ref 49 (Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 281) is inconsistent with the rest of the footnotes, lacking the pages abbreviation (Yeah, it's REALLY picky, but...)
- Probably don't need to list Hardcover in the references.
- I do that so I can list both the ISBNs that the books are issued under. Should I drop one of them?
- Don't have to, it was just something I noticed while i was reading through the refs. It's not usually done, but it works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For those cases where a library might have one, but not the other, I thought it might be helpful to list both. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't have to, it was just something I noticed while i was reading through the refs. It's not usually done, but it works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do that so I can list both the ISBNs that the books are issued under. Should I drop one of them?
- Current ref 80 which has a discussion of Maximian's appointment as Augustus has a number of refs lacking page number abbreviations and which are inconsistent with the formatting of the rest of the refs (Using the Harvard system)
- Done(?) What should they look like?
- You refer to the books as Corcoran 2006 instead of the usage in the rest of the article (which would be Corcoran "Before Constantine" to be consistent with the rest of the article). Likewise it's Southern 2001 instead of the usage elsewhere which is Southern Severus to Constantine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it now.
- You refer to the books as Corcoran 2006 instead of the usage in the rest of the article (which would be Corcoran "Before Constantine" to be consistent with the rest of the article). Likewise it's Southern 2001 instead of the usage elsewhere which is Southern Severus to Constantine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done(?) What should they look like?
- Current ref 135 (Lactantius (DMP)...) uses Harvard referencing in it, which is inconsistent with the system used elsewhere in the article.
- Done(?) Are page number abbreviations all that is lacking?
- See above, you're using (Southern 1999 (which isn't even listed in the bibliography, oops! What article/book is that?)) instead of the Author, Title short form you're using elsewhere in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack! That was supposed to be Southern 2001. Fixed it now.
- See above, you're using (Southern 1999 (which isn't even listed in the bibliography, oops! What article/book is that?)) instead of the Author, Title short form you're using elsewhere in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done(?) Are page number abbreviations all that is lacking?
- Probably don't need to list Hardcover in the references.
- All other links checked out fine with the tool. I'll try to get back later and do a review of the article itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prose needs some tweaking though not looking too bad. There is some redundant wording and some words used where a slightly more appropriate one would improve flow. I will post any that aren't straightforward here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a bad smell emanating from the coach. It would have been the kind of smell corpses are known to emanate in the later stages of decay, especially in hot climates- seems a bit wordy - why not "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a odour reminiscent of a decomposing body (or corpse) emanating from the coach." - or something like it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to: "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers smelled an odor reminiscent of a decaying corpse emanating from the coach." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support everything has been addressed. Oppose for now, pending resolution of the following concerns/questions/quibbles.
- Lede, third paragraph, second sentence is awkward and wordy. Perhaps "Although effective while Diocletian ruled, the Tetrarchy collapsed after his abdication with the dynastic claims of Maxentius and Contantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively."
- Changed to: "Although effective while he ruled, Diocletian's tetrarchic system collapsed after his abdication under the competing dynastic claims of Maxentius and Constantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively."
- Rise to power section, Death of Numberian subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence. Is the he referred to Bahram or Numerian? It's unclear from the context.
- Clarified.
- Same section and subsection, last sentence of the subsection. Why did the act of changing his name place Diocletian in the line of legitimate emperors?
- I don't really know. "He would then change his name to Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, as a way of placing himself in the succession of legitimate emperors after Gallienus." Potter doesn't make it especially clear, so I've dropped it.
- Same section, Conflict with Carinus subsection, third paragraph, second sentence. Do you mean that Constantius had been an associate of Diocletian in the household guard? Consider rewording to make the context a bit clearer.
- Better? "Carinus' rule was unpopular, and it is possible that Flavius Constantius, the governor of Dalmatia and Diocletian's associate in the household guard, had already defected to Diocletian in the early spring."
- Same section, subsection and paragraph. Artistobulus was whose prefect, Carinus or Contantius?
- Carinus'. Clarified.
- Same section, subsection, and paragraph. Where did Diocletian move on to?
- Italy. Clarified.
- Same section, Maximian made co-emperor subsetcion, first paragraph. The last sentence is very convoluted and hard to follow. Consider rewording.
- Same section and subsection, second paragraph, third pagaraph. Any reason to italicize Ca. and use the abreviation instead of circa?
- No real reason, just thought it would keep consistency with the parenthesized dates. I've replaced it with "circa".
- Same section, Conflict with Sarmatia and Persia subsection, first paragraph, third sentence. "took them to battle" is awkward. Consider rewording, perhaps to "Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, which, however, failed to eliminate them."
- Tweaked to: "Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, but was unable to secure a complete victory."
- Same section and subsection, second paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences. I don't see the "denying them their rest" in the sentence (plus it's very odd phrasing) and the mention of Maximian's build-up is without context, you've not mentioned it before this, I assume it's for fighting against Carausius? Next paragraph you mention a fleet that Maximian lost, is this the build-up?
- (No longer same subsection) I've had to gut a few sections that were more appropriate for daughter articles: Maximian's one of them. I've made a few tweaks for clarification. They apparently moved forward so quickly that the Germans were unable to rest. I've dropped the sentence.
- Same section and subsection, the third paragraph, fourth sentence is awkward
- I've moved some material around and chopped that sentence into smaller pieces.
- Tetrarchy section, Foundation of the tetrarchy subsection. Should Tetrarchy in the subheading be capitalized?
- Yes.
- Same section and subsection, first paragraph, second sentence is very long and convoluted. Consider breaking it up into smaller chunks.
- Done."Constantius was a former governor of Dalmatia and a man of military experience stretching back to Aurelian's campaigns against Zenobia (272–73). He was Maximian's praetorian prefect in Gaul, and the husband to Maximian's daughter, Theodora."
- Same section, Conflict in the Balkans and Egypt subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence is oddly phrased. Perhaps "The defeat kept the Sarmatians from the Danube provinces for a long time."
- Took your phrasing.
- Same section, subsection, and paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences are also awkward. Consider "In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, which resulted in a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296. This victory consolidated the Danube frontier."
- Tweaked to: "In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, and won a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296."
- Okay, if Dioceltian's corrector Aurelius Achilleus held out in Alexandria until 298, who was he holding out against? Context seems to imply Diocletian, but that makes no sense if he was Dioceltian's corrector, unless he revolted with Domitianus.
- Former corrector.
- Same section and subsection, last paragraph and last sentence, Diocletian left Africa quickly after which event? Directly before this is a discussion about the reforms bringing Egyptian administration into line with Roman practice, which isn't an event per se.
- Moving phrasing around: he left Africa quickly after the peace treaty.
- Later life section, Illness and abdication subsection, first paragraph, second sentence is very wordy and awkward. Consider rewording.
- Rephrased.
- Same section, Retirement and death subsection, last paragraph, fifth sentence. Does this imply that he may have comitted suicide? Would be clearer if the article just says that, not "perhaps even personally accelerated the advent of his death".
- Alright.
- Reforms section, Tetrarchic and idealogical subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence is awkward. I believe "and it is implied that the tetrachs engineered the deeat over the Plamyreneses" is supposed to mean "it is implied that the tetrarchs engineered the defeat of the Palmyrenes."? Consider rewording if that is the case, and if it isn't, the meaning needs to be made clearer.
- Clarified.
- Same section, Military subsection, second paragraph, first sentence is awkward, consider rewording to "Lactantius criticized Diocletian for an excessive increase..."
- Took your phrasing.
- Same section, Taxation subsection, second paragraph, sixth sentence seems to be lacking something in the part "operated at different speed throughout the empire, and The kept up with changes in the ..."
- Fixed.
- Same section, currency and inflation subsection. You mention in the third sentence "Aurelian's measures" but this is the first mention of such measures. The previous discussion says that market forces stabliized the exchange rates, so what were Aurelian's measures?
- Aurelian reminted some old, highly overvalued currencies, giving them a higher silver content and issued two new currencies. They still had a lower bullion content than their face value, however, and the government basically expected everyone to trade them at that face value (Williams, Diocletian, pp. 116–17). I've dropped the reference: now it's just market forces.
- Diocletian and Maximian were the only Roman emperors to abdicate, surely that would merit a mention in the lede?
- Why is December 22 thought to be his birth date?
- It's his official birthday, and Barnes considers it to have probably been his actual birthday. The primary source cited is the papyri at the P. Beatty Panopolis 2.164, 173, 181/2, 193/4, 262. Barnes states the fact pretty unambiguously: "Born on 22 December." (New Empire, p. 30) Do you want any of this in the article?
- If the source you are using says December 22 unabiguously, it should be stated something like "The modern historian Barnes gives his birthdate as December 22, but other historians are not so sure." or something like that. You'll need a source or two for the second phrase of the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that no other historian disputes the date. Williams, who has written the only biography of the bunch, just relegates it to a footnote and states the fact impartially: "Beatty in Skeat, op. cit., concludes that Diocletian's official birthday as emperor was 22 December, and Barnes considers this was probably his actual birthday." No The other works trust in Barnes' chronological work pretty firmly. Barnes, New Empire, is one of the more common titles cited by Potter and Southern's general histories. They have not mentioned the birthdate because they are not interested in the issue: they are historians, not biographers. Many of the other statements in the article could have longer and more detailed histories of disputation; this one seems quite tame by comparison. Any reason why it leaped out at you?
- If the source you are using says December 22 unabiguously, it should be stated something like "The modern historian Barnes gives his birthdate as December 22, but other historians are not so sure." or something like that. You'll need a source or two for the second phrase of the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's his official birthday, and Barnes considers it to have probably been his actual birthday. The primary source cited is the papyri at the P. Beatty Panopolis 2.164, 173, 181/2, 193/4, 262. Barnes states the fact pretty unambiguously: "Born on 22 December." (New Empire, p. 30) Do you want any of this in the article?
- Another one, the first pargraph of the Death of Numerian section says that Carinus hurried to Rome, and the context seems to imply that he was in the East, but the section before states Carinus was left in the West. Where did Carinus hurry to Rome from? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the context imply that? He was in Gaul (a fact not mentioned in the article), and had been in the West for the duration of the Persian War. It's now: "Carinus quickly made his way to Rome from Gaul, and arrived by January 284; Numerian lingered in the East." Better? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Casliber has given some places a going over, and I've removed some whiles. Are there any other words I should be on the hunt for?
- All in all a very nice article. I'll be happy to support when some of the prose issues are taken care of, and when some of the clarifications are made. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've resolved any continuing concerns you've had, save for that copyedit. Any suggestions on how to cut down on verbiage? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I do if I can't find someone to go through for me, is to sit back from the text for a day or two, then just go line by line through it, trying to change all the passives to actives and reading it aloud to myself. If I get lost reading it, its a sure bet the reader is lost too. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I did some copyediting also, hopefully I didn't break anything. I'm sure others will find other things to tweak also. May I compliment you on the excellent job on a very difficult subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the compliment, and thank you for providing a very intensive review and copyedit. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I did some copyediting also, hopefully I didn't break anything. I'm sure others will find other things to tweak also. May I compliment you on the excellent job on a very difficult subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I do if I can't find someone to go through for me, is to sit back from the text for a day or two, then just go line by line through it, trying to change all the passives to actives and reading it aloud to myself. If I get lost reading it, its a sure bet the reader is lost too. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've resolved any continuing concerns you've had, save for that copyedit. Any suggestions on how to cut down on verbiage? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - well done - prose nicely massaged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a real imitable article. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [6].
Half-Life 2: Episode One
Gary King (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- PALGN's editorial process Gary King (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
- PALGN's editorial process Gary King (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
CommentSupport: 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)[reply]- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Done for references. Those notes are references; they reference quotes from the game. Gary King (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- All done Gary King (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as all comments addressed. Giggy (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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))[reply]
- Those are certainly improvements. However, I still think the gameplay and reception sections need some work.
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.
Komodo dragon
This is a self-nomination. I've worked on this article for more than a year, due to my procrastination. I've managed to pull it together recently, though, and I feel that it has reached its best point. I've addressed all concerns in peer reviews and the former FAC, so I'd like to see how it stacks up now. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Extremely well done, the article has great organization and seems to fit all of the other criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've watched this one from the sidelines and have seen it improve considerably over the past months. I have only one concern, concerning the "venomous" aspect, as I believe the researchers in that particular case have maliciously and purposefully used misleading words in their thesis. However, as there is no published testimony refuting their studies, yet...I will not let that stand in the way of this article's promotion. The prose is excellent, the references are done properly, and the subject matter is definitely notable and worthy. About time a real dragon article was featured instead of one about pixelated dragons! Great Job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I noted your edits. I think the wording you used was way too strong, so I toned it down. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right, I'm not known for my subtlety! Still, it is what it is and you've done an excellent job with this one!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I noted your edits. I think the wording you used was way too strong, so I toned it down. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This article is well wrote and sourced, truely good read. Sunderland06 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Done in a manor that I believe is very eloquent and detailed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanksfan6129 (talk • contribs) --Catgut (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Just a few issues.
It may be within the broad paragraph number requirement of WP:LEAD, but the intro doesn't feel like a complete, concise overview of the entire article. Can you expand it a little bit?per WP:MOS#Images, your image placement needs work. The placement of the scale image in Anatomy and morphology is an example of images divorcing text and headers, as well as being crowded. The left alignment issue is also present with Parthenogenesis and Conservation. The two images in Feeding ecology (just changed to Diet) violate the stricture against having a pair of images that directly face each other on both sides of the text. Image placement is tricky sometimes, so I'll take a whack at it myself.I've dealt with image placement sufficiently.Shouldn't Evolution and Dragons and humans really be sub sections (or just a single section) of History? A single history section makes a lot more sense to me.I merged Evolution and Dragons and humans in to History section, and separated the etymological information in to a beginning section on etymology. I also redacted some of the other section titles for simplicity and clarity. I'd be willing to support now, but please try and expand some of a lead a little, you might mention parthenogenesis, even if I can't spell it :) VanTucky 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the images is set, and I've expanded the lead. You notified me on my talk page that you don't really agree with my changes. Incidentally, I don't really agree with your changes either. I think that the images are placed rather sloppily, and that the etymology section would do better as a subsection in a "Dragons and humans" section. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloppily is a rather unconstructive criticism, if you have something more helpful about how you'd like the images, please tell. And I didn't do it with intentional disregard (i.e. sloppy), I did it according to WP:MOS#Images, which says that left-right alternating can be helpful, especially when you need to avoid separating headers and text. I'd be fine with getting rid of etymology as a separate section, but "dragons and humans" doesn't sound like an acceptable section title to me, it's about the history of the animal, of which it's evolution is a part. If you go with it's history, starting with evolution and then discovery (which, btw, is kind of Eurocentric in attitude) and subsequent study it provides a more cohesive and readable through-line for the reader. The previous structure read disjointed. Thanks very much for the lead work, it looks great. VanTucky 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The subsections describe the events surrounding the discovery of the Komodo dragon by the Western world, which is a particularly interesting and important section. Also note that "Conservation" and "In captivity" does not really fall under history. I am not opposed to the etymology section, nor did I remove it, but I just think that it works much better as a second-level heading later down. I do, however, like the simplification of section headings, that was much clearer. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conservation efforts/status and the history of the animal in captivity is part of its history. The fact that it's primarily in relation to mankind is a given, and to state so in the section header is a redundancy imo. I didn't see where you put the etymology, so apologies; put it somewhere else if you like. VanTucky 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right then, I see your point. However, I'd like to move the images so that they don't seem off-center in the sections. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to set a compromise with the images. I've moved them so that they don't look off-center, and I've checked them with the MOS to make sure they comply. I have my thumbnail size set to default 180px, and it looks fine in Mozilla Firefox. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the body images are fine, but several of the ones you left aligned early on still violated the basic MOS images tenet that needed to be fixed: left images that move the text of a section separate from it header. Check out Sea otter for an example of the proper style of image alignment. But for one compelling exception (the image is too wide not to), all the left aligned images do not divorce text from headers. VanTucky 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to set a compromise with the images. I've moved them so that they don't look off-center, and I've checked them with the MOS to make sure they comply. I have my thumbnail size set to default 180px, and it looks fine in Mozilla Firefox. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right then, I see your point. However, I'd like to move the images so that they don't seem off-center in the sections. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conservation efforts/status and the history of the animal in captivity is part of its history. The fact that it's primarily in relation to mankind is a given, and to state so in the section header is a redundancy imo. I didn't see where you put the etymology, so apologies; put it somewhere else if you like. VanTucky 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The subsections describe the events surrounding the discovery of the Komodo dragon by the Western world, which is a particularly interesting and important section. Also note that "Conservation" and "In captivity" does not really fall under history. I am not opposed to the etymology section, nor did I remove it, but I just think that it works much better as a second-level heading later down. I do, however, like the simplification of section headings, that was much clearer. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The ref "sciam" has been moved to a different url; see here. I'll stop by to make more comments later.· AndonicO Hail! 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed.
- Expanding on that, a few of the links are off.
For example, from the first paragraph of the lead: Komodo island is not linked, but island is; meters and feet are linked (shouldn't be). Further down in the lead (and the article), Komodo island is linked to, which is odd, as there's no reason why it shouldn't be linked in the first sentence too/instead. Invertebrates, birds, and mammals are not linked in the lead, which should be, while zoo is linked twice in the entire text, and I doubt should be linked at all. Finally, years should be linked when part of a full date (can't remember where the MOS page is, sorry); random example: September 13, 2008.· AndonicO Hail! 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Addressed. If you catch any that I've missed, let me know.
- You need replacement or supporting references for these:
- Ref 13: Is that website reliable? It says it can be edited by anyone (though a bit better than wikipedia, as the edits are reviewed, but still...).
- Yes, I think it can be trusted. However, I have backed its occurrences with other sources just in case.
- Ref 15: Not a reliable source.
- How? It is published by a zoo that is known for being the first in the Americas to have parthenogenetic offspring.
- Doesn't seem to have been written with much thought; grammar and spelling errors all over. Are you sure? · AndonicO Hail! 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think about it, I've replaced it with a much more reputable book. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 29: A news article, shouldn't be used as a primary source (unless there isn't anything else available; maybe check google books). Major claims are based on this ref... not good.
- Added from an article from Scientific American.
- Various other refs are pretty shaky, but they're not used to cite important information, so they're okay. If you could replace them, though, that would be optimal. · AndonicO Hail! 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry. I've made sure that my refs are better than the ones we used in Cannon. :) Boy, did I freak out when I saw Nishkid's giant list. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- "
A member of the Varanidae,..." Would "A member of the Varanidae (Monitor Lizards),..." be ok?- I've linked to it in the text. I don't want the prose to get too chunky with explanatory notes.
"Komodo dragons are, interestingly enough, capable" - what makes it "interestingly enough"? what is interesting about it? is it rare?- Removed.
Ectotherm redirects to "Cold-blooded". Is this the term that should be used in the article?- "Cold-blooded" is actually a misleading term, which is stated in the Cold-blooded article itself.
"and climb trees proficiently" conflicts with "as their great mass makes climbing impractical."- Sorry, that statement about the tree climbing refers to when its young.
regarding holes, these statements seem to conflict: "are able to conserve body heat throughout the night" - "usually located on ridges with a cool sea breeze". What's the source for the 2nd statement?- It's covered by ref 19 at the end of the paragraph.
mention "The Komodo dragon's loosely articulated jaws, flexible skull" at the beginning of how they eat rather than the end? I was left wondering "how?" the whole paragraph.- I've made it less ambiguous by linking it to them swallowing it whole.
- I fixed it [7]
- I've made it less ambiguous by linking it to them swallowing it whole.
So the members of Varanidae have been verified to have venom, but so far only observation has been used with the komodo dragon?How is the venom produced?Should venom be mentioned in "Anatomy and morphology"?- The venom part is not exactly conclusive. More information may come, but so far, that's all they've been able to figure out. Also, anatomy and morphology refers to the structure of the Komodo dragon, so the venom wouldn't fit there.
- Is the short form "Komodo" or "dragon" or "monitor" I see all three used. Should probably be consistent.
- I have it so that it isn't repetitive, as opposed to hammering in "Komodo dragon" a hundred times.
- Repetition of the subject's name is common in all articles. An example of another animal having multiple names, but the article using only one is the FA article Cougar. Should we see if anyone else has a comment?
- Fixed. Changed to "Komodo dragon" or switched with a pronoun.
- Repetition of the subject's name is common in all articles. An example of another animal having multiple names, but the article using only one is the FA article Cougar. Should we see if anyone else has a comment?
- I have it so that it isn't repetitive, as opposed to hammering in "Komodo dragon" a hundred times.
Are there any other islands besides padar that they formerly inhabited? Should ...and formerly padar... be in the island lists?- It fits best in Conservation. I've mentioned in the Evolution section that the Komodo dragon's range extended even to Timor. Since they don't inhabit these islands anymore, I don't think it's needed.
The list of island is in 3 spots: intro, Ecology and Conservation. Is this desired?- I've removed the mention in the Ecology section. I've kept the lead one (per WP:LEAD) and the Conservation ones, which lists the population numbers.
Why is Monitor lizard in the see also list? It's linked via Varanidae. I still believe that this should be mentioned.- Mentioned and removed from see also.
- Thank you very much.
- Mentioned and removed from see also.
Why is Megalania prisca and European dragon in the see also list? Neither seems very linked with the subject.- Megalania prisca is another example of an enormous monitor lizard that formerly lived in Australia. The two are often compared. As for the European dragon, it is the origin of the Komodo dragon's name.
- Thats all my comments. -Ravedave (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "
- Support I like a lot, the article is exemplary --Hadseys ChatContribs 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The only thing that I would like to see different is the many appearences of the words "Komodo dragons" in the lead which seem unelegant in many consecutive sentences - However I can understand that it is difficult to find a better solution. A very fine and well structured article that deserve FA-status.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it warrants a whole "Etymology" section, but it is worth noting. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the history section to be very strange, covering too many unrelated topics. I would put evolution near the beginning of the article, then another section for discovery and study, and another section for conservation and captive animals. Mangostar (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- Comment Okay, I've started to read it now. Here are a few things I've spotted:
- Maybe change the phrasing here: "They are protected under Indonesian law and a national park, Komodo National Park, was founded in order to protect them."
- Rephrased.
- Explain a bit more in this sentence: "This creates an ideal culture for the virulent bacteria that live in their mouths." Why do they want bacteria in their mouths in the first place?
- A more careful reading should answer this question: "These bacteria cause septicemia in their victim; if an initial bite does not kill the prey animal and it escapes, it will commonly succumb within a week to the resulting infection."
- Yes, but that's further down in the article; the sentence I mentioned stands pretty much alone.
- A more careful reading should answer this question: "These bacteria cause septicemia in their victim; if an initial bite does not kill the prey animal and it escapes, it will commonly succumb within a week to the resulting infection."
- "With the help of a favorable wind and their habit of swinging their head from side to side as they walk, they may be able to detect carrion from 4–9.5 kilometres (2.5–6 mi) away." Is their swinging their heads a habit?
- Yes.
- "As Komodo dragons mature, their claws are used primarily as weapons, as their great mass makes climbing impractical." I think that might be an incorrect use of "mass;" do you mean "weight," or "size"?
- Changed to size.
- "Although they eat mostly carrion, studies show that they also hunt live prey with a stealthy approach followed by a sudden short charge. When suitable prey arrives near a dragon's ambush site, it will suddenly charge at the animal and go for the underside or the throat." Two things wrong here: "studies show" is out of place, isn't needed, and somewhat detracts from the sentence. The other is the "sudden short charge"/"suddenly charge" repetition. Maybe "sprint" could be a good substitute.
- Rephrased
- Another sentence with an unnecessary repetition: "In addition to the assertions of venomous saliva, Komodo dragons also possess virulent bacteria in their saliva..."
- Fixed.
- "There are recorded examples of parthenogenesis, a phenomenon also known to occur in some other reptile species, such as Whiptail lizards." Should go in the "Parthenogenesis" section, which, in turn, should be a sub-section of "Reproduction."
- Removed, felt a little out of place
- This isn't cited: "Sungai, a Komodo dragon at London Zoo, laid a clutch of eggs in early 2006 after being separated from males for more than two years. Scientists initially assumed that she had been able to store sperm from her earlier encounter with a male, an adaptation known as superfecundation."
- Cited.
- "Widespread notoriety came after 1912, in which Peter Ouwens, the director of the Zoological Museum at Bogor, Java, published a paper on the topic after receiving a photo and a skin from the lieutenant, as well as two other specimens from a collector." Incorrect usage of "in which;" I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but I assume it's the year?
- Fixed.
- "Research after the Auffenberg family has shed more light on the nature of the Komodo dragon, with biologists such as Claudio Ciofi continuing to study the creatures." Is Ciofi notable enough for a mention?
- Yes. He is an authority on the Komodo dragon, and I've cited his work quite a lot throughout the article.
- "Their populations are restricted to the islands of Rinca (1,300), Gili Motang (100), Gili Dasami (100), Komodo (1,700), and Flores (perhaps 2,000)." Maybe arrange in alphabetical or numerical order, unless they're already arranged according to something else?
- Fixed. Organized from least to greatest.
- "However, there is evidence that Komodo dragons are becoming accustomed to human presence, as they are often fed animal carcasses at several feeding stations by tourists." Perhaps you could expand a bit on why it's bad, if they aren't being harmed? Not very well explained, and it should be, considering the sentence begins with "however."
- Removed the however part.
- This is a bit POV and weaselish: "Komodo dragons have long been great zoo attractions, where their size and reputation make them popular exhibits."
- I would disagree. Komodo dragons are a flagship species for those of Indonesia. NPOV != No POV.
- Hope that's not too picky... · AndonicO Hail! 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose for now - I'll add some stuff as I go:
I have a problem with Anatomy and morphology' - the first always makes me think of heart and lungs etc. which are not discussed here. The second makes me think of shape, which is not really discussed either. Description is the common heading name used in almost all other biology FAs.- Changed.
- Also, there is a photo of the skin but no description of it.
- I'm a little baffled by this. It's just a closeup of the skin. Am I supposed to explain the Komodo dragon's scales and everything.
Physiology is also jargony, why not just senses?- It used to be called senses, but it was changed a while back into something more jargony. I think it would do better being clearer.
link or explain vomeronasal.- It used to be linked, but it redirects to Jacobson's organ, which is linked in the text. Nevertheless, I've linked to it just in case.
Komodo dragons are largely solitary, coming together only to breed and eat. They are capable of running rapidly in brief sprints (up to 20 kilometres per hour (12.4 mph)), are excellent swimmers (may dive up to 4.5 metres (15 ft)) - 2 sets of parentheses looks awkward, why not the mdash or ndash?- Fixed.
- Surely the Venom and bacteria section would be better next to bits talking about its body under Anatomy/Description etc.?
- '
'It is thought that the Komodo dragon evolved to feed on the extinct dwarf elephant Stegodon that once lived on Flores - reword, weaselly. May as well name and describe the person who thought up the idea.- Named.
- The Komodo Dragon should be singular throughout.
- Still fixing. This will take a while. I'm fixing most references to the plural, but some sections feel awkward when changed to singular, so I've retained those.
It had been thought that bites inflicted by these lizards were prone to infection because of bacteria in the lizards' mouths, but these researchers have shown that the immediate effects are caused by mild envenomation. - needs rewording. First was widely held so say so, change "researchers" to "research team" or something a bit more formal.- Fixed.
All these should be straightforward fixes. If you disagree and put up a valid argument I will be happy to listen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Current ref 20 (Fry, Brian G. et. al Early Evolution of the Venom ...) lacks publisher information.
- Current ref 23 (Chasing the Magic Dragon) could use publication information (issue, date etc) with it.
- Current ref 25 (Jessop, Tim S. et. al Distribution Use and Selection of Nest Type...) is lacking publisher information.
- Same for current ref 30 (Strange but True: Komodo Dragons show that Virgin births are possible)
- And for current ref 36 (Trapping Komodo Dragons for Conservation)
- And for current ref 45 (Transcript Sharon Stone vs the Komodo Dragon)
- And for current ref 47 (Editor stable after attack by Komodo Dragon..)
- Current ref 44 ("Such jokers, these Komodo dragons") has an access date but no link to a web page
- Links checked out fine with the tool. The reason for giving full publication information on articles that are linked on magazine web sites is so that if the web link ever goes dead, the information to find the article in the print version is still there so the reference is still valid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed them. For refs 30, 36, and 45, these are internet only and weren't on the respective magazines. For ref 47, I'm not sure how to cite the actual newspaper issue that it was in. The site only mentions that it was on page A-14 before. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:45, 1 April 2008.
Blue Iguana
Self-Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have worked hard on it off and on for the past 6 months, rewriting it from a non-referenced Start Page to what it is today. The Blue Iguana is one of the rarest animals in the world and is a success story in that it was brought back from the brink of extintion within a decade. Although Critically Endangered its future is looking better. I have carefully checked my facts in the article against published sources and have had input from several scientists who work with this species or other Cyclura species, including feedback from the scientist who's genetic research renamed the Latin binomial nomenclature for this animal. It has been rated as a Good Article and recently went through a Peer Review from other Wiki Editors. I feel it's ready to be Featured.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I peer reviewed this article quite recently, and I'm not surprised at all to see this nom here so quickly. All suggestions have been remarkably implemented. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I added one image and fixed some of the placement per WP:MOS#Images; please make sure that left-aligned images don't separate text and headers. One issue still present: I believe your use of the Quotation template in Causes of decline is incorrect per WP:MOSQUOTE. The quotation box is for pull quotes and other similar styles, while you're using for block quoting (i.e. directly within the normal flow of the prose as an indented quote) incorrectly. According to MOSQUOTE, block quotes must be 4+ lines or multiple paragraphs in length. Either remove the quotation box and turn the quote in to regular quoting style (just quotation marks), or make it a true pull quote or epigraph by disconnecting it from the rest of the text. Otherwise it looks great, nice work! VanTucky 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I tried to fix it, but don't like the way it looks now...can you point me to where I can make it a true "Pull Quote"? I was attempting to give more emphasis on that sentence by setting it apart from the paragraph...as just regular quoted text I think it looks a bit disjointed. Thanks for that additional picture! It's great and the Iguana in it is a dead ringer for a male Cuban/Cayman Hybrid that I own!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- that,"the species is nearly extinct, the people say since 1925 the "guanas"[sic] have become so scarce that it is no longer worth their while to hunt them." - period belongs outside the quote marks per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. A space needed after "that,".
- Fixed
- "from over 45 different plant species" - "different" is redundant
- Fixed
- "over the last 25 years" - "past" is better
- Fixed
- "was created in order to determine" - "in order" is redundant
- Fixed
- "unique to the islands - yet there" - wrong dash per WP:DASH
- Fixed, I think
- An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
- Fixed
- Single years that shouldn't be linked
- Fixed
- Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "25 years", "65–90 days"
- Fixed
- Hyphens needed for compound adjectives, eg. "large scale release"
- Fixed
- Inconsistent number formatting, eg, "15 animals remained", "twenty-one eggs". Numerals are generally used for numbers over nine.
- Fixed, It was "one to tewnty-one"; I made it "1-21"
- English speaking countries generally don't require linking.
- Fixed
- "20–30 inches(51–76 cm)" - space needed
- Fixed
- Some dates in the footnotes need linking.
- Fixed
- Comments regarding images:
Image:Grand Cayman Blue Iguana.jpg seems questionable and may be from a Cayman Islands Government site (and not a government production, although lower resolution at that site is a good thing). The license tag indicates that the author has released it under GFDL. As the author, Frederic James Burton, is a professional, I’m not comfortable that this is really the case.- I have it on good authority (Burton, himself) that Burton uploaded that image as User:BIRP; I believe the present image is/was his second attempt. Burton is the Director of the Blue Iguana Recovery Programme and that animal in question is/was one of the founding stock for the breeding line. It can be identified by the beads in the nuchal crest. If you mouse-over the picture on the government site it gives credit to Burton.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:BLUEIGUANA.jpg is actually licensed under CC 2.0 (see link from Flickr page), not CC 1.0, as it is currently tagged. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll attempt to retag the image. As a side note, whomever comes up with those ridiculously worded templates governing images needs to be kneecapped as they can be a pain in the ass to figure out without a law degree. I'm glad you keep an eye on that sort of thing ElCobbola...this is not the first time you've helped me out!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- http://www.caymannetnews.com/bracker.php?news_id=1170&start=0&category_id=7 gives a page not found error
- Yes. I got that when I checked the links but when I clicked on it it went to the article, then today it wouldn't...I found where that sneaky Caymanian newspaper hid it and it's back.
- http://www.kingsnake.com/westindian/metazoa10.html what makes this a reliable site? I don't see sources listed on the pages.
- It's a cite for a simple translation of the Latin and Greek words which compose the scientific name for Cyclura. The author is a Catholic Franciscan priest and is fluent in both languages, unless you think I do not need a source for the part which is a Greek language translation.(My own Latin is fluent, but my Greek is not) As for reliability, he is a naturalist and his location and ministry gives him access to photograph and observe firsthand much of the flora and fauna of the West Indies. I do not use him to cite anything else in the article, although he has given permission to upload his photographs in other articles I've worked on concerning this family of lizards.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I correct in assuming that http://www.caymannetnews.com/index.php is the web site of the Cayman Islands newspaper?
- Yes.
- Current ref 14 (Blair, Dabid "West indain Iguanas of the Genus...") what's the publication for that article?
- It's in the ref if you look at the source, the template was not displaying it in the references section, I think it is fixed now.
- Current ref 19 (Alberts, Allison the Grand Cayman Blue Iguana Species Recovery Plan) is missing publisher information.
- It's in the ref if you look at the source, the template was not displaying it in the references section, I think it is fixed now. I went with a new template
- Current ref 27 (Wissman, Margaret "In Search of the Grand Cayman...") doesn't have issue and page number information. Not sure if that journal gives issue numbers?
- It's in the ref if you look at the source, the template was not displaying it in the references section. That journal gives the information and the hard copy is sitting next to my desk. I think it is fixed now.
- http://www.caymannetnews.com/bracker.php?news_id=1170&start=0&category_id=7 gives a page not found error
- Thanks for taking the time to review and point out my errors.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still some copy-editing to do; here are random examples from one small part. Please get the whole thing looked at.
- "thick ringed tail characteristic" --> "thick-ringed tail". Then "name ... name".
- "The Blue Iguana's closest relatives are the Cuban Iguana (C. nubila nubila) on Cuba, and the Andros Island Iguana (C. cychlura cychlura) in the Bahamas, all having apparently diverged from a common ancestor some three million years ago." Reword so it couldn't possibly be the countries that have diverged. "All" is odd after a list of just two. Perhaps "all three species ...".
- Why are common units linked???
- "Although not known to be arboreal the Blue Iguana has ..."—Where should the comma go?
- "The male is larger than the female by one third of its body size." The body size of which: male or female? It makes a difference.
- Great pic of the yawn—could almost be a featured pic, if they don't mind the blur at the bottom.
- " As Blue Iguanas have only a few rod cells they have poor vision in low-light conditions." --> "As Blue Iguanas have few rod cells, they have poor vision in low-light conditions."
Tony (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to look. I fixed all of these. I'll see if I can find someone else to take a look at it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "it was reclassified as a separate species due to genetic differences discovered in 2000." seems to conflict with "Frederic Burton reclassified the Blue Iguana as a distinct species in 2004"
- Not really, the differences were discovered in 2000, it took four years of research, peer review, verification, etc for it to be published in 2004.
- The text does not make that clear.
- Who is Frederic Burton?
- Frederic Burton is the Director of the BIRP and has the most hands-on experience working with this species on Grand Cayman. Yes, I have considered writing a seperate article on him, but because he hasn't been a featured character on the Simpsons or family Guy, it will probably be deleted.
- As this is a "scientific article" should the measurements be SI first? Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Which_system_to_use
- Who is Frederic Burton?
- I have run into this with a few other elements of researching this piece (and others of est Indian Cyclurids); half the sources use metric, half the sources use what's normal.
- Can you get a better picture for Grand Cayman? Perferably one showing it on a world map. The current picture shows all of the cayman islands
- I'll try!
- Regarding the quote, is it in the middle of a sentence? Shouldn't it start and end with ... if it is? If it isn't in the middle of a sentence why doesn't it have a capitolized first letter and period?
- Fixed
- This sentence is about the 3rd time restating these issues: "The wild population of Blue Iguanas had been reduced from a near island-wide distribution to a barely viable, increasingly fragmented remnant owing to the combined influences of habitat conversion, hunting, introduction of non-native predatory species, and road kill."
- I feel it's necesarry, it's in the lead, and its in the section as a summary of all the factors contributing to the decline before leading into conservation.I think it is needed to tie it all together.
- I don't like reading anything more than 2x in a Wikipedia article, there is no reason. Please try and clean up repletion wherever possible. Also it seems as if you are using it to form a 'conclusion' section which is not normal practice.
- I think this is fixed now.
- I don't like reading anything more than 2x in a Wikipedia article, there is no reason. Please try and clean up repletion wherever possible. Also it seems as if you are using it to form a 'conclusion' section which is not normal practice.
- "BIRP maintains these hatchlings for two years before their release into the wild". Can the fact in this sentence be added to one of the above where "head starting" is used?
- I've considered that, but it will turn into a run-on sentence...I'll take another look at it.
- Changing "to an age" to "to the age of two" will not make it a run on sentence.
- Fixed
- Changing "to an age" to "to the age of two" will not make it a run on sentence.
- The whole "Blue Iguana Recovery Programme" section seems like it needs some work. Items seem repeated or out of order. ex: "Restored sub-populations are already present in two non-contiguous areas—the Salina Reserve and the Queen Elizabeth II Botanic Park." comes after Salina is already mentioned.
- If you can be a little more specific I can work on it.
- Examples:
- "head-starting them to an age where their chance of survival in the wild is high, and using these animals to rebuild a series of wild sub-populations in protected, managed natural areas" that sentence explains head starting, and then there is another sentence.. which explains head starting
- Fixed
- "BIRP maintains these hatchlings for two years before their release into the wild" is again another repetition of the "head starting idea", but it comes after other unrelated sentences.
- Fixed
- It seems like this section has pretty decent overlap with the last paragraph of "Endangered status"
- The section starts out mention head starting, goes into where the Iguanas are then goes back to head starting.
- I made it a footnote.
- "head-starting them to an age where their chance of survival in the wild is high, and using these animals to rebuild a series of wild sub-populations in protected, managed natural areas" that sentence explains head starting, and then there is another sentence.. which explains head starting
- Examples:
- -Ravedave (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both Image:Yawniguana.jpg and Image:BLUEIGUANA.jpg have non-commercial provisions to their CC licenses at Flickr (the latter also has a no derivates provision). Per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo, we can’t use these.ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "although it can breed with this subspecies and produce fertile offspring." redundant, I think - if it couldn't, they would be different species by definition Jimfbleak (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're on the right track, but, C. n. caymanensis is a subspecies of a different species. The DNA phylogeny is what changed the classification.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- ok, I'll give it the once over....notes below. If you don't agree feel free to explain why not. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally MOS suggests lead to have 2-3 paras. reading it I felt para 3 segued into par 4 nicely and see no reason why they can't be combined.- Done!
In the Taxonomy section paras 1 & 2, and 3 & 4 can be combined with each other for flow. Also avoids the two paras that start with "The Blue Iguana...."- Done!
Anatomy and morphology - anatomy reminds me of livers and internal organs, why use jargon when you can use the plain description?- Done! (I guess anatomy and morphology sounded better...now I'll have to revisit the other Cyclura articles and fix this!)
First 3 paras can all go together in this section too.- Done!
Overall, the prose is pretty good, though the profusion of small paras is not altogether pleasant on hte eyes. If you could combine a few in the lower few sections it would scan better. Nearly there though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments for now.
- As they are not capable of creating liquid urine more concentrated than their bodily fluids, This is confusing, firstly, urine is a liquid by definition so the liquid is redundant. Do the produce, (a better word) any urine at all? I don't think they do. If so this phrase could be reduced to As they cannot produce urine..
- They discharge solid urates,I think it would be more confusing to phrase it otherwise.
- As do birds and spiders, I would re-phrase it. Urine is urine. --GrahamColmTalk 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed.
- As do birds and spiders, I would re-phrase it. Urine is urine. --GrahamColmTalk 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They discharge solid urates,I think it would be more confusing to phrase it otherwise.
- Usage areas - does this mean territory?
- Yes, I changed it.
- Road kill are dead animals at the side of a road so, Road kill is an increasing cause of mortality - dead animals do not cause mortality; they are a result of mortality.
- I put in "automobiles and motorscooters" but hope some eco-warrior doesn't make the leap to say it's greenhouse gases that are killing them. :)
- (AZA) designated the genus Cyclura as their highest priority - highest priority what, conservation effort?
- I put in conservation for now, but really in the case of 4 species it was beyond conservation. It was their highest priority , period. Three species, C. lewisi, C. collei, and C. pinguis were on the verge of extinction with less than 20 animals left of each species.
- through DNA analysis and blood work - the (ugly) expression blood work usually refers to the analysis of blood for signs of disease.
- "Hematology"?
- No, not really, I would simply delete and blood work.--GrahamColmTalk 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone!
- No, not really, I would simply delete and blood work.--GrahamColmTalk 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hematology"?
- The program contains only pure specimens, as these hybrids - Now the program??
- I had that in there originally, (it may have been "now" or "currently") some other wordsmith had me remove it, either here or at peer review.
- bloodline exchange - genetic exchange would be better, or perhaps cross-breeding.
- "Cross-breeding" works!
- breeding the Blue Iguana in captivity over a period of seven years - the period of is redundant.
- Gone
- population remains a single genetic unit - a single genetic unit is a gene??
- I changed it to "single genetic management unit"
- As they are not capable of creating liquid urine more concentrated than their bodily fluids, This is confusing, firstly, urine is a liquid by definition so the liquid is redundant. Do the produce, (a better word) any urine at all? I don't think they do. If so this phrase could be reduced to As they cannot produce urine..
- Thanks for taking the time to read it and to provide input.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support yes compelling indeed, (thanks for the word). All my concerns have been addressed. --GrahamColmTalk 13:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written, very well referenced, and compelling. I made some minor copyedits and have three comments that should be addressed (but I still support this FAC).
- Areas in acres are given in conversion to metric units as square kilometers in several places, but as hectares in one place. I think hectares makes more sense here as the areas are all quite small (0.6 acre usually, also 88 acres), but these should be consistent.
- fixed
- In the "Causes of decline" section the exact same quotation from Chapman Grant is given twice - once in the text and once in a text box. Surely this only needs to be in the article once?
- Yes, I left it in as the pull quote.
- In the "Blue Iguana Recovery Programme" section we are told twice in the space of three sentences that 1000 individuals are needed. Does this really need to be repeated?
- I removed the second mention.
- Hope these help, and I am rooting for the recovery of the Blue Iguana - thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your valuable input and comments!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 15:31, 31 March 2008.
Jacques Plante
Jacques Plante was a goaltender for Montreal Canadiens dynasty in the late 50s. He is now best-known as the inventor of the first practical goaltender mask for ice hockey. He was also the first one to use it regularly in NHL games. I've worked since around December on this article, and with the help of Risker, Nishkid64 and many others who gave me pointers and/or actually edited it, I think this very comprehensive article about Plante is worthy of featured status. Maxim(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Links were reviewed. As per previous hockey FACs, the tool doesn't like websites from the Hockey Hall of Fame, but I've cheked manually and they work fine. Maxim(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments-
- Does line 13 to 18 of the first paragraph in "Early Life" really need all the repeated cites? Couldn't it all be cited with just one?
- In Early Life, why did his school's coach order the former goalie off? Perhaps just a quick phrase?
- Same with Minor Leagues, couldn't the tuques statement be concluded in 19 cite? There's a few of those else where in the article, but it's a minor thing.
- Perhaps a little more detail on the on-ice brawl in section "Five Stanley Cups"?
Otherwise, Support. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fifth paragraph in the opening seems to be repeated in the 'Retirement and death' section. Seeing as how the opening is usually is supposed to be a brief overview of the article, it would probably be in the best interests to merge that information into the relevent section, and merge any other information into the proper place.
Also wouldn't hurt to add a few external links, seeing how there is only one. Knowing that there are currently issues with a template for a link, I know that isn't long to be fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All my concerns addressed. Also like seeing so many images of Plante, and the video clip. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two worthwhile external links added, including a link to the "History by the Minute" video re-enactment of Plante's injury that led to him wearing the mask in regulation play the first time; many Canadians will remember it. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- About the lead, the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article. While it mentions parts of Retirement and death, it's supposed to do that, and section itself gives more information on that, too. Maxim(talk) 12:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- The "See also" section belongs above the "References" section
- "where he became well known" - "well known" needs a hyphen
- "Canadiens won the game 3-1" - wrong dash
- Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "50 cents"
- The "See also" section shouldn't contain articles already linked elsewhere.
- "he signed for $35000" - should be "$35,000"
- Some duplicate refs could be combined, eg. "Plante, R., pg.214" or "Plante, R., pg.14"
- Some inconsistent page number formatting, eg. "pg.214", "pg. 216"
- "He's [Plante] the biggest attraction since the good old days of Terry Sawchuk". - period belongs inside the quotes if present in the original text.
- "three–week training camp", "10–year contract" - should be hyphens.
- "a $10–million ... contract" - hyphen/dash not needed. Epbr123 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly all done. For your 4th point, can you please link me to the appropriate guideline as I'm not sure what to do. Secondly, I think the see alsos are to link to subject that were not discussed a lot but are somehow pertinent to the subject. The mask is mentioned, even linked, but not discussed as much and should be an important read after the Plante article. Hall and Sawchuk were Plante's contemporaries and the two other leading goalies of the age. Maxim(talk) 01:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding non-breaking spaces, the relevent guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Non-breaking spaces. I think they just need to be added to "50 cents" and "$10 million". Regarding "See also", Wikipedia:Layout#See also states, "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment", so I'll leave the decision to you. Epbr123 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly all done. For your 4th point, can you please link me to the appropriate guideline as I'm not sure what to do. Secondly, I think the see alsos are to link to subject that were not discussed a lot but are somehow pertinent to the subject. The mask is mentioned, even linked, but not discussed as much and should be an important read after the Plante article. Hall and Sawchuk were Plante's contemporaries and the two other leading goalies of the age. Maxim(talk) 01:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—This is very well-written indeed. Since so much of the referencing is to a book by "Raymond Plante", it would be good to know who that author is—perhaps even a mention in the main text (Legacy?). If it's his second wife, RaymondE. If not, is it his brother? Tony (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) PS Check Canadian spelling of "fibERglass". Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Could the notes come before the references and could the references be alphabetical by author please? Also, why a references AND a bibliography?
- No, refs shold be above notes; it's confusing to have last name, page number before seeing the appropriate book.
- To address the comment about references AND a bibliography: The references are just that, books that were used to reference the article. The bibliography is made up of books that Plante wrote or participated in writing; not all of them were used as references. The first edition of his goaltending manual, for example, is long out of print and a first edition is worth a fortune now in the hockey collecting world. Risker (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, refs shold be above notes; it's confusing to have last name, page number before seeing the appropriate book.
- What makes http://www.hockeygoalies.org/ a reliable site?
- Just because you don't know a site doesn't make it unreliable.
- You are correct that I don't know the site, but I did look it over and try to see what sources it used, who published it, etc. before asking what made it reliable. You'll note that I didn't oppose based on these comments, I merely ask questions. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing any sources listed specific to the page. I'm not seeing that the author is a published author on the subject. Granted, the first reference to this page is corraborated elsewhere, but this site is the only source for the information that he was paid while playing for the factory team while the others weren't. (the site also says coach, not factory manager and says that the others weren't paid) If there are articles in the press that refer to the site as reliable that would help. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct that I don't know the site, but I did look it over and try to see what sources it used, who published it, etc. before asking what made it reliable. You'll note that I didn't oppose based on these comments, I merely ask questions. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you don't know a site doesn't make it unreliable.
- Likewise http://www.hockeysiteincanada.com/? (The "contact me" button on the home page is not exactly inspiring confidence)
- Also http://www.goaliesarchive.com/index2.html?
- What makes http://www.losthockey.com/main.cfm a reliable site?
- http://www.frameworth.com/hockey/players/jacques-plante.htm what makes this reliable?
- I see that this company markets memorabilia, so it's probably somewhat reliable. It would be nice to see a reference to the actual book: Step by Step Hockey Goaltending: The Complete Illustrated Guide
The connor reference, is 21 the page number? If so it needs to be formated like the other references in the notes.- Removed.
- Could the notes come before the references and could the references be alphabetical by author please? Also, why a references AND a bibliography?
- All the sites check out (As mentioned above the checker doesn't like the Hockey Hall of Fame sites, but they are there fine) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a look at all of the site over again, and I'd say all of them are reliable. Feel free to ask a bit more pertinent questions about the sites and I'll see what can be done. Maxim(talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks great now. Thanks for putting up with me! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 00:07, 17 May 2008.
Nine Inch Nails live performances
- previous FAC (18:03, 4 April 2008)
Self-nomination The article's previous nomination was closed before sufficient votes were given, so I'm hoping to get enough responses this time. All The majority of the concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed, and little has changed with the article since then. Any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think it's entirely accurate to say all the concerns were addressed. When the previous nom closed I was still opposing the article but reviewing changes. I can spot at least 2-3 of my issues that were decidedly not resolved. One major item is white space. The way you've chosen to layout the article leaves huge chunks of white space at higher resolutions. --Laser brain (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I misrepresented the conclusion of the previous FLC, I thought I had take care of everything. I reworded the nomination slightly to reflect this. My monitor is a fairly low resolution, so perhaps you could tell me which sections in particular are problematic? Drewcifer (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any section that contains an image and precedes one of those collapsible boxes is not scalable because of the box. In other words, as resolution increases, the text continues to shrink around the image but the box continues downward, leaving whitespace. I'm not sure how to better describe the issue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the sourcing issues from the previous FAC were resolved, I double checked quickly them again, and they look fine. The link tool is showing two dead links and a timeout though, you might want to check those. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I took a fresh look at this today after not reading it for a while, and it looks vastly improved from when this nom was posted. I'm changing to support.
Oppose, I am disappointed that this is listed here again without much changed in the article. There was ample opportunity for a substantive peer review as I recommended last time but I see that has not been done. Outstanding concerns:
Layout problems, see comment above.Prose (1a); comma usage and other unpolished prose. General copyedit needed by an uninvolved editor.A substantive copyedit is still needed. Issues still easily spotted, and in many places the recent copyedit introduced changes but not necessarily improvements.--Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is still confusing.. why use the term "component"?
- I'm really not sure how to respond to this as a criticism. "Component" implies that NIN in the studio is part of a bigger entity, ie "Nine Inch Nails". NIN live + NIN in-studio=Nine Inch Nails. Each is a component to the larger whole. Seems pretty straight-forward english to me.
"In 1991 the band then embarked on a world tour that continued through the first Lollapalooza festival, where the band 'stole the show' despite numerous equipment problems." Like what?
- The source does not specify, but is this really that important of info? Does the article really need to say "The wha-wha pedal was unplugged" or "An amp was broken" or "The mic stand was missing a washer" or any of the other 100 completely mundane, uniteresting, uber-technical things that might have gone wrong? Looking at the article's scope (NIN Live Performances as a whole) is such detail necessary? Drewcifer (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not important, take it out. I'd rather it just say they were successful instead of saying they were successful despite problems but not specifying what the problems were. It's unusual for a professional band to have such technical problems that a journalist felt compelled to write about it. We're not talking about the things you mentioned, we're talking about problems major enough for the audience to notice. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I found a source that specifies the technical problems: "monitors weren't on, guitars were out of tune, the mic stand was nowhere to be seen." Seems like pretty mundane stuff to me. What do you recommend? Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a judgment call. If they are mundane then I recommend just taking out that phrase in the interest of being concise. --Laser brain (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I found a source that specifies the technical problems: "monitors weren't on, guitars were out of tune, the mic stand was nowhere to be seen." Seems like pretty mundane stuff to me. What do you recommend? Drewcifer (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not important, take it out. I'd rather it just say they were successful instead of saying they were successful despite problems but not specifying what the problems were. It's unusual for a professional band to have such technical problems that a journalist felt compelled to write about it. We're not talking about the things you mentioned, we're talking about problems major enough for the audience to notice. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source does not specify, but is this really that important of info? Does the article really need to say "The wha-wha pedal was unplugged" or "An amp was broken" or "The mic stand was missing a washer" or any of the other 100 completely mundane, uniteresting, uber-technical things that might have gone wrong? Looking at the article's scope (NIN Live Performances as a whole) is such detail necessary? Drewcifer (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why nothing about the visual production of the shows prior to 1999? You answered in the last FAC that you couldn't find anything, but unfortunately that's not good enough for FA.--Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, I've made a few big edits, hopefully to fix the above problems. I had the article copyedited by a third party. I decided to take out the tables (since they were a formatting issue, but also since some people have already mentioned this as something they weren't too fond off), and moved them to List of Nine Inch Nails tours. Let me know if there's still any high-resolution formatting issues. I also added some pre-1999 stuff in the visual elements section. Drewcifer (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had trouble getting beyond the first sentence. Why is it "generally understood to be a separate entity" rather than "is a separate entity"? And what do the words entity and component mean here? BuddingJournalist 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is generally understood to be seperate since they are officially one and the same. It's impossible to say definitively "is" since such rhetoric has never come from the NIN-camp. Admittedly, it's a messy situation language-wise. "Component" implies that it is part of a larger whole. "Entity" was a little wierd, so I reworded that part. Drewcifer (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I redid the lead from scratch. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the "generally understood..." is gone (which had been bothering other editors too, it seems), so that's a non-issue now. However, the lead could be improved:
- "Nine Inch Nails as a live band has toured throughout the world" Why the "as a live band" qualifier? Seems redundant. Don't tours generally feature live bands?
- "including perfvormances" typo, and "including" is not the best word here. "giving performances" or just "performing".
- link frontman
- "Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor, though typically in complete creative control of the band's musical direction in-studio, has assembled a live band to interpret each major Nine Inch Nails studio release" I did not understand the "though" here. Did he release creative control in assembling these live bands?
- "These performances have usually been in the form of promotional tours...in many festivals...many other single performances" Long sentence. Conflict between "usually" and "many" other performances.
- "since its inception - Reznor" hyphen is not used for separation.
- "always-changing" "always" is not the best modifier. Try "constantly changing"
- I also skimmed the rest of the article and noticed that your transitions to quotations need work (commas, capitalization, flow, etc.). BuddingJournalist 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the "generally understood..." is gone (which had been bothering other editors too, it seems), so that's a non-issue now. However, the lead could be improved:
- I redid the lead from scratch. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also have problems with the lead section. To have "is generally understood" in the first line of an article isn't good; starts of articles should be more definitive. "Component" is an odd word. "Representation" or "manifestation" might be better. It's not that unusual for a studio artist to assemble live bands when going out on tour, especially when the artist tends to play most/all the instruments himself/herself; think Stevie Wonder or Paul McCartney. Smallish bands with well-defined personnel will add players on tour; think Genesis or R.E.M. or Nirvana. So there should be some way of getting this across. Also, the lead section seems too short. A paragraph summarizing the challenges/successes or failures/commercial and critical reactions to NIN live would be helpful. Does the NIN sound translate to the concert experience? Or do they adopt a different sound/approach? Is NIN more commercially successful with records or on tour? What type of venues do they play, and what are the grosses like? What has been the critical reaction? Indeed, the article as a whole needs to explore these topics more. I see some interesting reviewer comments buried in footnotes ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: The "Critical and commercial success" section that's been added would be better called "Critical and commercial reaction" or "Critical and commercial reception", so that you don't prejudge the contents. I seen both those names in other tour articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I like the article in general, it is very thorough in my opinion. some other editors bring up some good points I also support: Critical and commercial success could be expanded and summarized in the lead; how does the NIN live show compare with the average "concert experience"? Also, I'm not sure if the History sections flow very well; I think some more detail of what the live band did during hiatus' and recording times could help. If the flow is improved, I am prepared to give my full support.
As for Laser brain's comment of how copyediting is still needed, could he provide some specific examples? I thought my copyedit did well in improving the natural soud of some sentences. I am not an expert in proper writing or grammar, but I think there was some good improvement. -- Reaper X 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Reaper_X, I hope my comment didn't come across as unappreciative! We actually do need an expert in proper writing and grammar to copyedit this and other FA candidates. Random examples, but they are everywhere:
- Grammar/prose: "Certain songs in particular are typically accompanied with specially-designed visual aids, including synchronized lighting effects and projected stock-footage montages."
- Comma usage: "The concert was cut short, however, as the meeting was raided by a fictional SWAT team, and the audience was rushed out of the building."
- The article is almost entirely written in passive voice, which has the effect of obscuring or eliminating the subjects of sentences. Example: "In April, a 'resistance meeting' was scheduled in Los Angeles, where game participants were invited to attend a fictional Art is Resistance meeting, and were rewarded by an impromptu concert by Nine Inch Nails." Aside from being overly long, passive voice completely eliminates the subjects from the sentence and we don't find out who scheduled, who invited, and who awarded. Many of your edits introduced even more passive voice into the article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reaper_X, I hope my comment didn't come across as unappreciative! We actually do need an expert in proper writing and grammar to copyedit this and other FA candidates. Random examples, but they are everywhere:
- I took care of the language issues you pointed out above (I know they were just examples, but its a step in the right direction). In the meantime I've asked for another person to give the article a further copyedit. As for some other points of business: I completely redid the lead, let me know why you think. To respond to some of Reaper's comments: I think it's very unnecessary to mention what band members did during touring hiatuses. After all, the topic of the article is NIN live performances, so what happens between those performances isn't really that important, unless particularly notable. I also expanded the critical/commercial section, and mentioned it in the lead. As far as the History section's flow, goes, could you give some more specific examples? Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I thought flow could be improved with the mentioning of the band members activities between performances, but you bring up a very good point. That and I appreciate your expansion of the critical/commercial success. So...
- I took care of the language issues you pointed out above (I know they were just examples, but its a step in the right direction). In the meantime I've asked for another person to give the article a further copyedit. As for some other points of business: I completely redid the lead, let me know why you think. To respond to some of Reaper's comments: I think it's very unnecessary to mention what band members did during touring hiatuses. After all, the topic of the article is NIN live performances, so what happens between those performances isn't really that important, unless particularly notable. I also expanded the critical/commercial section, and mentioned it in the lead. As far as the History section's flow, goes, could you give some more specific examples? Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I love the comprehensiveness of this article, especially considering the subject matter. -- Reaper X 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've gone through the article and begun some copy-editing, per Laser Brain's request for a "General copyedit needed by an uninvolved editor." I'm attempting to remove some awkward wording, and such. I've also added tags to two statements I believe need to be clarified. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
No bold word in the lead?Done by AtaruMoroboshi (talk)"has performed and toured throughout the world, including performances" - performance overuse...possible reword?changed to "has performed throughout the world, including tours in North America.." Done by AtaruMoroboshi (talk)- "It was poorly received and was asked to leave the tour after 10 dates" - "it" seems to refer to the tour...clarify that it refers to the band?
- Reworded.
- "In 1991, the band then embarked" - would it read better without the "then"?
- Definitely. Fixed.
- "Early tours and Pretty Hate Machine tour (1988–1991)" (section title) - why is PHM in italics?
- Fixed.
- "After the Self-Destruct tour..." - Drewcifer's always telling me about short paragraphs; here's one for him. :)
- Ouch. Fixed. 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"Reznor held auditions in December 2004.[34] Reznor stated" - change second Reznor to "he", perhaps?Done by AtaruMoroboshi (talk)- "During the first arena show in 2005, Jerome Dillon was forced to stop midway through the show and was subsequently hospitalized.[clarify]" - I dunno, it seems clear enough to me—perhaps remove the "through the show" to make it a bit more crisp (and remove the clarify tag).
- I'm not really sure if I follow you on this one. Removing the phrase would make the fact incomplete and worded awkwardly.
- Aah, you're right. In any case, suggest you remove the clarify tag, unless you can think of a way of clarifying further. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure if I follow you on this one. Removing the phrase would make the fact incomplete and worded awkwardly.
- "Since the release of the Ghosts I-IV" - italics?
- REWORDED
- "in support of Ghosts I–IV, also stating that "the band has been reformed"" - change album title to "it" (I suggest) and cite the quote.
- REWORDED
- "purchasers legal name." - needs an apostrophe. And is this section really necessary?
- FIXED APOSTROPHE and MERGED WITH PERFORMANCE 2008.
- "Nights of Nothing Tour" - Nights of Nothing is only mentioned once elsewhere in the article, as a song. I'm a bit confused.
- REWORDED SLIGHTLY (Nights of Nothing isn't a song, it was a three-night showcase of Nothing bands. I've clarified the language to reflect that).
- That works. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- REWORDED SLIGHTLY (Nights of Nothing isn't a song, it was a three-night showcase of Nothing bands. I've clarified the language to reflect that).
- "and some other musicians[clarify]" - "and others" would work better if you don't want to name them.
- REWORDED (the problem is that each performance had differing supporting musicians. So I didn't name them, but instead reworded as you recommended.)
- Might want to use WebCite on ref 48
Done offline, so I didn't have a chance to check images/links. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At a quick look, the article appears comprehensive and well-cited. However, the prose needs a great deal of work before this is ready for FA status. I stopped reading closely in the first section of the history section and just skimmed the rest. These prose examples come from the lead and the first few history paragraphs; I suspect the same problems are rampant through the rest of the article.
- I have no idea what this is trying to say "re-interprets studio albums in promotion of new studio releases."
- I've reworded this sentence "While Reznor controls the creative and musical direction of Nine Inch Nails in-studio, the touring band re-interprets the studio albums for a live setting." AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
- This sentence is really awkward "The live performances have served as promotional tours as both supporting and headlining acts, such as festivals Woodstock '94, Lollapalooza 1991 and 2008, as well as many other single performances, such as during the MTV Video Music Awards."
- This was addressed by Ceoil AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Awkward wording " no member of the live band has remained constant since its inception"
- wording changed to "The only constant member of the live band is Reznor himself" AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
- There are some basic grammer mistakes:
- " on stage attitude" needs a hyphen
- done AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
- verb agreement: "Critical and commercial response to Nine Inch Nails live performances have generally " - have should be has
- done AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
- "include a fourth members" - member should not be plural.
- done AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
- Awkward wording "only with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions made by live-band members or other guest artists" - should be something like "with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions from others"
- Reworded to "with occasional instrumental and vocal contributions from others artists". AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
- remove redundancies: " to interpret the songs in a live form during tours" to "to interpret the songs during tours"
- reworded to "Reznor has typically assembled groups of backing musicians to interpret songs during tours" AtaruMoroboshi (talk)
- Why are some names of band members in italics? I think that might be a violation of WP:ITALICS
Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's understandable that there is some of the confusion. The Nine Inch Nails album performance of a song verses the stage performance of a song is often sonically different. Where as others artists may perform a song live much like it was recorded, the Nine Inch Nails live shows often feature different instrumentation entirely, from musicians who had no hand in the original recordings - effectively re-interepting the source material. It is further expanded upon in the history section. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What you want to say is that they rearrange songs for the stage, not reinterpret. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Left-aligned images should not be placed directly under level two headers (===), see WP:MOS#Images. indopug (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, but the article seems the worse for it. I would have though image promixity to the relevant text should override. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently reading through the article. I appreciate that the tours has been given its own list article, as I suggested; it particularly helped get rid of the collapsable boxes, which I felt were redundant and ungainly. Given the trimmed-down scope of the article now, I would strongly suggest this article be renamed Nine Inch Nails backing band, since that's basically what the article is about, and Reznor has made it clear he essentially is the band (per the famous credits in every NIN release "Trent Reznor is Nine Inch Nails") and only needs a full band for gigs. It's a much better, clearer title for the article. I'll follow up wih more comments as I go through the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. While the article does encompass the live band - it is in the context of the live tours of Nine Inch Nails. The article additionally addresses touring on the whole, visual elements, and the live performances. The article title "Nine Inch Nails Backing Band" is too narrow. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think there needs to be as much focus on the visual elements and live performances. The majority of the article deals with the changing lineups; that's a fine enough scope to devote the article to. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I too disagree. If one were to break the entire article into its proportional focuses, I would say that the lineup changes is much less then half of the article's content. There's 6 sections, and only two of which deal with the lineup (the Live band members section obviously, and only portions of the History section). What your suggesting seems a little self-fulfilling to me: that the article's focus is too broad AND that the article should be renamed to be more specific. Drewcifer (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think you can get the same points across with a better title. "Nine Inch Nails live performances" is awkward and a bit esoteric. People see "Nine Inch Nails backing band" and it's clear what the article is about. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly my point: the article isn't exclusively about the backing band. There's much more here. Though renaming the article NIN backing band would obviously make the line-up portions of the article make more sense, it would also make whole sections of the article out-of-place. For instance, why would "Visual elements" be in an article about a backing band? This is exactly why I said it was a self-fulfilling change, since neither step works without the other. Drewcifer (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nine Inch Nails "backing" band isn't ideal. But I would expect an article titled "Nine Inch Nails live performances" to be a discussion of specific performances. Maybe the article is too general for that title. Lemme think. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not tied to the current article name, though I oppose WesleyDodds suggestion. As a possible compromise that addresses the full scope of the article, what about "Live Elements of Nine Inch Nails" or "Elements of Live Nine Inch Nails" - but really I don't know the scope of this FAC. Perhaps we should take renaming discussions to the talk page? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AtaruMoroboshi, AFAIK its outside the scope of FAC, and yes, should be taken to article talk. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I bring it up here because if the page is moved the FAC needs to be renamed as well. Renaming discussions are often settled in FAC (one I was personally involved with was the moving of "R.E.M. (band)" to R.E.M.). As for the names Ataru suggested, I think those would be too cumbersome and not helpful to the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AtaruMoroboshi, AFAIK its outside the scope of FAC, and yes, should be taken to article talk. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not tied to the current article name, though I oppose WesleyDodds suggestion. As a possible compromise that addresses the full scope of the article, what about "Live Elements of Nine Inch Nails" or "Elements of Live Nine Inch Nails" - but really I don't know the scope of this FAC. Perhaps we should take renaming discussions to the talk page? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nine Inch Nails "backing" band isn't ideal. But I would expect an article titled "Nine Inch Nails live performances" to be a discussion of specific performances. Maybe the article is too general for that title. Lemme think. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly my point: the article isn't exclusively about the backing band. There's much more here. Though renaming the article NIN backing band would obviously make the line-up portions of the article make more sense, it would also make whole sections of the article out-of-place. For instance, why would "Visual elements" be in an article about a backing band? This is exactly why I said it was a self-fulfilling change, since neither step works without the other. Drewcifer (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think you can get the same points across with a better title. "Nine Inch Nails live performances" is awkward and a bit esoteric. People see "Nine Inch Nails backing band" and it's clear what the article is about. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I too disagree. If one were to break the entire article into its proportional focuses, I would say that the lineup changes is much less then half of the article's content. There's 6 sections, and only two of which deal with the lineup (the Live band members section obviously, and only portions of the History section). What your suggesting seems a little self-fulfilling to me: that the article's focus is too broad AND that the article should be renamed to be more specific. Drewcifer (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think there needs to be as much focus on the visual elements and live performances. The majority of the article deals with the changing lineups; that's a fine enough scope to devote the article to. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've finished reading the article. Here are my comments.
- I think that first paragraph in the History section could work as part of the lead. Just start off the History with Reznor hiring band members.
- Establish more context for the creation of the live band in the prose. My suggestion is to summarize the quote in "Early tours and Pretty Hate Machine tour" ("I could have just gone out with tape machines or 50 keyboards . . .") in the section. The quote box itself can stay; I just think Reznor's rationale needs to be better established in the body of the article.
- I remember reading that Reznor said the sound of the live band influenced the sound of Broken, ie. very heavy and guitar-oriented. Can something about this be included?
- Some of the Year Zero project details seem unnecessary.
- Comment What specific details do you believe need to be unnecessary? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Live releases" section can be done away with.
- I disagree. Most band articles have some sort of discography section, and since the live band has had an output in the form of a few live releases, I'd say a similar section applies here too. Drewcifer (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Critical and commercial reception" section seems somewhat redundant, given there are constant references to how each tour was received in the History section. Still, only somewhat redundant; there's plenty of good information in the section itself. Remove redundancies and possibly move some stuff around.
- The band member chart seems pretty superfluous.
- I disagree. The cool thing about the chart is that it sums up alot of the article in a single pretty small chart. Granted, the code is pretty massive, but the chart itself is pretty compact. And for being so small, it offers alot of information, synthesized for the reader's convenience: who played when, how long they were part of the band, who played what instruments, who replaced who, the relative tenures of each member, the various incarnations of the group, major tours, major releases, etc, etc. It certainly doesn't take away from the article, and I would argue it offers up alot of information. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other article renaming ideas: "Nine Inch Nails live band", "Nine Inch Nails in live performances". Having read the entire article, very little would have to be changed in the prose to accomodate a change to either of these names, or my aforemention "Nine Inch Nails backing band". It would most require some rewriting of the lead and the removal of some superflous details.
- I'm not against the idea of renaming the article, but I don't think that any of the suggestions so far serve the topic better then the current title. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the facts in "Guest artists and collaborations" are unimportant, since they're one-off occurances. The ones I think should be kept are the Lollapalooza '91 "Head Like a Hole" jams (if they were performed regularly; I vaguely recall that they were) and the David Bowie team-ups. These can be integrated into the history section.
Aside from that, there's some awkwardness in the prose that I'll try to fix myself. Otherwise the article is pretty solid. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.
SS Christopher Columbus
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's an interesting article about an obscure but important part of maritime history. SS Chris was an oddball.. the only passenger whaleback ever, built for the Worlds Columbian Exposition, she carried over 2 million passengers in her 40+ year career, but she is not very well known. She looked funny to be sure, but she was built in record time and she was designed to load and unload thousands of passengers fast, and to move at a high rate of speed while sailing... I think this article meets all of the criteria, and can be modified to meet any that I missed :). It's stable, and on a non controversial subject so sticking to the NPOV was pretty straightforward. It started as a spinoff from Whaleback, made WP:DYK, and during the course of two GA nominations, (one failed and one successful), has had a lot of eyes on it and a lot of hands helping make it better. I think it's pretty thoroughly referenced, (almost) all the links check out mechanically, and it's got an interesting selection of images, (including a painting, photos, postcards, a newspaper ad and even a free pass signed by her designer), well spaced and not overwhelming... There's a quote from her designer, cites from the NY Times about her impromptu racing career and lots of other tidbits. This is my first FA nomination so it's with a mixture of trepidation and excitement that I submit this article for your feedback and review. I look forward to taking on board ouch! all actionable suggestions and ending up with a better article, pass or fail. Thanks for your time and consideration. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belatedly adding myself as co-nom; looking forward to putting her through the wringer to get her up to FA! Maralia (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <article stats moved to talk page>
- Comments
- Heading on infobox seems to have become an equals sign.
- Got that sorted, but should there be something above the image? ++Lar
- Put citations in numerical order (right now you have a [4][5][3])
- I think I got that one sorted. ++Lar
- Note that Giggy thinks multiple refs are bad. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think multiple refs are fine where appropriate. However, if you're citing a single verifiable fact then a single reference should suffice. If you're referencing a widely held opinion (for example) then more than one reference is suitable... Just my thoughts though! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Giggy thinks multiple refs are bad. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got that one sorted. ++Lar
- Headings per WP:HEAD avoid "The" at the beginning.
- "First whalebacks" reads funny... would "Predecessor whalebacks" be better to avoid the "the"? I tried "Background and proposal"... what do you think? ++Lar
- Year ranges in the infobox need to be seperated by en-dash per WP:DASH.
- Is this a special character like — is? When I went to WP:DASH and to the dash article I could not find a representation for it. I removed all spaces (so that "(1933 - 1934)" became "(1933-1934)") but I'm not sure what char to use. Suggestions? ++Lar
- Yes, it's just like that, but – instead. If you're still stuck, shout and I'll fix it and show you what I meant... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a special character like — is? When I went to WP:DASH and to the dash article I could not find a representation for it. I removed all spaces (so that "(1933 - 1934)" became "(1933-1934)") but I'm not sure what char to use. Suggestions? ++Lar
- "on the lakes " - explain for non-experts.
- Avoid squashing text between a pair of images per WP:MOS#Images.
- A lot of people have thrashed around on the number, placement, etc. of images on this article. I think all the images it has are needed. I've tried {{imagestack}} but had mixed results. Which sections do you think are bad, which images? I could use a little help on this one... anyone else have ideas? ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the images are all public domain not all necessarily have to be in the article but rather can roost on Commons. I'm sure if the user is interested in more media they'll figure out how to find it using the commons template. Encouraging the user to visit and use this great sister project whenever possible is a benefit to both parties I believe. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an admin, bureaucrat, oversighter and checkuser on Commons verify, I absolutely agree that Commons is an awesome project... more than a sister, in fact, she's a mother to us all :)... And I put a gallery at the bottom of the article, and a link to still more additional images I found during my researches, using {{commonscat}} as well, some time ago. But every image in there, I contend, is important to telling the story the article has to tell. I'm not averse to removal, mind you, but this article has been around a while and has already has quite a few removed or shuffled... I did try a good dose of {{imagestack}}... see what you think. Or propose specific images that could be removed, perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the images are all public domain not all necessarily have to be in the article but rather can roost on Commons. I'm sure if the user is interested in more media they'll figure out how to find it using the commons template. Encouraging the user to visit and use this great sister project whenever possible is a benefit to both parties I believe. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of people have thrashed around on the number, placement, etc. of images on this article. I think all the images it has are needed. I've tried {{imagestack}} but had mixed results. Which sections do you think are bad, which images? I could use a little help on this one... anyone else have ideas? ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard to say really, the additional images section gallery would seem the only one to remove without sacrificing too much encyclopedic value. Your choice, I'm only a spectator of this board - you're the one who has to capture the king. 76.10.141.172 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good article which meets the criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{*Comment. I was surprised to see that I had made so many edits to this article, as I've not really looked at it since it's successful GA review (I was the reviewer). I do have just a few comments:
"... reportedly also the longest vessel on the Great Lakes at the time of her launching." I'm not an expert on maritime terminology, but "launching" sounds a bit awkward. Why not " ... when she was launched"?
- Yup. ++Lar
"Construction of the Columbus was ordered by the World's Fair Steamship Company at a cost of $360,000." Being picky, I know, but it wasn't the ordering that cost $360,000.
- tried "..at a projected cost of $360,000." instead. ++Lar
"The cabins and public spaces were outfitted with oak paneling, ...". Not sure that outfitted is right here. Fitted out?
- Yup. +++Lar
"This placed Columbus among the fastest to be built ships to that time." Seems a bit awkward. Maybe better to merge that sentence with the previous one?
- Tried it. It's still a bit awkward though even with the join. Any ideas there? ++Lar
"The builders further promised rapid loading and unloading, predicting that the vessel would be able to embark 5,000 passengers in five minutes, and disembark the same passengers in even less time. The Columbus was specified to be able run the six miles from the dock downtown to the fairgrounds at Jackson Park and 64th Street in 20 minutes." Having read that I was left wondering whether the ship actually met those design criteria.
- I never found a cite for whether she did or not, so I was left wondering that too! A lot of advertisements bragging about various aspects of how fast she was, though. If I could find an advert for how many round trips she did, or what the sailing times were, that would sort it, but I haven't yet. ++Lar
"The Columbus was one of the first ships to be fitted with an on-board radio, installed as early as 1909." Not sure that the "as early as" adds very much.
- I don't know when her radio was added. It has to be as early as 1909 but could be earlier. The cite I found was a 1909 book of callsigns, which -> she had one then. Maybe earlier, can't say. Ideas for a reword? ++Lar
"Although she was used for excursions elsewhere around the Great Lakes, her regular schedule was a daily trip to Milwaukee, leaving Chicago mid-morning, sailing to Milwaukee for a two-hour stopover, and then returning (as the advertisement (pictured) illustrates). This brought a crowd of sightseers to Milwaukee every day." It seems self-evident that it would bring a crowd of sightseers to Milwaukee every day doesn't it? Perhaps I've misunderstood what's meant here.
- I think that was a hanger on to lead into a paragraph about how much carousing they did, I don't quite recall. :) I found some sort of memoir about rather festive/joyous brewery tours by aforementioned crowds of sightseers, IIRC, but it wasn't quite solid enough so I think maybe it got cut from an earlier draft. Perhaps that's just a hanger on phrase that needs to go too? Still 4000 passengers are quite a few to discharge every day. But I suspect she didn't routinely carry that many once she was out of fair service. ++Lar
I'm pleased to see this article at FAC, and I'm confident that I'll soon be able to support it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Maybe it's just me...but the infobox seems wider than usual. Not sure if shrinking the image is a good idea, but yeah...my ramblings. :)
- Took the pic to 250, it now has whitespace on each side and the infobox doesn't seem any narrower... I agree it does seem a bit wide... anyone else want to try? ++Lar
- Yeah, shrinking the pic won't shrink the infobox; the ship infobox is just that wide. I've restored the pic to 300px. TomTheHand (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Took the pic to 250, it now has whitespace on each side and the infobox doesn't seem any narrower... I agree it does seem a bit wide... anyone else want to try? ++Lar
- "She was the only whaleback ship ever built for passenger service." - the ever isn't necessary
- Doesn't hurt. Given the number of things McDougall tried, the emphasis seems good. ++Lar
- Not sure what the deal is with the bold number in ref 1
- No idea. it uses {{cite journal}}... any ideas anyone? ++Lar
- "She was scrapped in 1936 by the Manitowoc Shipbuilding Company at Manitowoc, Wisconsin.[3][4][5]" - is this so contentious that it needs 3 refs? Best to avoid this (makes readability a bit worse) wherever possible
- Is this against standard? Multiple refs seem harmless enough. ++Lar
- Well, it is kinda against standard in that not many people do this. It just disrupts readability when you have (as occurs later in the article) 4 refs between 2 sentences. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this against standard? Multiple refs seem harmless enough. ++Lar
- "able to travel at a "high rate of speed".[9][10][11]" - same issue with 3 refs, and I think you could say this without quoting (again, not that it matters majorly...)
- dequoted. ++Lar
- "Six Scotch boilers were then installed[13][15] and two triple-expansion steam engines" - this reads awkwardly with the 2 refs in the middle. A comma could fix it?
- comma added. ++Lar
- "She was commissioned on 13 May 1893" - the first time I read this I thought it referred to the Columbian Whaleback Steamship Company...might want to use "the Columbus" instead of "she"
- reordered preceding sentence to make antecedent clear. ++Lar
- "The Goodrich Transit Line steamer Virginia (later the USS Blue Ridge) is said to have raced against her." - who won?
- They raced a lot over the years. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, won, it seems (ref the steam pipe explosion incident later in the article, I think SS Chris would have won that one). No idea how many times they raced the first year or which one won more often. ++Lar
- "by the Goodrich Transit Line,[22][23][24][25]" - ...you guessed my comment;)
- "during a race with her rival, Virginia." - I think you should link Virginia the first time you mention it. Also, check the link; that one doesn't talk about a ship
- It is linked up higher. Maybe not link it at all here? It's a long way away, thought the rule was first link per section? Fixed where link points. ++lar
- Ah, I see, there are two in that section. Made first one linked (to correct target) and not section. The link earlier in a different section should stay too, I think, per linking standards. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I always feel like I don't know the rules on linking. Not a big deal - fixing the target was, though. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see, there are two in that section. Made first one linked (to correct target) and not section. The link earlier in a different section should stay too, I think, per linking standards. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is linked up higher. Maybe not link it at all here? It's a long way away, thought the rule was first link per section? Fixed where link points. ++lar
- "In 1915, after the SS Eastland disaster, in which the Eastland tipped over while docked in the Chicago River, with the loss of over 800 lives, the Columbus, along with other passenger ships, underwent stability testing" - very awkward sentence, especially the first part
- Support per my stuff above. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Dihydrogen Monoxide explicitly gave me/Lar permission to hide these resolved comments; see here. Maralia (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images in the Construction and initial operation at the Columbian Exposition should be moved to the left for high resolution viewers so that there is not lots of blank space even though the article will appear very short for a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I'm very open to moving images around but the problem with having them at left is that we then have some places (at some resolutions) where there are images on both sides of the text, which other reviewers have highlighted as an issue, which is why I went with the imagestack... anyone have ideas (if you look through comments above you'll see that image related comments are a common theme, there appears to be no solution that everyone likes) ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May want to use {{double image}} or {{triple image}} to move gallery images into text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Why is this better than regular gallery? tighter borders? Let me give it a try and see how it looks. Thanks for your feedback! ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is better in the sense that if the images are relevant and illustrate points described in the text, having them proximal to said text makes the article easier to read.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this better than regular gallery? tighter borders? Let me give it a try and see how it looks. Thanks for your feedback! ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{city-state}} to make Duluth, Everett, Milwaukee and Manotowic separately linkable from the states they are in. I.E. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. That includes the infobox and the image captions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Does GRT have a metric equivalent? in {{convert}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Tons in nautical usage are a funny thing... see Tonnage for more. I don't know that we know all the different values for her (GRT, NRT, GT, DWT, etc.)... Specifically GRT is a volume measurement (100 cubic feet or 2.83 cubic metres) but it's a calculated and not measured measurement. So I dunno. Maybe give the metric volume equvalent??? thoughts? What do other ship articles do here? ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GRT is really only reported for merchant ships, and there are few such FAs. The ones I've looked at do not attempt a conversion for this figure. It's not available in {{convert}}, probably because it's a tricky conversion - before 1982, it was a straightforward 1GRT=100 cubic feet, but now it's a calculation involving logarithms! Because this is an old ship, the 'easy' calculation applies, so I've added a conversion for 1,511 GRT -> 4,279 m3. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll assume you got the conversion correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GRT is really only reported for merchant ships, and there are few such FAs. The ones I've looked at do not attempt a conversion for this figure. It's not available in {{convert}}, probably because it's a tricky conversion - before 1982, it was a straightforward 1GRT=100 cubic feet, but now it's a calculation involving logarithms! Because this is an old ship, the 'easy' calculation applies, so I've added a conversion for 1,511 GRT -> 4,279 m3. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tons in nautical usage are a funny thing... see Tonnage for more. I don't know that we know all the different values for her (GRT, NRT, GT, DWT, etc.)... Specifically GRT is a volume measurement (100 cubic feet or 2.83 cubic metres) but it's a calculated and not measured measurement. So I dunno. Maybe give the metric volume equvalent??? thoughts? What do other ship articles do here? ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to use the wikilink option in the {{convert}} for the first instance of each unit of measure (first in infobox and first in text).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- It is not clear looking at the infobox why Goodrich Transit Co. is listed twice with no other owner between. Should there be an asterisk.
- Probably. The data is from the BGSU ship registry, and Goodrich had multiple holding companies, HQ's etc, this was, near as I can tell, a legal ownership shuffle that didn't matter operationally. Either asterisk it, or smush the years together I guess... preference? Meanwhile, next edit run, I'll asterisk it... should that note go below the list of dates or all the way at the bottom of the box, or treat it like a footnote? (an earlier version of the article had refs in the infobox, but those were all removed (which is what caused the out of order ref numbering, actually, IIRC) during the GA process I think.)++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources indicate she was owned by Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine from 1909-1921, then by Goodrich Transit Co. of Delaware from 1921-1933. I don't think the distinction is particularly important; I would be happy to just describe that as Goodrich Transit Co. (1909-1933). Maralia (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is probably an interesting story in that ownership changes. When did Deleware become a buisiness friendly state? Was it about this time? Was there some risk that the company undertook at that time to make the change advantageous? See if you can find something. At the very least the text should retain this transfer detail that you found even if we can not find the reason immediately. I have no preference how the infobox is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There probably is an interesting story, so I'd marginally favour keeping the ownership changes in this article. The larger question seems to apply to Goodrich Transit though, an article I started as a stub, rather than this one, unless a cite could be found. The best I could do was infer, (as I did about the previous ownership, which likely was a Goodrich shell, but I can't prove it) which of course, you have to be careful of not shading into OR territory... ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of this information is now in the text. I originally filled in the ownership part of the infobox only because the new ship infobox supported it. Perhaps the infobox could be shortened by limiting the ownership data to the text-- I surely have no strong feelings on the subject. Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The info box has merged the details out and I don't see Delaware anywhere in the text. Thus, potential information has been lost. Either put the information back in the infobox clearly stating the two different Goodriches or put the info in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally found an explicit source to clarify this: the Goodrich Transit Co., incorporated in Delaware in 1920, was a successor company to the Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine. As such, I think this is great information for the Goodrich article, but I don't see it having a place here; the ship belonged to the same company throughout, and the company did not even change names. The source is The Fitch Bond Book. The Fitch Publishing Company. 1921. p. 533. Retrieved 2008-03-26. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this article you could say it was named by different incarnations of the Goodrich company which would tell people to look in the Goodrich article to find more detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally found an explicit source to clarify this: the Goodrich Transit Co., incorporated in Delaware in 1920, was a successor company to the Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine. As such, I think this is great information for the Goodrich article, but I don't see it having a place here; the ship belonged to the same company throughout, and the company did not even change names. The source is The Fitch Bond Book. The Fitch Publishing Company. 1921. p. 533. Retrieved 2008-03-26. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The info box has merged the details out and I don't see Delaware anywhere in the text. Thus, potential information has been lost. Either put the information back in the infobox clearly stating the two different Goodriches or put the info in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of this information is now in the text. I originally filled in the ownership part of the infobox only because the new ship infobox supported it. Perhaps the infobox could be shortened by limiting the ownership data to the text-- I surely have no strong feelings on the subject. Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There probably is an interesting story, so I'd marginally favour keeping the ownership changes in this article. The larger question seems to apply to Goodrich Transit though, an article I started as a stub, rather than this one, unless a cite could be found. The best I could do was infer, (as I did about the previous ownership, which likely was a Goodrich shell, but I can't prove it) which of course, you have to be careful of not shading into OR territory... ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is probably an interesting story in that ownership changes. When did Deleware become a buisiness friendly state? Was it about this time? Was there some risk that the company undertook at that time to make the change advantageous? See if you can find something. At the very least the text should retain this transfer detail that you found even if we can not find the reason immediately. I have no preference how the infobox is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources indicate she was owned by Goodrich Transit Co. of Maine from 1909-1921, then by Goodrich Transit Co. of Delaware from 1921-1933. I don't think the distinction is particularly important; I would be happy to just describe that as Goodrich Transit Co. (1909-1933). Maralia (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. The data is from the BGSU ship registry, and Goodrich had multiple holding companies, HQ's etc, this was, near as I can tell, a legal ownership shuffle that didn't matter operationally. Either asterisk it, or smush the years together I guess... preference? Meanwhile, next edit run, I'll asterisk it... should that note go below the list of dates or all the way at the bottom of the box, or treat it like a footnote? (an earlier version of the article had refs in the infobox, but those were all removed (which is what caused the out of order ref numbering, actually, IIRC) during the GA process I think.)++Lar: t/c 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you have been trying to make everyone happy with the images, but currently they are distributed 0/3/2/2 across the sections. Can we get one in the first section?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't the infobox take up the whole first section, or just about, meaning that an image would be in a squeeze text if it was on the right or funny if it was on the left? I do agree with the wish, though. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox end more or less coincides with the end of the first section; on widescreen, it doesn't even end until somewhere in the second paragraph of the second section. I can't see any way to add an image in the first section without it sandwiching text with the infobox. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how this meshes with your other image issues, but most people have their preferences set so that their default image size for thumbs is tolerable on the left opposite an infobox. Try moving one image to the first section on the left without declaring an image size for the thumb unless it will lose support from other people taking issue with your images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as an aside, most articles receive the majority of views from casual readers, not logged-in editors. The most important test for image placement, in my mind, is what the article looks like from the logged-out situation. Per my comment below, things looked good at that time; I don't know if any images have been moved subsequently, though. Risker (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it the most common display setting is 1024x768. When I set my computer to this setting a few lines of the second paragraph of the first section oppose the infobox. I don't think squeezing would be bad if you put one image to the left of the second paragraph in the first section, but I am not sure what others think. Then we wouldn't have an imageless section followed by sections with 3, 2 and 2 images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as an aside, most articles receive the majority of views from casual readers, not logged-in editors. The most important test for image placement, in my mind, is what the article looks like from the logged-out situation. Per my comment below, things looked good at that time; I don't know if any images have been moved subsequently, though. Risker (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how this meshes with your other image issues, but most people have their preferences set so that their default image size for thumbs is tolerable on the left opposite an infobox. Try moving one image to the first section on the left without declaring an image size for the thumb unless it will lose support from other people taking issue with your images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox end more or less coincides with the end of the first section; on widescreen, it doesn't even end until somewhere in the second paragraph of the second section. I can't see any way to add an image in the first section without it sandwiching text with the infobox. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't the infobox take up the whole first section, or just about, meaning that an image would be in a squeeze text if it was on the right or funny if it was on the left? I do agree with the wish, though. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you use the Captain (nautical), ferry, promenade deck, schooner link in the article?It seems that either propulsion or propeller should be linked. In fact many terms in the third paragraph of the Construction and Columbian Exposition should be linked.Jackson Park should be linked on first usage, not later.- Capt/ferry/prom/schooner linked. Moved jackson park link to first. Not sure about which to link prop/prop :) (note that "propeller" was a term given to ships as a whole, back then, to contrast them with "sidewheeler" or "sternwheeler"... seems a rare usage now... that's just trivia for everyone's enjoyment) Any other links needed do you think? ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That paragraph has a lot of jargon that should be linked is there a nautical cabin article? panelling, etched glass and many other words might not be familiar to all international readers. You could probably link about a half dozen terms in that paragraph. Look closely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Capt/ferry/prom/schooner linked. Moved jackson park link to first. Not sure about which to link prop/prop :) (note that "propeller" was a term given to ships as a whole, back then, to contrast them with "sidewheeler" or "sternwheeler"... seems a rare usage now... that's just trivia for everyone's enjoyment) Any other links needed do you think? ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- The commons link belongs in the external links section.
- John moved it. ++Lar
- The images would look better staggered left and right.
- Excuse me while I die laughing. Look at an old revision, say, from before the FAC, that's how they used to be. :) ++Lar
- There shouldn't be text sandwiched between an image and an infobox.
- White livery image moved to tail of construction stack to resolve this. ++Lar
- The format of the author names in the refs is inconsistent.
- I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
- Some ref dates need linking.
- I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
- Some measurements need non-breaking spaces or conversions. Epbr123 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some refs are missing the author, publisher or publishing date.
- I think this is fixed, (John, Maralia, Kablammo, Sandy, et al, thanks guys) please check and advise which specific ones still have issues. ++Lar
- There are some dead ref links. Epbr123 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could only find one this afternoon with the checker, fixed it ... (the Amships shiplist site, they keep reorganising that site)... any others? Please advise which, thanks ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the checker, there are six others. Epbr123 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could only find one this afternoon with the checker, fixed it ... (the Amships shiplist site, they keep reorganising that site)... any others? Please advise which, thanks ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Linkchecker comes up with 6 items. Three are NYT links which all work for me (and are flagged only for excessive redirects); one is a googlebooks link that works for me (and is flagged with the inexplicable 'changes searcher'). Of the six linkchecker links, only the two Chicago Public Library links are broken for me (returning 404 errors). Can anyone else recreate Epbr's experience of all six links not working, or confirm otherwise? Maralia (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image in the external links section still has a dead link. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the CPL one. (when I get time I may try to find the CPL stuff using wayback or something, they had some interesting stuff, it's a shame that they reorged and it doesn't seem findable)... The WisHist link is fine. Anything else? ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could if you wish link to the ship-wreck.com image page which has a lot of images, or cite it for the proposition that postcards are widely available. Just an option, if you want to use it. Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the CPL one. (when I get time I may try to find the CPL stuff using wayback or something, they had some interesting stuff, it's a shame that they reorged and it doesn't seem findable)... The WisHist link is fine. Anything else? ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- I'm about ready to support this article now, if the problem with the images can just be sorted out. I've got no problem with a ribbon of images down the righthand side, instead of staggering them; I think that where there are a lot images that makes sense. But there are, I think, too many, causing a block of white space between the Expositon and Regular service sections, at least on my screen. Are the graphics of the triple-expansion engines and the printed pass really necessary do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with a ribbon. See the talk. But we have editors calling for a reversion to right/left/right now. I do think the engine and the pass add a lot to the article. The engine was alleged by the source to be one of, if not the, biggest triple-ex ever to that time. The pass could go (to McDougall's bio, when I write it) I guess, but it adds a type of image not often seen in articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at repositioning the images. There is no more sandwiching, and images are staggered right and left without impinging on section headers. I dropped two images: the ore dock pic that was in the gallery (because the image quality just wasn't up to par with the others) and the engines image (because I just couldn't create room for such a vertical picture). I also moved the detailed propulsion info out of the infobox and into the text of the Construction section. It's compliant with image guidelines now, I believe; Lar, can you live with it? Maralia (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will miss the engine, I think it's a big part of the story, but yes, I can live with any change that makes everyone else OK with the images. Thanks! Why not move images removed to the gallery at the bottom? The bridge image is not too key I guess. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, now that the images issue has been resolved. Good luck with the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source questions
Copied from article talk page. Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Questions about footnotes: Introduction[reply]
fn 2. does not seem to support the assertion about the vessel the longest laker when launched.fixed. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]fn 3-- dead link? (for its first use in article on # passengers carried, fn 2 will substitute.)formatting in footnote 3 fixed (two urls): fn 2 substituted Kablammo (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Background and proposal
fn 6 does not appear to mention design was met with derision, etc. (fn 1 would work at least in part.)substituted, and additional ref added. Kablammo (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Three sources were cited for "high speed" of vessel. I removed two as they did not appear to stand for that proposition. One footnote which does mention the speed still remains so the proposition is adequately cited.resolved. Kablammo (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- fn 10. dead link, or are search instructions needed?
(I'll look at other sections later . . .) done. Kablammo (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Kablammo (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
New comments
On dead links: In two footnotes (one of which was used three times, but now is only used once) there were two url= calls; one for the webpage cited, and one for the website of the publisher; this resulted in linking errors. Those have been fixed
Remaining concerns:[reply]
There is still at least one broken link.There are still some uncited propositions, or statements which the cited link does not support.- There may be questions on the reliability of some of the sources-- enthusiast sites rather than more "scholarly" resources. That may simply be reflective of what is available.
Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on "There are still some uncited propositions, or statements which the cited link does not support."? Presuming you don't mean the few you listed above (which are now struck as resolved), or the lingering issue of the dead link at footnote 10, I can't figure out to what you are referring. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tagged it but this phrase (in penultimate paragraph of SS_Christopher_Columbus#Construction_and_Columbian_Exposition) should have a source:another publication dubbed her the "Queen of the Lakes".
There was one, but it didn't support it, so I removed it. I think that and footnote 10 are is my only remaining sourcing concern. Kablammo (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Lar, interesting fact:
This book is an account of ships that have borne the name "Queen of the Lakes," an honorary title indicating that, at the time of its launching, a ship is the longest on the Great Lakes.[8]
- This book would a useful source, if anyone can get it at a local library. Kablammo (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lar, interesting fact:
- Queen of the Lakes
The source for this that I used is a source referenced from within the problematic "bibliography" (The World's Columbian Exposition: A Centennial Bibliographic Guide - By David J. Bertuca, et al) source which we can't see online easily since it's a current book. Try this google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22christopher+columbus%22++%22queen+of+the+lakes%22&btnG=Search which yields among other returns, this chunk of text
The World's Columbian Exposition: A Centennial Bibliographic Guide - Google Books Result by David J. Bertuca, Donald K. Hartman, Susan M. Neumeister - 1996 - History - 440 pages "Queen of the Lakes: Trip of the New Whaleback Propeller Christopher Columbus From Superior to Chicago....The Finest Excursion Steamer in America. ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0313266441...
which goes to this Google Books page: http://books.google.com/books?id=F6cWRxU9go4C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=%22christopher+columbus%22++%22queen+of+the+lakes%22&source=web&ots=aOAma8HxWe&sig=OJChMJEdloRHCIvtceDSpwzx19A&hl=en (the infamous page 146, which I can see but which other people, when given direct links to it, sometimes cannot, it varies, which is why I think we ditched it... Maralia suggested just making it a cite book instead of cite web but that's cheating I guess, I've never actually ponied up the 100 USD it would cost to get this book. ) and on that page, for source O226, (by their numbering) it says
- "Queen of the Lakes: Trip of the New Whaleback Propeller Christopher Columbus From Superior to Chicago....The Finest Excursion Steamer in America." 'Seaboard 5 (May 25, 1893): 608-610
which I think supports the claim that "one publication dubbed her Queen of the Lakes" :) Wheeeee! ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I will cap this section later.)Support. A worthy and interesting article. Kablammo (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request
If people who have switched to support could do the collapsing box thing it would help show what's left to work on... I think we're getting there, aren't we? Thanks all for your help and comments so far. It was good when we started, but it's a far better article now than when we started the FAC, and that's the point, isn't it? :) ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I read this article when it first came to FAC, and thought it was pretty good but could use a few tweaks; I was just a little busy on a neighbouring page to comment then. All the tweaks I thought of at that time have now been taken care of. I've now looked at the image placement using three different screen sizes/resolutions and two different browsers, and they seem to be appropriately placed in all instances now. This is a well-done article, and speaks to the benefit of collaboration. Risker (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - pretty much per Kablamo. Proportional amount of reliable sources, prose up to FAC standards, everything meets criteria. Good job. Rudget. 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. In the Construction and Columbian Exposition section, should the stated $360,000 also give a 2008 dollar equivalent? Also, Samuel F. Hodge & Co. should be Samuel F. Hodge & Company. Also, in the lead section the use of S.S. versus SS.--Brad (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — Just some minor points:
- "Background and proposal" section, 1st paragraph: Is there perhaps a better phrasing that would avoid the back-to-back McDougalls (which are a little jarring).
- "Construction and Columbian Exposition": 4th paragraph: The spacing between five and minutes looks a little funky . Is the non-breaking space between them needed since the number is spelled out? Also, the "downtown dock" referred to is in Chicago, right?
- Same section, 6th paragraph: Is it necessary to restate the distance of the trip two paragraphs after its first mention?
- Same paragraph: The Virginia was said to have raced on the maiden voyage, or while the Columbus was working the expo?
- "Regular service" section, 2nd paragraph: Can the advertisement be referenced without the nested parentheses?
- Same section, 3rd paragraph: Do the three accidents include the death of the crewman mentioned previously, or is that a different incident?
All-in-all a very good article on an unusual boat — Bellhalla (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrased to avoid "McDougall. McDougall"
- Dropped the hard space that presumably was added before the number was spelled out.
- No, it's not necessary to mention the distance twice. Thank you for pointing this out; I've been looking for a way to fix that overly long sentence :)
- I don't think Virginia raced her on her maiden voyage; think it's just a strangely placed sentence. Lar?
- Got rid of the nested parens by mentioning the advertisement image with (see advertisement right).
- No, the "three accidents" mentioned are the known accidents of the ship; we haven't found any detail on the single crewman's death during the exposition, and I hesitate to equate that unknown situation with the explicitly sourced explosion and two collisions. Maralia (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My concerns were addressed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Anthøny 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Mentor Johnson Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PlayStation Portable Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raiders of the Lost Ark Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Channel Tunnel Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eva Cassidy
- 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 21:45, 1 April 2008.
Don Tallon
Don Tallon, wicket-keeper on Don Bradman's invincibles. Part of a WP:CRIC FT drive. Has a wide range of pictures and sources. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Isn't debut an English word now ie without the accent?
- "gloveman" - non-experts may not realise this=wicket-keeper.
- "he had limited opportunities to force his way into the Test team and was a surprise non-inclusion " - well, if he had limited opportunities, why was it a surprise non-inclusion?
- " keeping tidily" - not keen again, non experts wouldn't have a clue about this phrase, and it's a touch POV too.
- In the infobox, why is Leg break capitalised?
- "he barely stood higher than the stumps." - really? Seven year olds are usually quite a bit taller than 2ft 4in aren't they?! Can you cite this?
- " at age 13" - just aged 13 would do fine I think.
- "1932-33 " - en dash alert!
- Order citations numerically, there's a [6][4] right now. And a [15][13]. And a [16][12]. And a [24][21]. And a [40][39].
- " first time he witnessed a first-class match." - do you really mean witnessed? He'd never seen one before or just never participated? (question really)
- "542 in a tidy performance [4] but was dropped after the match." - move [4] to the end of the sentence. or next to performance. either way, it can't stay where it is with a space either side of it.
- " Clarrie Grimmett,the world's l" - space needed.
- "Bradman's blazing 233 " - peacock.
- "1937-38", " 1-0" - en dash alert!
- "he was 23 when war broke out and cricket did not resume until he was 29. First-class cricket was cancelled and Tallon joined the Australian Army in August 1940 at Bundaberg.[18] He was discharged in 1943 as a private and was not decorated.[18] His discharge was due to stomach ulcers and he later had a major operation to remove part of his stomach.[12] His chances of international selection waned as the war dragged on. He was 30 when first-class cricket resumed in 1945–46.[19]" a lot of consecutive "He" or "His"...
- "retrospectively accredited one-off Test" - I get it, would a non-expert reader?
- "The only downside was a dislocated finger." a strange standalone sentence, needs to be merged and needs to be clear that it was Tallon who suffered the dislocation!
- Try to avoid placing images where they might straddle section dividers, it looks a little untidy. Something like the cigarette card could easily be placed at the top of the section its in. It may not be a problem for people with wide displays, but those of us on narrow iBooks see it differently!
- "20*" - link * to not out at the very least, or spell it out.
- Expand MCG and link it.
- Caption on the chart doesn't explain it clearly enough - what does the blue line mean? What do the blue blobs mean? What are the red bars? What's the y-axis scaled against?
- "1967-68" - en dash alert!
- The table is untidy - New Zealand should fit on one line and consider centrally aligned the stats.
That's all I have for now. Let me know when you're done! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed everything except the first point, which was implemented by Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) so I don't know what the rationale is. The final part of the table I don't know how to implement, but I've cut down some of the labels about wk, so that there should me more space on the LHS for NZ before the table starts auto-folding. Can you fix the table? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nvm, Mattinbgn wrote the lead and used French and I wrote the main body without the accent. So I reverted to the accentless. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed everything except the first point, which was implemented by Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) so I don't know what the rationale is. The final part of the table I don't know how to implement, but I've cut down some of the labels about wk, so that there should me more space on the LHS for NZ before the table starts auto-folding. Can you fix the table? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my major concerns all addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm giving this a run-through and will try to help with wikilinking 1st occurrences of jargon. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q1: In Perry, on p.190, does it specifically say that Queensland were weak at the time?
- Yeah they did. Bill Brown was the first Test player from QLD AFAIK, and Tallon was the second. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Q2: And were there only 4 state teams at the time?
- Yeah. WA joined in 46 and TAS is 80 or so. Graham McKenzie was the first regular WA player, in the early 1960s. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q3: What's an "unofficial reason"? Is it speculation, or was there a leak? Unclear.
- Leak. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q4: Article implies that the spinners would make the ball swing. Is that incorrect?
- Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q5: Is the information about Barnett's mistakes in the 1938 Ashes needed? ... in such detail?
- Well, why not... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q6: Do you think it's POV/OR to say that Tallon's 2 world records in 38/39 were a response to the Aussie selectors?
- Yeah, I guess I imported that from the thinking of the source, I rm the specific ref to the selectors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q7: What do you mean by "furious" in "his catching and stumping style became more furious"?
- A more animated style of play. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q8: Post-war subsection heading seems inaccurate for contents
- Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q9: What did Tallon do between 1943 and resumption of 1st class cricket (45? 45-46? 46? At least a couple of years)
- Not discussed in the books. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More as I find em. --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- did more jargon links, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing here:
- Q10: The refs at the end of the parag about his Test debut need some attention. Does one of them need to move to a prior sentence?
- Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q11: His big stand with Lindwall - notable for his cutting or his driving or both? Currently, it's a bit of a muddle.
- Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q12: MOSNUM "allows" twenty as a word, but consistency is important. I suggest all numbers above nine are numerals and am correcting as I find them.
- ok. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q13: Wetting his inner glove is fascinating - why did he do it normally (it's clear why he didn't in chilly old Pom-land!)
- The book doesnt expand unfortunately, if it is common in keeping textbooks then I'm not aware. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q14: Bruised finger story on 48 tour - was this batting or keeping? In the nets?
- In a tour game. Probably against Surrey, while keeping. Clarified. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q15: Bruised finger story segues uncomfortably into discussion about playing conditions and why Tallon wouldn't get many opportunities... when a reader would expect the parag to go on to say to what extent the injury impacted on his opportunities. It's jarring, though not as jarring as playing a Lindwall bouncer with one's finger.
- Tweaked and moved the shiny ball stuff to the front. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q16: Article earlier talked about Tallon standing up to medium pacers. As Johnson also played Tests, he must have had some opportunities to stand-up to bowling. This makes "depriving Tallon of an opportunity to show his stumping abilities standing up the batsmen." seem slightly too strong. (there's also a missing "to" in that sentence) Suggest "depriving Tallon of an opportunity to continue his profitable partnership with the spinner." or some such.
- Tweaked to mention the McCool-Tallon partnership specifically being broken up. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q17: Even if that's what Perry says (does he?), "allowing them to win the match by eight wickets." seems too strong for me, coming across as OR. If he'd dropped those chances, there's no reason they'd not have been "allowed" to win the match anyway - they were a pretty good side and England were not very strong, according to some RS. Suggest replacing "allowing" with "helping", except it's already used in that sentence, but that's the tone I'd aim for.
- Tweaked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q18: I realise I may have made a mistake and the finger bruised against Lindwall may not have been the same one later injured. Please clarify. If not, what's the relevance of the earlier injury?
- Cleared up. Tallon had a few mishaps initially while he was acclimatising and adapting to English conditions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q19: Yorker length/ankle height is a (slightly inaccurate, if I'm picky) tautology. Why not just stick with the easier understood ankle height?
- rm redundancy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q20: Would be nice to clarify how rare it was for Tallon (or any keeper) to bowl. Perhaps a snippet of statistics (how many overs he bowled in F-C cricket v on this occasion?)
- Pointed out that it is about 50 overs in his whole career, about the same as one match's work for a specialits bowler. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q21: Difficult to justify the terse treatment of the 50-51 Ashes series. The previous ones (won by Australia) have been lingered over; this is dismissed in a couple of sentences. Tallon and Australia performed badly; comes across as NPOV to skip over the details.
- I know, but I'm not sure what I can do, since he was picked as a keeper, if he failed in those days, it wasn't such a big deal for keepers to bat poorly. A lot of keeprs in those days averaged 15 throuhgout their careers. Secondly, the first two series featured a lot of famous catches, so they are explained, similar to famous centuries for batsmen. If he dropped heaps of the catches, the books didn't mention it and the scorecard can't indicate such things. Actually Australia won 4-1 that year, and in both Lemmon and Perry's minibios, they both had a large emphasis on 46-47 and 48 because of the iconic catches. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q22: I've added "Deafy" to the infobox - probably needs citing there as well as in the text. Did he have no nickname before then?
- Cited. No other nickname cited in book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q23: Re Image:Don Tallon stumping.jpg. Pedantically, the image needs a little more explanation - I assume he's in the middle of appealing for the stumping? The image doesn't actually show him doing the action of stumping, but the aftermath and I think this could be clarified. Would also be nice if we identified any more detail about who/when, but that might be tricky.
- The book didnt have dates or the batsman, but I changed it to past tense. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q24: Could his height be given using one of those clever thingys that means I can see it in imperial (how appropriate for a Pom) figures too?
- Its in teh infobox- not my handiwork. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q25: "High standing" immediately following comments about his unusual height looks like a bad pun, even by my standards of bad puns. (Cf "imperial" above)
- changed to acclaim. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Q26: I agree with someone else who thinks it odd you've compared his batting with modern day wks. I think it'd be better to compare him to the best of his day, at least in addition to Gilly and Sanga.
- Found two of his English contemporaries
- Q27: "Constant" appealing is misleading - I never saw him play, but I am 100% sure he wasn't constantly appealing.
- Changed to frequent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, at last. Sorry for delay. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have total faith that Blnguyen will fix all of the above that are appropriate to be fixed and will firmly slap me down where I've made a silly error. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Not particularly happy with the world today and that may reflect in some of the comments ....
- Tallon was part of Don Bradman's Invincibles of 1948 and was recognised as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1949 for his performances with the Invincibles.
Two invincibles in one line.
- Tallon missed selection during the 1951–52 season due to a combination of health reasons due to stomach ulcers, age, deafness and increasingly error-prone glovework
Two due to in one line.
- Hassett and his deputy Arthur Morris then made the decision to drop Tallon in place of Gil Langley
My English isn't very good but "in place of" doesn't look correct.
- Tallon’s Test batting average of 17.13 paled in comparison to that of contemporary wicket-keepers such as Australia’s Adam Gilchrist and Sri Lanka's Kumar Sangakkara, both of whom have made a double century and more than ten centuries each.
Very awkward comparision. If he is to compared with someone at all, why with two from the 2000s ?
- During the First Test at Trent Bridge, Tallon took a total of four catches, including two difficult catches to dismiss Washbrook and Edrich at the start of the second innings, which helped Australia to seize the initiative and win the match by eight wickets.
Loooong sentence
- Among his three catches was a diving effort after Washbrook inside edged a Toshack full toss downwards at Tallon’s ankle at yorker length. Bradman described the catch as "miraculous".
It was edged towards his ankle, why did he dive ?
- Tallon combined with McCool in four stumpings and two catches,[23] registering 170 first-class dismissals in only 50 matches.
The second half looks awkward.
- Tallon was worried that his poor batting might lead to him being replaced, but was retained as Australia took an innings victory in Sydney.
"Took" an innings victory ? Not sure I have seen that often.
- He performed strongly, with four catches and two stumpings and scoring 30.
"Strongly" ?
- The score was 2/88 as the man who held the Test world record score of 364 was dismissed
Do we need "the man who held the ... " ? There are several more peacocks in the description of that Test.
- By series end, Tallon had set a Test record of twenty dismissals
Just an Australian record
- Bradman injured himself during the marathon innings in a rare stint at the bowling crease after the specialist bowlers had failed to break the Englishmen. With ten men, Australia fell to its heaviest innings defeat in Test history and the series was drawn
It was nine (Fings too).
- He also struck a century before lunch in a 90-minute session against New South Wales in Brisbane, the first player to achieve such a feat in Queensland history
Just to be sure - was the session of 90 minutes or did he score 100 in 90 minutes. He came in to bat after 21 runs had been added to the overnight score, so if the session was of 90 minutes, the 100 would have come in around 70 minutes.
- In 1935–36, Tallon was the top Queensland batsman with 503 runs at a batting average of 55.88.[8]
It would be more helpful is the reference for things like this is CA's series average instead of the Pollard book. Tintin
- I've fixed these issues I think, although the value of "Cathces win matches" is why Hutton's value is described. The reason that batting wicket-keepers is in there is because Tallon was regarded as great purely on glovework style, rather than with batting included. The source was unclear on the century in a session so I kept in ambiguous. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments All sources look good to me! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a minor cotributor. Comprehensive, well referenced article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:35, 10 April 2008.
Walter de Coventre
- Notified Deacon of Pndapetzim as principal author.
- previous FAC (20:27, 31 March 2008)
Nominator. Co-nom with User:Deacon of Pndapetzim. I reviewed this at Peer Review, and supported it at FAC. It received, on the previous nomination, several comments on its prose, relatively late in the cycle. Malleus Fatuarum was responding to those as the FAC was being closed, and the resulting wave of changes seems to have died down. Since the previous FAC dealt by and large with text no longer in the article, and it still seems a good article on substance, it should be reviewed on its present text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some of the old comments seemed to request more elegant variation than the subject will admit. There is no sign that anyone has ever written an overarching narrative of Walter's life; the data are chiefly a list of preferments. If anybody sees a way around this, please suggest it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus Fatuarum 37
- Deacon of Pndapetzim 27
- Pmanderson 14
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I was apparently just a little too late in adding my support for the previous nomination, so I repeat my view here that the outstanding prose issues have been dealt with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All my concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed, and Malleus' copyedit just made things better. Excellent job of making an obscure subject shine. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Here we have proof of the importance of "fresh eyes" and a bloody good copy editor.GrahamColmTalk 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well done, comprehensive and detailed, and on an obscure topic, great job. Hello32020 (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Suggested optional tweaks:
Lead:
- "Sometime before June 1361, the cathedral chapter of Dunblane elected him
to be the newBishop of Dunblane". (He'd hardly be elected as the old one). - "After his return to Scotland, Walter was a bishop for 10 years."? or possibly
- After his return to Scotland, Walter was Bishop for 10 years.
Education:
- "he was D. U. J., Doctor of both Laws,"
- Doctor of Canon and Civil Law does not capitalise "Laws" or use periods.
- ""he was a DUJ (Doctor of both laws"), ?
Benefices:
- "The names of these benefices, parish or office, are not known."
- This may be mixing up the singular and plural. "The names of these benefices, and the parish or office, are not known."?
Return to Scotland and episcopal election:
- "Above is a 19th-century map of the diocese of Dunblane"
- "Above is" is redundant
Early episcopate:
- I thought Mairead was 'Marion' or 'Mary' rather than 'Mariota'. The chanteuse Mairead NicAonghais is 'Maggie MacInnes' for some reason.
Footnotes:
- Footnote 11 lacks a final period.
- Footnotes 44-6 and 49 need to indicate a page name as well as the publisher.
Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 13:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doctor of Both Laws, like Doctor of Canon and Civil Law (or Doctor of Medicine, for that matter). It's effectively a proper name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought Mairead was 'Marion' or 'Mary' rather than 'Mariota'. The chanteuse Mairead NicAonghais is 'Maggie MacInnes' for some reason.
- Scottish Gaelic names in the late medieval period, when Gaelic literacy has gone and most of the sources aren't usually fluent Gaelic-speakers, are terribly difficult. Names written Mariota in Latin are usually thought to represent Mairead, as in Mairead inghean Eachann written in the Moray Registrum as (accusative) Mariotam filiam Athyn. I wouldn't expect any rules, sometimes its just random, like "Archibald" being used Gilleaspaig. Goodness knows what "Marjorie" stands for. It certainly wasn't the real name of Robert Bruce's mother, who was called "Marthok" by John Barbour (oc then was the same as modern ag, a diminutive suffix, so the name looks like "little Martha" or "little Mary" or "little Margaret"). Muireadhach turns up as a different name is every other source, Maurice, Murdac, Murdoch, Murthak, Murethach, etc. But Mariota seems in Scotland (does the name exist outside of Scotland?) to be used only as a Latinization of Mairead, itself a Gaelicization of Mary.
- It may be simpler to view this as translation; the same person had different names in different languages, just as bread or wine does. Queen Philippa was Philip or Phelip in English, as Wace shows (see the Oxford Book of Christian Names). Should we use the Gaelic, the Latin, or the Scots form in twenty-first century English? Or should we do what contemporaries would have done, and translate to Mary? (In any case, does some explanation belong in the article, prob. in a footnote?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought Mairead was 'Marion' or 'Mary' rather than 'Mariota'. The chanteuse Mairead NicAonghais is 'Maggie MacInnes' for some reason.
- This may be mixing up the singular and plural. "The names of these benefices, and the parish or office, are not known."?
- Changed the wording here. Will look at your other points now, to avoid conflicting responses. Thanks for your comments! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be mixing up the singular and plural. "The names of these benefices, and the parish or office, are not known."?
- Doctor of Canon and Civil Law does not capitalise "Laws" or use periods.
- As PMAnderson said, this is a proper noun.
- Doctor of Canon and Civil Law does not capitalise "Laws" or use periods.
- Footnotes 44-6 and 49 need to indicate a page name as well as the publisher
- You can see by clicking on the links themselves. This so far as I could find out was not published in paper, the citations used here follow the sites own "short citation" suggestion. More comments are welcome btw. Thanks muchly and all the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must agree. This is a database of MS sources, never printed in their entirety, as the home page and its Editorial introduction make clear. What page number? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes 44-6 and 49 need to indicate a page name as well as the publisher
- Reply
- Notes:
- I'd make Note 44 something like: "1367, 27 September, Scone, Parliament: Parliamentary Records" RPS. Date accessed: 2 March 2008; Watt, Dictionary, p. 115.</ref> as I have been spanked before for not providing a web page name.
- References: "The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707 On-line database prepared by the Scottish Parliament Project of the University of Saint Andrews. Cited as RPS, with date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)"
- I am tempted to make some unfunny remark about COI, but this is either an error or yet another by-way of MOS with which I am unfamiliar. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Implemented your note suggestion. Thanks! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfunny remark or not, thanks for catching this; I've spent too long away from articles, clearly ;-< Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am tempted to make some unfunny remark about COI, but this is either an error or yet another by-way of MOS with which I am unfamiliar. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of this article, particularly at the top, are not well-written. Why? Much of it is worthy.
- "Following his arrival back in Scotland, as Dean of Aberdeen Cathedral, Walter quickly became involved in high level ecclesiastical and political affairs, with the Scottish church and the Earl of Mar respectively." Ouch. "his return to Scotland"? (and somehow reword the second occurrence of this, further into the para). Should the comma after Scotland remain (it's confusing)? "Soon" is better than "quickly", yes? Hyphenate "high level". in the Scottish church? Shift the comma after "affairs" to after "Mar".
- Build a reconstruction?
- "Such men often acquired university education through their family resources,
throughthe patronage of more substantial nobles, orthroughnetworking in the church, particularly by gaining patronage from the pope."—Is the last phrase related to the previous point or the previous two points? - Clumsy: "He died either in 1371 or in 1372."—"He died in either 1371 or 1372."
- "Above is a 19th-century map of "—"Above" in a caption? Tony (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I think that all of these points have been dealt with now.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such men often acquired university education through their family resources, through the patronage of more substantial nobles, or through networking in the church, particularly by gaining patronage from the pope.
- If the throughs were omitted, this would indeed be ambiguous; but the parallellism defines the structure.
- Rewording in any case to end or through church influence, particularly support from the pope and his court. The apposition should leave the structure beyond reasonable doubt, and this removes the repetition of patronage in two somewhat distinct senses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- in either 1371 or 1372 is a useful new idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no replacement for "He died 1371 x 1372". ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think more highly of the x, the more we go through this. :) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's virtually impossible to write about many of this kind of figure without using these. But, you know, I don't even know what they're called. D'you know anyone who would? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no replacement for "He died 1371 x 1372". ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above is (now removed) was another deleterious side-effect of the MOS caption follies. If it appears that only full sentences are safe from having their periods removed (which would, in this case, be barbarism), captions will be full sentences, sensible or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Orange Box
- 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 03:07, 30 March 2008.
Cannon
Nominators:
AndonicO
Grimhelm
Keilana
Bibliomaniac15
Anonymous Dissident
J-stan
This article has been the Tzatziki Squad collaboration for awhile, and it's finally ready for FAC. It's had a peer review, been thoroughly copyedited and referenced, and is quite comprehensive. (If any of you others want to put your 2¢ in, please do.) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you cannon. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made some fixes to the image placement per WP:MOS#Images, but otherwise it looks great. Nice work! VanTucky 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the fixes and support. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination. Towards the end of the run, I did a bit of work with referencing and copyediting, but the real stars of the show are Keilana, Biblio, Jstan, and, of course, AO. Very well done to everyone. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I've added this to my list of FACs I'll feel guilty if I don't review at some stage. Out of curiosity, does having that list of nominators actually mean anything? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. Per articlestats, they all made significant contributions to the article. See the WP:FAC instructions on contributors supporting and objecting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I wasn't sure whether to add my name to the nominators or support (didn't know about articlestats before - seems I have the second most edits). I expanded a bit on Vauban though. I also extend my commendations to AndonicO for his sterling work to this article. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just did a read-through, and it's fantastic. I send a virtual hardy slap on the back to all those involved in its development! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite nicely written, but I have a few concerns with its present form:
- While the general list of references is decent—if a bit lacking in works on artillery specifically—the actual citations are somewhat less serious than I would have expected. For a topic on which so many academic works have been written, the heavy reliance on dictionaries and non-scholarly websites seems surprising, to say the least.
- Focusing on the "Early modern period" section in particular:
- The text seems to wander around somewhat haphazardly. The lack of chronological order in the points mentioned adds to the confusion—we jump back and forth from late 16th-century Russian sieges, to late 15th-century wheeled carriages, to mid-17th-century Swedish tactics, and back to early 16th-century Italian fortifications. This also introduces some potential points of confusion; for example, explosive shells predate the invention of the mortar, canister/case shot was available long before Gustavus Adolphus used it, and so forth.
- More generally, there seems to be a certain lack of focus on the most salient points. The move from siege weapons to field artillery is glossed over; Machiavelli is an inadequate source, and Flodden is more suited to be a secondary example than as the only mention of an engagement involving artillery. Similarly, the development of fortifications to deal with cannon is devoid of historical detail; there's a great deal that can be said here beyond the single mention of Vauban.
- Field artillery is generally forgotten in favor of naval artillery; there's little mention of any developments—or, indeed, of what cannons were actually used for on the battlefield—until we get to the middle of the 19th century.
In general, I would say that there's a dearth of core details—names, dates, places—and an over-use of examples detached from the main point; but perhaps I was just expecting a meatier article, and this is suitable for an introduction. Kirill 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working a bit on Early modern period now. For the moment, I've removed the Vauban information, as it was unsourced, and repeated what was already mentioned. I'll try to find something with more details from G-books, to expand on what was already said. The points of confusion you mention, however, are stated as you say, and I don't think they're confusing... It says the Dutch "learned to shoot bombs filled with powder," not that they used them for the first time; the same with Adolphus: he "pioneered the use of canister shot against infantry," rather than invented it.
- Does the wording for siege engines read less "glossy" now? I'll try to find something to support Machiavelli a bit later, as well as another example other than Flodden, and a documentation on a battle involving light cannon in the 16th/17th century.
- Further, I think the "Artillery Through the Ages" book contains more info (I think I remember reading it, at least) about this period; I'll take a second look later today, and add anything useful.
- Thanks for taking the time to review. · AndonicO Hail! 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that flows quite a bit better, I think. As far as some other points:
- I'd strongly recommend Bert Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics as a source for that portion of the article.
- The trace italienne is not a specific type of star fort, nor identified particularly by having batteries; rather, it's the original name for the style of fortification that reached its height with the star fort.
- Kirill 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to find that book. I've removed the mention of the trace italienne. I'm adding a bit more on Adolphus now, I'll get around to re-adding Vauban and finding a few appropriate battles to add details of tomorrow. · AndonicO Hail! 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some possibilities for battles:
- Cerignola (1503) and Ravenna (1512) are decent early examples of artillery being used in defensive and offensive roles, respectively. Post-Ravenna, field artillery is pretty much used in standard ways until Adolphus & Co. come up with horse artillery. It may also be useful to discuss grapeshot, Napoleonic artillery, and so forth, but that'd be a bit later.
- Padua (1509) is a good example for the development of new fortifications to withstand cannon, if you need one; but there's relatively little information on it that's easily found.
- (These are just suggestions, incidentally, and likely colored by my own area of interest; so please feel free to ignore them if you find something more suitable to use.) Kirill 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your suggestions are appreciated, unfortunately, it's late, and I've been editing for a few hours straight, so I think I'll turn in for now. I'll take a look at that tomorrow, and add it in where appropriate (also found the Battle of Breitenfeld, which might deserve a mention). Thanks again for your input, it's been very helpful. · AndonicO Hail! 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some material on Vauban with references. We could also stand to have some more mention of gabions - they were a feature of cannon warfare in the Early Modern Europe. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some possibilities for battles:
- Yes, that flows quite a bit better, I think. As far as some other points:
- Oppose until the following issues can be fixed.
- Are some of the individual year links necessary? There's some MoS guideline page which advises against individual year linking, unless it is useful in the context of the article.
- I've de-linked them.--GrahamColmTalk 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Inconsistent referencing: please include publisher location, publisher, page numbers and date, where applicable.
- Ref #4: http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/cannon.htm is not a reliable source. What's strange enough is that you guys are now referencing from a guy who referenced from Wikipedia (see the last sentence of his page).
- Ref #5: http://www.the-tudors.org.uk/mary-rose-warship.htm is not a reliable source.
- Ref #6: http://www.defencenews.com.au/article-archive.cfm?ID=513¤tpage=2&detail=yes&thiscatid=0 doesn't work for me. Broken link?
- Ref #10: Is http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/1/31.html a reliable source? It comes from the website of a museum, but we don't know who authored the page.
- Ref #11: Science & Civilisation in China, vol. V:7: The Gunpowder Epic – is the bolded text correct?
- Ref #15: The 1990 edition was authored by David Harding according to Google Books. However, Amazon.com and Google Books list the "Diagram Group" as the author of the book's other editions. Diagram Group is not the publisher.
- Ref #18: http://www.history-forum.com/ is not a reliable source. Please find a replacement source.
- Ref #19 and 20 need publisher info.
- Question (not done): I think "History of Science and Technology in Islam" would be the publisher, in this case, as they seem to be articles published directly onto the website by Ahmad Y Hassan; I'm pretty sure they're reliable sources though, considering they're from him. Also, do we need publisher information for all cite web sources? I thought it was more important for cite book (or perhaps I assumed that). · AndonicO Hail! 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher would actually be Ahmad Y Hassan, since it's his self-published website (I could have brought up WP:SELFPUB, but Hassan seems to be an expert and a scholar on the matter, so it's a reliable source). Publisher info is more important for cite book than for cite web. However, I still feel that this information should not be neglected. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question (not done): I think "History of Science and Technology in Islam" would be the publisher, in this case, as they seem to be articles published directly onto the website by Ahmad Y Hassan; I'm pretty sure they're reliable sources though, considering they're from him. Also, do we need publisher information for all cite web sources? I thought it was more important for cite book (or perhaps I assumed that). · AndonicO Hail! 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #25: http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/gunpowde.htm is not a reliable source.
- Ref #27 and #29: http://www.mediumaevum.com is not a reliable source.
- Ref #30: http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/gp_wpns.htm is not a reliable source.
- Ref #33: http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-cannon.htm says the © 1975 - 1981 by David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace; Reproduced with permission from "The People's Almanac" series of books." You might want to use the book as a direct reference.
- Changed source to "The People's Almanac". · AndonicO Hail! 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid it's very bad practice to change the reference without having seen the source you cite. If you can't find the book, you must at least note that you came by the information via the website, I feel. Also, just as a general question to anyone, do we cite unsigned EB articles? I wouldn't, as a standalone cite. 86.44.18.217 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed source to "The People's Almanac". · AndonicO Hail! 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #39: could you provide a page number for the direct quote from Machiavelli's The Art of War?
- Ref #50: http://www.civilwarhome.com/artillery.htm is not a reliable source.
- Ref #51: Needs publisher info, date, etc.
- Ref #52: Is the author (W. L. Ruffell) a reliable source?
- Yes, a quick research reveals he is an expert on the subject of medieval artillery and siege machinery. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #56: More details – publisher, author, location, page numbers?
- Ref #61: http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/mortars.htm is not a reliable source.
- Ref #66: Is http://www.avalanchepress.com/BritainsAntiTankGuns.php a reliable source? Avalanche Press is a board wargames company. At the bottom of the page, it says "To see these guns in action, buy one (or all) of these great titles TODAY!", followed by some links to Avalanche Press games. The reliability of this website is questionable, at best.
- Ref #67: http://www.2worldwar2.com/german-tanks.htm is an unreliable source.
- Ref #68: http://www.worldwar2aces.com/ is not a reliable source.
- Ref #70–71: Is military.com a reliable source?
- In this case, I would say so. [9] explains some, I think we can consider their technical information reliable in this case, but there may be material there that would be unsuited as reference material. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #73–74: These need publisher info, date accessed, date created, author, etc.
- Fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #78 says the 1771 edition of EB was published in London; EB was published from 1768 to 1771 in Edinburgh.
- Oops, fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #80: http://www.musicwithease.com/tchaikovsky-1812-overture.html does not corroborate the statement made that the 1812 Overture featured a cannon.
- Added new reference. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #81: Needs publisher info, author, date created, etc. This should be formatted with {{cite news}}, not {{cite web}}.
- Done. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #82: {{Cite book}} should be used, not cite web. The book's title also needs to be used, not "Tchaikovsky – Google Book Search"
- Changed to the proper format. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #85: http://library.thinkquest.org/5116/percussion.htm is not a reliable source; furthermore, I think it was written by some middle schoolers.
- I've removed the information, the link is now broken and I can't find another citation. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #88: Is Songfacts a reliable source?
- No, I have removed it as the material was cited to a more reliable source first. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of these websites are self-published and the page creator is not necessarily an expert on the matter (or rather, there is no indication the author is an expert). This is why I labeled them as unreliable sources.
- In the "References" section, you include location in only a few references. Please provide the publisher location for all book refs.
- I may most more comments later. I haven't read the article yet. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are some of the individual year links necessary? There's some MoS guideline page which advises against individual year linking, unless it is useful in the context of the article.
Comments Some of the references are a little strange. Refs, 6 and 94 direct to Google and Amazon respectively. Refs 25, 27, 59 don't give the name of the publisher. Some of the books have ISBN numbers, other do not and shouldn't there be a p. before the page numbers? These points may have been covered above. In order to keep an open mind, I tend not to read other reviews at FAC before adding my two pennies worth.--GrahamColmTalk 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I have made some changes to the article, [10] and I
'm prepared tosupport the nominationsubject to the problems with the references being solved.--GrahamColmTalk 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Refs 6 and 94, done. 25 had the publisher, but it wasn't displaying due to a formatting error. For #27, I've added publisher, year, and location. I added publisher, year, and ISBN for #59, and inserted "p." before page numbers. I'll look for ISBN numbers now. · AndonicO Hail! 18:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've been watching you working. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--GrahamColmTalk 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<comments about browser problem moved to talk> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments added back. I've removed the superscript tags. Andonic, I will comb through the article and look for referencing issues. In the meantime, could you address my first point regarding individual year links? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What about the paragraph in "20th and 21st centuries": "'Testing has also been carried out on nuclear cannon in the 1950s, as in the United States' Operation Upshot-Knothole. Today, United States 152 mm artillery fires Shillelagh missiles, which are guided to their targets by infrared beams, and the Super High Altitude Research Project artillery can fire shells 75.75 mi (121.91 km) above the earth's surface.'" I think it's a bit trivial, and is out of place (possibly inaccurate, too: our article on Shillelagh says they were abandoned, and I can't find any modern American 152mm artillery here); any comments? · AndonicO Hail! 01:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A wonderful article. It's balanced, comprehensive and well-written. Majoreditor (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid (series)
- 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 00:16, 29 March 2008.
Double Seven Day scuffle
Quite a short article, about a very short fight between South Vietnamese secret police and a group of famous US journalists which lasted less than a minute in all probability, and only one punch landed. I used a book about the experience of journos in South Vietnam, so that's probably about as specialised as we can get for a source. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- with all the talk of the photos of Arnetts bloodied nose - could you not include it? I was rather expecting to see it and was disappointed!
- Fainites meant to say "could you include it?" Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there are quite a few copyediting/grammar type errors, eg "was tall man" and "speaking French....(who was?)" and "hardened public feelings" rather than "public feelings hardened".
Fainites barley 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyedited. Unfortunately, it's unusual that the actual punchup is the most famous instance of journalist confronations mentioned in Prochnau's book about the experiences of media in Vietnam, but the actual picture is not there. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although you have removed errors the prose could do with tightening. eg 'blithely'.
- Fixed. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice little article. Fainites barley 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to either support or oppose at this stage, as I've only had a cursory look at this article, (though my first impression is leaning towards the latter). My main concern is with the prose in some areas, such as here: "The editor of the New York Times told Halberstam that it was out of line for him to send cables to the White House without the authorisation of his superiors. " In this particular example, a direct quotation from that editor of the NY Times may make the prose appear more professional, but a similar result can be achieved if a better choice of words (instead of 'out of line') is used. Perhaps another copy-edit is needed in other places. The article's length is indeed quite short! I'm curious as to why no other Wikipedia articles are linked as sub-articles (in a "see-also" section for example)? Parts of the article also lack wikilinking to other relevant articles, which it could do with (eg; Washington) - this, among other little issues, is something that I would've expected the GA review to pick up on, although I am more concerned that the reviewer (in this case) has said very little in his review at all. After all, a GA review should clearly state how the article satisfied the GA criteria, and specifically note any suggested improvements (or if there are none that the reviewer can think of), and should not merely be a checklist (especially if the article was not quick-failed!!) In my opinion, the GA review for this article sadly did the opposite, and I hope it is not a common practice by this reviewer, or any other GA reviewers, to review articles in this manner, especially when making a recommendation that the article go through to FAC! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Direct quote added for Halberstam. And the article was expanded a little more from some bits and piêces lying around. I personally think the links are obvious, but more things have bên linked. Also, there is no real need for a see also section when there is a big template of related topics at teh bottom. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. Yes, the template does seem sufficient - it was a fault on my part for not noticing it. As for linking, I think it's generally better to wikilink to other Wikipedia articles as much as possible (except, if for example Washington appeared several times, then keeping it to once per paragraph is sufficient). It is interesting that among other features, being able to navigate between relevant articles in this way is something that many non-Wikipedians find attractive about using Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Direct quote added for Halberstam. And the article was expanded a little more from some bits and piêces lying around. I personally think the links are obvious, but more things have bên linked. Also, there is no real need for a see also section when there is a big template of related topics at teh bottom. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally enjoy vignettes like this and would love to see more of them zipping through FAC. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting article, well-referenced. Meets my criteria for FA. Khoikhoi 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The redlinks should probably have at least a stub to explain what these are in at least a little bit more detail. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although not part of the criteria, I have created the relevant stubs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments- great article, I really enjoyed reading it. A few comments:[reply]"Halberstam, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Buddhist crisis, was a tall man, standing around 20 centimetres (7.9 in) taller than the average diminutive Vietnamese policemen. He waded into the fracas swinging his arms, reportedly saying 'Get back, get back, you sons of bitches, or I'll beat the shit out of you!'" I think you can eliminate the word "diminutive"; it doesn't lend any additional explanation to the point that Halberstam was taller. Additionally, is there any more information in your sources about this part of the incident? I mean, normally police officers have weapons. It seems ludicrous that a man swinging his arms around would scare off professional police officers. Were they unarmed? Did they have orders not to use their weapons? At least in some countries, even motioning as if you might assault a police officer will get you beaten and/or arrested. There is no indication of why Halberstam wasn't arrested; from reading your description, he is the one I most expected to be."The photos of Arnett's bleeding face were circulated in US newspapers..." Can remove the "were".Why don't you cite any print news or journal sources for this event? There must be tons of stuff out there.--Laser brain (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the language tweaks that you suggested. The information in the books didn't explain why the cops didn't arrest Halberstam etc. Yes it is surprising. There had been a few embarrassing incidents for the government in 1963 during the protests - Hue Vesak shootings, Hue chemical attacks and the self immolation of Thich Quang Duc involving police brutality, so possibly they wanted to do pretend to be civilians randomly harassing Americans instead of pulling a gun and show that they are government officials bullying people. Since at that time the Diem regime was getting massively criticised for repression. Another thing, is that you would be surprised how skinny Vietnamese people can be, even trained army people - just look up some history books, eg see how bony General Le Minh Dao is, the article has a picture for you. I'm not sure why we would want the news article for use as a source, because the correspondents for the Vietnamese news at the time are the journalists who are in the fight, they are too close to the action to be neutral, which is why I used the books, which are by historians and professors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your responses, I have stricken my comments and changed to support. Good work! --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the language tweaks that you suggested. The information in the books didn't explain why the cops didn't arrest Halberstam etc. Yes it is surprising. There had been a few embarrassing incidents for the government in 1963 during the protests - Hue Vesak shootings, Hue chemical attacks and the self immolation of Thich Quang Duc involving police brutality, so possibly they wanted to do pretend to be civilians randomly harassing Americans instead of pulling a gun and show that they are government officials bullying people. Since at that time the Diem regime was getting massively criticised for repression. Another thing, is that you would be surprised how skinny Vietnamese people can be, even trained army people - just look up some history books, eg see how bony General Le Minh Dao is, the article has a picture for you. I'm not sure why we would want the news article for use as a source, because the correspondents for the Vietnamese news at the time are the journalists who are in the fight, they are too close to the action to be neutral, which is why I used the books, which are by historians and professors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.
Silverchair
After extensive peer reviewing, I think this is ready, but am happy to act on any suggestions. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment":
- That personnel section is unnecessary; the images and information should be incorporated into the prose. Artists who contributed only on an album or two needn't be mentioned at all, they're more suitable for the album articles.
- Include music samples throughout the History depicting their musical evolution and also one in the musical style, to describe their sound in detail.
- I only have stuff from Diorama and Young Modern - I'll upload some of that at some stage. I don't have access to any of their earlier work :( dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC):*Don't think those box sets are necessary in the Discography section.[reply]
- "both rated it in excess of four stars" - like four and a half? five? why the ambiguity?
- U.S. should be US, I hear. Make sure that after the first mention of "United States", they are all "US" only. indopug (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Most of the stuff has been done; the rest is replied to. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you add those individual band member pics through the article; the first two paras look especially picture-scarce. Is it "Silverchair is" or "Silverchair are"? Because the lead sentence disagrees with "Silverchair have been highly successful...". Add that pic of Johns with Fanning (found in the Dream Days article) instead of the current Across the great divide pic. I'll give a detailed prose review/copy-edit in a couple of days. Cheers, indopug (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On my browser/monitor there's a Grand Canyon of a gap of whitespace between "at some stage in the future" and "Joannou believed that".Ling.Nut (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an image there, which has since been removed; that might have been the problem. Try taking another look? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it's gone, but now there's a smaller one below "when working with a record label..." Ling.Nut (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that'd be the image/audio sample. Not really sure what I can do about that, but feel free to play around with it if you can. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it's gone, but now there's a smaller one below "when working with a record label..." Ling.Nut (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an image there, which has since been removed; that might have been the problem. Try taking another look? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another very good article. Some minor points before I can support
- "At the culmination of this touring, the band announced that they would be taking a 12 month break". This sounds a little ornate and culmination means "Attainment or arrival at the highest pitch of glory, power, etc". Is this what you mean? Can it be simplified to "Following the end of this tour program, the band announced that they would take a 12 month break"?
- Since when do I know the meaning of the words I use!? Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Cquote}} should not be used in articles unless there is a good justification for doing so.
- But I really like it! :) OK, I've made it an inline quote. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Silverchair is highly successful in the Australian recording industry, being a recipient of the industry's flagship awards, the ARIA Music Awards, a record 20 times" This sentence reads a little awkwardly to me. Inspiration fails me at the moment but let me think on it.
- "Silverchair have been highly successful in the Australian recording industry; receiving the industry's flagship awards, the ARIA Music Awards, a record 20 times". dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, this is great work. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your time. All done. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Concerns addressed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments The prose needs some serious work. I'll try to make a pass at it soon. There's some inconsistency in the references; the Rolling Stone review of Frogstomp is listed in two different footnotes in two different formats. In terms of hard information, most of the article is fine. However, the "Musical style" section is particularly weak to me; most of it relies of reviewer comments on specific albums, and then the section ends with some very short paragraphs. Try and work in some material about influences or approaches to performance and composition. Include more about influences. This Rolling Stone article should be helpful because not only does it mention the oft-made comparison to grunge groups early in the band's career, but Johns mentions the influence of Black Sabbath on his band. try and scrouge up contemporary references from the 1990s. I'm reasonably sure they've done a couple of guitar magazine interviews, which would be very useful. I've already looked at Rock's Back Pages and nytimes.com and didn't turn up anything, but you might want to try findarticles.com. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. A look over the prose would be great, if you can. I fixed the RS ref double-up. I don't have access to many magazines, but I found some on findarticles which I'll get to adding in - I've also put the Rolling Stone Q&A in. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am very angry: this article is short, and it has many sub-articles. These sub-articles can be a part of the article, they aren't so long and they are in big part tables. In my opinion, this isn't a good kind for the growth of Wikipedia, but a creation of un-sensed articles that can stay "1000 times" in the principal article, so they aren't encyclopedic and needs a link for return to the previous article. Here I don't vote, it's not fair this thing (and this motivation isn't a violation of FA criteria). MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your insights. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
http://www.unofficial.com.au/stars-and-shows/silverchair.html returns a page not found link for me.- Same for me (though it worked yesterday when I nommed/ran the link checker). I've replaced it with another ref.
I can't find anything about http://www.musicianguide.com/ on their site, who is behind them?- Removed. Not really sure if it's a reliable source, and it wasn't a major fact being cited. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise http://www.howlspace.com.au/?- Again, unsure, removed since there was another ref covering that. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And http://www.alternativeaddiction.com/?- Seems to meet my understanding of WP:RS... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And http://thedwarf.com.au/national?- Not an RS; I've replaced. Thanks for picking that one up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mylot.com/nr/viewframe.aspx?id=350210&url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f%7er%2fAMMusicBlog%2f%7e3%2f138110532%2fben-gillies-discusses-young-modern.html&type=Blog is lacking publisher information ("Ben Gillies discusses..." current ref 60)- Added one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.silverchair.nu/sc_nu/faq/#1D is from the bands web site. Any possiblity of finding a third-party source?- silverchair.nu isn't the band's website; chairpage.com is. I've removed this as a potential RS issue. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All other links checked out with the link tool. A number of these questions are probably because I am clueless on US music websites, much less Australian ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And http://www.thescene.com.au/? (If I'm out of touch with the US music scene ... imagine how out of touch I would be on Australian music...)
- As I said, I'm not completely sure, but I have heard of it before and I think it's OK. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... this site http://zengrooves.com/newreleases.html? Is it considered a reliable source in the music fandom world? (My spouse swears I was the model for 1985 (song) so bear with my questions)
- I'm not best versed on the ins-and-outs of RS policy, but would having a staff page be indicative of anything? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. I'd guess it'd depend on the staff themselves. After all it's not that hard to code up an html page and call it "Staff". I've been judging on who is behind them, how often they are mentioned as reliable by other sources, and some other things. Let's leave it for the real guru of sources, Sandy (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not best versed on the ins-and-outs of RS policy, but would having a staff page be indicative of anything? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And http://www.thescene.com.au/? (If I'm out of touch with the US music scene ... imagine how out of touch I would be on Australian music...)
- Minor Support although other source could be used in the "name origin", since the two there don't help (this one mentioned in the talk could do). igordebraga ≠ 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That interview is being used. Thanks for the comment and support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dislike the organization of the WP:LEAD. The reason why there are notable should be in the very first sentence. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it? I haven't really seen this in many band FAs...generally, the next few paragraphs talk about that, while the first just says when it was formed and who's in it. At least, as far as I know... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources need a specific explanation for how they meet reliable sources, that is what makes the authors published experts in their fields, what is the reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, etc. (no, having a staff page doesn't meet that):
- looks like a personal website
- I'm not quite sure either way, but I've replaced it with an RS; Bigpond Music. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- blog
- For future reference, does it being an interview mean anything in that regard?
- fan contributor site
- Note to self; stop trusting yourself. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- what makes these people published experts in their fields?
- Yeah, as I said to Ealdgyth, I wasn't sure about that one. Gone. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ??
- Gone, there was another source for that one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "a range of other musicians were drawn in ..." What's a range of musicians? And should the verb agree in number with "range" instead of "musicians"? Ling.Nut (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded; "several other musicians..." - is that OK? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of my concerns were promptly fixed in PR, but I do have a couple:
- The first ref in the sentence "During the tour, Johns took regular medication for his reactive arthritis, which had forced the band to cancel several shows." doesn't mention anything about medication, just that he has arthritis. The sentence could be reworded and that ref stuck in after just that fact, if you don't mind the pesky mid-sentence ref. [Edit: actually, neither ref mentions medication. The second ref doesn't mention cancelling shows, either.]
- Comes with re-writing and not fact-checking well enough. I've reworded inline with the sources. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also with that sentence, what is "regular medication"? Does this mean he took medication regularly? Why is the article mentioning the meds? Couldn't you just say that the arthritis forced him to cancel shows?
- Medication is no longer mentioned. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Awards and accolades section is so short, maybe you should incorporate those two sentences into the lead or somewhere else. As an added benefit, you could put the List of Silverchair awards link into the see also section, which currently only has one lonely link.
- OK, I removed that section, moved the info to the lead, and added the link to the see also section. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about this sentence: "Gillies notes that Silverchair will often "run the risk of losing fans" in their work; reminiscent in the changes in musical direction in Diorama and Young Modern." What does the part after the semicolon mean? Also, it needs a ref because of the quote, and you can only use a semicolon with an independent clause.
- Reworded, reffed, removed semicolon. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not sure that a lot of the material about reviews belongs in the Musical style section. This stuff is just reviewers' opinions about the band, not necessarily their style. What about a separate "reviews" or "reception" section?
- I'll try and split that up/make it a bit more distinct, as you've suggested. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Passive voice tends to make the writing awkward, as with this sentence: "Young Modern was produced independently by the band, to ease the pressures faced previously when working with a record label."
- Fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this sentence is too long and awkward: "Freak Show saw the band show more of their own musical style, rather than copying others,[47] and received more praise for its songwriting than its predecessor; Yahoo! Music's Sandy Masuo described the lyrics as moving and emotional."
- Split into 2 sentences. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what this means: "Meanwhile, Diorama was seen in a discovery of the band's originality..." Also, meanwhile is used twice in two sentences.
- Not sure what it meant either, but I've guessed and reworded. :) Fixed the meanwhile overuse too. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first ref in the sentence "During the tour, Johns took regular medication for his reactive arthritis, which had forced the band to cancel several shows." doesn't mention anything about medication, just that he has arthritis. The sentence could be reworded and that ref stuck in after just that fact, if you don't mind the pesky mid-sentence ref. [Edit: actually, neither ref mentions medication. The second ref doesn't mention cancelling shows, either.]
- Unfortunately I'll be on wikibreak, so I won't be around to change to support once this stuff is addressed. But I have no problem supporting once these things have been addressed, which others can decide whether they think they have been. delldot talk 10:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, I think everything is done! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All problems look to be addressed and it was a good ready. Sunderland06 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some parts of the article which don't tally with my recollections, however, it is about a decade since I was into the band, all my music magazines from that era have long since been thrown away and my memory is fallible. In terms of actionable points though:
- The explanation for how the band got their name contradicts this interview reproduced on their official site.
- One thing I'm suprised to see omitted is that of a murder case where the defense counsel blamed the actions of the defendants on them listening to Israel's Son prior to the murder (the defense was rejected). It received extensive press coverage at the time, an earlier equivalent to the furore when Marilyn Manson was blamed by some parties for the Columbine shootings. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the band name info in. I wasn't aware of that "Israel's Son" stuff (very...wow...), and I've done some searching, but have only found fansites discussing it. Not saying I don't trust you, but can you point me to an RS about it? Shame that most of the info could be offline now... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, I used to have a whole bunch of issues of Melody Maker and Kerrang! from the mid-to -late 1990s which would have the relevant information, but threw them away long ago. Since becoming a Wikipedian I now hoard such things :) Google News Archive Search turns up a few things, albeit mostly subscription-based, e.g. 1, 2. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the links. I added in some info about that; using one of your links as a reference, and this for most of the actual information (since the two have similar stories). Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, I used to have a whole bunch of issues of Melody Maker and Kerrang! from the mid-to -late 1990s which would have the relevant information, but threw them away long ago. Since becoming a Wikipedian I now hoard such things :) Google News Archive Search turns up a few things, albeit mostly subscription-based, e.g. 1, 2. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the band name info in. I wasn't aware of that "Israel's Son" stuff (very...wow...), and I've done some searching, but have only found fansites discussing it. Not saying I don't trust you, but can you point me to an RS about it? Shame that most of the info could be offline now... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I likey, but there is one minor thing I'd likey. Can "Innocent Criminals" be bolded in the lead instead of those marks? Burningclean [speak] 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can, and done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionalsupport. Why are the dates in the references wikilinked? --GrahamColmTalk 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Why would they not be? Dates should be either consistently linked throughout the article, or unlinked throughout the article–as long as they're consistent for user prefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK now I know.--GrahamColmTalk 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would they not be? Dates should be either consistently linked throughout the article, or unlinked throughout the article–as long as they're consistent for user prefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.
Irreplaceable
Self-Nomination: After being passed to GA, geting fresh eyes for the peer review and additional substantial reviews, I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is now ready. "Irreplaceable" is song by Beyoncé Knowles and was 2007's best-selling single in the United States. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hey, I was gonna comment on the peer review, but I guess I am too late.(been busy lately) I do think this article needs some serious prose work, some parts are kind of choppy, some sentences are short, and could be merged together. Here are a few examples of the prose issues I see:
- When Ne-Yo heard the song, the melody was more guitar-based. He felt that it sounds like country western music. It was brought to R&B when the drums were incorporated, and Ne-Yo considered making an R&B-country western music song. - could be combined into somthing easier, like "Ne-Yo felt the original demo sounded like country music, although adding drums gave the song an R&B feel. He considered making an R&B country crossover song." or somthing to that effect.
- Hmm. Sounds like the history is twisted a bit. Here is the real statement: "When I first heard the track, produced by Norwegian production team Stargate, they just played the guitar. There was no drums to it and sounded like country western music and when they put the drums on it, it brought it back to the R & B side of things. I was then thinking of making an R & B country western music song." --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ne-Yo also felt that with a woman singing it is empowering. - Stubby, could use clarification.
- A demo of the song was presented to her, and was pleased after listening. - confusing
- In an interview, Ne-Yo said about the writing that "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest, and that's what she did." - you could just use 'Ne-Yo said "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest'.
- The strum of guitar was noted by Al Shipley of Stylus Magazine as an integral element Stargate and Ne-Yo crafted on contemporary singer Rihanna's 2007 single "Hate That I Love You". - run on sentence, could be reworded.
These sentences (and quite a few more) have an akward feel to them, and could be rearranged/rewritten. Other than prose, the article seems very comprehensive, and the sourcing looks good, good job! Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I can't find anything on this site http://www.contactmusic.com/ that tells me who is behind them. Being in the US, is this considered a reliable source in the UK?- Obviously it's an interview. I think this is reliable, "Hollaback Girl" (a featured article) is using this site. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same for http://www.mansized.co.uk/index.phtml?http://www.sonymusic.com.au/cd/releaseDetails.do?catalogueNo=88697025082 gives me some weird http status 500 error- Whats the problem. Its accessible and the source is reliable.
- Even they admit they're not reliable; scan down to Full policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whats the problem. Its accessible and the source is reliable.
Hm.. what makes this http://www.pr-inside.com/beyonce-creates-breakup-anthem-r35598.htm a reliable source?Generally About.com isn't considered a very reliable source, is the author of this http://randb.about.com/od/awardsshows/a/2007SoulAwards.htm considered reliable generally?- I believe it is because it is published by About, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. --Efe (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can sign up to write for about.com; it is not a reliable source. What makes the author of that article a recognized expert in his field? Instead of brushing off the editor reviewing this article, the answer to that question can be explored here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For proper sourcing, I used news from Billboard. --Efe (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is because it is published by About, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. --Efe (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
- Huh? Please clarify. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CITE#Citation templates; don't combine citation and other cite families. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what template do you want me to use? Im now confused.--Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Just find this one:
{{Cite album-notes}}
. Now, its fixed. --Efe (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just find this one:
- Huh? Please clarify. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This website is up-to-date, and been used by in many articles.
- Please justify use in this article, in terms of WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Used in "Cool (song)".
- Cool song is not being evaluated here; please explain what makes the source reliable per WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its published by Media Traffic.
- Who is Media Traffic? The link to the article took me to a page about the chart. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can be found at the bottom of their site: THE MOST POPULAR TRACKS ACCORDING TO GLOBAL AIRPLAY, SINGLE-SALES DATA, PAID DOWNLOAD, AND VOTE. IMPORTANT SOURCES: IFPI, MUSIC CONTROL, NIELSEN SOUND SCAN & BROADCAST DATA SYSTEMS (USA, CANADA), ORICON & SOUND SCAN (JAPAN), OFFICIAL UK CHARTS COMPANY (UNITED KINGDOM), SNEP / IFOP (FRANCE), MEDIA CONTROL (GERMANY, AUSTRIA, SWITZERLAND), ARIA (AUSTRALIA), AFYVE & MEDIA CONTROL (SPAIN), FIMI / AC NIELSEN (ITALY), HOT100 BR@SIL (BRAZIL), MEGA CHARTS BV (NETHERLANDS), GLF (SWEDEN), VERDENS GANG (NORWAY), AC NIELSEN (DENMARK, BELGIUM), YLE (FINLAND), AFP (PORTUGAL), RIANZ (NEW ZEALAND), AND OTHER. COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY MEDIA TRAFFIC.
- Who is Media Traffic? The link to the article took me to a page about the chart. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007, MEDIA TRAFFIC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. =)
- THis one http://host17.hrwebservices.net/~atrl/trlarchive/db.html looks to me like it's a private site?
- Used in "Hollaback", "Rich Girl", "Cool", etc. ARticles already featured.
- Those articles aren't being evaluated here; if they use non-reliable sources, they can be submitted for review at WP:FAR. For this article, please explain reliability of that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this site gets its chart from this archive.
- Those articles aren't being evaluated here; if they use non-reliable sources, they can be submitted for review at WP:FAR. For this article, please explain reliability of that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Used in "Hollaback", "Rich Girl", "Cool", etc. ARticles already featured.
- THis one http://host17.hrwebservices.net/~atrl/trlarchive/db.html looks to me like it's a private site?
- All the other links check out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is better, although there are cleanup needs in the ref formatting. Who is Spence D. and what makes him reliable? No last name doesn't inspire confidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll clean it up right now. I'll try to scan his bio in the page. If it fails to meet WP:RS, I'll remove it and look for another review. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its Spence Abbott. Since
{{Cite web}}
do not allow this formatting, February 01, 1990, I used the YYYY-MM-DD formatting to all references to achieve consistency. My problem now is what type of template I'll use for the sheet music ref. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its Spence Abbott. Since
- I'll clean it up right now. I'll try to scan his bio in the page. If it fails to meet WP:RS, I'll remove it and look for another review. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is better, although there are cleanup needs in the ref formatting. Who is Spence D. and what makes him reliable? No last name doesn't inspire confidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Nuetral Regretfully withdrawing my support. Read below comment.Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Cautious neutral. Tony (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC) not well-written. In particular, many of the relationships between the ideas within sentences are jumbled. Please get someone new to sift through the whole text.[reply]
"Originally not created for her, Beyoncé re-arranged the demo presented by the producers—a country-turned-R&B-pop song during the production." I can't see a clear referent for the last three words. Appears jumbled."a female empowerment anthem"—"an anthem to female empowerment" would be better; I do hope this is referenced in the main text; it's such a contestible statement that you might consider saying who "considered" this, even in the lead."the album's third single late in 2006"—so the third of how many in late 2006? I think you need a comma.""Irreplaceable" was certified as multi-platinum, and one of the best-selling single of 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date."—Was certified as one of the best-selling single (I think you mean singleS) of 2007? I think you need "was" before "one". Was it both the multiplatinum and this best-selling thing that established her as ..., or just the second reason? Jumbled; the causality needs to be absolutely clear.- Compared WITH, for contrasts. Tony (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Beyoncé re-arranged the demo presented by the producers—a country-turned-R&B-pop song." - it would be better if you only had the old style (country) between dashes, followed by what it changed to (R&B/pop)"album's third single, and the second single in most international music markets"- so where was it the 3rd? Confusing"establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date."- there have been a lot of successful female artists. Probably missing a "the most" or something"The song won awards, and was nominated at the 2008 Grammy Awards for the Record of the Year"- won awards, and was nominated for one? Giving a lot of weight to one in particular..."—Tor Erik Hermansen, Billboard[1]"- however, ref one cites MTV (on that note, it should be MTV, not MTV Networks, as the publisher)"Ne-Yo wrote the lyrics from a male perspective. Ne-Yo revealed that he"- change the second Ne-Yo to "he", perhaps?Stargate focused on the sound of "Irreplaceable"."- short, kinda meaningless, sentence...- "
and Ne-Yo also felt that its empowering for a woman singing it"- its should be it is --Efe (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] - "can relate to, and that "Irreplaceable" was the result.[6] Beyoncé also wanted to make a record that women could relate to.[7]" - something that people and women can relate to seems a bit...odd
- Huh? Ne-Yo says for people while Beyonce specifies it to women, in line of the theme of the album which is women empowerment. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's just me - I don't get how something can be "everyone can relate to" AND "women can relate to" - surely one falls under the other? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O)
- Me too; I just realized when you commented here. But its how the article was written (or how it is organized). But seeing how Ne-Yo was inspired by his family, it has something to do with the personal content of the song. Beyonce wanted to write songs that women can relate as well. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's just me - I don't get how something can be "everyone can relate to" AND "women can relate to" - surely one falls under the other? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O)
- Huh? Ne-Yo says for people while Beyonce specifies it to women, in line of the theme of the album which is women empowerment. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10 (and other IGNs) publisher is just IGN- "
John Jobling on Mansized.com found "Irreplaceable" a "gorgeous acoustic ballad",[26]"- is that website an RS? --Efe (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Any copyvio issues with the external links?
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To Sandy: Im hiding Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments since he allowed me to do it. --Efe (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the reviewing. I think no one here will disagree that we need to maintain very high standards of writing and verification for the huge increase in the proportion of FACs on popular culture. Otherwise, the currency will be diluted, yes? To do this, reviewers need to engage with the criteria, or nominators will be discouraged from doing so. While it's good to have people such as Mojska and Burningclean on board, they are providing absolutely no indication that they have engaged with the criteria. What are we to make of these postings? —
Support - subdisfactory the graphic.
Support Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also.
Now Mojska and Burningclean, and others I see doing the same thing in the FAC room, these declarations of support (or indeed of oppose, where that occurs) are worth nothing to the process without using your knowledge and expertise to critically evaluate the article WRT to the criteria. Sandy has—I think in desperation—pointed out the woeful state of the verification of this article, and I'm not sure that the nominator is yet convinced of the need for a thorough audit in this respect. I have picked to pieces a few sentences to show the density of issues in the prose, but nowhere is there a sign that the whole text will be properly copy-edited by someone new to it, to produce an authoritative and well-written article. No number of blithe supports will change this. I call on you, the experts, to take on a more critical role, rather than rolling up just to support-as-easy-vote in an area that you like and have considerable investment in. Please match your interest in the area with reviews that will prompt article improvement during this process. Tony (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Tony, you have a very, very valid point. I read the article and did not point out grammer mistakes simply because I create alot of grammer mistakes myself. I usually don't notice them when I am reviewing an article. I do not oppose but I am striking out my support and replacing it as nuetral. sorry, Burningclean [speak] 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments upon my oppose above.
- Fair-use rationales: I wonder what a judge would think when WP is being sued for copyright infringement when she sees the FU rationale for this article, and two others in which the track is used, just cut and pasted. Exactly the same wording? No, the folks at WP:NFC would be alarmed to find this; thing is, we need the FU rationale to be more closely related to the text it is supporting. Criterion 8 at NFC says this:
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
- I cant access the sample so I asked the uploader which part of the song is uploaded so it will be properly captioned. --Efe (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convince us, please, or the NFC police will be visiting (after 23 March, I believe). At the very least, I think you need to say something about how the file "illustrates" the article — perhaps in the terms you've used in the main text, harmony, form etc. I've always wanted to know how an audio file shows similarity or difference in terms of the surrounding output by this artist and similar artists—I don't know, it's not my area, but you need to do something different for each of the linked articles. So the vocal range is more than an octave and a half—is that unusual for this artist (and the style in general)? Is the less aggressive tone to do with the lyrics here? Just one level deeper would make your FU claim stronger.
The notational excerpt: "To visually present the musical structure of the song."—It's "part of the excerpt" rather than the whole song, and "structure" normally refers to form on a larger scale than three measures. Visually? Better "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression, rhythmic style, and pitch relationship between piano and voice." Or something like that. Caption and main text: en dashes, not hyphens, between the chords.
- I used this: "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression". --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright tag includes this statement: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Have you provided copyright information? Who holds the copyright? Sony, is it? Website or postal address might make the company feel more recognised if their copyright people inspect the info file. Catalogue number of the album? Track number and its total duration? More details would shore up your claim. I'm not being a contrarian, but warning that they're about to get tougher on NFC!
- I think Columbia also owns the copyright. I stated Columbia in the description page. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added Sony Urban Music. --Efe (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the prose that describes the excerpt: What is a "moderate" pop song? We see "moderate" again a line later. Replace "written in the key of" with just "in". No hyphen after "-ly". ""Irreplaceable" refers to a woman breaking up with a boyfriend after she found him cheating, and was considered a statement of independence." What, the woman was considered a statement of independence?
- All crashed out comments were addressed. For the "moderate" stuff and "written....." were already fixed because the first para was copyedited/reworded. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And below, why oh why is that little-known country, the US, linked? Please tell me. Australia too. In general, it's not necessary to link anglophone countries in the English-language WP.
Tony (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE After fixing questioned sources, a copyedit by someone new to this article will follow. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - Hey, sorry for the delay, I haven't been on much in the past few days. Another look finds the prose is still pretty choppy in places - mostly in the "Background and inspiration" section -its just confusing in places. The "composition" section looks good, as does the "Release and live performances" section. I'll try and clean up a bit of the prose, but here are a few sticky sentences I notice from the other sections:
- American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform." Sung? should it be performed, or sang, or somthing else? and did Beyonce appear with the band, or perform on her own? its a little confusing. if the sentence is related to the 2007 American Music Awards info before it - "..and a "surprise" performance of the country version of the song during the 2007 American Music Awards. American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform. The band has been known for covering Beyoncé's songs during their live shows and the idea of teaming-up emanated from their publicist" - then it needs to be restructured, you could try somthing like: American country band Sugarland, who were known for covering Beyonce's songs live, were joined by the singer for a performance of "Irreplaceable" at the 2007 American Music Awards. or somthing like that.
- Fixed per suggestion, but with little addition. I removed the "idea of teaming up" thing because its too much detailed. --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the quotes in the Critical reception section don't really describe the song or add to the article, such as: "Bernard Zuel of The Sydney Morning Herald noted the track "a pretty good rhythmic ballad" and "Carolyn Davis of US Magazine referred to "Irreplaceable" a "power ballad". A power ballad is a type of song, not really a critical description. I think that there are ample quotes and critical responses, you could lose a few for clarity.
- Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", along with "Resentment", are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B compared with other tracks in the album". The 'are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B' part sounds a little strange, could be "have more in common with", or somthing different.
- Changed to: Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", alongside "Resentment", "go for a much more traditional contemporary R&B vibe" compared to the other tracks in the album, and stated that it made them "stand out as if they were recorded separately from the rest of the album". The following by Spence D. was removed. Do you think the remaining quotes can suffice readers' understanding? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More importantly, who is Spence D, and with no last name, what makes him a reliable expert? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to: Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", alongside "Resentment", "go for a much more traditional contemporary R&B vibe" compared to the other tracks in the album, and stated that it made them "stand out as if they were recorded separately from the rest of the album". The following by Spence D. was removed. Do you think the remaining quotes can suffice readers' understanding? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and at the 2008 Grammy Award for Record of the Year." - should be "awards", and the sentence is a little vague, did they just get nominated, or win? And I'd think that the Grammy nom is a little more notable than the VH1 one... Im not sure the nominators are needed, you could add "by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences" - but I think the sentence would read better leaving both out, to say somthing like: "Irreplaceable was nominated for Record of the Year at the 2008 Grammy Awards, as well as Song of the Year at VH1 Soul Vibe's awards show."
I'll have a go at the "Background and inspiration" section, to tighten up some of the prose there. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- =) =) =) Thanks for the help. Like Burningclean, we need assistance from those who have good grasp in English. --Efe (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a good grasp, I just suck at spelling. (I'm from and live in America) :p Burningclean [speak] 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I stumbled on this article randomly, saw it, and thought that it should be a WP:FA. I noticed someone was heavily editing it, so I didn't bother to touch it, but then I noticed that it was already nominated. Good lord, the article is definitely WP:FA status in my books! Gary King (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [11].
Ozzie Smith
- Nominator(s): Monowi
- previous FAC (01:21, 3 August 2008)
After two peer reviews and work on NPOV and copyediting, I believe this article now meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Monowi (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Ozzie Smith suit.jpg and File:Ozzie Smith Doubleday.JPG are pretty much okay (although it would be nice to have the uncropped image of Ozzie Smith suit.jpg with EXIF). However,
- To any future editors who may read this, I've made a personal choice not to post the uncropped Ozzie Smith suit picture. Sorry! Monowi (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ozzie Smith statue part.jpg requires a stronger rationale than just "shows his statue". This is based on the Significance criteria of WP:NFC. If the image is just to "show his statue", then obviously removing it from the article would not be detrimental, since the text has said that a statue of Smith exists. One way to beef the rationale would be to "show a statue of Smith in his trademark style/pose/action or most memorable moment" and expand from there. This, however, has to be backed up by reliable sources and mentioned in the text (as critical analysis). For the moment, this image can serve as an identifying picture for an article of its own (Statue of Ozzie Smith), but seems decorative in the article about Smith.
- Use of the beefed-up rationale you have kindly suggested might be a bit challenging to pull off in the article. I have references that can confirm Smith's trademark to be his backflips, but of course that's not what this statue depicts. I wonder; would it be acceptable to alter the rationale by saying the statue is representative of his defensive skills via this action pose, and using a reference that cites him being a proficient defensive player? I am interested to hear any thoughts on this matter. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect what you need is to integrate more information from the "Cardinals Unveil Ozzie Smith Statue" newspiece, specifically what pose the statue is in and why the sculptor chose that pose, into the article. That will serve as critical commentary, and in the rationale for the statue, state what aspects of the pose it is supposed to capture that words could not fully express, and it might work. Jappalang (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ozzie sidewalk.JPG seems to be incorrectly licensed. The statue's photo could not be a "free" image because there is no "freedom of panorama" in the US. This tablet is a work of art. It is engraved in stone (thus 3-D piece of art) and there is the top logo (birds, baseballs, and bats) and the copyrighted Mastercard logo to be concerned with.
- Thanks for pointing this out. I had been wondering about it since it was mentioned in the article's previous peer review. I plan to re-post & re-license the picture under non-free use within the next day. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the license for the picture to non-free use art. The current revision of the rationale is admittedly not strong, as I will probably need to take the ideas used to update the above picture and use them here. Since the picture can't be licensed under GNU, my instinct is to remove the picture from the article, as I feel the picture of the sidewalk paver/stone didn't add that much to the article in the first place. I'm interested to hear what other editors think. Should this picture stay in the article or be removed? Monowi (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:CardsRetired1.PNG might be incorrectly licensed as well (though very likely free). Would a border around a simple number constitute enough artistic creativity to void {{PD-text}}? If not, then {{PD-text}} should be the license for this image.
- This illustration was part of the article prior to my first edits to the article in 2007, posted by User:Silent Wind of Doom. I agree that {{PD-text}} would be more appropriate in this case, but I feel wary of changing the license of another user's creation. I will attempt to contact User:Silent Wind of Doom about this issue. Monowi (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with any changes, however looking at this now (my second such work, after the Yankees ones) I see that all of them are woefully innacurate and just plain bad. I'm currently rehauling the images, which will be more than numbers with borders. Should be done by tomorrow night at the latest.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes have now been made. I don't have the best knowledge of the vaious lisences, so if you feel that there should now be a change, just tell me, and such a change will be made.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Silent Wind of Doom, but you cannot upload that version.[13] It is a derivative work of the wall itself (due to the artwork of Smith in action in the background).[14] That would be a copyviolation. I advise you to revert all such changes and call for an administrator to remove those versions from the history. Jappalang (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes have now been made. I don't have the best knowledge of the vaious lisences, so if you feel that there should now be a change, just tell me, and such a change will be made.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with any changes, however looking at this now (my second such work, after the Yankees ones) I see that all of them are woefully innacurate and just plain bad. I'm currently rehauling the images, which will be more than numbers with borders. Should be done by tomorrow night at the latest.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting feedback and comments. Jappalang (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the present moment, only one image issue remains, the retired card number.
I am tagging the images for copyright violations as derivative works.Jappalang (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source review:
- Ref #117 (all-century team final voting) is dead. Other refs check out error-wise. Wizardman 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - As someone who has reviewed this in the past, I'm quite impressed with it. A few prose nit-picks in the first few sections, but it's a good read overall.
Link National League on its first use.
"and also won the National League Silver Slugger Award as the best hitter at shortstop in 1987." That will get rid of some wordiness.
Early life: "moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw.[8]When..." Space needed.
Give the full name of the NBA in this section, as opposed to just using initials.
- Done. It does make the sentence a bit longer, but it is worth it for users who might not be familiar with NBA. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
San Diego Padres: I doubt the American dollar needs to be linked.
Remove the second Padres link to help cut down on the number of repetitive links.
- Wow, I didn't even know that was there. Thanks for pointing that out! Done. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth paragraph of Padres section: One instance of "get" and one of "got". I'd change the first to "record" and the second to "entered" or similar. Those would be more formal language, which is always better.
If the Yuma Daily Sun is (was) a printed publication, it should be given in italics. Check for this in the references too.
- Italics added. My cited reference can confirm the Yuma Daily Sun was a printed publication at the time it did the specific article about Smith. Thanks again for pointing it out; it really helps to have another set of eyes look over things! Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delink the dates in a couple of the references.
- Could you possibly help point out examples of this in the article? Right now the only date links I see are for links from specific years to articles detailing specific MLB seasons. For instance, I've wikilinked "1985" to 1985 St. Louis Cardinals season. I have removed wikilinks to seasons Smith did not play in, such as 1997 & 1999 in the "Post-playing career" section.
Actually, I meant the links for access dates in references 106 and 123, and the publication date in the latter. The year links for teams and seasons are an entirely seperate debate.Giants2008 (17-14) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to come back and read more later when these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to look over the article so far. I really appreciate it! Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bad part about having a limited number of active reviews is that I often find myself waiting for something to do. The good part is that nominators get fast return visits from me. Here's a second round.
Trade: Consider linking no-trade clause. I find that phrases like this, which could be considered jargon, are good candidates for explanatory links.
- Done. I remember trying to previously wikilink a long time ago; guess the article hadn't been created yet when I last checked! Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1982 season: Consider adding a best of seven disclaimer for the World Series. This might be confusing for non-baseball fans who have just read about the shorter playoff series. Also, check to see if "best of five" in the LCS should have hyphens. A similar usage later has them.
- Hyphens & "best-of-seven" text added. I found an MLB.com article here[15]that used the hypens, so I went with that. Monowi (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
En dash for 3-1 score in Game 7 of the World Series.
- I honestly can't tell the difference between the dashes, so I hope I put the right one in. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the right one. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go crazy folks: Flip wrist broken to broken wrist.
Don't think Busch Stadium needs a link there, with one in a prior section.
"After the Cardinals took a 3-games-to-2 advantage". Consider changing the numbers to words. Numbers less than 10 are usually spelled out, but editors have differing opinions on this. Note that the "2 for 23" earlier is fine, since it's a compound element. No, this isn't confusing at all. :-)
- Done. I originally had the numbers written out, but they were apparently changed by another editor somewhere along the way. Monowi (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another en dash for "July 11-14", when Smith tore his rotator cuff.
- Note that I'll be doing something new in this FAC. When I provide further comments, I'll be doing so on a talk page to avoid clogging up FAC any more than necessary. Of course, I'll provide a link here for the convenience of everyone involved. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bad part about having a limited number of active reviews is that I often find myself waiting for something to do. The good part is that nominators get fast return visits from me. Here's a second round.
- Support - I was around for the second of the article's two FACs, and the improvement in quality between then and now is quite noticeable. After a large amount of work, in the previous FACs and here, I think it's ready. The talk page review is done too, for anyone interested. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to do that; your help is appreciated! Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely good article with top-nouch sourcing. I have a few comments before I could support this article. I'm not going to comment on grammar and so fourth, as that's my weakness.
- I personally think the Amos Otis growing up in his neighborhood is irrelevant, unless Otis helped influence Smith's baseball career.
- What got him into baseball, the early life doesn't mention that?
- I've added in a sentence that addresses this topic. The sentence reads, "Smith played a variety of sports in his youth, but considered baseball to be his "favorite."" Adding in this sentence gave me a chance to split the first part of the "Early life" section into two paragraphs as well. Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In high school and college, did he made receive any awards playing baseball, All-American or All-District for example? (skip if he didn't)
- A sentence on why the Padres and Tigers decided to draft Smith, did he had some sort of special skill (obvious to us baseball fans but not to the average non-baseball fan reader) to get him drafted this high.
- I don't have a direct reference about the thought process of either the Tigers or Padres in drafting Smith. Mention of Smith's All-American status in college, not to mention the school records he set, seem to be the best evidence that can currently be offered as to why the Tigers and Padres drafted him. If anyone can find a reference or two that can address this issue, it would be very welcome. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When did Smith and his wife gets married?
- Short of finding their marriage certificate, I don't have a concrete reference for the year they married, so I decided not to include a specific date in the article. My research for the article leads me to believe it was around 1981, but as I said, with no reference to back it up, I'm kinda stuck on this one. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source that it's in October/November 1980 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/684993992.html?dids=684993992:684993992&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&date=Nov+25%2C+1980&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Padres%2C+as+Good+as+Gold+at+Short%2C+Go+After+Catcher&pqatl=google but I don't have access to those archives, maybe if someone can? Secret account 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Short of finding their marriage certificate, I don't have a concrete reference for the year they married, so I decided not to include a specific date in the article. My research for the article leads me to believe it was around 1981, but as I said, with no reference to back it up, I'm kinda stuck on this one. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stats would be nice for his second place in ROY, just like how you provide stats for his Silver Slugger Award season.
- What happened to the 1985 and most of the 1986 regular season?
- "From 1993 onwards, injuries started to creep up on Smith." What injuries did he get in 1993? Also by the sentence it seems to the reader that he was also injured in 1994, but he played what seems to me a complete season only missing about 10 games.
- Thanks for pointing this out. After reviewing this issue, it was clearly a weak point of the article. After further research, I removed the "From 1993 onwards..." sentence in the lead, and instead mentioned that he missed nearly three months of 1995 after his shoulder surgery. I also replaced a reference from ESPN that listed his stats with a specific one from Retrosheet that listed what games Smith made an offensive appearance in during the 1995 season. Definitely check out both the last paragraph of the lead section and the second paragraph of the "Torre era" section to view the changes. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the divorce from his wife?
- That's a great question, one that I wish I could answer. Any comments I could make about that would simply be conjecture, because I don't have a reference for this specific issue. Even some of the more recent references cited in the article tend to overlook or dance around the issue. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he had success from his business ventures or did it failed?
Thanks Secret account 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Overall this is a great article, however I have one caveat. "While Smith was attending junior high school, his parents decided to divorce.[5] A Los Angeles Dodgers fan during his childhood, Smith would ride the bus for nearly an hour to get to Dodger Stadium, attending about 25 games a year.[5] Upon becoming a student at Locke High School, Smith played on the basketball and baseball teams." The sentence on the Dodgers feel out of place thrown in between middle and high school. If it was intertwined a little better with the childhood section of the article I would support this as an FA. Wizardman 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have re-phrased the sentence mentioning Smith's attendance at Dodger games in the following way: "Continuing to pursue his interest in baseball, Smith would ride the bus for nearly an hour to reach Dodger Stadium, cheering for the Los Angeles Dodgers at about 25 games a year." I think this phrasing works well because the previous paragraph now mentions Smith's interest in sports, and that baseball was his favorite sport during his youth. Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, 1a. This looks OK, but I quickly got mired in prose issues indicative of article-wide problems. Below are samples; please get someone to go through the whole article and look for other instances. I see that you had two peer reviews, but they don't look very substantive.
- Is the backflip thing really important enough to mention in the lead?
- Yes, I believe it is vital to mention Smith's backflip trademark in the lead section. I would assert that Smith's backflip brought him more fame than some other aspects of his baseball career. To demonstrate the importance of the backfilp, I can cite his Baseball Hall of Fame plaque[16], which mentions the backflip. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "When turmoil with Padres' ownership developed ..." Do you mean conflict?
- No, I don't. According to Webster's definition, turmoil is, "a state or condition of extreme confusion, agitation, or commotion." Indeed, it was the extreme agitation the Padres felt from Ed Gottlieb's antics (like taking out a help-wanted ad) that makes the use of the word turmoil appropriate in this instance. In fact, the article later mentions that Padres General Manager Jack McKeon expressed how agitating Gottlieb was, telling Whitey Herzog it was part of the reason the Padres were now willing to trade Smith. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I misread this. I thought you meant turmoil between ownership and Smith. But you mean turmoil among several people, correct? Can you reword to "When turmoil among the Padres' organization developed ..." or similar? --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, by using "turmoil" the sentence is conveying conflict among several people, but you make a good point that the sentence isn't phrased to explicitly express that. With that in mind, I'm hesitant to have to explain that the turmoil was between Padres ownership & the combination of Smith & his agent, especially when the goal is to make the lead concise. In that sense, use of the word "conflict" would be more appropriate because it would still accurately describe the relations between Smith and the organization at that time, and leave the more detailed antics of Gottlieb to the body of the article. So, I replaced "turmoil" with the word "conflict" in both the lead and later in the article. Thanks for the tip, and the healthy discussion. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I misread this. I thought you meant turmoil between ownership and Smith. But you mean turmoil among several people, correct? Can you reword to "When turmoil among the Padres' organization developed ..." or similar? --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't. According to Webster's definition, turmoil is, "a state or condition of extreme confusion, agitation, or commotion." Indeed, it was the extreme agitation the Padres felt from Ed Gottlieb's antics (like taking out a help-wanted ad) that makes the use of the word turmoil appropriate in this instance. In fact, the article later mentions that Padres General Manager Jack McKeon expressed how agitating Gottlieb was, telling Whitey Herzog it was part of the reason the Padres were now willing to trade Smith. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Born in Mobile, Alabama, Smith was the second of six children (five boys and one girl) born to his parents Clovis and Marvella Smith." This needs revision so there are not two "borns"
- "... while his mother became an aide at an Armenian nursing home." This suggests the nursing home was either in Armenia or somehow of Armenian ownership, which I'm sure wasn't the case.
- "Developing quick reflexes through leisure activity, Smith would bounce a ball off the concrete steps in front of his house, moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw." This is oddly worded, suggesting he developed the reflexes and then did the bouncing. Also, in the lead you say "athletic activity" and here you say "leisure activity". Those aren't really the same thing.
- I changed the sentence you refer to in the "Early life" section to read, "Smith developed quick reflexes through various athletic and leisure activity, such as bouncing a ball off the concrete steps in front of his house, moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw." Do you believe this is an appropriate way to phrase this sentence, and I was also wondering your opinion on keeping the phrase "athletic activity" unaltered in the lead section in light of this sentence revision. Any comments from editors are welcome too. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many sentences with the same structure: "Developing quick reflexes via childhood athletic activities, Smith played ...", "Drafted as an amateur player by the San Diego Padres, Smith made ...", "Developing quick reflexes through leisure activity, Smith would ..."
- "Smith went on to be named an All-American athlete" For any such phrase, "Smith was named" is much simpler and cleaner.
- That's a great suggestion. I took the extra step of re-phrasing the sentence so that it now reads, "Later named an All-American athlete, Smith established school records in career at-bats (754) and career stolen bases (110) before graduating in 1977." Is this wording ok, or would you suggest another approach to phrasing this particular sentence? Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Smith credited Padre manager ..." You say "Padres" everywhere else - why not here?
- --Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After finally getting around to reading this article, I am satisfied with how it is. It reads very well, the quote boxes are used well, and right spots are accentuated, and there's not too much statistical information thrown in, which I would actually consider a positive, since it shows that there has not been any unnecessary padding in the article. I'd liek to see more of that, yes, but it's not really necessary, as this article was very enjoyable to read. Wizardman 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canons of page construction Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheffield Rules Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Costello Music Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tel Aviv
- 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 00:06, 27 March 2008.
Ernie Toshack
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... ermm I think it is a comprehensive account, properly sourced of one of the spearheads of Don Bradman's Invincibles. Relative to my other articles, this is relatively short, because he only played first-class cricket for about 3 years; he started late because of WW2 and then had a knee injury. Part of the attempt to make a featured topic. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.It's well illustrated, too.Phanto282 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the article needs more references and some tables with his records about his matches etc.Support - thanks some recent edits, the article is so subdisfactory. MOJSKA 666 (msg)12:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)12:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Not actionable; examples are needed of statements that need citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Breakdown against individual countries given, as are alternative sources and obits. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not actionable; examples are needed of statements that need citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Date-labels? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean on the sources, those sources are stats cards with no dates of publication indicated, so they aren't there. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to Mojska's original oppose rationale. I didn't understand what he meant by date labels. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean on the sources, those sources are stats cards with no dates of publication indicated, so they aren't there. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Linkie tool is showing that the Obituary needs registration.Everything else shows fine for the little tool
- Comments - nice article, some suggestions (with my cricket hat off)
- "new ball attack" - a bit too jargony for the lead.
- "and had his early cricket career hindered due to the economic difficulties of the Great Depression" how? I had to read ahead to find out he suffered a ruptured appendix, but was the ruptured appendix a result of the Great Depression? A bit confused.
- Hmm, the source means a lack of money meant that he had less time to train I think, although it is not clear. It didn't mean the illness. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Test cricket is linked to twice in the lead but first class isn't.
- Any chance of expanding how he came to be orphaned?
- None of the sources give his parents' cause of death. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "fastish" - I don't think so! Perhaps medium-fast?
- "1944-45" - en dash required.
- "first-class" or "first class"?
- Any chance of linking out to bowling averages?
- " wicket-taking list." which list? Context needed.
- Two "back injury" sentences in the Invincibles section reads awkwardly.
- Ref 1 seems to have a spare pair of closing braces.
- That's all I can see right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from that, everything else has been (hopefully) attended to. I also linked batting average and a whole pile of other cricket jargon. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- What influence did his bowling have on future Australian bowlers like Thomson, Lillee and McGrath? Who were Toshack's own influences? I think it's important to put his contributions into context, especially given the number of great fast bowlers that Australia has produced over the years.
- I also think the article ends rather abruptly. There's a substantial discussion of life after cricket in the Don Bradman article. The article says that Toshack spent 25 years as a foreman and supervisor on construction sites...was he not involved in cricket (as an administrator, coach, etc) after retirement? AreJay (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is important to put his contributions into context, but in this case, as the sources quote Bradman, his style of bowling was rather unusual and did not have any similar precedents or imitators after. He is compared to the prolific English fastish spinner Derek Underwood explicitly. There was no speed gun in those days, but he would have been somewhere around 110-120 kph from the qualitative description. With regards to Thomson and Lillee, they were express fast bowlers who bowled conventionally, outside off stump, usually with a 6-3 field whereas Toshack bowled with a 4-5 legside field. McGrath was also the same although he was moderately fast. The other thing was that Toshack bowled left arm over the wicket at their pads, and in his era the pitches were not covered and Toshack was famous for bowling on sticky pitches as discussed in the article; since the mid 1950s, pitches have been covered during rain, so nobody after the the mid 1950s played under Toshack's conditions. The only Australian left arm pace bowlers who played after Toshack but before the 1960s were Bill Johnston (cricketer) and Alan Davidson (cricketer) but they were fast bowlers, and bowled to a conventional off side field, not leg theory. None of the sources compare him to earlier bowlers, so it would be OR for me to do so. Looking at the List of Australian Test cricketers and the players in the 50 years preceding him, there were no other left arm fast spin/slow medium pace type bowlers except Charlie Macartney (also an FA). However, Macartney did not bowl at leg stump with a leg side field. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unable to find more info on his after cricket activities, except that he also wrote a bit about cricket and enjoyed gardening. I looked up a book of the New South Wales Cricket Association and did not see him in the list of board members or state level coaches, so it would be rather ungainly to put in a few sentences "He did not do this...he did not do that". Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is important to put his contributions into context, but in this case, as the sources quote Bradman, his style of bowling was rather unusual and did not have any similar precedents or imitators after. He is compared to the prolific English fastish spinner Derek Underwood explicitly. There was no speed gun in those days, but he would have been somewhere around 110-120 kph from the qualitative description. With regards to Thomson and Lillee, they were express fast bowlers who bowled conventionally, outside off stump, usually with a 6-3 field whereas Toshack bowled with a 4-5 legside field. McGrath was also the same although he was moderately fast. The other thing was that Toshack bowled left arm over the wicket at their pads, and in his era the pitches were not covered and Toshack was famous for bowling on sticky pitches as discussed in the article; since the mid 1950s, pitches have been covered during rain, so nobody after the the mid 1950s played under Toshack's conditions. The only Australian left arm pace bowlers who played after Toshack but before the 1960s were Bill Johnston (cricketer) and Alan Davidson (cricketer) but they were fast bowlers, and bowled to a conventional off side field, not leg theory. None of the sources compare him to earlier bowlers, so it would be OR for me to do so. Looking at the List of Australian Test cricketers and the players in the 50 years preceding him, there were no other left arm fast spin/slow medium pace type bowlers except Charlie Macartney (also an FA). However, Macartney did not bowl at leg stump with a leg side field. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my GA review on Talk:Ernie Toshack. Daniel (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment late to the party (sorry). I'm working my way through this now, but as a generality, while his cricket playing life clearly should be the core of the article, the post-cricket years are too quickly dismissed. I appreciate it's probably hard to find out more about his life and interests after playing, but I'm sure the comments about his writing could be expanded? --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The SMH obit from which I got the writing about cricket is all that I can find, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ccan't see any books by him in the State Libary either. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The SMH obit from which I got the writing about cricket is all that I can find, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I also tried finding writing info, without luck. --Dweller (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems sufficient enough to be an FA for me; also I think that there are enough refs. Perhaps they could be reorganized into {{reflist|2}}. Interesting article as well. Khoikhoi 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - happy with this now, good stuff Blnguyen and co... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes:
- Jargon, what is this 11/31 ? ... He took career-best match figures of 11/31 in the First Test ... 11 out of 31 ? I see these slashes throughout, and I don't know what they are. Is that like a baseball average? Are they explained somewhere? (Never seen a cricket match in my life, sorry :-)
- See Bowling analysis for details, now linked in the article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mattinbgn; that will help, although I can't say that the Bowling analysis makes any of it clear or understandable :/ Perhaps this is how others feel when reading American football or baseball articles? I'll try to learn the sport so I can understand these FACs, but both cricket bios at FAC right now have lost me. Maybe it's just me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Tests supposed to be in upper case here? ... who played in 12 Tests from ... and here ? First-class and Test debut
- Convention in cricket (and at WP:CRICKET to use upper case when talking about Test cricket as opposed to a test in general. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More lingo here, what are "third grade" and "first grade"? Is that like AAA and AA ball in baseball? ... starting in third grade in 1944–45.[4] Within two matches, he rose to first grade. ...
- *Yeah, third grade is the third tier of competition. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More lingo, this is the first time I encounter the word "wicket" in the article, no idea what this phrase means or what a "wicket" is ... sorry :-) ... and was quickly among the wickets. Can you cricket experts run through the article one more time and make it easier on someone like me who has no idea of cricket (wikilinks or explanations)?
- Done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- should non Test have a hyphen here ? And number consistency ? ... only six of the 29 non Test matches on the tour ...
- Not sure what you're looking for...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversion, we need cm here: ... Standing 6 ft 2 in, he ...
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cricket followers delight in using the word wicket in many senses, including "sticky wicket" in this article, but it could be clarified better. Presumably the first time a short bowling statistic is used it should say "11 wickets for 31 runs (11/31)" or "11 wickets (out of a possible 20) for 31 runs (11/31)".--Grahame (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okey doke. Linked to the cases of a dismissal and linked the sticky wicket explicitly. I also changed wet wicket etc to sticky, since otherwise, people would not understand and sticky is already used directly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cricket followers delight in using the word wicket in many senses, including "sticky wicket" in this article, but it could be clarified better. Presumably the first time a short bowling statistic is used it should say "11 wickets for 31 runs (11/31)" or "11 wickets (out of a possible 20) for 31 runs (11/31)".--Grahame (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeand please don't shoot the messenger. Many readers, and not only those in non-cricket playing countries, will have problems understanding this article and Toshack's achievements. The problem lies mainly in the First-class and Test debut and Invincibles tour sections —with all that jargon. Although not entirely avoidable, no effort has been made to accommodate readers not used to the terminology. The words won and win are used only once and lost not at all. Wicket subtley changes its meaning as in and was quickly among the wickets and his only ten wicket match haul, (which is also bad grammar) and sticky wicket. Given that most of the important scores are in the statistics box, these sections could be improved by spelling-out the bowling result the first time one is used and explaning its significance. And, (I know this requires skill), avoiding using so many. There are some odd phrases in the article.
**He took career-best match bowling figures of 11/31 in the First Test from the Lead. This needs a possessive or indefinate article.
- the club for which he was residentially zoned" does this mean local?
- He performed consistently without taking large innings hauls
- Toshack collected his only ten wicket match haul in Tests
- He removed both and ended with 5/2 in 19 balls the removed is bad.
- When he was available this is redundant.
He had a moderate Third Test does this mean moderately successful?
These are just some examples, there are more which makes the style of the prose difficult to follow. The Article seems to finish half way through; what about the writing career we read about in the Lead and what did he build? What did he do during his long retirement? Lastly, Ashes should be wiki-linked. Forgive me and don't shoot me.--GrahamColmTalk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the part about writing, we found nothing in all the libraries of Australia, so it appears he didn't write any books, we do not know anymore than what is in the obit. No full book biography was written about Toshack, so we are in a tight spot. As for not using lost, during Toshack's period, Australia did not lose a single match. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed it so that all the notations are put in word form with links the first time, and then with the numbers in brackets. I think I have tweaked your wroding requests. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the part about writing, we found nothing in all the libraries of Australia, so it appears he didn't write any books, we do not know anymore than what is in the obit. No full book biography was written about Toshack, so we are in a tight spot. As for not using lost, during Toshack's period, Australia did not lose a single match. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is not much info on Toshack post-cricket because he severed his connection with the game, so much so that when he attended an Invincibles reunion for the first time, in the 1990s, he had to be re-introduced to some of his erstwhile teammates. Phanto282 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Neutral. I have made a few changes, please revert them if they are not improvements.[17]. The quality of the prose prevents me from supporting. (See the opening sentence of the Style section for example). This isn't grammatically incorrect but, for me at least, it ruins the flow.--GrahamColmTalk 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Max Mosley
- 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 [18].
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.--SRX 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- Outside of—spot the redundant word.
- 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.
- 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.
- "in which they insulted each other" (not "the" other) ...?
- "Battle royal" sounds like POV.
- "front-row ticket". Check for any other double adjectives that might be better hyphenated.
- "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.
- "tag team match"—link it? (or maybe you did on first occurrence).
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]- Well you shouldn't base your vote or decision per other users citing WP:PER. But, I've done Tony's requests.--SRX 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Well you shouldn't base your vote or decision per other users citing WP:PER. But, I've done Tony's requests.--SRX 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- (@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.--SRX 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- 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)[reply]
- 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.Non-breaking space needed for 11.9 million.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.""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."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?'"front row" still doesn't have a hyphen.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.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).
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)[reply]
"in a move that allowed Rikishi and Hotty retained their championships.""before throwing him down with a Alabama slam;" Probably should be an.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,"."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'''.--SRX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- You didn't tell me to do anything, but I think I fixed it, removed the word then'''.--SRX 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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.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.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.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.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)[reply]
- Note, on a quick scan, I don't see review of
sources orimages here; perhaps I missed it? And there's a hidden template in the "Event" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The images and sources were checked in it's second peer review, also can you point out the template?SRX 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
- "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.
- "Next was a singles blindfold match,..."—Possibly a new para? Unsure.
- "The third contest a tag team match, in which ..."—Ungrammatical.
- "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).
- 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.
- "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.
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
WeakSupport - 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?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".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.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"?
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 18:19, 2 May 2008.
2005 ACC Championship Game
previous FAC (00:05, 28 March 2008)
- This is a renomination of an article that failed about a month ago with 0 opposes and 0 supports. Since that time, it's been read four different times by different editors, and I've made the changes that those editors suggested. The suggestions and the changes that were made are on the article's talk page. Previous FA-class articles in this format include 2007 ACC Championship Game, 2008 Orange Bowl, and 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to leave a note here or on my talk page. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources look good, links all worked. Great to see! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I really like most of this article, but some rough edges still need to be smoothed out. Here are minor problems I found in a partial run-through.
- A couple of little things in the lead: "The game was the concluding contest of the regular season for both teams". I like "final" better than "concluding". Also, why is a failed onside kick worthy of mention in the lead? I think this is better: "...the Seminoles managed to run out the clock and secure a 27–22 victory."
- Replaced.
- Selection process: Last three words of first paragraph could be changed to ACC.
- Replaced.
- Virginia Tech: "Miami now had" don't think now is necessary.
- Removed.
- Florida State: I'd like to see a citation that says Miami was favored. A simple game recap should do it.
- Added.
- No. 19Florida. You can see this issue.
- Fixed.
- "...the first time they had earned three straight losses since 1983. Earned is normally used in a more positive fashion. Can you replace this with another term?
- Replaced.
- University of Virginia Cavaliers. Why is University of included for this team and no others?
- Fixed.
- Offensive matchups, Virginia Tech: Do we need Michael Vick linked in consecutive sections?
- Fixed.
- Wide receiver linked twice in section.
- Fixed.
- Offensive matchups, Florida State: Do we need receiver and running back linked here after being linked in the previous section?
- Fixed. My main reason for overlinking is that someone with little familiarity with American football might find it more useful that way. I've removed the extraneous up-page links, but left a few more down in later sections.
- In last sentence of section, write No. 10 out as number ten.
- Replaced.
I want to support this article, but would like to see these small problems addressed. More later. Giants2008 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed those. Let me know what else I can take care of. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Not keen on the parenthesised whole sentences such as "(Bowl games are not considered part of the regular season.) "
- Incorporated into the sentence.
- "No. 9 Miami " - no need to capitalise no., and it'd be better to expand this as something like "number nine ranked Miami"... if that's what you're getting at. I see you've used this kind of expression throughout - it's worth expanding for us non-experts, especially for featured material.
- Replaced. This was actually addressed in a previous review; I'd had to choose between No. 9 or ninth-ranked, so I went to all ninth-ranked. Because numbers over 10 get numerals, I used 15th-ranked and ninth-ranked, where appropriate.
- I haven't got to the section yet, but not sure what direct relevance the Marcus Vick dismissal has to this ACC Game article.
- No, it's fine. He sounds like an idiot. Keep it in.
- Ha! That made me laugh.
- No, it's fine. He sounds like an idiot. Keep it in.
- Is the attendance citeable?
- It's cited in the first section of the game recap.
- "...lost two ACC contests, (Virginia Tech's only ACC loss was to Miami) the Hokies..." another parenthetic nightmare for me to cope with...!
- Well, not all parentheses are evil. :) I don't mind this one, myself, but if it really bugs you, do you have an alternative in mind?
- It's not big deal but I think you can safely move [42] to next to [43] without too many complaints.
- Done.
- "threw two incompletions" any chance a slight dejargon - "threw two incomplete passes"?
- Fixed.
- "...and had the end of the half stop another possession..." now I'm no expert but I am aware of NFL terminology to a degree. And I don't get this sentence at all!
- Reworded. The end of the first half ended the possession.
- In the caption "red zone" - what is that?
- Wikilinked this example. It's also wikilinked in the "First quarter" section.
- "...and Quarterback Marcus Vick was sacked..." is there a reason that Quarterback is capitalised?
- Nope. Fixed.
- "almost disastrous" a little POV...
- Reworded.
- "The penalties had no effect on the game" - well strictly not true. They had no effect on the final outcome....
- This one made me laugh, too. Fixed.
- "the Most Valuable Player award is not usually given to a player on the losing team." - sounds like WP:OR to me. Got a reference?
- Hmmm... not really. I need to explain why Vick wouldn't be considered MVP, though. Any suggestions?
- "...coupled with ..." + "...combined as..." - one too many!
- Reworded.
- Not sure the subheading in See also of "Other Conference Championship Games" is needed. It's pretty clear from the titles of the articles you're linking to what they are.
- I'd like to think it's clear enough, but someone suggested adding that.
That's it for the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Made those fixes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my major issues all resolved, very good work indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a perfectionist, however. With that in mind, here are more comments/complaints for you
- Single-digit numbers are supposed to be spelled out per WP:MOSNUM. I see these throughout rhe early part of the article.
- Replaced when doing TRM's ranking fix.
- I still see them in the matchup sections. Giants2008 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sneaky little things. Replaced. Let me know if you catch any more. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found one more, which I fixed myself. That should be it. Giants2008 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Defensive matchups, Virginia Tech: There are two yards per game statistics in the first paragraph. Should these be given as exact figures with decimals?
- I put down what the source gave me, IIRC. If it's decimals, I'd be happy to use those in the article if you think they're necessary.
- You're right. I looked at the source and replaced them with decimals. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ellis recorded defensive MVP honors for the top-ranked Hokies". I have a problem with this, since it implies that Virginia Tech was top-ranked, not their defense. I suggest "Ellis recorded defensive MVP honors for the Hokies' top-ranked unit, with (insert relevant stats here)".
- Reworded.
Defensive line, defensive end, sacks, and linebacker are all linked twice in Defensive matchups.
- Unlinked.
Third quarter: :... FSU did send in kicker Gary Cismesia for his second field goal of the day". Change to "field goal attempt" Try would work as well.
- Added.
Fourth quarter, second paragraph: I'd like to see a link for pass interference. Again, we're trying to make this accessable for non-football fans, which you've done a great job of overall.
- Linked.
"and it appeared to many fans that Virginia Tech still had a shot to make this a close game." Be careful with terms like many. Perhaps a slight re-wording is in order. I also think that shot is a bit informal. Chance is better.
- Replaced.
"which stopped the clock when incomplete or were complete for a first down". Change "were complete" to "completed".
- Changed.
Onside kick should be linked here.
- Linked.
"A successful recovery would give the Hokies another chance at offense." I like "on offense" better.
- Changed.
Of course teams can recover onside kicks inside 10 yards; they just can't keep the ball. Perhaps add legally?
- Added.
Post-game effects, Bowl effects: Link BCS Championship Game.
- Linked.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants2008 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made some comments before this FAC which have, on the whole, been addressed. They are on the article's Talk Page. There are still a few problems:
- The second half of the second paragraph of the Lead (beginning Normally), is hard to understand. Can it be simplified?
- Are all those three howevers in the Lead needed: Because the loss was to a Coastal Division team, however, it did not count against Florida State in the Atlantic Division standings. Close losses to North Carolina State and Clemson at the end of the season, however, almost eliminated the Seminoles from contention for a spot in the championship game. Losses by Clemson and the other Atlantic Division leaders, however, gave the Seminoles a second chance and set up an ACC Championship game between Florida State and Virginia Tech.
- I still don't understand Although Virginia Tech made a late-game comeback, Florida State to ran out the clock and secured a 27–22 victory. Should it be too?
- I've revamped the lede slightly to address all of your concerns. Let me know if it works for you now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a nitpick, The punt allowed FSU to start at their own 46-yard line, - Why the own?
- The field is 100 yards in length, and is divided into two 50-yard halves that join at the 50-yard line. "Own" signifies that the 46-yard line in question is in the Florida State defensive half. If I'd said Virginia Tech's 46-yard line, then it'd be FSU's offensive half. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A lot of hard work has gone into this article and it shows.--GrahamColmTalk 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain
- 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 00:24, 30 March 2008.
Ancient Egypt
I feel this article is now essentially complete. It covers every single aspect of ancient Egypt, including legacy, and is reasonably concise. It is well referenced, and the bulk of the sources, landmarks in their field, were published within the last ten years, so it is current. The article has 3 featured pictures and other carefully selected images, such as the golden mask and Rosetta stone that are touchstones of the ancient culture. The writing has been polished by months of work, peer reviewers and copyeditors. (Self-nom) Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add publisher information to all of your websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't hide the Table of Contents: see WP:WIAFA, criterion 2b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commentsupport - rename the section tecnology, medicine and mathematics in culture. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a culture section; the Table of Contents was hidden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Just a few quick notes:
- I notice the historical eras are all capitalized in {{Small Egyptian Dynasty List}} (and presumably in the linked articles), but only some of them are capitalized in section headers here.
- Pharaoh should only be capitalized when used as a title with a name
- Some of the subarticle links use {{Main}} while others use {{See also}}; that's logical in theory, but in some cases it looks like Main would be more appropriate than See also.
- Image captions that are complete sentences should end with a full stop
- It looks like most of the links in the See also section are already presented in {{Ancient Egypt topics}}, and perhaps the ones that aren't in the template should be considered for inclusion there
- In references, use endashes rather than hyphens for page ranges (p. 67–69)
- Reference 16 is missing a page number - "Robins (2000) p."
- In references that refer to books listed in a bibliography, the year is only used to distinguish between multiple books/editions by the same author. Here, there is only one ambiguity—two books by R. H. Wilkinson—so references to those books are the only ones that need a year or a title listed.
- In the Bibliography, one item ("Günther Hölbl") doesn't begin with 'lastname, firstname'
These are just from a cursory review; I'll try to get back here and do a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the see also section by moving appropriate links to the template as you suggest, others already linked in the article. Ref formatting should be fine now, and the main/see also is fixed as well. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- http://www.touregypt.net/ leads to three dead links.
- Publisher for this site http://www.reshafim.org.il ?
- A number of references lack page numbers (current ones 3, 7, 34, 35, 58, 74, 107, 109, 110, 112, 141)
- Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the touregypt site is down temporarily, I expect it back up soon; it should not be permanently dead. Nevertheless, I'll find different sources. I'm almost finished with the formatting changes pointed out above and I'll finish putting in page numbers soon. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You addressed most of these, but this site http://touregypt.net/edwinsmithsurgical.htm still lacks a publisher for its citation. (current ref 163)
- Most of the references look good, although it would be nice to have consistent referencing. Some books give place of publication, others don't.
Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched the touregypt source to a book published one. As for the truman site: I'll make a special trip to the university library and drag out the original article. As for the Clarke book: don't judge a book by its cover; it's a reliable technical book; not a lightweight at all. It was originally published by oxford university press, so it should be fine. "Some books give place of publication, others don't..." fine, I'll add whatever I can. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. Perhaps show in the bibliography that its a reprint of an earlier book? I know Dover does a lot of those types of reprints. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note added to the citation about the Dover reprint giving full details. My library doesn't have the book giving the info about the golden ratio, but since this sentence is really not that important, I've removed it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored the useful information on the golden ratio because the entire sentence can be attributed to Kemp (1989). Jeff, in the future, if you need help with finding or accessing sources, please post on the article's talk page or ask me directly. I might be able to help. — Zerida ☥ 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note added to the citation about the Dover reprint giving full details. My library doesn't have the book giving the info about the golden ratio, but since this sentence is really not that important, I've removed it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I used to edit this article a long time ago, so I am not giving a support or oppose per se because I'm not sure if my past involvement has a bearing on its promotion. Since I was pretty inactive between November and February, I haven't followed the article's progress, so I feel that I can at least offer some comments. First, I am not clear why neither this nomination nor the peer review (which I just finished reading) was announced on WP:KMT (didn't find anything in the archives). Not everyone will necessarily be watching the article (I didn't) or may be busy with other articles. I point this out because it's critical that such a visible article on this topic undergoes review by editors with knowledge of the topic.
I am not going to spend much time going over the technical aspects since they're already being covered, except I will mention that this is a bad idea here because from what I see the article uses several references by the same author(s), and it's not clear which one is being cited.
In terms of criteria, the article more or less meets most of them, but to varying degrees fails "Comprehensiveness", "Factual accuracy" and a little bit of criterion 4 ("unnecessary detail").
- Sources: There is an over-reliance on books and web sites. In a featured article about an academic topic, in particular one that is generally about ancient Egypt, I'd also prefer to see several peer-reviewed journals or magazines cited, which are especially useful in reporting on recent finds/archaeological discoveries. Ideally (though I wouldn't expect it), an article such as this would be referenced by French and German-language sources because most Egyptological literature in the West is actually in these languages.
- I'm afraid I don't have much access to KMT, JEA, or JNES, and I don't read French or German. If you do have sources you think should be included, by all means add them as additional reading. I'll add links to KMT and the others in the see also section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comprehensiveness vs. Too much detail: The article gives too much detailed coverage of the major historical periods (especially the NK), but fails to mention or doesn't go into enough detail about several important topics. The Government and Technology sections are pretty good; the Culture section could be better and *better referenced*. Some topics that need more coverage, using specific examples/figures, are professions; courtship and family relations; towns and township; the role of women; festivals; education and learning; housing (royalty vs. commoners); contacts with other nations; sports and crafts; animal and stock-breeding. The historical periods should be truncated and have a link to the main article on each one underneath the section heading (e.g.; {{main|New Kingdom}}). Some of that material appears to be copied from the main articles, like the Ptolemaic dynasty for example, so I'd suggest at least eliminating those portions as there is no sense in having the exact same information in both articles (this is otherwise OK, just not in a featured article I feel).
- Predynastic: The section goes through the major predynastic sites of Upper Egypt, but makes no mention at all of the major Lower Egyptian sites like Maadi, Faiyum and Merimda, among others. This is an important detail that should not be overlooked. The northern sites predate their southern counterparts by several centuries, and our knowledge of predyanstic Lower Egypt has expanded in the last couple of years with discoveries such as this one.
- "Roman Domination": This section like the Ptolemaic one needs to be re-written, with more references, focusing more on aspects of continuity and change in Egyptian culture itself. This after all is an article about Egypt, not the Ptolemaic, Roman or Byzantine empires. We're interested in Egypt under Graeco-Roman rule, with less focus on the rulers and more focus on the culture being ruled. I am unclear what this means: "a Christian, Greek-speaking state that had little in common with the Western Roman Empire, and which disappeared in the face of the Islamic invasions in the fifteenth century." What "Islamic invasions" and what does Byzantine Egypt have to do with the 15th century? Is this a reference to something that happened elsewhere after Byzantine rule ended in Egypt many centuries prior? Of what relevance is this to the article?
- Language and Literature: This is by far the most problematic section for me, not only because it happens to be an area of specialization of mine, but because it suffers from all the problems that I mentioned: gives very superficial overview of the language, is not entirely factually accurate, contains typological errors ("Like the semitic [sic] languages,"), and inadequate coverage of the major works of Egyptian literature, its genres and famous papyri. Admittedly, when that section was first written, it gave an overview of the major phases of Egyptian, but since then each one has been transferred to its own separate article. The section therefore clearly needed to be rewritten, but this does not give it justice. That the language section is superfically covered is also evidenced by the fact that only one reference is cited (a popular introductory grammar of the Egyptian language) and only to the first few pages. Furthermore, it makes the claim that Coptic "remained" in use in the Egyptian Church and that is still in "limited use" today. This claim cannot be attributed to Allen, a violation of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. It is also factually inaccurate because, if anything, Coptic is used more often in the liturgy today than it did a century ago. Another factual inaccuracy is that Cushitic is a language group of North Africa. Also no mention is made of the scribal tradition or the Per Ankh.
- Art and Architecture: I already mentioned housing. Needs more specific and wide ranging examples from different dyansties. Needs to mention Amarna art and why it's important, as well as Saite revival. Art depicting everyday life, examples like the Meket-Ra model, etc.
- Religion Needs to mention Akhenaten and atensim. Detail on the role of the priesthood. Important religious festivals. Important rituals and ceremonies like the Isis and Nephthys mourning scene or the anointing of the god's statue (doesn't have to be one of these, just something interesting and unique). Last paragraph in Burial customs needs a citation.
- Legacy and rediscovery: This is awkward: "As the traditional establishments in Egypt were disbanded by early Christians, the authentic knowledge of Egyptian history was displaced by second-hand accounts and the invented stories of tourists and treasure-seekers." This is cliché and a bit Eurocentric: "Interest in Egypt was re-awakened by European travellers of the 17th and 18th centuries". Egypt is a country. The point you want delivered here is interest in Egyptian antiquity, which was not started by modern Europeans, but can be traced through Graeco-Roman and medieval Islamic writings (meaning it was always there). The scientific investigation of Egyptian civilization however (like everything else) begins in the early modern period.
This is all I have time for now, but it covers the major areas that need attention. A lot of effort has clearly been put into the article. It appears to have just been promoted to GA status. But this is not an automatic step to Featured status. There is no hurry--unless there is an urgent need to get the article featured within a week, I think it needs more time for further development and refinement. — Zerida ☥ 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Announced. I will begin working on your helpful comments. Do you think I have referenced too many books? For this topic, I don't see how journal articles are better than books, since this is intended to have broad-brush coverage. The role of women is covered in the Legal section, is this enough? The article discusses farmers, artisans, overseers, is this enough on professions, or what else are you looking for? The article discusses contacts with other nations in the history sections especially, is there something specific that is missing? I'm not sure what about animal breeding needs to be in the article. It would be helpful to have specific examples.
- I considered using {{main|New Kingdom}} etc., but since we have the navbox, having the headings under each section would be redundant. Some of the info in the history section was copied to other articles, not from them, but I will work on them as you suggest. I will also work on the language section, but I am totally unfamiliar with anything called "Per-Ankh", nothing I have come across in my sources mentions this. I will add a paragraph on Amarna art, but Akhenaten and the Aten are given their due weight in the history section. I feel adding it to the religion section would make it too lengthy, but I'm open to change. I'm not sure what you are looking for in the role of the priesthood, but if you have something in mind another sentence could be added. In Legacy and rediscovery, the idea was to point out Egyptomania. How would you put it? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the years back into all the sources. This could be essential in the future, if another book by the same author is introduced. For the same reason we don't use ibid, it can't hurt to have the years. And besides, taking them out and putting them back in is very tedious, so I'm not going to do it again. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your questions:
- Do you think I have referenced too many books? To clarify what I said, I think that the article should be referenced by academic journals in addition to the books cited; examples like KMT, the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Journal of Near Eastern Studies and (in an ideal situation) Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. It may not be one of the criteria, but despite its general scope, I feel that a featured article on Ancient Egypt should contain the most up-to-date archaeological information from academic journals. Since you probably have access to such sources, I would suggest giving them a look.
- I wish I did have access. If you had something in mind, by all means add it as additional reading.
- The role of women is covered in the Legal section, is this enough? Not quite. I'd want to emphasize the point regarding the status of ancient Egyptian women vis-à-vis other women of antiquity; how despite this status, Egyptian society was still largely male-dominated; what roles they could play (as unmarried, married and divorced women) and what varied positions they occupied; courtship styles; I'd want to briefly mention the role of the Divine Wives of Amun and cite specific examples of prominent ancient Egyptian women, not only queens, but interesting women like Naunakht whose will was found at the worker's village at Deir el-Madinah (I just realized that Deir el-Madinah is not mentioned in the article). Another nice addition would be brief mention of the Instructions of Ptahhotep or the Leiden Papyrus 371 as examples of what you had just talked about wrt women.
- The article discusses farmers, artisans, overseers, is this enough on professions, or what else are you looking for? A brief breakdown of the "social pyramid" as Egyptologists like to call it, and where these professions fit into it. I would briefly emphasize several professions that formed a distinct class, such as scribes, soldiers, medical professionals and engineers (don't forget Imhotep), in addition to those you mention like farmers or court officials. You give a good overview of the role of the priestly class; I'd also want to briefly mention what kinds of lives they led; their families (that they didn't abstain from marriage); ritual cleansing and rites of passage; abstinence from certain foods; their specialize garb; their roles in the major festivals (Opet, etc.)
- The article discusses contacts with other nations in the history sections especially, is there something specific that is missing? More on contact with other nations in the predyanstic period (including Sumer), as well as Kerma later on. I'd again cite specific examples that might be interesting, like the Egyptian statue of Sennuwy which was found in Kerma, and the Minoan frescoes which decorated the palace of Ahmose I in Tell el-Dab'a as evidence of trade and foreign contacts (including within Egypt).
- Minoan frescoes and trade with Crete mentioned, the article already mentions contact with Nubia, Libya, the Levant and Byblos, Anatolia (tin, bronze), Punt, the rest of the Mediterranean, etc. and it mentions Ramesses's II peace treaty with the Hittites. I think this should be enough. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what about animal breeding needs to be in the article. It would be helpful to have specific examples. This should probably be incorporated into the agriculture section, and I would extend it to fauna in general. I'd give a brief history of the kinds of animals and brids that were bred in Egypt since the predynastic period, or those that figured prominently in the environment. The horned cattle (like those shown in painted reliefs from the tomb of Nefertari e.g.), sheep, pigs, poultry and geese, and how some contributed to the Egyptian diet; or those for transportation like the donkey. You might want to mention that horses were not introduced into Egypt until the Hyksos occupation. You could also mention which animals were deified, like the cat for instance, and those kept as pets like monkeys and lions (royalty). There were also domesticated bee hives. Herodotus described the harmony that characterized the relationship between people and animals in Egypt. You might want to throw in something that sheds light one that.
- I am totally unfamiliar with anything called "Per-Ankh", nothing I have come across in my sources mentions this. The House of Life was the main office where the scribes worked. There was at least one in the all major cities, comprising libraries (called the House of Books), labs and observatories. One of the oldest was in Damanhur. Not absolutely essential, but would be a nice addition to convey the point that the ancient Egyptians had other interests besides religious pursuits.
- In Legacy and rediscovery, the idea was to point out Egyptomania. How would you put it? I would simply make reference to Egyptomania in colonial times and later one, its positive and negative outcomes, and the scientific discovery of ancient Egyptian civilization (not "the European discovery of Egypt" or something along those lines). Those sentences just need to be reworded to avoid POV. I hope this helps. Good work on the Ptolemaic and Roman sections. — Zerida ☥ 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Language section also rewritten. Will do a more thorough check on other sections, though things are already looking great. — Zerida ☥ 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like most sections at this points get a √. The New Kingdom and Predynastic could use more work. I added to references for the latter under Bibliography. I recommend truncating some of the NK and Naqada material and elaborating a little on predynastic Lower Egypt instead. You mentioned adding something on the Per Ankh institution, so I think that about covers it. — Zerida ☥ 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realized my source for the Per Ankh is a website--a tertiary source that isn't acceptable. Do you have any good secondary sources? In all my books, I've never come across this topic; this may indicate that maybe it's not notable enough to be included. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was some WP:SYNTH in the mathematics section which was pointed out by another editor. I've made additions and rewrote parts as appropriate. I think this is the biggest issue for me at this point, namely synthesis so I recommend going over the citations to make sure that no OR is being introduced. Also, if nothing is done to the PD and NK sections, I will be making changes as appropriate as well. — Zerida ☥ 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't think of a single sentence in the New Kingdom section that isn't absolutely essential. We have to mention Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, and Ramesses II, and the transition to the third intermediate period. I think they are already very concise and mention only the most important points. Since the New Kingdom was the peak of ancient Egyptian power, it makes sense to have this amount of material on it. As for the predynastic, I feel it's already the right length. The focus on the section should be the transition to unification, and I feel the section already does this. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly think of several different ways of truncating the 5 NK paragraphs into more concise prose. You say I can't think of a single sentence in the New Kingdom section that isn't absolutely essential. In fact, the very first sentence in that section ("The pharaohs of the New Kingdom used military force to expand the country's borders..") could be done away with, as it colors the whole discussion of the NK in terms of violence and military conquest. While there is some validity to that argument--that the NK was more characterized by its military interactions with foreign nations than other periods--it does not need to be hyperbolically stated in those terms nor in the very beginning of the section. The length of that section gives the impression that the NK was somehow more important than other periods. While there is also validity to that view for various reasons, Egypt above all is known for its pyramids, which the OK section could use to elaborate on a bit further.
- As regards the PD section, it is not an issue of length overall, but how much coverage the Naqada period is taking at the expense of the PD northern communities. It is not sufficient to state that all that Lower Egypt is worth mentioning for is that two of its cultures were engulfed by the Upper Egyptian conquest. That does not provide sufficient context to understand these events if one does not know enough about the topic. The other problem is that the main article on Predynastic Egypt itself needs more work because it covers very little of LE with the exception of Faiyum, so we're left with this impression that predynastic Lower Egypt was just not that important. Hendrickx & Vermeersch describe some of the LE sites in the Prehistory section of Shaw, FYI. See also this list. — Zerida ☥ 03:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Zerida, your suggestions have been most welcome and I greatly appreciate the work you've done on the article. I'm glad you've helped make it better, especially with respect to the literature section. However, some of your suggestions are asking too much and I think are taking us in the wrong direction. The PD section does not have to "do justice" to the (let's face it, obscure) lower Egyptian cultures, instead it should provide a synopsis of the transition to unification, the major events of which are social stratification and leadership, adoption of animal husbandry and agriculture, etc. These are discussed in general as "a series of unique cultures." Going into more depth than this, mentioning the names of each, let alone discussing all of them, is not in keeping with the summary style. The Naqada culture is given special priority, because it is the Naqada culture which expands and grows in power, forming political core of the unified state. But you are right, the sub-article Predynastic Egypt should have better coverage on this point. In this article, we are looking for a synopsis only.
- As regards the PD section, it is not an issue of length overall, but how much coverage the Naqada period is taking at the expense of the PD northern communities. It is not sufficient to state that all that Lower Egypt is worth mentioning for is that two of its cultures were engulfed by the Upper Egyptian conquest. That does not provide sufficient context to understand these events if one does not know enough about the topic. The other problem is that the main article on Predynastic Egypt itself needs more work because it covers very little of LE with the exception of Faiyum, so we're left with this impression that predynastic Lower Egypt was just not that important. Hendrickx & Vermeersch describe some of the LE sites in the Prehistory section of Shaw, FYI. See also this list. — Zerida ☥ 03:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the NK, just as the era was inaugurated by the sword, so too is the paragraph. My RS show clearly the military nature of the NK, including military-style titles among the administration, military men serving in the administration, expansion of territory, adoption of new weapons, and military iconography proliferating in art. Military is certainly a main feature of the New Kingdom, since this is how they achieved and justified their power. We rightly color the paragraph with overtones of the military.
- I think the article is well balanced; I've carefully and critically studied many publications and the Digital Egypt site. To the best of my ability, the weight I've given each topic is in direct proportion to the weight the topic is given in the sources. I've given special emphasis to getting a very broad scope on topics such as daily life and social status, which aren't so awe-inspiring as to have been written about extensively. It's a delicate balancing act, and one can always point to things that aren't in the article, simply due to the richness of the culture. But we have to know when to stop. As I said above, I believe the article is essentially complete. We can always put in this or that or the other thing, but we would end up with extensive bloat that is no fun to read. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that there is such thing as a "complete article" on Wikipedia. This is Wiki after all so other editors will always want to make contributions to existing articles if they happen to fall within an area of interest. But I must again stress the issue of inappropriate synthesis of material that I've been noticing lately. I will assume good faith with your intentions, but you must absolutely be vigilant about what it is that you are claiming in the article and attributing to the authors cited. I have pointed out several instances of these, including a recent one of a reference that *I* cited. I understand that my editing may seem a bit heavy-handed to you, but that fact is that much of what I do on Wikipedia involves contributing to articles about Egypt. So if an article has "Egypt" as part of its title, I will potentially have a lot to say about it, especially if it is bound to get a lot of exposure. I get the sense that you really want the article to be featured, so I hope it does, but my priority here is for the article to be as balanced and factual as possible. Furthermore, your last comments on the article's talk page are indicative of strong ownership tendencies. Since I am not going to stop editing the article, I hope you can find a way to accommodate my edits. — Zerida ☥ 08:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I wrote anything that indicated ownership, it's not my intent to do this and I hope you don't stop editing, because you've made several excellent improvements and suggestions. If there are still problem areas, I would like to continue working together to reach a mutually agreeable solution. I feel we have done a reasonably fair job of this already, although not perfectly. Reading the math section after your last revision, I am satisfied with it, even though I don't agree completely, because you were able to fix some of the objections I had. I'd say 2-3 factual errors (which have now been corrected) in a 100kb article is doing pretty well, isn't it? Like you, my primary goal is to have the article thorough, balanced, and accurate. It might be helpful if you could summarize, giving clear specifics, what you think still needs work on this article, because otherwise I can't see what if anything could be improved. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that there is such thing as a "complete article" on Wikipedia. This is Wiki after all so other editors will always want to make contributions to existing articles if they happen to fall within an area of interest. But I must again stress the issue of inappropriate synthesis of material that I've been noticing lately. I will assume good faith with your intentions, but you must absolutely be vigilant about what it is that you are claiming in the article and attributing to the authors cited. I have pointed out several instances of these, including a recent one of a reference that *I* cited. I understand that my editing may seem a bit heavy-handed to you, but that fact is that much of what I do on Wikipedia involves contributing to articles about Egypt. So if an article has "Egypt" as part of its title, I will potentially have a lot to say about it, especially if it is bound to get a lot of exposure. I get the sense that you really want the article to be featured, so I hope it does, but my priority here is for the article to be as balanced and factual as possible. Furthermore, your last comments on the article's talk page are indicative of strong ownership tendencies. Since I am not going to stop editing the article, I hope you can find a way to accommodate my edits. — Zerida ☥ 08:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's OK; the tendency to be a little possessive of articles which bear our sweat is an issue that all good writers run into from time to time. As I mentioned though, the PD and NK sections needed work, so I've gone ahead and expanded the PD with more information on northern cultures, and tightened the NK a little bit. Most of the major points are still mentioned. I will be going over the items I brought up in my review here, making changes or additions if the need arises. If a point of contention comes up, we can continue discussing on the article's talk page. BTW, there is a hidden image in the PD section; not sure if this is waiting to be revealed or if something else will replace it. — Zerida ☥ 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hid the image a while ago because of lack of space for it, with the idea that it might be useful in the future. There might be space for it now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's OK; the tendency to be a little possessive of articles which bear our sweat is an issue that all good writers run into from time to time. As I mentioned though, the PD and NK sections needed work, so I've gone ahead and expanded the PD with more information on northern cultures, and tightened the NK a little bit. Most of the major points are still mentioned. I will be going over the items I brought up in my review here, making changes or additions if the need arises. If a point of contention comes up, we can continue discussing on the article's talk page. BTW, there is a hidden image in the PD section; not sure if this is waiting to be revealed or if something else will replace it. — Zerida ☥ 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Well, as founder & an inactive member of the Ancient Egypt WikiProject you've done a lot with this important article. (I had to dig deep into the article history to see if I had edited this article. There are quite a few important Wikipedians who appear in those pages.) I do have some suggestions:
- Dates. Maybe because that's the part I focussed on the most back when, I feel something needs to be said about the problems of dates in ancient Egyptian history. Not that the modern equivalent of these dates can be shifted to whatever value a scholar wishes, but that there is a lack of precision the further one goes back. (ISTR reading the figure of a couple of years either way for the New Kingdom, a decade either way for the Middle, & a century either way for the Old.) I wrote an incomplete attempt to explain the problem at Egyptian chronology, an article that deserves more attention.
- Links to the articles on the individual Dynasties. Please add them, as I think they are appropriate.
- Keeping the footnotes & bibliography in sync. I noticed that the footnotes refer to a source "Allen (2000)", but there is no matching entry in the Bibliography. I didn't check to see if there were similar
- If you need help with providing cites to translations of various texts, I do have a copy of Ancient Near Eastern Texts & Moran's translation of the Amarna Letters -- as well as a few other scholarly Egyptological works. Drop me a line & I'll see what I can do. (At the very least, both of those books ought to appear in a "Further Reading" section.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Allen to the source list, and I'll add links to the dynasties. The MoS says to link only the first occurrence of the term, so that's what I'll do. As for the dating, do you think putting that in a footnote would be a good strategy? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote on chronology, link to Egyptian chronology and citation added. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As the comments above show, no article on such a vast topic can please everyone, but I think this already clearly meets FA standards on content, referencing and general style (I didn't really look at MoS detail points). If something needs to be cut, the bit on glass-making in the technology seems way too detailed, especially given that we don't know if it was all imported or not. The art section would benefit from a sentence or two on media, mention that not all art was massive sculptures, and more links, and a few more bits dotted in the history sections on the political context of neighbouring powers would help. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets the FA criteria to the best of my knowledge. VanTucky 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I see a cite for Robinson (1998) but no Robinson in the bibliography. Probably Robins (1998)
- Cite for Billard (1978) p. 109 but nothing in bibliography
- Ditto for Aldred (1988) p. 259
- Guessing by the page numbers, I think I'm seeing two instances of Loprieno (1995) that probably should be Loprieno (1995b)
- Several books in the bibliography that are not cited in the text. Do we wanna move to to a "Further reading" section? What does Wikipedia's guidelines etc. suggest?
- Took care of the ref issues above. Earlier I trimmed excess unused references from the bibliography section, but the ones I left in are good general sources. I'm not sure what benefit it would be to put them in a separate section. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, looks like named refs could be used for the following:
- Allen (2000) p. 13
- James (2005) p. 54
- Loprieno (2004), p. 161
- Manuelian (1998) p. 358 (five instances)
- Manuelian (1998) p. 372 (three instances)
- Manuelian (1998) p. 381 (three instances)
- Robins (1998) p. 212
- Ryholt (1997) p. 310
- Shaw (2002) p. 146
- Shaw (2002) p. 313
- Shaw (2002) p. 422 Ling.Nut (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As per http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/, potential high-value wikilinks at:
- Middle Kingdom of Egypt
- Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt
- Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt
- Twelfth dynasty of Egypt
- Psamtik III
- Alexander III of Macedon
- mud-brick
- history of ancient Egypt
- ancient Near East
- James Henry Breasted Ling.Nut (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Wow! Very impressive work. The prose is engaging, brilliant and certainly on a professional standard!! It appears to be comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable, satisfying criterion 1. Criterion 3, a requirement of GA status, appears to also be satisfied. To my knowledge, criterion 4 seems satisfied too, as it doesn't seem to go into an unnecessary, confusing level of detail. I do note that that issues may be raised regarding content by those more knowledgable on the subject (and MoS guidelines may need to be met in some areas), however, as such, the standard of this article is extremely high, and at least, close to being Wikipedia's very best work. While I am making an assumption that any other issues raised in relation to content and MoS are resolved within a reasonable time (if not resolved in this time, then my vote of support would be invalid), I wish to congratulate all major contributors to this article for an oustanding effort in making an article of this quality, and length. It is always a pleasure to review an article of such a standard. So, upon resolving major issues that may exist (if any more, and if raised), this article is indeed worthy FA status, and I therefore submit my vote of support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I believe this meets all the criteria. I have no objections. 79.76.234.35 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be logged in. Anonymous editors may propose suggestions, however. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 79.76.234.35 (talk · contribs)'s only edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hard to write a short survey article on such a vast topic, and this one does it well. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I think this is an excellently written article that provides just the right amount of detail in a very accessible way. I saw a few nitpicky things that ought to be fixed. If you'll get these I'll definitely support.
This sentence didn't provide enough information for me to really understand what it meant: Yet Hatshepsut's nephew-stepson Tuthmosis III sought to erase her legacy near the end of his reign for usurping his throneJust to satisfy curiosity, could you put the number of children that Ramesses the Great sired in paranethese in that sentence?In the agriculture section there are words that are unnecessarily wikilinked - soil, taxes, bread, beer, silt seem especially unneeded (there are similar issues in the Livestock section; words that are common don't need to be wikilinked)This sentence needs a bit of tweaking Wine and meat were enjoyed on feast days and for the upper classes -> peasants didn't eat wine and meat "for the upper classes"In the references, page number ranges need to be separated by an ndash and not a dash. See WP:DASH for questions; I fixed the first of these (ref 5) in the lead as an example for youThe references are not all formatted exactly the same. These are the styles I see most commonly. Please pick one and standardize- Author (date)p. pagenumber
- Author (date),p. pagenumber
- Author (date), p. pagenumber
- Author (date),pagenumber
- Ref 107 - Ehret (1995) does not have a page number listed
A few of the bibliography entries don't have ISBNS. Can you get those easily?
Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, formatting of refs should be done, a task that needs constant maintenance. I fixed the 4 or so remaining endash problems; I've found that special coding is not necessary if you copy and paste the right unicode character. RII's children now listed in a footnote, and fixed other sentence issues. No matter how many times I try to prune them, the unnecessary wikilinks keep showing up, like weeds. I went through removing them again, but undoubtedly this task will require constant maintenance. There are only two books that lack ISBNs, these I could not find anywhere, so I suspect they may not have them. The others are journal articles and so will not have these. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now no references to Ehret. Was that intentional? If so, he should be removed from the bilbiography. Another ref (#147, I think), has no page number now. (Ref work is icky, I know). Also, don't forget the comment above about Hatshepsut. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Appears to meet MOS guidelines, is well-written and stable, and appears comprehensive (although I am not an expert in the field). Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes and questions:
Per WP:MSH, is the capitalization of section headings correct on, for example, Predynastic Period, Early Dynastic Period, First Intermediate Period, etc. ?? Readable prose size is 71KB, which would make this one of Wiki's five longest FAs; has anyone looked at whether summary style has been effectively employed?Please have a MoS guru (like Tony1 or Epbr123) go through the Math section; I'm not certain, for example, those fractions are displayed correctly, among other things.Please check citations for consistent usage of p pp p. and pp. pp. is not used consistently on plural pages. There are also missing named refs, see WP:FN, one example (all should be checked):
- 75. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372
- 76. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372
- 77. ^ Manuelian (1998) p. 372
To locate others missed, you can go to the printable version, and copy paste the refs into an Excel spreadsheet, then sort to locate duplicates. Is everything listed in Bibiliography really used to source the article, or is some of that Further reading ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Capitalization corresponds to Egyptological convention; same for the main articles on those topics. "Domination" in the Roman section was capitalized before; that's the only one I changed. With regard to length, the History, Art, Architecture and Burial customs are the longest sections. The intro is a little long, and some of that information is mentioned under Legacy. When the article was submitted for FA review it was at 91 kb; now it's at 104 kb. It seems inevitable that the article will be longer than average given the nature of the topic, but there is potential for further work on the longest sections. — Zerida ☥ 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should be a summary of everything in the article, so of course it will cover the same points; I think the length is appropriate for an article of this size, compared with other FAs. One paragraph that is too much detail is under the Predynastic, mentioning the lower Egyptian cultures. I justified earlier why we don't need to have coverage of that topic (See my comments "The PD section does not have to "do justice"..." on this page for an explanation) and removing that would help immensely. Otherwise I think the history section is appropriate. The language section could be trimmed, as it is a little too technical. Architecture, art and burial customs could be brought down some, perhaps by a few sentences. The Predynastic and Language sections could be trimmed by up to a paragraph each, though. I'll implement the multiple name refs thing, even though I hate it because it breaks so easily.Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to have to revert your unilateral deletion of the the work put into the PD to bring it to balance. A general encyclopedia on ancient Egypt covers every major area or aspect of the civilization. The PD covers 2,000 years of history in three paragraphs. We want a featured article on ancient Egypt to be a miniature version of this type of work. The contention that one part is "too technical" is not a good argument; the same can be said about archaeology or architecture. This type of information is standard in any well-written article on a language. You seem somewhat familiar with Allen, so I suggest going over it in-depth. — Zerida ☥ 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Depth is exactly what is not needed in summary style! But what do I know, I'm not an expert, I just know that I think the language section is too long and technical. Being too technical and having too many details is a perfectly appropriate argument; I don't think the other sections are so detailed or technical as the language section. I've been trimming some of the other sections as you suggest in order to shorten them, they were indeed a little long. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK all multiname refs are taken care of and the p. pp. consistency issue as well. Combined with using the "Find on this page" option, the excel-sort approach is actually very effective, thanks SG. The language section is looking much better and the Predynastic shorter, thanks Zerida. I'll ask Tony1 to look at the math section. ([19]) Do we have to put uncited bibliography entries into a further reading section? To me that would look odd, especially considering that many of the bibliography entries could themselves be further reading. Zerida, if those sections you mention are too long, what do you suggest we remove? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I trimmed down those sections, see what you think. — Zerida ☥ 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a few elements back, but it looks a lot better, thanks. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Down to 94 kb. I think that's pretty good for a topic of this scope. — Zerida ☥ 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a few minor changes since your last run-through, and I think we're right on track. We haven't lost any content but it is certainly more compact. Given the richness of the content, I'd say we did OK, compared with such monsters as the Byzantine Empire (a whopping 136kb [20]). I'm certainly very happy with the current article. The only thing I'm not sure of is this "further reading" issue. Is there some MoS thing on this? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, except for the raging Bibliography; see WP:GTL for discussion of References vs. Further reading. Also, the size is now a much more reasonable 61KB readable prose (9950) words: see WP:SIZE re 10,000 word max guideline. Another issue: see WP:LEAD. An article this size should most assuredly have a four-paragraph lead, and the lead needs to summarize all important aspects and highlights of the article. For an article this size, the lead is underrepresented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a few minor changes since your last run-through, and I think we're right on track. We haven't lost any content but it is certainly more compact. Given the richness of the content, I'd say we did OK, compared with such monsters as the Byzantine Empire (a whopping 136kb [20]). I'm certainly very happy with the current article. The only thing I'm not sure of is this "further reading" issue. Is there some MoS thing on this? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Down to 94 kb. I think that's pretty good for a topic of this scope. — Zerida ☥ 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a few elements back, but it looks a lot better, thanks. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to have to revert your unilateral deletion of the the work put into the PD to bring it to balance. A general encyclopedia on ancient Egypt covers every major area or aspect of the civilization. The PD covers 2,000 years of history in three paragraphs. We want a featured article on ancient Egypt to be a miniature version of this type of work. The contention that one part is "too technical" is not a good argument; the same can be said about archaeology or architecture. This type of information is standard in any well-written article on a language. You seem somewhat familiar with Allen, so I suggest going over it in-depth. — Zerida ☥ 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I renamed the ref/notes/further reading sections, and removed the entries that we didn't directly cite. Then, I created a further reading section where I put only the most important selections that weren't cited. This is my best understanding of the GTL. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.
Anarky
Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have methodically edited this article for over a year, to the point where I have exhausted all known first and third party sources, creating as comprehensive article as possible on the subject. If it isn't ready to be featured now, it must be nearly so. Cast (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Displaying my ignorance of comics, what makes http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/index.shtml a reliable source? Likewise http://gocomics.com, http://www.newsarama.com/, http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm, http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=003866
- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/rousseau.html It would probably be better to quote direct from Bakunin and add a link to the online version.
- The numerous websites dealing with comic books are known for reliably publishing interviews with comic book industry insiders; reporting breaking news regarding the industry; offering numerous reviews of comic book content; and detailing reports on industry conventions. They are to comic books as ESPN reporters are to sports games. As for your suggestion regarding the quote of Bakunin; I have followed this and traced the information to the source: an 1868 speech by Bakunin. The information is now properly cited and a link to an online version is provided. Cast (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation for what makes the sources above reliable sources is still needed. Specific pages that shows authorship/ownership of the sites, what makes them published experts in the field, fact checking, editorial oversight, reputation, etc. For example, a bulletin board posting is unlikely to be a reliable source unless you can prove who the author is and what makes the author an independently published expert in his/her field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, if I must run down the criteria for each site and author, lets try to run down a list:
- 2000 AD Review: About Us. 2000 AD Review is a website focusing on reviewing content and interviewing authors associated with the 2000 AD magazine. From the website: "This is an unofficial site. All characters and related indicia are © and TM of their respective owners. Original content (c) 2002 Gavin Hanly"
- About Newsarama.com. From the front page: "Copyright 2008, Newsarama.com Newsarama.com is the comics industry's #1 source for daily comic book news, previews, reviews and commentary, and is home to the largest comic book reader message board community on the Internet, with discussions ranging from Marvel Comics' X-Men and DC Comics' Superman to manga and the smallest indy publishers."
- GoComics.com FAQs. "© 2008 uclick The uclick Network refers to the group of entertainment Web sites developed and managed by the people at uclick, LLC. uclick Network include: Doonesbury.com, uPuzzles.com, Garfield.com, NewsoftheWeird.com, GoComics.com and uExpress.com." (Emphasis added.)
- COMICON.com: "COMICON.com is a one-of-a-kind virtual comics convention, only available on the Internet. We are not affiliated with any real-world conventions..." COMICON.com title and design © and (TM) 1998-2002 Steve Conley and Rick Veitch
- Comicon: PULSE: a news service attatched to Comicon.com. Jennifer Contino, author of the noted article, is the head writer of the online publication. Please understand, all articles are published via bulletin board posts. (The author's forum account is only accessible to members.)
- Almost all of the interviews/columns were written by contributing staff writers about whom I have little information. What is immediately apparent is that the information obtained from these sources are all direct quotes from interviews with notable figures in the comic book industry. The reputation of these writers might be immediately suspect if not for the fact that comic book professionals consistently return to give ever more interviews. I should at least hope this consistent reputation would lend to them some credibility. It should also be noted that such sources as Newsrama.com are currently used in other featured articles, such as Superman and Batman. The only non interview noted above is an article by Jennifer Contino. Her job title as head writer of Comicon: Pulse is accessible, though you'd have to do more detective work to find out about her. Her subject is notable. She, it would seem, is not. On a side note, it should be understood that the relationship these types of websites have with the industry is somewhat tight, and at times there is overlap. Gail Simone was a contributor to a similar website before she made the leap to professional comic book writer.--Cast (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, if I must run down the criteria for each site and author, lets try to run down a list:
- Sorry, I couldn't sort out this one above : http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, missed that one. © 2000-2008 Comics Bulletin, All Rights Reserved. Current company owner is Jason Brice. Wikipedia has an article on it, Comics Bulletin, though it is flagged as having been edited by individuals with a conflict of interest. The column was co-compiled by former managing editor, Craig R. Johnson.
- Our article on them is of no use, because our article isn't reliable; how can you demonstrate that the author of that article is a reliable source, published expert, etc, per WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been doing some digging, but the compiler seems to be non-notable. I can't find much of anything on him. I can only point out his job title at the time of writing as managing editor, and who the owner of the website is. On a side note, this is not an article in which he interprets and reports information. It is a column in which he posts written quotes from authors, in this case the pertinent author being Alan Grant himself. Alan Grant also contributed to this same column repeatedly before and after this instance. So the question in this case isn't so much what are the credentials of the compiler (note I haven't referred to him as author), but rather what are the credentials of Alan Grant. Those should be instantly manifest.--Cast (talk) 18 March 2008
- Our article on them is of no use, because our article isn't reliable; how can you demonstrate that the author of that article is a reliable source, published expert, etc, per WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, missed that one. © 2000-2008 Comics Bulletin, All Rights Reserved. Current company owner is Jason Brice. Wikipedia has an article on it, Comics Bulletin, though it is flagged as having been edited by individuals with a conflict of interest. The column was co-compiled by former managing editor, Craig R. Johnson.
- Sorry, I couldn't sort out this one above : http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, meets the FA criteria. I share Ealdgyth's concerns about the reliability of the comics websites, but as Cast is an editor in good standing and I am unfamiliar with the comics media, I am more than willing to accept Cast's word on the matter. скоморохъ 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, heavily referenced article with a neutral tone. Informative without delving into trivia. A few images seem to be included more for decoration than illustration, but not excessively so. The article definitely compares well with those describing characters with a more extensive history, such as Superman or Batman. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd chosen each image because I felt at the time that they were illustrative, but this was at times relating to the text they contained. Now that they've been reduced the text has been blurred and they've lost a degree of their informative purpose (although I feel they have retained some degree of purpose). If the matter is pressed and must be resolved, I can replace them with more illustrative images.--Cast (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question "Anarky would appear "in the late 40s"" - 1940s or issue #40 something? It reads like you mean the previous. indopug (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, well the citation gives the full context, but I'll reword it a bit for further clarity.--Cast (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose- I really like the article; it is a fantastic reference. However, I'm really struggling with the sourcing here, pursuant to criterion 1c. I've realized since reviewing video game articles that a lot of fan sites and blogs are considered reliable sources of information in those circles - comics appear to be no different. There is almost nothing in your list of sources that I would bet any money on being reliable. For example, some sites transcribe interviews but we don't know where they came from or if the text is accurate. You cite a single blog ten times, where I can't find information about the author. There is a donation link despite the fact that authors don't have to pay anything to maintain a blog at blogspot. I don't mind narrow statement being sourced to these sites, like: "The author of the popular fan blog 'Anarky World' really hated this storyline" but the sites are not used this way. Some examples follow:[reply]Some of what I consider important statements in the article are sourced to really shaky sites. For example, "This steady evolution in Anarky's abilities was later poorly received by fans, who saw it as having overpowered the character, preventing the suspension of disbelief that was previously possible for a character still described as in his mid-teens. It was further criticized by Matt Morrison, a contributor to Fanzing, an online fanzine produced by fans and professionals of the comic book industry, to be a contributing factor to the failure of the second Anarky series." The first sentence isn't really even cited, despite making a huge generalization about the fans of the magazine. The only citation for this whole passage comes at the end, leading to "Fanzing", a site whose articles might be written by, well, anyone. Could be me for all you know. Trust me, I'm not a reliable source, nor am I qualified to make statements about the entire fan base of a comic.A lot of your sources are primary.. the comics themselves. If you are just providing plot summaries, these are not even needed per Wikipedia:When to cite. Slims the list a bit.However, this brings me to my next point - some statements that go beyond summarizing and into interpreting are sourced to the comics themselves. That is, unfortunately, original research. Examples:"Throughout Alan Grant's series of books written for the character, cunning and intelligence were viewed as his primary tools for victory, often using quick thinking, fighting skills, and technology in conjunction with each other in order to defeat tougher opponents.""In accordance with the superhero convention of following a recognizable theme, the character's tools often incorporate the circle-A into them.""At this time, the tone of the character began to move away from improvised munitions, and toward self-sufficient funding for more elaborate technology."
--Laser brain (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all of your input. I've tried to initially address the last two of your three main points. You are right in regards to the three examples of my prose which unfortunately appear as original research. An unfortunate product of my prose. I've reworded them to remove statements which appear interpretive. Your point regarding the citing of comics was one I initially dealt with prior to the GA nomination. Some of the plots for the character span multiple issues, and so questions arose of which issue and plot was being referred to. The comic citations are used primarily where direct panel/page citations are necessary (where does Anarky make his cameo in Wonder Woman? Only one panel of a single page. Blink and you'd miss him.), or where it becomes necessary to point out exactly what issue of what arc a quote came from. I'll go back over these citations and try to slim them down, but if they compromise reader understanding, I'm sure you'll understand if I do not.
- Now on to your first, and the most pressing point. This issue has now been raised several times; a question of verifiability. You note a blog is often quoted. I'm sure you're referring to "BATMAN: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle Speak Out" on 20th Century Danny Boy. You're not the only one who has problems with citing a blog. For a good long time, I didn't like it either, which is why I was very happy to find the author moved the post to a website, with all legal disclaimers conveniently placed at the bottom of the page, Adelaide comics and Books presents: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle. "Content on this page is copyright 2006 Alan Grant, Norm Breyfogle and Daniel Best and cannot be reproduced, reprinted, stored, transmitted (electronically or otherwise) without the express written permission of all relevant parties involved. Interview conducted via phone in May 2006 and edited by Norm Breyfogle, Alan Grant and Daniel Best." (emphasis added.) Just before I began the nomination process, I found the website had gone dead. In my haste the repair the link, I foolishly reverted them to the blogpost rather than the more respectable, and verifiable, archive.com. Now thinking clearly, I'll shift the citation to the archived website.
- That said, you are right in noting that I had to rely on some slim choices when it came to my references. As you note, these fan zines and blogs can be useful for reflecting the general disposition of a fanbase, but are not verifiable. Given that Anarky isn't the most widely known character in the DC pantheon, I was hoping a few well chosen citations could be used to represent the general attitude for the character. I have encountered other fan reviews of Anarky, but none which I felt were useful. Fanzing at least had it's legal disclaimers and staff information available (by the way, I doubt you are Matt Morrison, unless you are from Arlington, Texas. Are you from Arlington, Texas?) At any rate, I'll address this matter in the coming days. This is nothing a little rewriting can't fix.--Cast (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: on the matter of the interviews, I can understand that you feel concerned that there is no way to know if these transcriptions are literal or edited, but I'm left with no way to address this. I've tried to provide the legal owner and publisher information for each of these cites as they've been requested, and if that isn't good enough for these websites, I have to ask, how is it possible for any websites? If nothing else, I have always found the interviews remarkably consistent. Grant and Breyfogle have been asked about the character rather often, and only Grant has been known to be self-contradictory (a point noted in two of the interviews, where he makes off hand remarks about believing his own memory to be poor. Perhaps we ought to consider Alan Grant an unreliable source?)--Cast (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cast, thank you for taking my criticism so gracefully - it speaks volumes of your character. I struck some of my issues above, and I now understand your purpose for citing the books themselves. I need to think some more on the issue of sourcing. I keep coming back to the same thing: Per our policy on verifiability, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Going through your list of sources, I'm having a really hard time figuring how well they adhere to this policy. Your responses have given me some food for thought; I'm closer to thinking that for the subject matter, it may never be possible to source it differently than you have. Are there any print magazines or journals that publish criticism or reviews of comics? --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Journals and magazines? I can't recall many off the top of my head, save Wizard magazine, and a weekly segment, Fresh Ink, on Attack of the Show! on the G4 channel. I don't watch that show, but I know of it. I'm rather positive there are more. At any rate, there is no sign that these ever touched on Anarky, so they are rather moot for the purpose of this article. Anarky might have gained attention by magazines when the series was running, but they simply didn't pick up on him, perhaps owing to him being a lesser known spin off of Batman. It was around too short a period to be on their radar.--Cast (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now addressed the Fanzing reference by rewording the section to remove sweeping generalizations. However, I did not remove the reference itself. Given that the owner and staff information is provided, and that the review is intended as a review, rather than a report of facts, I feel it is acceptable. Most all of the citations in the article refer to reviews, primary sources, or Grant/Breyfogle commentary. The major question becomes, can we count on the four articles [21] [22] [23] [24] and multiple interviews cited to be reliable. I have already provided the publisher/owner legal information for these. If I must demonstrate that these are reliable, I am at a loss as to how I might do so. Perhaps I might find an archived example of editors taking steps to rectify inaccurate information, but I doubt it would be possible for each website. Perhaps it is worthy of note that such websites as Silver Bullet Comic Books have been used within other Featured Articles, such as comments made by Alan Grant in the Batman article. It might be best to seek neutral input from other featured article nominators of comic books. Input on how they have dealt with these websites. This would be an acceptable use of canvassing, and I feel it is becoming increasingly necessary. Perhaps the issue should be raised on the talk page of WikiProject Comics.--Cast (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all of your attention to this. You have convinced me to withdraw my opposition. I'm not fully supporting because I am still really unsure about this whole issue. I think we have a start, though. --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now addressed the Fanzing reference by rewording the section to remove sweeping generalizations. However, I did not remove the reference itself. Given that the owner and staff information is provided, and that the review is intended as a review, rather than a report of facts, I feel it is acceptable. Most all of the citations in the article refer to reviews, primary sources, or Grant/Breyfogle commentary. The major question becomes, can we count on the four articles [21] [22] [23] [24] and multiple interviews cited to be reliable. I have already provided the publisher/owner legal information for these. If I must demonstrate that these are reliable, I am at a loss as to how I might do so. Perhaps I might find an archived example of editors taking steps to rectify inaccurate information, but I doubt it would be possible for each website. Perhaps it is worthy of note that such websites as Silver Bullet Comic Books have been used within other Featured Articles, such as comments made by Alan Grant in the Batman article. It might be best to seek neutral input from other featured article nominators of comic books. Input on how they have dealt with these websites. This would be an acceptable use of canvassing, and I feel it is becoming increasingly necessary. Perhaps the issue should be raised on the talk page of WikiProject Comics.--Cast (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per my own suggestion above, I raised the question of the reliability of comic book websites at the WikiProject Comics talk page. The discussion may be of value to any editor concerned with the reliability of sources used in the article: Reliability of Comic Book websites --Cast (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cast, I am leaning more toward supporting due to this conversation. In your estimation, is your use of these sources limited to reviews and interviews? Do you have sources that you would consider serious journalism? --Laser brain (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at a previous post in which I commented that the article contains four articles, I must retract that. A closer look reminds me that two are previews of upcoming comic releases, and a third is an interview with an editor in charge of a comic series. Of the comic book website sources used in the Anarky article, I'd say the vast majority are interviews, reviews, and a few previews. So I would say there is only one article which attempts serious journalism: Anarchists Storm DC Comics!. The article is a report of a protest and counter protest outside of DC offices following the release of the V for Vendetta film. Article was written by Valerie D'Orazio, and provides a short blurb about her at the bottom of the page. Of this article, I only draw one brief reference to Todd Seavey, a freelance writer who has written issues of Justice League, mentioning that Anarky would be a "dream comics project." In light of the commentary on the WikiProject Comics talk page, if this article is suspect for attempting journalism, we may easily strike it from the article, and nothing of great value would be lost. As it stands, it merely provides an example of an author (with a political affiliation in libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism) who would write a story for the character, if given a chance. It is used to illustrate both a professional desire to see the character return to publication, and emphasis the political themes of the character.--Cast (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I appreciate the queries regarding the reliability of the sources, but the sources used are considered reliable within the world of comics, and I personally don't see anything wrong with the way the silverbullets story has been used. It's being used to cite the personal opinion of a writer, and I don;t think we have any reason to doubt that that opinion has not been reproduced faithfully. Certainly the writer has had the opportunity to correct that piece, and whilst the online comic book news sites have been criticised by The Comics Journal, one aspect that was noted was their ability and willingness to correct material. At some point I will review my Journal issues and see if I can source additional material regarding this series, but as it stands I think this meets the standards. Hiding T 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 Pacific hurricane season Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia