Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions
- Afrikaans
- Alemannisch
- አማርኛ
- Ænglisc
- 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
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Nominations == |
== Nominations == |
||
<!-- Add new nominations at the top of the list below this comment. Before nominating, please make sure the article meets the FA criteria. --> |
<!-- Add new nominations at the top of the list below this comment. Before nominating, please make sure the article meets the FA criteria. --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F. in Europe/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valston Hancock/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valston Hancock/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3}} |
Revision as of 16:37, 5 July 2011
- 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
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F. in Europe/archive1
- 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 Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This nom follows on naturally from the recently successful John McCauley FAC, i.e. similar subject matter, style and sourcing. From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock and Murdoch. McCauley and Scherger have been through FAC, and now it’s time for the other two, starting with Hancock, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Murdoch, also GA/A, will follow (you've been warned)... ;-) Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 2: cited in References under Commonwealth of Australia
- FN 44: check italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- tks as ever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "extended for an additional twelve months beyond its original three years": Hard call for me here because it doesn't sound wrong to my ear, but logically, with three words giving the same sense (extended, additional, original), it ought to be possible to delete something ... how about "an additional"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're quite right, "additional" is not needed in there.
- Re. Though fastidious in appearance and a strict teetotaller, he was known for his enthusiasm in meeting staff and as "an indefatigable participant in mess functions and games", the contrast I was implying with "though" reflected the way it was presented in the source, no doubt because the more raucous mess activities generally involve(d) a lot of drinking and could become quite, well, messy -- so I'd rather keep it there unless you can suggest another way to put it (preferably without using "however", which is a bit common, or "nevertheless", which is in the source)... ;-) Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review - Everything checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for that, Sven. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per my review for A-class. The only thing I would say is that you really should find a better place for File:Hancock1930s.jpg. Granted, I have quite a small screen, but it seems to squeeze the text between the image and the infobox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments after reading through the article a few times. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Updated: 23:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Language is a bit stilted at times. I know "the award was promulgated" is technically correct, but when you see other instances of formal language, such as "none eventuated" and "His name is borne by", it starts to add up. The writing level could be dropped a few notches to improve readability.- I'll have another read through and see about taking the odd thing down a notch or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence in the lead feels too long and the 'however' feels misplaced: "His administrative training at Duntroon saw him primarily occupy staff posts, however, including Deputy Director of Operations and Intelligence at RAAF Headquarters from 1931 to 1935, and Director of Works and Buildings from 1937 to 1939." - I would just drop 'however'.
- The "however" was there because although trained as a pilot he occupied mostly desk jobs from an early point in his RAAF career, but I don't mind losing it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does feel slightly redundant. As you are talking about 'administrative training', you would expect that to lead to desk roles, wouldn't you? Maybe you mean "Due to his administrative training ... he primarily occupied staff posts"? But maybe your sources aren't that explicit. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "however" was there because although trained as a pilot he occupied mostly desk jobs from an early point in his RAAF career, but I don't mind losing it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When 'Aitape–Wewak campaign' is mentioned in the lead, not many will know where that is, so maybe throw in a "Pacific Theatre" or "New Guinea" in there somewhere?- Should be able to do something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of 'RAF Malaya' in the lead threw me a bit, as it switches from RAAF to RAF with no explanation. I know there is little room in the lead to do this, but it be made clearer why this would happen? Maybe borrow the 'Commonwealth air forces' wording from the main body of the article?- Ditto prev. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the text of the lead (i.e. not the postnomials bit, but later in the lead) You mention his KBE, but not his CB. Is there a reason one honour is mentioned and not the other?- Heh, no reason I guess... ;-) It'll mean spliting the list beginning with DCAS and ending with AOC OPCOM but I can probably get the CB in somehow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing about his mother and father in the early life section. Was he an only child? I presume this is covered in his autobiography, which you have in the 'Further Reading' section. It's not essential, but if someone got hold of a copy of that book and added further details, would you object, or do you think this is unnecessary detail?
- I tend to leave the autobiographies to further reading when a) the seems sufficient info on the subject from other sources and b) the autobiography is cited by those sources, which means we get some benefit from it but it's filtered through the eyes of a professional historian. Both those are true in this case (Alan Stephens employs Challenge a fair bit) so I didn't think it was worth breaking consistency with my usual approach for say the name of his parents -- that said, I'd be more than happy to check on that in his Who's Who entry if you'd like to see that in particular. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Different historians take different approaches. A military historian will naturally focus on the military elements. A personal biographer (or someone writing an autobiography) will include the personal aspects. I've never managed to work out whether Wikipedia is consistent or not with this, whether Wikipedia should try and follow the approach taken by the major and most reliable sources, or pack as much variety in as possible, drawing on a multitude of source types, and try and strike the right balance. A good guiding principle would be whether the family members get mentioned later in other sources. The cousin did. Presumably the other family members didn't get mentioned as much or at all. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to leave the autobiographies to further reading when a) the seems sufficient info on the subject from other sources and b) the autobiography is cited by those sources, which means we get some benefit from it but it's filtered through the eyes of a professional historian. Both those are true in this case (Alan Stephens employs Challenge a fair bit) so I didn't think it was worth breaking consistency with my usual approach for say the name of his parents -- that said, I'd be more than happy to check on that in his Who's Who entry if you'd like to see that in particular. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1937 he was posted to Britain to attend the RAF Staff College, Andover" - is it possible to briefly mention here what the relationship was at the time between the RAAF and the RAF? And between Australia and the UK? And how this changed over the years? Not everyone reading this article will be aware of these matters. The bit about attending the Imperial Defence College in 1949 and the Australian Joint Services Staff ties into this as well.- I generally try to 'contextualise' things anyway so happy to see if I can add something short, sweet and cited along those lines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"surveying and developing a military aerodrome at Evans Head" - you pipe the link to Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome behind the words 'military aerodrome', which strikes me as a bit of an easter egg. It would be better to pipe to whatever the name was at the time, and to delink Evans Head (as there is no need to link to that, as people can get to that article from the more specific one on the aerodrome).- I get you, what about just piping the whole of "military aerodrome at Evans Head" to Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that would work. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I get you, what about just piping the whole of "military aerodrome at Evans Head" to Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic point - 'World War II' is only mentioned in the section header, not in the text of the section. Ideally, you would make clear in the text of the section that World War II has broken out, rather than rely on readers deducing it from the section header.- Can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should the OBE and CBE be mentioned in the lead or infobox, or does the KBE supersede them? (Well, I know it supercedes them, but should they be mentioned?)- General rule is only the highest award of a particular order is mentioned in the infobox. No rule against mentioning them at the appropriate spot in the lead, just thought it was a bit excessive (though I agree that CB, as a whole 'nother order, should be in the lead)
"Fastidious in appearance and a strict teetotaller, he was known for his enthusiasm in meeting staff and as "an indefatigable participant in mess functions and games"." This bit is good, but it comes a bit late in the article. Would be nice to have it earlier. Is there a reason it is where it is?- While I don't doubt these were general characteristics, Stephens specifically mentions them when discussing his Malayan service. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was the KBE due to being appointed CAS? The timing seems to imply this, but is a reason given anywhere for his KBE (the article is silent on this)?- The gong pretty well went with the job in those days, but no-one specifically mentions it re. Hancock so I didn't either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The following month he urged pre-emptive strikes against Indonesian air bases using RAAF Canberras from Butterworth in retaliation against incursions into West Malaysia but Britain, which had initially requested Australia's involvement, held back on action." - is a comma needed after 'Malaysia'? Maybe bracket the commas after 'bases' and 'Malaysia'? It is a long sentence and does seem to need a few more commas.- Just as a thought, how does this look? "The following month he urged using RAAF Canberras from Butterworth to make pre-emptive strikes against Indonesian air bases, in retaliation for incursions into West Malaysia, but Britain, which had initially requested Australia's involvement, held back on action." I could split into two sentences but probably would need a "however" in the there somewhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually worked out what 'north Western Australia' refers to, but it is an awkward construction. Can you not say 'the northern part of Western Australia' to avoid people stumbling and thinking you mean north-western Australia?- Heh, I thought what I said was the same as "the northern part of Western Australia" but don't mind changing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than those points, looks to be a well-written article. One question on one of the sources:
You cite "Dennis et al, Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, p. 254" 15 times. Is this a single-page biography of Hancock in that publication? The way you've cited it doesn't make this clear. I presume that 'Oxford Companion to Australian Military History' does have sub-headers or chapters or alphabetical entries. Could you make clearer what exactly you are referencing here?- It's a specific entry titled Hancock, Air Marshal Sir Valston Eldridge -- would you like that mentioned in the reference, treated like a chapter title? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be mentioned, yes. Most citation styles and templates accommodate that sort of thing, or they should. And it is the title of the work you are citing, just as you would cite a paper title when published within a journal. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a specific entry titled Hancock, Air Marshal Sir Valston Eldridge -- would you like that mentioned in the reference, treated like a chapter title? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looked over the other sources as well, and couldn't see any problems with the citation styles or layout. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for taking the time to review, Carcharoth! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've only responded to the points above I thought needed responses. I certainly don't see anything to oppose over. I'll check back (hopefully before the end of the weekend) and see if anything comes up in a second read-through, but it all looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I'm a bit pressed for time for a few more days so I may not get to altering much till mid-next week -- we'll see how we go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again, having started on 2 weeks' leave and finally taught our new modem who's boss, I'm now back on the air and can start looking at these over the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At this stage I believe I've addressed in one form or another all but points 1 and 7, which will take some more time, so the article should remain stable for a bit if you want to check the updates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. All looks good. Am happy to support, and will indicate that above at the start of my comments. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many tks, actually I ended up having a go at 1 and 7 as well but must've forgotten to hit the save button when mentioning it here -- you gathered they were addressed anyway so no harm done... ;-) Cheers, Ian
- Thanks. All looks good. Am happy to support, and will indicate that above at the start of my comments. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At this stage I believe I've addressed in one form or another all but points 1 and 7, which will take some more time, so the article should remain stable for a bit if you want to check the updates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again, having started on 2 weeks' leave and finally taught our new modem who's boss, I'm now back on the air and can start looking at these over the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I'm a bit pressed for time for a few more days so I may not get to altering much till mid-next week -- we'll see how we go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've only responded to the points above I thought needed responses. I certainly don't see anything to oppose over. I'll check back (hopefully before the end of the weekend) and see if anything comes up in a second read-through, but it all looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport Great work as normal Ian. I do have two minor comments though:
- "Hancock was responsible for surveying and developing a military aerodrome at Evans Head, near the Queensland and New South Wales border" - was this while he was the head of the Directorate of Works and Buildings (during which time I imagine that he oversaw the development of many new airfields by the men under this command) or a separate post?
- Reworded a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In March 1957, Hancock was one of three candidates, along with Air Vice Marshals Frederick Scherger and Allan Walters, touted as possible successors to Air Marshal Sir John McCauley as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), the RAAF's senior position. " - there's a bit too much going on in this sentence, and it might be best to split it (eg, to something like "In March 1957, Hancock was one of the candidates touted as possible successors to Air Marshal Sir John McCauley as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), the RAAF's senior position. The other two officers considered for this post were Air Vice Marshals Frederick Scherger and Allan Walters." Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks mate, will try to get to those over the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hancock was responsible for surveying and developing a military aerodrome at Evans Head, near the Queensland and New South Wales border" - was this while he was the head of the Directorate of Works and Buildings (during which time I imagine that he oversaw the development of many new airfields by the men under this command) or a separate post?
- Spotchecks
- Spot checked a few online sources. The article accurately reflects the sources and I didn't find copying or close paraphrasing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to do that, much appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (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 not promoted by Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a part of my master plan. I want to see the article through FAC at soon as possible, so I can get on with other things. Thanks in advance to any contributors. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the rules at WP:WIKICUP and indicate if this is a Cup nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a Cup nomination. Sandy, I don't know the point of this exactly. Sp33dyphil Vote! 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the rules at WP:WIKICUP and indicate if this is a Cup nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restart, original nomination. This article has been substantially rewritten while at FAC, and each time I look, there are more issues. Now we find a table with hidden text in the Background section-- against MOS:SCROLL. Nikkimaria should indicate if sources and citations are now clear, after several changes, and I'm uncertain if images are clear after several changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've spent many hours on the article, left long reviews before restart, and am up to speed on current version.TCO (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review was done by Fallschirmjäger on 21 June, with problems addressed. Unless there are new images, doing another one dosen't seem necessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- "Each wing also has a 2.74 m (9 ft 0 in) tall winglet instead of the wingtip fences found on earlier Airbus aircraft." - source?
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how multiple authors/editors are notated
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in what is italicized when
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 59: check date capitalization
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When information like page number is provided in the source, it's good to include it
- FN 84: Airbus isn't a work (so shouldn't be italicized), but is the original publisher
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 8: check page number
- Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources (like Amazon)
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when - for example, why is Flight International linked in FN 59 and not 55?
- Removed Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reuters India or India Reuters? Check for small inconsistencies
- Reuters India. Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 95: Flight Daily News should be italicized
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 108: check formatting
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare formatting on FNs 124 and 126. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks of 5 sources
- "the 41,600 L (11,000 US gal) fuel capacity increase was possible through the adoption of the centre section fuel tank" vs "The fuel capacity increase is gained by adopting the 41,600-litre centre section fuel tank"
- Done Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 115 and 119 are the same source, but it only supports the material cited by FN 119. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- File:TLS_factory_7413v.jpg: France does not have freedom of panorama. Before restart TCO mentioned having started a discussion at Commons regarding this image's copyright status - did anything come of that?
- File:A330-200_conversion_to_A330_MRTT.jpg: in what country was this image taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The French factory picture is fine. The policy for France requires an artistic component. Functional buildings from afar as part of a setting are fine. All the commentary at Commons said what I expected as well. If I were at all unsure, would just chuck it into Deletions to provoke a closer look amd keep us safe, but this is not even needed.TCO (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Think MRTT pic is from Spain (Iberia Airlines has its maintenance facilities in Barcelona and Madrid) and pic is likely fine regardless of nation given the pose, but have requested more input given the concern: [3]
- It is from Spain. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Think MRTT pic is from Spain (Iberia Airlines has its maintenance facilities in Barcelona and Madrid) and pic is likely fine regardless of nation given the pose, but have requested more input given the concern: [3]
Support and Comment. I checked the text in the Development section against text in the Norris & Wagner book and no close paraphrasing is present. I'd support too, but that would be questioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am inclined to agree with Fnlayson. I would express my view that this is one of the better aircraft articles to be produced, but as my opinion is neither respected or judged as valid, there is little point in announcing my support, as my position would just be belittled. I would hope that situation to change. Kyteto (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can both support if you like, so long as you declare any relevant CoIs and, if necessary, clarify on which criteria you are supporting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - My original unstruck comments (pre-restart) still stand. I believe it should quick fail on criteria 1e (stability) ...it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Stability normally applies to edit wars as it says but in this case there are prolific article changes that have not been asked for at FAC and there appears to be no end to it. No reviewer has a hope until the number of changes stabilise to a normal level of minor copy editing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Would prolific article changes that have not been asked for at FAC be an actionable change (excluding locking the page)?
Also, for reference, could you state your original unstruck comments?Sorry, I just found the link to the pre-restart nomination. Micromann (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Would prolific article changes that have not been asked for at FAC be an actionable change (excluding locking the page)?
- Is it possible that this FAC will close in less than two weeks? I'm working on a number of a potential FA articles at the moment, planning to nominate them as soon as this FAC closes. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When a FAC is promoted, the nominator may immediately nominate another. When a FAC is archived, the nominator must wait two weeks before nominating another. Please see WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about FAC policy, Sandy would have to tell you definitively, but if there are no rules against it perhaps you should withdraw this and list another one, to alleviate Nimbus' concern, then relist this one after your others go through. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy restarted this TO deal with "that it had changed during previous review session". For Speedy, I do not recommend a sudden submission of another article. We need to do more ahead of time to make the next article ready for FAC. To learn from this FAC and make sure the prose and ref formatting is better to start with. Let's concentrate on A330.TCO (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The next article I'd like to nom for FA is YF-23. I'll do more ahead of time to save from a long an d winding FAC. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy restarted this TO deal with "that it had changed during previous review session". For Speedy, I do not recommend a sudden submission of another article. We need to do more ahead of time to make the next article ready for FAC. To learn from this FAC and make sure the prose and ref formatting is better to start with. Let's concentrate on A330.TCO (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about FAC policy, Sandy would have to tell you definitively, but if there are no rules against it perhaps you should withdraw this and list another one, to alleviate Nimbus' concern, then relist this one after your others go through. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:01, 6 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article is close to featured standard. The article has received a copyedit from the GOCE and has had a peer review which proved very productive. I now believe the article is in very good condition and ready to be considered for featured status. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 49: why no date?
- Why italicize CNN and not BBC Sport?
- FN 40: check publisher punctuation
- Location for Kelly?
- Are all of the publisher locations in References in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the first four issues and yes all of the publisher locations are in the UK. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Review
- I don't like the situation with File:View of inside Anfield Stadium from Anfield Road Stand.jpg (it was uploaded by the photographer in low res under a free license, but links to a flickr page with a high res version under a CC BY-NC-SA-2.0 license, which isn't free). Don't know what can be done about it. It's strictly legal but in very poor form.
- I think File:The view from the Kop.jpg might be able to replace it, the quality is better and there is no issue over the license. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It works, but if you do that, you should pull File:The Kop, Anfield.jpg from the bottom of the article, as the two are almost identical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done, added one which highlights what the caption is stating. NapHit (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It works, but if you do that, you should pull File:The Kop, Anfield.jpg from the bottom of the article, as the two are almost identical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality on File:FlagpoleGreatEasternLFC.jpg is just awful. If someone near the stadium could snap a replacement picture, that'd be nice.
- Ye its not the best, can't find a replacement on flickr either, unfortunately I don't live near the stadium so can't get a replacement picture hopefully someone will be kind enough to do so. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll poke around on the IRC, I know a couple of people there live in England, but I don't know where specifically. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality on File:Paisley Gateway, Anfield - geograph.org.uk - 81527.jpg is okay, but could be much better. Not really urgent.
- Found a better one which is now in the article NapHit (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Works. The angle isn't the best but no image is perfect. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple images could use having their date fields filled. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- added the dates to the images that didn't have any. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good show. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (through gritted Evertonian teeth). A few very minor points on prose:
- Lead
- As Shankly was the manager before Paisley perhaps mention the former's gates first.
- History
- Image caption: "The This is Anfield sign…" gives the false impression at first glance of being a typo: perhaps inverted commas or possibly italics?
- "The new team was called … and their first match at Anfield" – singular or plural? Consistency needed.
- "They won 7–1" – clearer to the casual reader if you wrote "Liverpool won 7–1"
- "Liverpool's first Lancashire League match at Anfield was played on 9 September 1893, against Lincoln City" – to the uninformed reader (e.g. me) it is not clear what Lincoln City would be doing playing in the Lancashire League. Could we have a footnote?
- You were right to query this, it was in fact Liverpool's first game in the Football League. Footnote follows in the next sentence with the score of the match. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "was hauled up the Everton Valley" – I wasn't brung up to say "the Everton Valley" – is the definite article needed?
- "It still stands there today" – does the "today" add anything here?
- Structures and facilities
- "with space for one personal assistant" – one per visually impaired patron or one for all of them?
- "The Paisley Gateway is a tribute of Bob Paisley" – "to" rather than "of"? Ditto for Shankly, later in the same para.
- Future
- "the Kop is unrivaled" – this is not what the quoted source says.
- It does, the quote is at the start of the fourth paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, you know; look again: it says "unrivalled" (English spelling, not American). My earlier comment was too cryptic, I admit. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, corrected it NapHit (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, you know; look again: it says "unrivalled" (English spelling, not American). My earlier comment was too cryptic, I admit. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RecordsSomewhat one-sided. Perhaps a mention of the longest losing streak etc to balance the laudatory statistics already presented?
This is a fine article, and remarkably fairly balanced. Well done, blast it! Tim riley (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All my minor points above now addressed, and duly struck through. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, especially seeing as your a blue :p I've dealt with all your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. This looks like a nice piece of work (also said through gritted teeth, as I'm from Manchester). There are a couple of things I didn't follow though:
- The Structures and facilities section says that there are 59 spaces available in the stadium for wheelchair users, 33 of which are available for general sale, 8 allocated to away supporters, and 2 reserved for emergencies. But that only makes 43, not 59.
- Resolved this, I mis-read the source the 59 space is for season tickets holders, not a total as it suggested. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The History section starts off by telling us that Orrell was the original owner of the stadium, who sold it to Houlding in 1885. But a few sentences later we're told that "A dispute emerged between Houlding and the Everton F.C. committee [when?] that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell." I don't understand that at all. And why did Orrell build the stadium in 1884? What was it used for before Everton moved in? The text says that Orrell let the land to Everton not the stadium ... in short, when was the stadium built, by whom, and why?
- It is a confusing episode, firstly Houlding let the land of Orrell who still owned. I don't think Orrell built the stadium from my books say he simply let the land to Everton who built the stands themselves, as to what was there before the stadium I think it was simply a field that Orrell owned, I hope I've cleared that up. Not really sure how I can make that clearer in the prose.
- One last thing, the Other uses section is really choppily written and looks like it was at one time a list that's been converted rather unskillfully into prose. It really needs to flow a little better than it does. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Had a go at improving this, I think its in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -
- The caption for the first image (going down the article from the top) should not have the T in "the" capitalised, if the F in "from" is not, I do not think.
- In the intro, is "the changes, a result of the Taylor Report, greatly reduced capacity." correct? Would it rather be "the changes, a result of the Taylor Report, include greatly reduced capacity." or something to that effect?
- Is the first comma in "Fenway Sports Group's acquisition of Liverpool in 2010, has made the construction of a new stadium doubtful..." (from the intro) necessary?
- In the History section, it is stated that "Everton quickly improved as a team, and became Anfield's first league champions...". This was slightly confusing to me as no games other than their win of 5-0 were mentioned. I was under the impression that it already was a good team.
- Their first match won't have been in the football league, it will have been in a league below that so that highlights the improvement. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The most recent change to Anfield came in 1998 when the new two-tier Anfield Road end was opened." is stated in the History section. You may want to reword this ("The most recent structural change"?), as introducing a new style of turnstile might be considered to be a more recent change to Anfield. So might adding support poles and stanchions.
- The Structures and Facilities section refers to the "THIS IS ANFIELD" sign's text as all capital. However, the image caption higher up does not. You might consider changing this for consistency's sake.
- Just to confirm, in Structures and Facilities, are there 19 spaces for the visually impaired (38 total to include the personal assistants), or 38 spaces for the visually impaired (76 total to include the personal assistants)? It is a tad ambiguous but not necessarily warranting change.
- 38 for visually impaired with space for one personal assistant so it probably is 76 total, but as the source doesn't say 76 I'm reluctant to put that in the article. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, are the headsets to provide full commentary just a luxury in case the visually impaired are also impaired in hearing? Is there a location for those with hearing impairments and/or would they be allowed to use the spots allocated to those who are visually impaired?
- What is says in the article is what the source says, so unfortunately I can't elaborate any further NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the second image from the bottom's caption, is the text grammatically correct as a sentence?
- No it wasn't you're right it sounded like the owner was going to construct the stadium himself! changed it NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*"On 30 July 2004 Liverpool were granted planning permission to build a new stadium 300 yards (270 m) away from Anfield at Stanley Park.[31]" -- Is Liverpool referring to the team, and would the plural verb be appropriate here? The same question about the plural verb applies to, under Other Uses, "England have played Wales at the stadium on three occasions..." and other times it recurs several more times throughout the section. Further information: A ctrl+F search showed that the instances of the word "have" in the article are just after the pronoun "they", "users", "England", and "Wales". Ctrl+F also revealed that the only two instances of "____ were" in which the subject is not immediately apparent to me as being plural were "Everton, who previously played at Priory Road, were in need..." (under History) and "On 30 July 2004 Liverpool were granted planning permission to..." (under Future). I had not realised that this had already been addressed with "'The new team was called … and their first match at Anfield' – singular or plural? Consistency needed."
The references and footnotes are okay from what I can tell and sorry for the long post. Micromann (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - All typographical and grammatical issues I noticed through 2 readings were corrected. There are no actionable objections which have not been resolved, and there appears to be a good balance between length and detail in this article. Micromann (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by
Comments fromJappalang
History
"Everton's landlord changed when Houlding purchased the land from Orrell in 1885, charging direct rent."- Pardon my density, but this is a bit confusing to me. Initially Houlding rented from Orrell, then he bought the land and charged himself direct rent?
- Ye there was a mistake, according to my books Houlding never bought the ground outright from Orrel before Liverpool F.C. came into existence so I've removed the sentence as its false. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing this sentence, however, eliminates the context for "that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell into a disagreement", and if Houlding never bought the ground, how did this came about? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Houlding bought the ground after Everton left. Everton wanted to buy the ground before they left, but Houlding owned land adjacent to Anfield and wanted the club to buy that as well as Anfield, so they decided to move elsewhere. I'm not sure how the removal of that sentence removes the context, as it still says that Everton rented the ground off Orrell which provides the context for wanting to buy the ground. I can add the bit at the start of my reply if you want I think that will clear up the issue a bit. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, it was the phrasing of the later sentence that catches me a bit off guard; I made some changes to clarify things (in my opinion), please check them over. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Houlding bought the ground after Everton left. Everton wanted to buy the ground before they left, but Houlding owned land adjacent to Anfield and wanted the club to buy that as well as Anfield, so they decided to move elsewhere. I'm not sure how the removal of that sentence removes the context, as it still says that Everton rented the ground off Orrell which provides the context for wanting to buy the ground. I can add the bit at the start of my reply if you want I think that will clear up the issue a bit. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing this sentence, however, eliminates the context for "that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell into a disagreement", and if Houlding never bought the ground, how did this came about? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ye there was a mistake, according to my books Houlding never bought the ground outright from Orrel before Liverpool F.C. came into existence so I've removed the sentence as its false. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon my density, but this is a bit confusing to me. Initially Houlding rented from Orrell, then he bought the land and charged himself direct rent?
"Houlding was left with an empty stadium, and decided to form a new club to occupy it."- Does this mean Houlding's presidency of Everton F.C. was deposed?
- Again, I'm not sure Houlding was ever President of Everton F.C., there is no mention of him being President in my books so I've changed it to member (albeit an influential one) which the books say he was NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean Houlding's presidency of Everton F.C. was deposed?
"... former manager Bill Shankly; Shankly's widow Nessie ..."- I think it could be changed to "his widow" to cut a bit of repetition.
"After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where 96 Liverpool fans died, ..."- Would it be better to state instead "After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where overcrowding led to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans, ..." to give the following clause some context on the change to all-seaters?
"... depicts Shankly wearing a fan's scarf around his neck, ..."- "... depicts Shankly with a fan's scarf around his neck, ..."
Structures and facilities
"... to bring those who touch it good luck."- Including the opposition (heh)?
Other uses
"England has played Wales at the stadium on three occasions, in 1905, 1922 and 1931; England won all three matches."- This sentence seems rather disconnected from the previous (first international game was England–Ireland) and trivial in overall context (why is it important to mention England played Wales three times here and list all years).
- England normally play the majority of their home matches at Wembley, with other grounds in the country rarely seeing the national team play at their ground, so in that regard its important. Perhaps listing all the years is a bit much, but I feel its important, as it shows when England were playing in different grounds. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be of significance but not in such detail; one might summarise it as "Anfield was also the home venue for several of England's international football matches in the early 1900s and for the Welsh team in the later part of that century." Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- added this sentence now and removed the superfluous detail. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be of significance but not in such detail; one might summarise it as "Anfield was also the home venue for several of England's international football matches in the early 1900s and for the Welsh team in the later part of that century." Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- England normally play the majority of their home matches at Wembley, with other grounds in the country rarely seeing the national team play at their ground, so in that regard its important. Perhaps listing all the years is a bit much, but I feel its important, as it shows when England were playing in different grounds. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence seems rather disconnected from the previous (first international game was England–Ireland) and trivial in overall context (why is it important to mention England played Wales three times here and list all years).
"Wales have staged three matches at Anfield—against Scotland in 1977, Italy in 1998, and Denmark in 1999."- Same issue as above—why is Wales especially mentioned (is there some sort of Welsh connection behind the club's history)?
- Per the first point, national teams in Britain at least normally play at a fixed venue, so the fact that they are playing elsewhere and outside their country as well, does have some significance. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See above.
- Per the first point, national teams in Britain at least normally play at a fixed venue, so the fact that they are playing elsewhere and outside their country as well, does have some significance. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Same issue as above—why is Wales especially mentioned (is there some sort of Welsh connection behind the club's history)?
Records
"Liverpool did not lose a home league match at Anfield during the ..."; "Liverpool did not lose a match at Anfield from ..."- This seems repetitive; suggestion for the second sentence: "Liverpool's longest winning streak at home extended from ...", which would match well with the subsequent sentence about losing streak.
"This occurred three times in the 1893–1900, 1906–07 and 1908–09 seasons."- This seems to suggest to me that the 3-game losing streak occured three times in each of those seasons. Is that the case or would "This occurred three times in the club's history to date (1893–1900, 1906–07 and 1908–09 seasons)." be a better sentence?
Images
File:Anfield attendance from 1946 to 2007.png: Per WP:V, the image page should list its sources for the attendance figures.- http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm was given as the source; what makes this website a reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found [5] which is a reliable site and if you click on the appropriate season link and choose the statistics tab then the average attendance for that season can be seen. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This site's "About" does describe a certain pedigree and faithfulness in their research (poring through documented materials). It looks fine with me. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found [5] which is a reliable site and if you click on the appropriate season link and choose the statistics tab then the average attendance for that season can be seen. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm was given as the source; what makes this website a reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Anfield outline.svg: Also in line with WP:V and WP:IUP, the source of data for the layout should be given.
I am keen to support this article once the more critical issues are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've addressed all your comments, thank you for the review. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity (not an opposable action): is it really possible for players to "reach up and place one or both hands on" File:This is Anfield.jpg? It seems they would have to jump (on the stairs), which would make it a wee bit of a dangerous stunt to pull... Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it is sure I was able to do it when I went on the stadium tour recently, so I'm sure the players can manage. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my concerns have been resolved and I believe this brief but comprehensive and nicely written article about a stadium (whose club I do not support—I support a certain Red but not this Reds) qualifies for Featured status. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it is sure I was able to do it when I went on the stadium tour recently, so I'm sure the players can manage. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity (not an opposable action): is it really possible for players to "reach up and place one or both hands on" File:This is Anfield.jpg? It seems they would have to jump (on the stairs), which would make it a wee bit of a dangerous stunt to pull... Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Hope none of these are redundant to anything in Jappalang's review...
- History: "Orrell let the pitch to the club...". Here, "let" should be "lent".
- Don't need to link Shankly twice in this section. Also don't think the one in the next section is necessary.
- Structures and facilities: "The Kop is the most-renowned stand at Anfield amongst home and away supporters". "amongst" → "among"?
- Comma would be useful in "Originally a single-tier stand a further revamp", after "stand".
- Photo caption: "The Kop, the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand, has led owner John W. Henry to reconsider the construction of a new stadium." Something feels wrong with "The Kop, the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand." Maybe "The Kop; the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand has led...". That just tweaks the punctuation, but should be enough to fix it adequately.
- Other uses: NRL should be spelled out.
- Records: More overlinking for the 1893–94 season. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review Giants, I've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Looks to be in good shape, and passes the Inglis test. Just a couple of queries:
- Using your sources can you confirm whether either of the developments from the early 1900s was designed by the noted football architect Archibald Leitch, as some fansites imply? If so, he ought to be mentioned by name.
- If there's a suitable source for it, it'd be worth mentioning that Liverpool always play towards the Kop in the second half if they win the toss.
- Might be difficult to achieve while maintaining a neutral tone, but the bit about the Kop could be tweaked to stress the reputation it had as one of the most fearsome terraces to play in front of. Didn't Shankly once say something about the Kop "sucking the ball into the net", or is that apocryphal? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Oldelpaso, I've added info about Leitch and the Kop sucking the ball into the goal, but I couldn't add anything about Liverpool playing towards the Kop in the second half, as I couldn't find a reliable source. Thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I peer reviewed this and have reread it and find it meets the FA criteria. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:18, 14 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After several months of locating sources, I feel this article is now comprehensive enough to be a FA. This often-misspelled mountain was blasted apart in the 19th century, skied on in the 20th, and could very well become public property in the 21st. Gyrobo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 16: is this a typo?
- Are page numbers or weblinks available for print newspaper articles?
- Ref 6: retrieval date?
- I seem to recall discussing this with you before, but remind me: why do some newspaper refs include publishers and others not?
- Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Genero title should use endash, not hyphen
- Don't use UCH as both author and publisher
- Genero appears to be self-published - could you provide a brief description of his background and qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 16 was a typo, fixed.
- There were some page numbers listed for the NYT refs, but half of them appeared to be server errors so I thought it best not to include them.
- I was actually working from a hard copy, the online version is behind a paywall.
- There were two New Paltz newspapers with the same name, so I started adding publishers where I could find them. Most of the print articles I read were clippings in the Rosendale Library's archive, and did not include page numbers.
- The Genero ref was being given a double period due to the citation template, fixed.
- I changed to an en dash in the Genero and Ulster County Historians refs.
- The UCH book and all references to it say the UCH were both the author and publisher.
- The Genero book is featured in this 2005 newsletter from the Century House Historical Society in Rosendale, and it's also on the New Paltz-based Huguenot Historical Society site. I can't find much on Genero himself, but if the local historical societies find no faults with the book (and since it doesn't make any controversial claims), I feel it's reliable here. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it is uncontroversial, so I guess that's fine. Sourcing looks better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellaneous comments RedWolf (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No reference is given for the coordinates in the infobox (there is a coordinates_ref parameter for this).
- No prominence is given. This might help to sway the argument for/against it being called a mountain. Given it's meager elevation, I might be inclined to call it a hill.
- A USGS GNIS search does not find anything for either "Joppenbergh Mountain" or "Joppenbergh". Perhaps USGS does not consider it a topographical feature deserving of mountain status? Or is there any other known official name?
- I have a waymarking source with coordinates, but those are really for the sign at the base of the mountain. I could probably reference the topo map, but it doesn't explicitly identify Joppenbergh.
- I haven't been able to find a ref for Joppenbergh's prominence, just that it's 495 feet (151 m) tall.
- All the sources I've found refer to it as a mountain. If there was a USGS, or any other geologic source that said something along the lines of Joppenbergh being technically a hill, I'd definitely include the misnomer in the Name section. I was hoping that with the whole OSI purchase going on, there would be more information available on Joppenbergh's geology and topography.
- --Gyrobo (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having this feature named on a topo map definitely makes it more of a challenge. The coordinates are usually given for the summit and not for the base. I guess one could take a GPS reading themselves although this is not something that is normally done. As for the name, how does one go from Jacob Rutsen to Joppenbergh? I don't quite follow the transformation. RedWolf (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that it's a Dutch transliteration, and I'm going to try and get to the Rosendale Library today to review one of the references that may say exactly that. It's been a few months since I've been there, so maybe the librarians have turned up something new (or rather, very old). --Gyrobo (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the ref on microfiche at the New Paltz Library, and while it contained a great deal of information on Jacob Rutsen, it didn't mention Joppenbergh beyond the fact that it was named after him. However, I found this stereoscope on Commons that may be of Joppenbergh, because it's grouped with several Rosendale-area photos. The name probably started with "Job" as a shorthand of Jacob (hence the old reference to a Jobsenbright) and the Dutch word for mountain, "berg". --Gyrobo (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that it's a Dutch transliteration, and I'm going to try and get to the Rosendale Library today to review one of the references that may say exactly that. It's been a few months since I've been there, so maybe the librarians have turned up something new (or rather, very old). --Gyrobo (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having this feature named on a topo map definitely makes it more of a challenge. The coordinates are usually given for the summit and not for the base. I guess one could take a GPS reading themselves although this is not something that is normally done. As for the name, how does one go from Jacob Rutsen to Joppenbergh? I don't quite follow the transformation. RedWolf (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – From the Name section: "Joppenburgh is named after Colonel Jacob Rutsen. Rutsen...". Try not to have this repetition from one sentence to another. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I tweaked the wording slightly. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Came back to check this and saw "Rutsen" and "Rusten" here. One of them obviously needs fixing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Found this article while working on my own nomination and saw that it needed comments, so here's my review.
- There was a large cave-in on December 19, 1899, that destroyed mining equipment and collapsed shafts within Joppenbergh. - This sentence kind of just appears out of the blue, and it makes for an abrupt change of gears. Also, what caused the cave-in?
- Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- outside, eating. - Does that comma need to be there? It seems a little heavy, but then it doesn't sound right without it either.
- Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking is good in the lead, but I don't think you need to link parking lot.
- Removed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to go through the whole article and look for excess usage of commas. Here, for example: and the son of a Dutch immigrant, from Albany
- I believe the commas that exist in the article are needed to prevent confusion. In this instance, "the son of a Dutch immigrant from Albany" might make people think that his father was a Dutch immigrant who also lived in Albany. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When did mining stop? What happened between 1899 and 1930?
- None of the sources I could find said exactly when mining stopped on the mountain, however, during my research for Rosendale Village, New York, I found that only one cement plant operated in the town between 1920 and 1971, when it closed. The problem is that there isn't a very good record from this period. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- between the spring and autumn - why "the spring" but just "autumn"?
- Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rosendale Township Association, founded in 1934 to encourage tourism in the town,[22] "decided to fill the remaining months by promoting winter sports". - I don't think the quote adds anything... I would suggest just paraphrasing into something less forced.
- Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- wore a helmet and performed in the summer tournament. - is there anything special about his wearing of a helmet?
- Removed, I thought it was important because they mentioned it explicitly, but now that I think about it, everyone who skies probably uses a helmet. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I love the detailed narration of the skiing events, but Parking was provided for 500 cars. seems a little trivial to me...
- Removed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "wooden tower slide" - I don't really know what this is, and again, the quote seems a little out of place.
- I used a direct quote because it also didn't really mean anything to me, but it's probably a ramp. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "many jumpers [to enter] military service" - again; very little paraphrasing would eliminate the need for quotation marks.
- Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Periodic rockfalls continue to happen on the mountain. - This is kind of basic wording; something a little more engaging would be good.
- Embellished. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why Cellular One didn't build the tower?
- Added. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I like the article, but I do think it needs a little work. I think the use of quotes is a little excessive for only a few-words-long phrases in the middle of sentences. It makes for choppy reading IMO. Also, I would avoid footnotes in the middle of sentences, since they make me feel like I need to mentally pause when I'm reading just the same as a period. Content-wise, I think you might go into a little too much detail on certain things, but I wouldn't worry about it since overall the detail provides a very in-depth and interesting narration. I'm wondering why there isn't more info on the geography of the mountain, like what range it's part of, what formed it, some more dimensions, and a brief description of its layout (maybe flora/fauna would be a little silly for such a localized mountain, but I would still ask if there is any info on animals or plants that especially like this hill. Nice work! Juliancolton (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some places where the refs break up the sentences slightly, but many of the references are used multiple times, making it pretty hard to group them. And if I put them all at the end of sentences, it wouldn't be clear which parts of the sentence were sourced to which ref. The main problem with describing Joppenbergh's ecology and geology is that it simply hasn't been studied. My refs for the age of its rock are talking about the rock of the town, not Joppenbergh specifically, and the only reason its height is known is because Gilchrist read a USGS map of the town and identified the mountain in her work. The USGS itself doesn't seem to have any info on it. The only sourced info I have on fauna are the JMC's lawyer saying something about rattlesnakes, but it's not clear from that if the snakes live on the mountain or just next to it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - alright, I think you've addressed all of my concerns at this point. Happy to support a very nice article on a local landmark(?). Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments. The article looks in good shape to me; I've made a couple of minor copyedits -- please revert if I messed up anything. I have some minor points below:
- I see above that you have no sources to explain how Jacob's name became "Joppenbergh". Since the difference is surprising to the reader (it took me aback) how about adding a parenthetical "(despite the apparent difference in the form of the name)" or something along those lines?
- I'm not sure how to add something like that without it being original research. None of the sources explained the etymological evolution of "Joppenbergh"; it's mainly been just a retelling of this blurb, which is CC-licensed and can be added to the article if need be. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to leave it as is, that's OK, but I don't think you would need additional sources -- you would just be confirming to the reader that this is the case. It would function like a "[sic]" in a quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how to add something like that without it being original research. None of the sources explained the etymological evolution of "Joppenbergh"; it's mainly been just a retelling of this blurb, which is CC-licensed and can be added to the article if need be. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The collapse rendered the canal and nearby road impassable, and also caused a boiler explosion that shook the nearby Rosendale trestle. The costly cave-in destroyed mining shafts and caused between $20,000 and $25,000 in damage." Starting the second sentence with "costly cave-in" doesn't really add anything since you give the exact damage figure. How about combining both sentences and shortening as follows: "The collapse rendered the canal and nearby road impassable, caused a boiler explosion that shook the nearby Rosendale trestle, and destroyed mining shafts, causing between $20,000 and $25,000 in damage." Though in fact you might not even need "destroyed mining shafts" since that's already been mentioned.
- Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much improved. I agree with Ceranthor below that it would be helpful to say if this in 1899 or 2011 dollars: presumably the former, in which case a conversion to present day value would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warren Sammons is first mentioned as owner in the 1930s; prior to that time is it known who owned it?- The cement companies that operated on the mountain are mentioned, but I haven't seen any records of private ownership. A lot of the old village records were lost during some pretty severe floods in the 1950s. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The cement companies that operated on the mountain are mentioned, but I haven't seen any records of private ownership. A lot of the old village records were lost during some pretty severe floods in the 1950s. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Regardless of whether or not the town decides to accept the deal, the OSI will purchase Joppenbergh": perhaps better as "the OSI intends to purchase" since we are talking about intentions rather than predictions.- Done, I thought it looked off. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the Shawangunk Ridge linked in the see also section? It doesn't seem like something a reader would particularly want to follow up on after reading about Joppenbergh, unless Joppenbergh is part of that ridge in which case the link should be in the article.
- I have no data to indicate that Joppenbergh is part of the Shawangunk Ridge, but I included it because it passes through Rosendale and I figured that someone reading about a mountain in Rosendale might want to read about another mountain in Rosendale. I have no opinion on the removal of this item. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK -- I won't strike it in case another reviewer has an opinion, but that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no data to indicate that Joppenbergh is part of the Shawangunk Ridge, but I included it because it passes through Rosendale and I figured that someone reading about a mountain in Rosendale might want to read about another mountain in Rosendale. I have no opinion on the removal of this item. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about giving the date (1704) of the deed referring to the mountain as "Jobsenbright"?- I think giving "early 18th century" is better here, because the Name section should have a sense of approximation, in contrast to the History section, where I tried to be as specific as possible in terms of dates and details. If there were multiple deeds from this time period, it would warrant a subsection in History, but as it stands, the fact that the deed was created in 1704 doesn't seem to be as relevant as the general time period. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's my OCD but I hate to have data that I don't put in the article. I see your point though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think giving "early 18th century" is better here, because the Name section should have a sense of approximation, in contrast to the History section, where I tried to be as specific as possible in terms of dates and details. If there were multiple deeds from this time period, it would warrant a subsection in History, but as it stands, the fact that the deed was created in 1704 doesn't seem to be as relevant as the general time period. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I spotchecked a few sources, and have a couple of concerns:
The 7 March 1938 tournament was still in the future at the time the source was published; it does give that date but given that at least one tournament was cancelled I don't think you can assume that this occurred.- Fixed, Good catch, I believe one of the other sources said that a March tournament occurred, but the wording is much more accurate now. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find that other source, it would be better to be definite, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, Good catch, I believe one of the other sources said that a March tournament occurred, but the wording is much more accurate now. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This source does not appear to support the statement it is cited for, and in any case just appears to be a letter in the paper -- it could be used to cite that certain opinions were expressed, but not much more than that.- The source does say that "...the municipal parking and Willow Kiln Park... is a lease", so I don't believe I've misrepresented it. The point about it being a personal letter is valid, though, so I'm going to replace it with this, which mentions "the parking lot and the pocket lot of the park". This ref also mentions the defunct cement kilns of the park, would that all be acceptable, given that there are photos of this area? --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does say that; sorry, didn't mean to imply you were mis-using the source deliberately. Yes, the proposed replacement seems fine. As for the cement kilns, I'm not sure I understand the question -- are you planning to add the Shawangunk Journal cite as another reference, for a different sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source does say that "...the municipal parking and Willow Kiln Park... is a lease", so I don't believe I've misrepresented it. The point about it being a personal letter is valid, though, so I'm going to replace it with this, which mentions "the parking lot and the pocket lot of the park". This ref also mentions the defunct cement kilns of the park, would that all be acceptable, given that there are photos of this area? --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've switched to support above; the remaining points are minor
, except the pending removal of the letter used as a source. An interesting and well-written article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Struck as the source is now removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ultimately a well-written article that seems plenty comprehensive. My only niggles are the usage of dolostone -- not sure if you are aware, but the term itself is sort of iffy -- and this bit from the mining section: "The total cost of the damage was estimated to be between $20,000 and $25,000.[16]". Is that current value, or historical value? If it's the former, an estimate of current amounts could be useful for comprehension. ceranthor 20:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will address these issues tonight; at the moment, I'm in Rosendale, taking some photos and looking through old newspaper articles at the Rosendale Library to make sure I haven't missed anything. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've now addressed the remaining points you and Mike Christie raised. I didn't add a conversion to modern currency because there have been past discussions at FAC about the validity of the inflationary value of capital goods. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, that's totally understandable, as it was just a suggestion after all. ceranthor 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've now addressed the remaining points you and Mike Christie raised. I didn't add a conversion to modern currency because there have been past discussions at FAC about the validity of the inflationary value of capital goods. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media Review - Everything checks out. I would like to mention that the picture of the parking lot really dosen't do anything for me, though. It's just a parking lot. I'd personally drop it, but it's your choice. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:37, 28 July 2011 (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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. I had previously nominated this article, but it was pointed out that it had more flaws than I first believed. Now, Wehwalt and myself have (hopefully) improved the article enough to meet the standards of the FAC process. The Gobrecht dollar, minted from 1836 to 1839, was the first dollar coin minted in any quantity since the denomination was unofficially discontinued in 1804 and officially in 1806. The coin, though known as the Gobrecht dollar, might be more accurately referred to as the "flying eagle dollar", as its namesake was involved only in the engraving of the dies and slight modification of the designs. The basis for the design was a seated Liberty figure created by great early American artists Thomas Sully and a soaring eagle created by another prominent artist, Titian Peale, son of Rembrandt Peale, an artist responsible for the creation of many portraits of the American Founding Fathers. The Gobrecht dollar was minted as a test to determine whether or not a circulating silver dollar would prove favorable with the American public. Evidently, it did, as the denomination continued steady production until 1873. These coins continued to utilize Sully's seated Liberty, but the soaring eagle was rejected for a more heraldic creation after 1840. Peale's design was not forgotten, however, as it too continued to live on, albeit briefly, on the Flying Eagle cent, minted from 1856 to 1858. Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing bibliographic info for Lange
- Ref 16: should either provide page number or section number. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and sorry about those two! I believe Wehwalt inserted the Lange reference, and I think he probably meant to write Taxay. I'll check with him and make sure though before I change it. The other problem has been tended to, but I'm not sure how well. I don't know which publisher compiled these laws, so I can't put that in there. I did put the page number that contains the relevant information, but it looks a little odd without a publisher, since it was almost certainly part of a large bound volume.-RHM22 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the Lange thing is also fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and sorry about those two! I believe Wehwalt inserted the Lange reference, and I think he probably meant to write Taxay. I'll check with him and make sure though before I change it. The other problem has been tended to, but I'm not sure how well. I don't know which publisher compiled these laws, so I can't put that in there. I did put the page number that contains the relevant information, but it looks a little odd without a publisher, since it was almost certainly part of a large bound volume.-RHM22 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am not sure what "Sully created an obverse design depicting a seated representation of Liberty and Sully a reverse depicting a soaring bald eagle." means; removing the second "Sully" would make sense. Fixed the n-dashes and I believe this article passes the FA criteria.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 17:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've fixed that. The second "Sully" was supposed to be "Peale". Nice catch!-RHM22 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
- The lead images (of the coins) may not be in the public domain. Because the book was published in 1913 it was not published before 1913, the {{PD-US}} template is incorrect. Someone with slightly more copyright knowledge than I would have to tell you how to proceed.
Until this is resolved, however, this nomination most certainly can't be closed as successful.Edit 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC): I would like to have this straightened out, but per my response below, I don't think at this point that it's a big enough issue to crash the candidacy. 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - The quality on File:RobertMPatterson.jpg is awful. It's like that at the source, so it's not our fault, but it still is the degree of bad quality that bears mentioning here. 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the quality is low for this image. I don't have any others copies available currently, though, so do you think I should remove it and replace it with a different image? I have images of other people that were important in the history of the coin, so there won't be a problem finding a replacement for the Patterson image.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are of equal importance to Patterson, then yes I would. Maybe it's just because I'm an image gnome, but I kept getting drawn back to that image while I was trying to concentrate on other things on that page, and I wasn't getting drawn back for the right reasons. I felt like a [Rubbernecking|rubbernecker]. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the quality is low for this image. I don't have any others copies available currently, though, so do you think I should remove it and replace it with a different image? I have images of other people that were important in the history of the coin, so there won't be a problem finding a replacement for the Patterson image.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source for File:Christian Gobrecht.jpg is a dead link. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. I'll see if I can find an archive link.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it's fixed. Turns out it was just an old URL, so I didn't need to use the Archive. Thanks for the image review!-RHM22 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the crucial date is 1923, unless I am missing something here?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright being the monster that it is, a photograph of an object is copyrighted separately from the object itself. In further consideration, however, I would have to say this is a non-issue, as the photograph does not meet any reasonable threshold of originality/creativity, which the U.S. requires for copyright. If my reading of the laws is correct, we could still get hit with a cease and desist notice, although the odds of that are incredibly low, however that notice could be defeated by an inebriated first year associate. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added fresh images of a Gobrecht dollar. How is that? I should add that I am currently doing research at the ANA library and I carefully went through the stacks looking for auction catalogs that were US-published before 1978 with color plates and no copyright notice. I found three. The images were from one of them. --Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I called my lawyer and she said that I was in fact correct about the threshold or originality thing, however since it was in a larger document, she would have to see the document itself in order to give a definitive answer. However if you've gotten around the problem by getting another version, then it's all good anyways. Lemme take a quick look at the new stuff. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. As with the wire rim from the Indian Head dollar, iff there really isn't a notice, we're all good here. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no notice. I went through a fair number of auction catalogs and similar material, as soon as I saw an copyright marking I put it back on the shelves. I've done this at several archives and know what I am doing. The books are at the ANA library, anyone free to check or to call the librarian there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't interpret my comments as questioning my integrity, I intended no such thing, sorry if it came across that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I seem to have taken a little-used loophole on Wiki and run with it, as has RHM22. Actually, the more times this is discussed and upheld the easier for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't interpret my comments as questioning my integrity, I intended no such thing, sorry if it came across that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no notice. I went through a fair number of auction catalogs and similar material, as soon as I saw an copyright marking I put it back on the shelves. I've done this at several archives and know what I am doing. The books are at the ANA library, anyone free to check or to call the librarian there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. As with the wire rim from the Indian Head dollar, iff there really isn't a notice, we're all good here. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I called my lawyer and she said that I was in fact correct about the threshold or originality thing, however since it was in a larger document, she would have to see the document itself in order to give a definitive answer. However if you've gotten around the problem by getting another version, then it's all good anyways. Lemme take a quick look at the new stuff. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added fresh images of a Gobrecht dollar. How is that? I should add that I am currently doing research at the ANA library and I carefully went through the stacks looking for auction catalogs that were US-published before 1978 with color plates and no copyright notice. I found three. The images were from one of them. --Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright being the monster that it is, a photograph of an object is copyrighted separately from the object itself. In further consideration, however, I would have to say this is a non-issue, as the photograph does not meet any reasonable threshold of originality/creativity, which the U.S. requires for copyright. If my reading of the laws is correct, we could still get hit with a cease and desist notice, although the odds of that are incredibly low, however that notice could be defeated by an inebriated first year associate. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. I'll see if I can find an archive link.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commments:
- In general, the article seems to over-cite, using the same reference sentence after sentence. This can be trimmed back considerably.
- I removed a few that seemed mostly unnecessary, but most of the references are still cited multiple times. I'll fix this by referencing a book that Wehwalt has provided me access to a little later today.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still a little bit of over-citing, particularly in the last paragraph of the "Design" section (#9 & 10) and in the "Restrikes" (#21) section. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed a few that seemed mostly unnecessary, but most of the references are still cited multiple times. I'll fix this by referencing a book that Wehwalt has provided me access to a little later today.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The mass and diameter are given in the infobox, but not covered (or cited) in the article.
- I cited the mass in the article and reworked it a little in the infobox, but I removed the diameter entirely, because it seems to fluctuate based on the source, so I can't find an exact number.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where you put the mass, I don't think you need to link "grams", and the second mass should have units (g) behind it. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cited the mass in the article and reworked it a little in the infobox, but I removed the diameter entirely, because it seems to fluctuate based on the source, so I can't find an exact number.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a stated reason why the 1804 dollars were being exported to the Orient (and later back to the U.S.)?
- The 1804 dollars weren't really exported to the Orient (even though they were given as gifts there!), but rather the standard issue silver dollars. I have reworded to clear that up.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "After examining Mint records, officials incorrectly concluded that the last Draped Bust dollars minted were dated 1804, so that date was chosen for the new coins." ... I'm sorry, I'm not following the meaning or significance of the last half of that sentence.
- Since no 1804 dollars had been struck since 1804 (they were dated 1803, but they didn't know that), they chose to use that date on the coins struck in 1835. It's not known why that was done, but certain numismatists have theorized that Mint officials didn't want to create only a few coins with a certain date because collectors would want them, and very few would be struck. I guess they were not successful with that, because the 1804 dollar is one of the most valuable and famous of all coins!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They did get the date right in restriking the $10 piece, also not struck since 1804, but 1804-dated pieces had been struck at the time. However, they got the way the number 4 lookednwrong, see Turban Head eagle#1804 issues, creating an even greater rarity than the 1804 dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess what I'm getting hung up on here is that I'm not familiar with the 1804 dollar and the Draped Bust dollars, and I keep thinking your leading into something on the Gobrecht dollar... Can you see it that way? If not, I'll try reading it again tomorrow to see if I'm just being a bit slower than normal. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They did get the date right in restriking the $10 piece, also not struck since 1804, but 1804-dated pieces had been struck at the time. However, they got the way the number 4 lookednwrong, see Turban Head eagle#1804 issues, creating an even greater rarity than the 1804 dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since no 1804 dollars had been struck since 1804 (they were dated 1803, but they didn't know that), they chose to use that date on the coins struck in 1835. It's not known why that was done, but certain numismatists have theorized that Mint officials didn't want to create only a few coins with a certain date because collectors would want them, and very few would be struck. I guess they were not successful with that, because the 1804 dollar is one of the most valuable and famous of all coins!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...both Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury, President Jackson and his cabinet approved of the design." The word "both" usually indicates two people or things, not several."An act of January 18, 1837 officially changed the legal standard for silver coins from 89.2% to 90% silver." – The source mentions that coins should be 90% silver, but does not document the change from 89.2% from what I could see. What source gave 89.2%? I'm assuming the Yeoman ref?- I'm a little unclear about how this dollar transitioned into the Seated Liberty dollar. Can that be clarified? The way it's worded almost makes the Gobrecht dollar sound like a test run.
- It was a sort of test run. That's why they were minted in such small numbers. Should I try to expand on that in the article?-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think you should be more clear about this. I'm not a big coin collector, particularly of coins this old, so I come into this article thinking this was a common circulating coin, but gradually learn that it was more of a test-run for a future coin. I think it needs to be stated a little more explicitly, particularly in the lead and somewhere near the top of the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a sort of test run. That's why they were minted in such small numbers. Should I try to expand on that in the article?-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest linking the first use of "numismatic"."Following an increase in numismatic pursuits among the public in the mid-19th century..." – I'm assuming that means an increased interest in coin collecting? If so, I recommend just saying that.Your page range for Adams & Woodin should be 9–10, not just 10.- Some of the following information from Adams & Woodin seems to be omitted from the article: "It is said that but eighteen of the coins with the name in the field were struck in silver, while 1,000 were made bearing the name on the base. These figures apply to the coin with the twenty-six stars surrounding the flying eagle on the reverse. The same obverse as the foregoing, but with the eagle flying in the plain field on the reverse, is excessively rare."
- I'm not sure about this. I'll look into it a little later and see what else I can add.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked into it, and as expected, those pieces were patterns. There were several different types of patterns produced throughout the tenure of the Gobrecht dollar, and there would be too many to list each type individually. I could certainly add something about them if you think it would be a good idea, though.-RHM22 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of comprehensiveness, yes, I would at least discuss them. When I write about lemurs or any other species, I often have to go into gory detail about coloration patters (which can vary widely) for the same reasons. Although you don't need to outline every pattern, you should at least document that they exist and give a general overview. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References: I checked the Adams & Woodin online source, verifying the facts and that no plagiarism has occurred. I could not check the offline sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Sorry for my delay in responding. I had some business to take care of, and it took longer than expected. Anyway, I have attempted to fix all of the issues you've raised excepting a couple, which I have elaborated on above. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still looking into the patterns, but I'll add something about them as soon as I can find some good sources for that information.-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
1804 dollar: "The rationale for discontinuing the denomination was that many of the coins produced since the denomination was first struck...". Little redundancy here with multiple "denomination"s. Could change the second one to "it", or do any number of other things.Design: "began preparations for a series of silver dollar which, unlike the 1804 dollar, were intended...". First, should "dollar" be plural?"to assume the position. Shortly after assuming the position...". More repetitiveness here."in order" can safely be chopped from "be hired immediately in order to fulfill the duties of engraver"."to" missing from "in an effort gain their approval."- What is meant to be sourcing the last sentence of this section?
Production: "Gobrecht dollars struck prior the act...". Add "to" after "prior" or change "prior" to "before".Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, and again, I apologize for my delay. I fixed all of the points you brought up except for the bit about sourcing. The reason that the last sentence of the design section is unsourced is because I removed some of the over-citing. If you think it necessary, I can certainly restore the reference to that sentence. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If ref 11 is what is intended to source that bit, you could just move the last citation of the section back a sentence. That would sufficiently cover both sentences, if it indeed is the source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, and again, I apologize for my delay. I fixed all of the points you brought up except for the bit about sourcing. The reason that the last sentence of the design section is unsourced is because I removed some of the over-citing. If you think it necessary, I can certainly restore the reference to that sentence. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with comments-
One of the same comments I made last time: Under "1804 dollar", the first two sentences could probably be combined and the word "officially" is superfluous.- In the second paragraph in that section: is it possible to make that active voice? It sounds awkward as is.
In that same paragraph, in the second-to-last sentence, the words "over the fact" can be removed without changing the sentence's meaning.In the last sentence there, "amount" should probably be "number".In the second paragraph in "Design", "which would be carried out by Peale:" --> "which Peale would carry out:" or maybe "which Peale would execute:"In the second paragraph in "Production", the semi-colon and "this is because" --> a comma and "because", or maybe a comma and "as".- That's it. I think the article has improved since last time I read it. Good luck. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments! I've fixed everything here except your first and second points. On the first, I combined the sentences, but I didn't remove "officially", because the denomination was unofficially halted in 1804 before it was done officially in 1806. I did reword the sentence to make it a little clearer. As for the second point, I think I fixed it, but I'm not really sure what active voice is.-RHM22 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is that "No action was taken until the summer of 1834..." should read "[Someone] took no action until the summer of 1834..." Passive voice leaves the reader in doubt over the identity of that someone who took no action. I get what you're saying about "officially", so I struck that comment. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments! I've fixed everything here except your first and second points. On the first, I combined the sentences, but I didn't remove "officially", because the denomination was unofficially halted in 1804 before it was done officially in 1806. I did reword the sentence to make it a little clearer. As for the second point, I think I fixed it, but I'm not really sure what active voice is.-RHM22 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits; please see the edit summaries. A few spots that don't read as smoothly as they could, maybe someone will have a suggestion what to do. - Dank (push to talk)
- "numismatic historian R.W. Julian suggests the coins were postdated to prevent coin collectors from becoming angered over the fact that they would be unable to obtain the newly dated coins, which would be struck in very small numbers."
- "According to a common story, the flying eagle seen on the Gobrecht dollar was modeled after Peter, the Mint's pet eagle, who, after his untimely death by becoming caught in the Mint's machinery, was stuffed and remains on view at the Mint to this day."
- "were the coin held face up, with the obverse facing toward the viewer, and rotated on its horizontal axis, the reverse design would also face upward.": I went with "the image was upside-down on the reverse." - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Dank, for the copyedit and support. Everything looks great except for bit about medal alignment, as that means that both images face upward when rotated. This always proves difficult, because I can't find a good way to explain it. To demonstrate, assume that this is the obverse of the coins: /\ normally, when U.S. coins are rotated this way: > or this way: < , the other side (reverse) looks like this: \/ . This is commonly called 'coin alignment'. The opposite of that, when both sides are the same (/\ and /\) is known as 'medal alignment', because most medals created in the United States use that orientation. It's extremely hard to explain without a photograph or something that demonstrates it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, if I had too few words, you had too many. Can you do something shorter? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, I can't think of any good way to word it. I'd remove that information entirely if it wasn't so important to the article. I'll try to rework it to make it a little more concise.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, if I had too few words, you had too many. Can you do something shorter? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Dank, for the copyedit and support. Everything looks great except for bit about medal alignment, as that means that both images face upward when rotated. This always proves difficult, because I can't find a good way to explain it. To demonstrate, assume that this is the obverse of the coins: /\ normally, when U.S. coins are rotated this way: > or this way: < , the other side (reverse) looks like this: \/ . This is commonly called 'coin alignment'. The opposite of that, when both sides are the same (/\ and /\) is known as 'medal alignment', because most medals created in the United States use that orientation. It's extremely hard to explain without a photograph or something that demonstrates it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the moment i would have to oppose, though it can be ammended to lead me to support. The article as it currently stands leads the reader to assume that there were 600 coins struck dated as 1838. This simply isnt so. The only coins dated as 1838 were a few pattern pieces and restrikes of those patterns. The 600 coins that the article refers to were the same type as the 1838 patterns, yet were struck dated as 1839. The article also fails to mention the important fact that the original 1836 issue of dollars was the only American coin issue to be issued as a proof into general circulation, no other american coin has been issued for general circulation as a proof. See [[8]] and any current red book issue for more details.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the 1838 issue. I believe I had the correct date in there, but it was changed while I was reworking the article. At any rate, it's fixed now. As for the other issue, I was aware of it, but I decided not to include it because it didn't seem particularly relevant. Also, the "for" or "not for circulation" issue has long been contentious among numismatics. Many still consider the Gobrecht dollar to be a pattern, even though it's well documented that it was meant as a trial run. Still, I would be hesitant to include any information about it being the only regular issue proof coin, because some might argue that the 1856 Flying Eagle cent and the various gold stellas were also regular issues, even though I would personally disagree.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah but there is a distinct difference between issues like the 56cent/stellas and the gobrecht dollars. The stellas and 56 cents were never released directly into general circulation, they were patterns with large mintages that were disseminated into public hands in an irregular form (given to congressmen/sold to collectors at higher than face value). The first issue of Gobrecht dollars was released into circulation as any other circulating coin would be, they were disperesed through banks and saw circulation as regular coins. The stellas and 56 cents were never intended to circulate as money (though a few 56 cents seem to have circulated anyway when spent by people ignorant of their rarity) while the 1836 issue of dollars were specifically made to circulate as money.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I came across this while looking at my own FAC, and I couldn't believe how much info you had for a coin that lasted four years over 150 years ago. However, I have some issues before this passes.
- It is a little surprising, but I have read others who do write-ups on obscure 15th century medals that are pages long! I have no idea how much effort it must take to find so much information on things like that.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it weird in the background section that you refer eastern Asia as "the Orient". I understand that's what it was called back then, but it feels a bit stuck in time.
- This is something that came up a little while ago while Trade dollar (United States coin) was on the main page. On there, it was changed to "Eastern Asia", so I did the same here.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1806, Secretary of State James Madison" - going with the above, I think it should be something like "then-Secretary", as many more people know Madison as a president than SoS."well received" should be "well-received"- Why did Moore resign?
- This I don't know. The source I used doesn't really go into any more detail, and I haven't found any online sources for that information either.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, I was just curious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This I don't know. The source I used doesn't really go into any more detail, and I haven't found any online sources for that information either.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Numismatic" - what's that? Either link or explain please
- I have the first use of that word linked.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cut down on the quotes in the "Design" section?
- I removed some from the quote about the reverse eagle, but I don't think it a good idea to remove any from the obverse quote, since everything he is saying is important; the Gobrecht dollar was the first federal United States coin to depict a seated figure, and I believe that the quote shows the designing process.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I more meant converting the quote into prose. It's great seeing quotes, but if they are merely describing something, one can just describe that as well in their own words. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed some from the quote about the reverse eagle, but I don't think it a good idea to remove any from the obverse quote, since everything he is saying is important; the Gobrecht dollar was the first federal United States coin to depict a seated figure, and I believe that the quote shows the designing process.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" In August, Patterson sent a uniface striking of the reverse die to President Jackson, who approved designs for both sides of the coin." - that is unsourced
- The reason for that is because I was asked above to remove some sourcing. I can certainly replace it if you think it necessary, though.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, every single sentence in the article should be sourced (using the standard sourcing method, meaning that no section should end without a citation). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for that is because I was asked above to remove some sourcing. I can certainly replace it if you think it necessary, though.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I see the "Gobrecht" on the coin in the image of the Infobox?
- That is because the infobox coin is an 1838 Gobrecht dollar, which was minted in very small numbers and is generally considered a pattern. The name would normally have been situated below the Liberty figure, but that was not done during the small 1838 production.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a 1836 now, here, please feel free to substitute.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would love if that was in, given that it has the "Gobrecht" on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a 1836 now, here, please feel free to substitute.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because the infobox coin is an 1838 Gobrecht dollar, which was minted in very small numbers and is generally considered a pattern. The name would normally have been situated below the Liberty figure, but that was not done during the small 1838 production.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"are technically patterns" - what does that mean? You never mention patterns elsewhere in the article"Gobrecht dollars struck prior to passage of the act weighed 26.96 grams (g), and those struck after 26.73 g." - the second portion doesn't really read well. Try adding another word or two"Persistent demand for the new coins prompted Woodbury to contact Patterson to request more to satisfy demand for the silver dollars" - there are some redundancies there ("persistent demand... to satisfy demand"). I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with the sentence- "though it is widely believed " - by whom?
- I'm not a huge fan of the "likely", but that's better at least. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "designer of the cent" - which cent? The modern penny?
- Which one-cent? Was it a contemporaneous one? A modern one? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That referred to the Flying Eagle Cent mentioned earlier. I have reworded that section.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My biggest concern is that there are only 7 sources for the article. I suppose I'm also a bit worried that 6 of them are book sources. Given that two books were written in the internet era, I'm worried you may be missing some contemporary online sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughtful review! I have fixed all of the points you've raised, except for the few that I have commented on above. As for the referencing, Wehwalt has been kind enough to supply me with some extra material, and I'll introduce some of that information into the article. I would have done it earlier, but I'm moving slow as molasses!-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! I gave some responses and struck out the ones I was satisfied with. Be sure to let me know when you add some more sourcing. I understand about moving slowly though. I have my own FAC I'm dealing with! (any reviews there would be great) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a comment, the author William H. Woodin, cited with the pattern books, should receive a link in the references, he is unquestionably notable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! I gave some responses and struck out the ones I was satisfied with. Be sure to let me know when you add some more sourcing. I understand about moving slowly though. I have my own FAC I'm dealing with! (any reviews there would be great) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughtful review! I have fixed all of the points you've raised, except for the few that I have commented on above. As for the referencing, Wehwalt has been kind enough to supply me with some extra material, and I'll introduce some of that information into the article. I would have done it earlier, but I'm moving slow as molasses!-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason for the switch to oppose? There is already one oppose, the delegate will not pass it without the issues being addressed. I do not think RHM22 is wilfully ignoring you; I'm actually a bit worried about it. Opposes are good to let noms know to get on the ball, but he simply appears not to be on Wikipedia. If the weekend passes, I will email him. I got some pretty good images of Gobrecht dollars, including a couple struck in copper, at the ANA convention in Chicago, that might spice up the aritcle, if it is a help for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, the fact that he isn't on Wikipedia is the main reason for my switch. It appears there is no one running the ship here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's why Sandy isn't archiving this. She's giving him a chance to come back. If this is still open middle of next week, I will do my best, but right now my FAC attention is fully on my own article and I am reluctant to take on other commitments until that clears. The thing is, I only have one "book" (images of a book I photographed last month and sent to RHM22) with me. Gobrecht dollars are not my field, but I'll do my best. Let's see what happens between now and then. I take it if the matters you have mentioned are cleared up, you'd reconsider?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, of course :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the long absence. I've been working in a place where I have no internet access. I believe that I've addressed all of your issues except the sourcing, which I will fix as soon as I have the chance. Thanks to Wehwalt for all your help and to Hink for understanding.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to point out, there's a problem with ref#7. Check the bottom of the refs section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the long absence. I've been working in a place where I have no internet access. I believe that I've addressed all of your issues except the sourcing, which I will fix as soon as I have the chance. Thanks to Wehwalt for all your help and to Hink for understanding.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, of course :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's why Sandy isn't archiving this. She's giving him a chance to come back. If this is still open middle of next week, I will do my best, but right now my FAC attention is fully on my own article and I am reluctant to take on other commitments until that clears. The thing is, I only have one "book" (images of a book I photographed last month and sent to RHM22) with me. Gobrecht dollars are not my field, but I'll do my best. Let's see what happens between now and then. I take it if the matters you have mentioned are cleared up, you'd reconsider?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, the fact that he isn't on Wikipedia is the main reason for my switch. It appears there is no one running the ship here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "After Chief Engraver William Kneass's stroke" - would suggest rephrasing as "had a stroke". If your phrasing is kept, be consistent in whether you use "Kneass's" or "Kneass' "
- Wikilink dies in lead?
- "Gobrecht dollars struck prior to passage of the act weighed 26.96 grams (g), while those struck later weighed 26.73 g" - is it worth converting those values?
- "by whom" tag should be addressed
- Be consistent in whether you use "mid-19th" or "mid-nineteenth". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! I've fixed all your concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - link check. No broken external links, no DAB-links. Earwig's tool shows no results (a deeper source check was not done). GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (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 not promoted by Nikkimaria 03:01, 7 July 2011 [9].
- Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.
All the issues pointed during the first nomination were addressed by then Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on sourcing again. I appreciate the work you've done since the previous nomination, but more work is needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Liniers armed all the population of Buenos Aires, including criollos and slaves, and defeated a second British invasion attempt in 1807." - source?
- "Not fooled by the Viceroy's communiqué, some criollos met at the houses of Nicolás Rodríguez Peña and Hipólito Vieytes. During these secret meetings they named a representative commission, composed of Juan José Castelli and Martín Rodríguez, to request that Cisneros convene of an open cabildo to decide the future of the Viceroyalty." - source?
- "In the Plaza, the people did not believe Cisneros was going to allow the open cabildo the next day. Leiva left the Cabildo and Belgrano, representing the crowd, requested a definitive answer." - source?
- "Leiva requested Belgrano help the Cabildo with the work, as his intervention would be seen by the crowd as a guarantee that their demands would not be ignored." - source? Check for other statements requiring sources
- Check for WP:MOS issues - for example, ellipses should not normally be in square brackets
- Page ranges should use endashes, not hyphens
- Excessive quotes in References section
- Multiple inconsistencies in formatting in References
- All foreign-language sources need to be noted as such, and these notations should use proper grammar (capitalization)
Sources need considerable work to meet FA standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done The details about the books (such as the language, if not English) are detailed at "Bibliography", the footnotes cite the author and page. So, if you read "Galasso, pp. 86—87", it is implicit that the details are below, at Galasso's book; not being repeated each time the book is cited. As for the quotes, they are required by WP:NOENG. Cambalachero (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvements made, but additional work is needed. Unsourced statements remain - for example, "The debate tangentially discussed the rivalry between criollos and peninsulars; proponents of keeping the Viceroy felt that the will of peninsulars should prevail over that of criollos." You appear to be using emdashes for page ranges - needs to be endashes. Further inconsistencies in reference formatting remain. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cambalachero, I'd like to make a few remarks:
- You should remove the detailed info in the all references (the English and Spanish texts) as Nikkimaria suggested. Name of author, date of publication and pages used is more than enough. Detailed info should be placed in "notes" section, but only if they are really important. However, I'd suggest you to simply move the detailed references into the talk page, so that it can be used as source in the future in case someone "doubts" you.
- "The Portuguese royal family left Europe and settled in colonial Brazil in 1808, after escaping the Napoleonic invasion of Portugal" Perhaps this would be better: "An invasion of Portugal in 1808 by Napoleon's forces led to the departure of the Portuguese Royal family to its South American colony, Brazil."
- "Carlota Joaquina, sister of Ferdinand VII, was the wife of a Portuguese prince". You're taking here of King João VI of Portugal, not a minor prince. Perhaps you should change it to "Dona Carlota Joaquina, sister of Ferdinand VII, was the wife of Portuguese King Dom João VI (John VI)."
- "Carlota Joaquina finally declined the project". That's not what happened. She never gave up the project. It was her husband who sabotaged her moves in every single moment. The last thing João VI would want was a stable, huge and powerful Hispanic-American monarchy just next to Brazil. Much better a yet another weak Hispanic-American republic, plagued by coups, dictatorships, rebellions, etc... However, it is true that the Argentine monarchists gave up on her, because they wanted a constitutional monarchy, while she wanted an absolustist monarchy. Perhaps something like "Conflicted goals, as her supporters intended her to head a constitutional monarchy, whereas she wanted to govern an absolute monarchy, undermined the project, leading it to failure."
I'm going to read the rest of the article now. --Lecen (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed, the translations are required by WP:NOENG, which is official policy. Paragraphs should begin introducing an idea and then expanding it, that's why the one about the Portuguese royal family leaving portugal has that info first, as it is about that and not about the napoleonic wars.
- As for John VI, the reference mentions him as "a prince", without even naming him, and the articles here seem to confirm that: as of 1808-1809, Maria I was the Queen regnant (that is, a Queen reigning in her own right, not the mere wife of the king), and John VI is not mentioned as King but until 1816, many time after the events of this article. Unless there is some gross mistake in there, he was a prince regent during the time mentioned, not a king. Even the Anexo:Lista de regentes de Portugal (from portuguese wikipedia) lists him as "Príncipe do Brasil" and "Infante de Portugal" for the 1792-1816 period. So, I changed it from "a prince" to "the prince regent", but not to "king", which would be inaccurate
- I have fixed the sentence about the end of the project, with the proposed sentence. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this particular source does not name him doesn't mean you can't. And you don't have to be so chronologically precise when naming someone. See for example Pedro II of Brazil, a FA which I wrote. You'll see a caption under a picture of him at 10 months old where he is called "Pedro II" ("Pedro II at 10 months old, 1826"). Obviously, he was not Pedro II then, but it's just for the matter of making things more simple and easier to understand. You may call Charlemagne "Charlemagne" even though he was not called as such when he was a young king, for example.
- You should also read WP:NOENG again. Indeed, if you quote a Spanish phrase for example, you have to place it translated to English, or else, how would a casual reader understand it? But you don't have to add the exact information which you took from a book in its original language and also the translated form in every single source. Could you image that in article like Empire of Brazil, where most books used as sources were written in Portuguese? "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". This is why I told you to transfer all those Spanish written citations (as well as their translations) to the article's talk page and leave behind only the author and the pages. --Lecen (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I'm not very sure about this, but as two users here request to remove the translations, and there was a consensus a short ago not to make it mandatory, I removed them. I kept a copy of the article with the traslations at User:Cambalachero/May Revolution, in case someone wants to check. Cambalachero (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cambalachero, I'm really not trying to ruin your day. I imagine all the hard work you must have writing this article. However, it is clearly below FA standards. There is a lot of issues to work on and the idea behind FAC is not to act as a peer review. There are many, many passages without a single source and the grammar and spelling are very weak. Not to count on other problems, such as reference types. You must be new around here, but I would suggest you to first request a peer review and ask for an experienced editor to help you improve the prose. Once the article is clearly ready to FAC (if said so by other editors), then you should nominate. And after that, you shold invite a few (around five) well known FA editors to review the article and give their votes (do not ask for support, just invite them to review it). I'm only trying to help you. --Lecen (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I'm not very sure about this, but as two users here request to remove the translations, and there was a consensus a short ago not to make it mandatory, I removed them. I kept a copy of the article with the traslations at User:Cambalachero/May Revolution, in case someone wants to check. Cambalachero (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2011 (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 not promoted by Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): ceranthor 07:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now a fully comprehensive and well-written account of a powerful earthquake. Fortunately, it was not responsible for many deaths, but the 2005 Qeshm earthquake allowed for analysis of both local and regional geology, including the enigmatic "buried faults" which I still don't fully understand. Thank you to Nikkimaria for offering commentary. ceranthor 07:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you include a period after "pg"
- Bibliography and References formatting should be the same
- Ref 15: you've got the newspaper and publisher names reversed
- Ref 18: The Guardian should be italicized
- Be consistent in whether television news sources are italicized
- For sources published by NetNative or LiveScience, include work title
- Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
- Page range for Nissen et al 2007? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed except for the formatting - I'm not sure how they can be the same. ceranthor 19:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's just an issue of using a consistent author name order (first or last name first). Also, is Priestly's first initial deliberately lower-case? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and I've fixed those. ceranthor 15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's just an issue of using a consistent author name order (first or last name first). Also, is Priestly's first initial deliberately lower-case? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -
Intro:
- Generally, if information in the intro will be repeated later on, one would not use citations. WP:LEAD
- "Southern" in "southern Iran" should be capitalised if it is referring to a section of the country
- "With 1 in 3,000 deaths in Iran attributable to earthquakes, one expert has suggested..." I assume this excerpt is referring to Roger Bilham, cited in source [28]? If so, the article does not give any information on Roger Bilham and why he is to be considered an expert. If not, to whom does it refer?
Background and geology:
- Consider removing "according to Nissen et al. (2007) and the United States Geological Survey." -- I do not know if these two sources are notable enough to warrant a citation in both the references and the prose.
- "Iran experiences at least one minor earthquake per day,[6]" Source states that on average, Iran experiences 1 earthquake per day. Not necessarily on a daily basis
- "...which Nissen et al. (2007) confirms..." Once again, consider removing a citation in the actual text of the article
- References the Simply Folded Belt before the phrase "Southern Iran's Zagros mountains lie in a highly active area of seismicity known as the Simply Folded Belt..." is stated for clarification. Consider rearranging article
- "Earthquakes of this type are not considered destructive." By whom? The source appearing first after that statement (a sentence later) blatantly states "A powerful earthquake hit southern Iran today, causing major destruction in seven villages and..." with the only other source in that paragraph only coming as close as "Earthquakes with an epicenter closer to the surface generally are more violent and cause more damage." yet stating that this type of earthquake is still violent and still causes damage. The article even calls the earthquake "strong" in its title.
- Though there is a citation needed tag later on in the paragraph, I feel the need to state that reference [16] does not state that mud and brick are poor earthquake-resistant materials. "The island, with a population of about 120,000 people, consists primarily of villages with a majority of mud-and-brick buildings that may not be quake-resistant." It just mentions the possibility that the materials are not quake-resistant.
Damage and casualties:
- Many sources do state that the quake lasted 10 or more, yet only 1 is referenced. Sources that state that: [2], [6], [16], [17], [18], [21], [22], [23]
Relief efforts:
- In the caption under the image in this section, the word "pulse" should be turned plural.
Future threat:
- I do not believe source [28] ever states that anything is responsible for the statistic of 1 in 3,000 Iranians dying in an earthquake. The article does not state that he said anything was to be held accountable. Just that the statistic has remained unchanged since ~1900. "Iran is the worst offender, according to Bilham. One in 3,000 Iranians dies in an earthquake, he said, a statistic that has remained unchanged since 1900." Although this might imply heavily enough that the construction techniques are to blame that it is fine how it is, I am being nitpicky.
- "The United Nations have prepared a Common Country Assessment" I think that the verb would have to be singular here because the U and the N are capitalised, making it the singular name of the organisation, rather than a plural noun. However, I might be wrong.
I did not check all in-line citations due to time constraints and the fact that I could only access online references. Micromann (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be fixed! ceranthor 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry, I didn't get your message until just now (I had gone to sleep shortly after making that comment). I made these comments after Graham Colm's edits. Second read through:
- Intro:
- "Thirteen [deaths]" is written out as a word. Later, in Damage and casualties, it is written as "13 [deaths]" -- You might consider changing one of the two for consistency's sake.
- I'm just echoing Carcharoth with this one, but: Intro states 4 villages were devastated. List of destroyed villages in Damage and casualties contains 13 villages.
- "Kilometres" is spelled as "res" in the intro. In Background and geology, kilometers, meters, centimeters, and millimeters are spelled "ers". Consider changing "res" to "ers" for consistency's sake.
- "Because the earthquake occurred in a remote area during the middle of the day, it did not not cause many fatalities, and Iranian relief efforts in the aftermath were effective and largely sufficient" -- You might consider putting this in the relief section as well, rephrased and cited
- Background and geology:
- "...second noteworthy Iranian earthquake of the year, having been preceded by the 2005 Zarand earthquake on February 22.[4]" Not a flaw, but the "having been preceded by" sounds a bit odd to me. Maybe change it to just "preceded by" because it is a current fact (it's kind of like saying "North America had included Mexico").
- You might consider breaking the following into 2 sentences to avoid having 2 citations and 3 hyperlinks on just one sentence: "The focal mechanism (which describes the orientation of the fault that slipped and its movement direction) of this earthquake suggests it was a result of thrusting (where older rock is pushed over younger rock),[5] which has been confirmed as reverse slip (faulting which shortens and thickens the crust).[9]"
- Damage and casualties:
- "Seven other villages experienced extensive damage.[1]" - Source states that at least 7 other villages were severely damaged. The way it currently is written, if only 8 villages total experienced extensive damage, how could 13 be destroyed by it? Maybe reword the quoted sentence and the next as something to the effect of "13 villages were destroyed (list the destroyed ones) with at least 7 others experiencing extensive damage."
- "Mercalli scale Intensity III damage was reported in Bandar Abbas, Abu Zabi, Ajman, Dubayy, al-Fujayrah and Ras al Khaymah; Intensity IV damage (moderate) occurred at Sharjah.[b]" Where are these places located? In Iran? If you remove the image of the pulses (not suggesting to or not to), you might consider replacing it with a map showing where some of these places are and how far from Qeshm Island they are
- Relief efforts:
- The only thing I noticed in this section was the extra number of tents after reading Carcharoth's comment. Although "In total more than 2,000 people were affected.[20]" can mean it did in fact affect 4,000 people, it seems that the article would be more likely to state "Over 4,000 people were affected." You might have to leave out 1 of the 2 statistics or find a source stating that 4,000 were affected.
- Future threat:
- Though we now know who Roger Bilham is and why he is qualified to speak on this matter, we have no source to verify his information.
- First time the Richter scale is mentioned in the article. Maybe hyperlink to it
- Though I don't have access to reference [29], does it state all facts in the 2nd-to-last paragraph on page 59, or just the facts about the 1990 one?
- Once again, I did not check all the citations to verify them. The article has a good amount of facts, gets fairly technical and is not overly long. I think it is a good article, just it could use a bit more work before I support its nomination. Micromann (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All are fixed, except for the locations, which I'm sorting out. And yes, all of that is mentioned on just one page (the source is available in the bibliography section). ceranthor 18:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry. There are problems with the prose, which suffers from redundancy and lack of flow. I made a few edits but got stuck here, "Faults on Qeshm Island converge to create a complex structure in the center of the island, where most of the tension was positioned in the center of Qeshm Island, along a northwest-southeast trending fault where the most concentrated levels of shear and dilatancy (volume change associated with application of shear stress) were observed." The repetition of "in the center" is confusing, and there is too much information squashed into one sentence. The article needs copy-editing – I suspect throughout. Graham Colm (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. Most of the geology section was added recently, so it hasn't been fine-tuned as well as it should have been. I'll try to enlist a copyeditor, but I think I can make a lot of progress by myself on this one. ceranthor 23:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I did this brief review following a request on my talk page.
- "at 13:52 locally" - I think the usual phrasing would be "local time", not "locally".
- You give previous context, by naming the previous powerful earthquake (Zagrand). Can you give future context by naming one of the powerful earthquakes in Iran that most immediately followed this one? I would have though you would at least need to mention 2006 Borujerd earthquake and 2008 Bandar Abbas earthquake, particularly the latter as it is in the same area (you have edited the latter article recently - it there a reason it is not mentioned in this article?).
- More than four villages are said to have been damaged/destroyed in the main text - contradicts the lead.
- The relief efforts and description of the injuries and damage in the main article make it sound much more destructive than the lead says. Compare "It killed thirteen people and devastated four villages" with "In total more than 2,000 people were affected." and "4,696 sets of relief tents". Was the relief effort over-pitched or is it normal to send more supplies than may be needed, or did it affect more than 2000 people?
- The picture of pulses is jarring and the epitome of decorative.
Overall, I'm in two minds about this as it is clearly a powerful earthquake, but (fortunately) the deaths and destruction were relatively limited ("thirteen people [died] and devastated four villages"). This does mean that the amount out there about this will be less than for earthquakes that had more impact. But I think some of this article is padding, and I can't think of a politer way to put that. I'm referring to the 'Future threat' section. It feels like that material could be cut-and-pasted into article about any earthquake in Iran (I see that similar wording is present in 2008 Bandar Abbas earthquake). Also, the 'Future threat' section doesn't mention the '2005 Qeshm earthquake' earthquake at all, and also fails to mention the later earthquake in 2008. What is really needed here is stuff to make that section relevant to this article. Did the 2005 Qeshm earthquake change anything in terms of approaches to earthquakes in Iran? Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all your minor comments and removed the image. I'm simply following the refs so I'd have to assume the efforts were over-pitched. As for the future threat, I can see how you think it's padding, but really my goal with that sort of information is to spread awareness. If an Iranian ever reads this sort of article, I'd want them to know of the risks and to be aware of the situation. I'm totally willing to add more information, though. ceranthor 18:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor, what's the status on the copyedit? Karanacs (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm copyediting the section on my own. I will do my absolute best to have the edits up tonight; sorry for the delay. (that includes more information for the future threats section as well) ceranthor 12:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And now tomorrow morning. ceranthor 22:09, 14 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [11].
- Nominator(s): — Rod talk 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Kennet and Avon Canal is a historic British industrial waterway, which fell into disuse and has now been restored. The article covers not just the history and engineering but also social and environmental factors. It is nearly 5 years since it was last nominated at FAC. I has been a good article for years and has recently been improved by several editors (notably Bob1960evens) with a recent peer review by Brianboulton and EdJogg along with a copy edit by Malleus Fatuorum. If there are any outstanding issues identified I will attempt to address them in a timely manner.— Rod talk 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Avon flows through the artificial New Cut, reducing currents and silting in the harbour and preventing flooding." - source?
- Ref added.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "When canal boats were still pulled by horses, the boatmen had to haul boats through the tunnel by hand, pulling on chains that ran along the inside walls." - source?
- Ref added.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadfield or Hadfields? David and Charles or David & Charles? Check for consistency
- I've changed Hadfields to Hadfield & David and Charles to David & Charles (as that's what it says on the books). Hope I've got them all.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not include both authors for Halse?
- Done— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Location for Haslam?
- Added— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are all locations listed in the UK?
- Yes & I've added these in.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
- Done— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Combine identical refs - ex 15 and 16
- Done— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is SSSI?
- SSSI= Site of Special Scientific Interest (as written in full in first sentence of ecology) I can put in full in all SSSI citation sheets if required?— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this site authored by staff of the museum?
- Yes see [12].— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare formatting of refs 43 and 44
- Changed.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 102: publisher?
- Added— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this page entirely copied from the listed source, or does it only derive the numerical list from there?
- I'm sorry I don't understand that question.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page says "These seven wonders of the waterways are as listed by Robert Aickman" - I wondered whether Aickman is the source of all the material on that page (including the description of each "wonder"), or whether he only listed the wonders (ie. 1. Devizes Locks, 2. Pontcysyllte Aqueduct...) and the descriptions were created by Jim Shead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. I will ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways in case anyone has access to the original book and can answer the question.— Rod talk 13:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page says "These seven wonders of the waterways are as listed by Robert Aickman" - I wondered whether Aickman is the source of all the material on that page (including the description of each "wonder"), or whether he only listed the wonders (ie. 1. Devizes Locks, 2. Pontcysyllte Aqueduct...) and the descriptions were created by Jim Shead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry I don't understand that question.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced "floating down the river" as a source with Allsop's book.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bath to Devizes section
- I have noted a number of queries on the article talk page. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues (hopefully) responded to on the talk page.— Rod talk 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- spotchecks on sources, paraphrasing, verifiability
- ref #1 length verified
- ref #3 dangers of sea voyages and construction of mills verified
- ref #4 first cargo verified
- ref #6 caen hill locks, final task verified
- ref #14 pillboxes and their survival; defence line verified
- ref #16 restoration start, odonata verified
- ref #20 "the canal was reopened from the thames to hungerford wharf in july 1974", lottery funding verified
- ref #21 repuddling, polythene lining and concrete cradle verified
- ref #26 lottery funding verified
- ref #28
- no mention of prince charles or 2003 - ref #29
- just a front page of a web site, no specific support for the statement - ref #30 bradford lock wharves and dundas aqueduct statements verified
- ref #32 bath limestone verified
- ref #33 cruiseway information verified
- ref #34, 35, 36, 37, 38 cumulatively confirm the information but the calculation may be wp:syn
- ref #39 coal mine closure verfified
- ref #40 tidal status verified
- ref #41 bath aspargus status verified
- ref #42 geology verified
- ref #43 water mills and lock destruction verified
- ref #44 glaciation history explanation verified
- ref #45 dutch island verified
- ref #46
does not support the statement: "bath bottom lock marks the divergence of the river avon and the canal, 766 yards (700 m) south of pulteney bridge." - ref #47
support pumping station, but not the detail - ref #48
does not support the detail, just the existence of the lock - ref #49 statement verified
- ref #50 location supported by os ref
- ref #51 location supported by os ref
- ref #52 location supported by os ref
- ref #53, 54 location supported by os ref
- ref #56 listed status and history verified
- ref #57-62 listed status verified
- ref #63 species verified
- ref #66 tree species verified
- ref #67 naming verified
- ref #70 information verified
- ref #71 tithe barn verified
- ref #72 information verified
- ref #73 aqueduct collapse verified
- ref #74 wilts & berks verified
- ref #75 lock details verified
- ref #76
information verified, should robert aickman be credited in the cite - ref #77 information verified
- ref #78 information verified
- ref #81 race history verified
- ref #82 information verified
- ref #84 information verified
- ref #85
information verified, but exact copy of text - use as a quote " to serve Honey Street wharf in Alton parish, which refused to have drinking houses." - ref #86 information verified
- ref #87 information verified
- ref #91 information verified
- ref #92, 93 information verified
- ref #94 information verified
- ref #95 information verified
- ref #97 information verified
- ref #98 information verified
- ref #99
information verified, should state msword format - ref #100 information verified
- ref #101
page 133 refers to dorset and purbeck, i think the page ref is wrong - ref #102 information verified
- ref #103 information verified
- ref #104 information verified
- ref #105 information verified
- ref #106
nothing about a wooden bridge here - ref #107
but this does have the wooden bridge - ref #110 information verified
- ref #111 information verified
- ref #112 information verified
- ref #113 information verified
- ref #114 information verified
- ref #115 information verified
- ref #116 information verified
- ref #117
site has changed, dead link - ref #118 information verified
- ref #119 information verified
- ref #120 information verified
- ref #123
"led to reading's importance as a river port in the middle ages." is a direct quote and should be rendered as such - ref #124 information verified
- ref #125 information verified
- ref #126 information verified
- ref #127 information verified
- ref #128 information verified
- ref #129 information verified
- ref #130-134 information verified
- ref #136 information verified
- ref #137 information verified
- ref #139 information verified
- ref #141 information verified
- ref #142 information verified
A few points above, a number of references are duplicated and could be combined, but I have not done so in order to keep the current numbering. The prose is good. I can support if these few points are addressed. I have only been able to check Allsopp and Nicholson of the off-line references. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all this checking.
- Refs 28 & 29 - I've added another ref for Prince Charles visit & removed the one which just pointed to a front page
- Ref 46 I've taken out the detail (766 yards (700 m)) which was not supported by the reference
- Refs 47 & 48 I've reused an existing ref (Allsop p21) which does support the claim re the pump
- Ref 76 I've added a quote to the reference saying based on Aikman's book
- Ref 99 format=word added
- Ref 101 the page number is correct, but it is the last item in the table on that page & goes over to p134 so I've added that in.
- Refs 106 & 107 I have reworded the sentence about the wooden bridge so the reference supports the statement
- Ref 117 I have removed the claim re the purchase price which was in the deadlink - the rest of the sentence is supported by Ref 118 (now 117)
- Ref 123 (now 122) I have reworded this to overcome the copyvio of a whole (long) sentence.
- I've looked for duplicates but the ones I can see are for different page nos etc. If there are others let me know & I will combine them.— Rod talk 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, just ref 85, now ref 84. My mistake about the duplicates, I can't see any now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added speech marks for the text about Honey Street - can reword if required.— Rod talk 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added speech marks for the text about Honey Street - can reword if required.— Rod talk 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, just ref 85, now ref 84. My mistake about the duplicates, I can't see any now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Images
All appear to be licensed and captioned correctly. File:Devizeslockspreresotoration.jpg is of rather poor resolution and I wonder if it is really necessary? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the only image we have (with appropriate license etc) which shows the state of dereliction and indicates the restoration effort needed. The poor quality probably relates to camera technology in the 1970s and/or scanning from a film based system. I am not aware of any suitable alternatives.— Rod talk 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have managed to sharpen this image up a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, my concerns have been addressed, I believe that the article meets the criteria, so am happy to support. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment, with regretComment: I peer-reviewed the early parts of this article, and some of my concerns were addressed then, but frankly, the prose and punctuation are not yet up to FA standard. Here are a few points I have picked up on my most recent reading, to the midpoint of the Restoration section. Note also that I have carried out numerous copyedits on my way through:-
- Be consistent as between "Kennet navigation" and "Kennet Navigation". The latter seems the more correct
- Done.— Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overdetailing italicised (by me): "The purchase from Frederick Page cost £100,000, of which £70,000 was paid in cash with the balance paid back over a period of time. Information not really relevant to this article. Maybe check for other instances in the article of unnecessary detail.
- This additional detail was added in response to a comment at a previous stage of review, although it could be removed.— Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "...annual revenue of around £45,000 a year." Last two words redundant.
- Done.— Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The information about WW2 "pillboxes"; where were they built in relation to the canal?
- More info added.— Rod talk 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be useful to know who formed the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust. Likewise, you refer to the "newly-formed" British Waterways; who formed it, and what were its responsibilities?
- Info added on both.— Rod talk 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overcomplicated and confusing sentence: "Other work included a new bridge at Bridge Street in Reading to overcome a long standing obstruction caused by strengthening girders added to the underside of the bridge which had reduced the navigable headroom from 8 feet 6 inches (2.59 m) to 4 feet 6 inches (1.37 m)".
- Reworded.— Rod talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept of the canal's "summit" needs to be explained at first mention.
- Linked to Route summit and "at the highest point of the canal" added.— Rod talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another messy sentence: "In 1988 the restoration of Woolhampton Lock was completed however it could not be used by boats as, on one side, Frounds Bridge could not be opened and on the other the restoration of Midgham Lock had not been finished, although these were completed the following year."
- Reworded.— Rod talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A glance through the later parts of the article indicates similar problems with prose and punctuation. However, I believe that these are readily resolvable within the constraints of this FAC, if someone is prepared to give the article a full copyedit. When this has been done I will be more than willing to reconsider my oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments (and the copy editing you have done). I will attempt to add and remove detail as you suggest in your comments and I have asked for help with copy editing.— Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I note that Malleus is on the copyediting case, which bodes well. Perhaps you or he would ping me when the job is done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: You have attended to my initial concerns, and the copyediting has improved the prose, so I have struck my original oppose. I don't have time to complete a full review, but could you comment on one or two points?
- "The River Avon was navigable from Bristol to Bath during the early years of the 13th century, until the construction of mills on the river forced its closure." Why would the construction of mills cause the closure of the river's navigation?
- Clew doesn't give more info, just that it was restricted by the construction of mills, however this says that weirs were constructed across the river (presumably to hold back a head of water to provide power for the mills) which would have meant that craft could not pass them.— Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found it quite hard to relate the text in the "route" sections to the charts alongside. Take the first one: Bristol to Bath. There is no mention in the chart of the "Floating Harbour"; in the text there is no mention of "Cumberland Basin" which seems to be a major feature. From the chart the river appears to have two channels, which is not explained in the text. I think it important that there is clear consistency between what's in the text and what's in the charts.
- Bristol Harbour (which is also known as the Floating Harbour & which the Cumberland Basin is a part of) is not considered by any of the sources to be part of the K&A. It was built separately and served a different purpose. A little text was included for completeness with a link for those who need more information (however this was removed by this edit) following previous review discussions on the talk page (around 2nd July). The "2nd channel" is the New Cut (Bristol) constructed to carry the river water (and tidal flows) away from the harbour. This was added to the route diagram for exactly the consistency you are asking for and, if it is not included in the text could be removed from the diagram. I can add the relevant text (or a revised version) back into the article if needed?— Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have drastically pruned the routemap to address these concerns. The routemap now refers to the Floating Harbour directly, and ignores the other detail, which is distracting in this article. The large size of the icon used for 'docks' over-emphasised the Cumberland Basin. I touched on this when we attempted the previous edit, but I don't think we carried any suggestions through. I think the text and the map are now more in sync -- does this address the concerns adequately? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The level of detail in the "route" sections is impressive, but possibly more suited to a guidebook than a summary encyclopedia article? Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there specifics which you feel should be removed?— Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a wish to provide a commentary for the routemaps. This formed the bulk of the article before this year's push towards GA/FA was started and other information provided. Finding the right level of detail is tricky -- we don't mention every lock for example -- but we do in some places, and the Bristol/Bath end is covered much more completely. The text has tended to be tailored to match the length of the accompanying map (to avoid whitespace on a standard 1280x1024 monitor). -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I appreciate that efforts have been made to meet my concerns, and I have no qualms now about supporting the article's promotion. A very sound piece of work on which much effort has been expended. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jaguar:
- "The idea of an east to west waterway link across southern England was first mentioned in Elizabethan times, to take advantage of the proximity of the rivers Avon and Thames, only 3 miles (4.8 km) apart at their closest. Around 1626 Henry Briggs made a survey of the two rivers" - bad sentence. It says that Henry Briggs made the survey in Elizabethen times in 1626. But the Elizabethen era ended in 1603.
- There is a full stop between the sentence about Elizabethan plans and the separate information about the 1626 survey, so I don't quite see the problem.— Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand the problem. This actually reads like there was this one plan, by Briggs -- in 1626/Elizabethan times -- whereas I think we are wanting to say there was a plan earlier than Briggs. Part of the problem is we assume that the reader is aware that Elizabethan times finished in 1603. I must admit that I assumed that 1626 was in Elizabethan times. Perhaps the problem is we don't elaborate on exactly when the original idea was mooted (OK, maybe we don't know) since that might clarify matters. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I think I get it now. Clew doesn't give any further details of the earliest plans but I have added the dates for the Elizabethan era & "Later" for the 1626 survey. Hopefully this makes it clearer.— Rod talk 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The final engineering task was the completion of the Caen Hill Locks at Devizes." It already said in the paragraph that the canal was completed in 1810, but this sentence makes out that the locks at Devizes took longer. When was this completed?
- The previous sentence explains that the final section Caen Hill Locks at Devizes was completed in 1810, which was the final bit to be completed, so again I'm not sure what the problem is with this.— Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1963 the newly formed British Waterways, which was created by the Transport Act 1962" - question: Wouldn't it be good if the link to the Transport Act 1962 be renamed to 'Transport Act'? It says that the British Waterways was founded in 1963, so the Act set up in 1962 might confuse the reader. I have also done this to an act that was set up in the 40s in the same paragraph.
- I have reworded this to try to remove any confusion over the dates.— Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lock number one on the Kennet and Avon Canal is Hanham Lock, first opened in 1727" - wait. The canal opened in 1810? Or is this to do with the River Avon and not the canal?
- Hanham Lock is on the Avon Navigation.— Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's me trying to emphasise that we're talking about the K&A from here, and not the rest of the Avon. Maybe it should be re-worded to: "Lock number one on the Kennet and Avon Canal is Hanham Lock, first opened as part of the Avon Navigation in 1727." ?? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks I have changed in line with your suggested wording.— Rod talk 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not complete yet. I will find more sentences that will need check in the mean time. I have already found a few sentences that will need some copy editing, but most of them I have done a few myself. Jaguar (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Restoration work involved a collaboration between staff from British Waterways and volunteer labour." - It would be better if the sentence could explain what type of volunteer work it was, eg. was it local? I'm sure this sentence is no big deal, don't worry!
- "Monkey Marsh Lock at Thatcham is one of only two remaining working examples of turf-sided locks on the canal today." - This is interesting. But could have a reference to Garston Lock in this sentence? (it is the other turf-sided lock on the canal).
- Thanks for your copy edits & comments. The volunteer labour varied at different points along the canal (according to Lindley-Jones) so would probably be too much specific detail to include. Garston Lock being the other turf sided lock is mentioned a couple of paragraphs further down (as it is a few miles east). Do you think it would be useful to duplicate this or rearrange the sentences to bring them together?— Rod talk 14:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rearranging the sentences would make more sense as the two turf-sides locks should be mentioned together (for example, 'there are only two remaining turf-sided locks on the canal, such as Monkey Marsh and Garston). Don't worry too much about the volunteer labour stuff; the thing to avoid is too much detail! Jaguar (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As all of my issues have been addressed and with all the copy editing stuff done, I will be very happy to give my full support for this article and I wish it good luck passing the FAC. Jaguar (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review by Reaper Eternal
- Bristol to Bath
- "A public house has been built on the island between Keynsham Lock and the weir. The weir side of the island is also the mouth of the River Chew." - This is unreferenced.
- "Many of the bridges over the canal are listed buildings.[60][61][62][63][64][65]" - Since these citations are all used here and only here, consider bundling per WP:CITEBUNDLE.
- "The canal turns south into a valley between Bathampton Wood and Bathford Hill which includes Brown's Folly a 99-acre (40 ha) biological and geological Site of Special Scientific Interest." - Needs a source.
- "...and a 14th-century Grade II* listed tithe barn, 180 feet (55 m) long and 30 feet (9 m) wide,[74] on its way into Bradford on Avon." - If ref #74 covers the whole paragraph sentence, it should be at the end.
- Still not fixed. Ref has now changed number to #71, though.
- "...but full restoration will be a long process." - Unsourced, so who says this?
- Devizes to Newbury
- "Heading east from Devizes the canal passes through the Wiltshire countryside and a series of locks and swing bridges before another flight of locks at Crofton." - This is unsourced. A
{{cite map}}
would probably work well here. - "...but for day-to-day operation electric pumps are used, automatically controlled by the water level in the summit pound." - This is unsourced.
- "Heading east from Devizes the canal passes through the Wiltshire countryside and a series of locks and swing bridges before another flight of locks at Crofton." - This is unsourced. A
- Newbury to Reading
- "The River Kennet is navigable from Newbury downstream to the confluence with the River Thames at Kennet Mouth, in Reading." - If ref #112 covers this, there should be a citation at the end of this paragraph.
- "Today the Brewery Gut is a major feature of Reading's The Oracle shopping centre." - Who says this?
- "The Horseshoe Bridge at Kennet Mouth, a timber-clad iron-truss structure, was built in 1891 to enable horses towing barges to cross the river." - This needs to be sourced.
- Overall, the writeup looks good, and a
{{cite map}}
could probably be used for many of these citations. After this is cleaned up, I will go over the prose. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for spotting these. I have added or adjusted references as suggested above.— Rod talk 16:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for resolving these issues, but one has not been fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source/copyvio spotchecks by Reaper Eternal
- Ref #74: Does not appear to support information in question. This is probably since it is linked to a blog frontpage, and the information is continually replaced. You will want to link to the exact article that supports this information.
- Ref #81: Only seems to support the last sentence in its paragraph.
- Ref #104: No close paraphrasing found. However, it does not support this claim: "Hungerford Marsh Lock is unique on the Kennet and Avon Canal in that it has a swing bridge directly over the centre of the lock that must be opened before the lock may be used."
- Ref #118: No close paraphrasing found.
- Other quick copyvio checks turned up nothing, so probably no issues there.
- Would you mind checking your major online sources more carefully, as it seems some of them do not support their material? Once this is resolved, I think I can support this article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope I've dealt with the specifics you have identified by changing or adding the references. I've also looked at some of the other online sources and haven't identified any other problems, but of course if you do please let me know.— Rod talk 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good. I can now support this article. Thank you for cleaning these issues! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator Rodw will be away and have no internet access between 29 July and 8 August. Others have kindly agreed to respond to reviewers comments. In case of problems I will respond on my return.— Rod talk 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have indicated my willingness to try and respond to comments, Will take look tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [13].
- Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it was in the middle of an FAC I felt was progressing quite well but was closed last week when I went away on holiday; to remove some of the clutter on the FAC page, I presume, because although there had been quite a few useful comments there were not yet any supports or opposes. I'm back and ready to work on it again, though, so I'm reopening the candidacy. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the circumstances, I'll let this FAC run, but in the future, if you want an exemption from the rule about two weeks between nominations, pls ask beforehand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of such a rule. Thanks for letting this one slide, I appreciate it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why such a huge quote in FN 12?
- The source is in the format of a quiz: I wanted to have all of the correct answers there to save the trouble of actually doing the quiz to find out the answers (it doesn't give you the correct answer if you get a question wrong). —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check formatting for quotes within quotes
- What makes this and similar a high-quality reliable source? This?
- Royals' Record gives a list of references here (scroll to the bottom), as does Historical Kits here. I thought they were both sound but I'll bow to consensus if it goes against them. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- FN 89: publisher?
- Woops! Well spotted. Rectified. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 104: does this album have a catalog number? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, and it's been added. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw
Is it possible to get an appropriately licensed picture - with a fairly recent person I would have thought there might be one available.- I had one there before but it got taken off – I don't think it's necessary though. There's already a fair use image (the record sleeve) which serves as an illustration, so we can hardly argue that we need it for that. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of "Childhood" has quite a lot of claims - are they all covered by reference 5?Would it be worth explaining what a Borstal is for non UK readers?- I've put a separate wikilink for borstal. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth adding a links from "asphalters" to Asphalt?As a non football expert the section in the "Reading - 1973–74 season" confused me - what is the difference between signing Football League forms on 23 January and signing a contract on 6 February 1974?- You don't need to be professional to play in the Football League, only to be registered to do so (to "sign forms"). It was relatively common in the lower divisions in the "good old days" for players to train only part-time because the professional wages were so low; teams would allow them to maintain other higher-paying professions in order to keep them on the books. I hope this helps explain. I have re-written the sentence thus: "Hurley registered the amateur forward to play in The Football League on 23 January 1974 and gave him his first-team debut four days later." If this is still not completely clear I'm open to suggestions. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 89 seems to duplicate some of the text in the body of the article (section 1976–77 season (from 30 December 1976)) - one or other could be shortened- I included the parts of the newspaper text I used as the source as I don't imagine that specific copy of the South Wales Echo will be too easy to get hold of. I would agree if it were a footnote, but it isn't. It's part of the sourcing. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend not to include long quotes. But that may just be personal preference.
- I included the parts of the newspaper text I used as the source as I don't imagine that specific copy of the South Wales Echo will be too easy to get hold of. I would agree if it were a footnote, but it isn't. It's part of the sourcing. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was he taken to court after being arrested for not having a train ticket?- No, it isn't that serious an offence; a (relatively) small fine would have been all. No court date for this is mentioned by any of my sources, in any case. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the inclusion of both a "footnotes" section and then "notes" under the references confusing - but this may just be personal preference.— Rod talk 18:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've had no trouble with it, but I agree that it could be confusing. Have you got an alternative suggestion? —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In some cases the info in the note could be included in the text eg Note C - this levels of detail is included for many of the other games.— Rod talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems clearer to me now.— Rod talk 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In some cases the info in the note could be included in the text eg Note C - this levels of detail is included for many of the other games.— Rod talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had no trouble with it, but I agree that it could be confusing. Have you got an alternative suggestion? —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On looking at your changes I also noticed "pub" (2nd para of "Borstal, first marriage and the Isthmian League"). I have been in the past that it is more encyclopaedic to write "public house" (despite common usage).— Rod talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've changed to public house as you suggested, and I've changed "Notes" in the references to "Source notes" in an attempt to make it clearer. And I've got rid of most of the quotes in the references, they don't really add much, actually; the only ones I've kept are the ones from the biography. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.— Rod talk 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed to public house as you suggested, and I've changed "Notes" in the references to "Source notes" in an attempt to make it clearer. And I've got rid of most of the quotes in the references, they don't really add much, actually; the only ones I've kept are the ones from the biography. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Several redirects. Update with new links. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Robin_Friday TGilmour (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The BBC ones bounce back and forth it seems, so I've left them. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 126 seems to be dead. TGilmour (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, so it is. Replaced with RSSSF link, backed up by biography details and Rundle's data. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A perfect article. TGilmour (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sock. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Review
- The information at File:Themandontgiveafuck.jpg needs to be placed in a proper FUR template.
- File:Alanshearerwiki.jpg is pretty poor quality, and really dosen't add much to the article. I'd personally either remove it entirely or replace it with an aggressive crop of File:Alan Shearer 1998 (2).jpg.
- Everything else checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale for Friday done; removed Shearer, agree it doesn't add much. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I reviewed at the first FAC and looked at the changes since then; no glitches seem to have been introduced in the process of copy-editing, thankfully.
The only thing I have to add is that I'm not wild about the two sources Nikki mentioned. I remember previous articles being asked about Historical Kits, but not whether it was ever established as reliable. Not familiar with Royals' Record, but if more reliable sites/articles are avaliable for the facts this cites, I'd consider replacing it.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've replaced the references; have a look. Added Sedunary and Devlin refs, and an official Cardiff City one. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments. This is a fine, well-written article, which I expect to support once a couple of minor issues are addressed. Switched to support.
"The local controversy surrounding the interracial relationship caused the couple and their circle of friends to be isolated socially, and even to be physically attacked one night in an Acton public house": who was attacked? Friday, the couple, or the whole circle of friends?- Everybody. I've changed it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He openly smoked spliff and dropped pills": sounds like this should be "spliffs"; can you check the source?- I remember thinking it was strange too, but that's how it was put in the source. I've changed it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's acceptable under the "minimal change" rule in WP:MOSQUOTE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember thinking it was strange too, but that's how it was put in the source. I've changed it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Per MOSQUOTE, the cquote template should be reserved for pull quotes. I'd suggest making the "Even if it was three in the morning" quote just as a regular inline quotation. The later exchange between Friday and Thomas also should be fixed.- I liked having them pulled out, but okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the MOS is a guideline, not policy, and you can argue against it in the name of common sense, but you have to convince others that there's a reason to disregard it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I liked having them pulled out, but okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several places where you use four or even five citations for a fairly short section of only two or three sentences. Are all those citations really necessary? I know another FAC reviewer who regards five citations as a sure sign of a problem; I wouldn't go that far but I think you can serve the reader better if you can reduce them to no more than two, or perhaps three. More citations makes it harder for the reader to figure out where the information comes from.
- Can you give me an example? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, you have four footnotes supporting this text: "and walked into Andrews's office on 20 December 1977 to announce that he was retiring from professional football. The club promptly released him and cancelled his contract". Seems unlikely that you really need four separate references for that. However, this is a very minor point and not something I think you have to change; I just think it looks odd and I suspect it's unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those clusters of refs usually come at the end of a paragraph, and it's simply to stop me putting endless references on every comma and full stop. I can change it if you really like but I think it's okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give me an example? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need note [B] in the lead -- the controversial part is only mentioned in the body. Also, where that incident is covered in the body I think you should add something like "though this is disputed", since [B] makes it clear it may never have happened.- It's quite a well-known story which people would probably look for in the lead; that's why I put the note link in there. I think "according to legend" makes it clear that it didn't happen, doesn't it? Otherwise it would just say it happened. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK to both -- I wouldn't do it that way myself, but that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite a well-known story which people would probably look for in the lead; that's why I put the note link in there. I think "according to legend" makes it clear that it didn't happen, doesn't it? Otherwise it would just say it happened. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no pictures of Friday, or videos of any of his goals, that could be used or linked to? A video of his "best goal ever scored" would be worth identifying.- No footage exists. Filming Fourth Division matches was not common during the mid-1970s. I've added a note explaining. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's helpful. A pity; I'd like to have seen that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No footage exists. Filming Fourth Division matches was not common during the mid-1970s. I've added a note explaining. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the name of his third wife known?- Not given in the biography or any of my other sources unfortunately. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC
- I've switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
Comments- late to the party. Reading though now. jotting notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should Crystal Palace's school of excellence - be capitalised?
- Friday became physically stronger and fitter - I suspect you could take "physically" out and it wouldn't change the meaning....
Otherwise...barring a few semicolons here and there that could just as easily be full stops...I think we are over the white line with a Support from me (the above are minor quibbles) - entertaining read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think caps for Palace. Okay on second point. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Casliber, that really sounded very mechanical and rude; apologies. Thanks a lot for the support and kind words, appreciated as always. =) —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs, thanks for an entertaining article ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have been difficult to make it dull with the material I had... —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs, thanks for an entertaining article ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Casliber, that really sounded very mechanical and rude; apologies. Thanks a lot for the support and kind words, appreciated as always. =) —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Prose seems there to me. ceranthor 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have spotchecks for accurate representation of sources and copyvio/parphrasing been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Somebody other than me will have to do this. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy, this is going to be difficult because the great majority of the content is sourced from a book that's not previewable on Google Books. I had a look at some of the other sources and there was no problem with them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mike. In such cases, it is not unreasonable to pick a paragraph worthy of examination and ask the creator to place the exact text from the source on talk, for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me, I'm happy to do it whenever somebody is ready. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping my talk when done, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK -- could you quote me some of the source material for the section on the wedding -- from "After the pay dispute" to the end of that paragraph? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping my talk when done, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds fine to me, I'm happy to do it whenever somebody is ready. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mike. In such cases, it is not unreasonable to pick a paragraph worthy of examination and ask the creator to place the exact text from the source on talk, for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy, this is going to be difficult because the great majority of the content is sourced from a book that's not previewable on Google Books. I had a look at some of the other sources and there was no problem with them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LIZA FRIDAY: His mother gave me a small silver football boot and insisted I wore it, which I did, around my waist.
ROD LEWINGTON: At his wedding he invited everybody he could possibly think of. There must have been two hundred people there. It was on a Sunday and Robin turned up in a brown velvet suit, a tigerskin sort of shirt, open at the neck, and snakeskin boots. Southern TV cameras were there and Robin sat on the steps of the church and rolled a joint in front of them. Everyone was smoking. The bride showed up. We went into the church and the whole congregation was laughing because of the smoke. The vicar was laughing because he thought, 'What a happy congregation.' But they were all out of their brains. Then we went to the reception in Watlington Street, the grounds of a big old house there. And Robin was rolling these joints and handing them out to the relations, all these elderly aunts and uncles. By half past one that afternoon there wasn't a sober person there. They were either pissed or completely out of it. All these old women had their skirts tucked into their knickers and were jumping around the lawn and I just don't know what the vicar thought. I have been to a few weddings but never one like that.
Reading Evening Post, 8 August 1976
It's been quite a week of contract signing for Reading soccer star Robin Friday. After signing a new contract with the Elm Park club, Robin entered into a quite different one one with Liza Deimel on Saturday. Robin and Liza, both 24, were married in a church as his colleagues beat Charlton in a pre-season friendly. Liza was given away by her father, Mr Whithold Deimel, wearing a full-length cream dress with a small silver football boot hanging from her waist. She carried orchids. The Reading venue was kept secret but the road outside the church was still packed with people. Robin will shortly be starting his third season with Reading. The couple had a short honeymoon in Amsterdam and Robin was back at Elm Park today to continue training. The couple will be setting up home in Tilehurst Road.
LIZA FRIDAY: The wedding was the most hilarious thing ever. They came in their droves from London, they nicked all their wedding presents, they started beating each other up. Everybody was sitting around smoking dope, anything that had wedding paper on it went. By the time the whole thing was over we'd been stripped. My mother was going, 'I don't believe this.' We went to Amsterdam for our honeymoon and someone had given Robin a big lump of dope for a wedding present. I think loads of people did, because I was saying, 'These people haven't given us a present,' and he had pockets full of dope. When we got to Amsterdam airport he was speeding and he was paranoid. So he put all the dope in his mouth because he thought we were going to be searched – but he was also chewing gum. We spent the night – my wedding night – trying to separate the dope from the chewing gum and the more he tried to separate it the more it got on his fingers and the more aggravated he got. Some honeymoon. The next day we went on one of those canal boats and he was off looking for drugs within five minutes.
— The Greatest Footballer You Never Saw, pp. 140–141
- Here we go. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good -- the description of his clothes is a fairly close paraphrase but you didn't really have much choice there, so that's fine. I would suggest changing "packet" to "lump" since the former implies wrapping; it may have been wrapped but the source doesn't say so. Other than that you can consider this spot-checked; thanks for typing in all that source material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've changed to "quantity", as "lump" seems rather inappropriate in tone for this... Thanks for checking it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both, for the extra effort ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've changed to "quantity", as "lump" seems rather inappropriate in tone for this... Thanks for checking it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good -- the description of his clothes is a fairly close paraphrase but you didn't really have much choice there, so that's fine. I would suggest changing "packet" to "lump" since the former implies wrapping; it may have been wrapped but the source doesn't say so. Other than that you can consider this spot-checked; thanks for typing in all that source material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 4 August 2011 (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 Ucucha 00:51, 23 August 2011 [14].
- Nominator(s): Wizardman 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I promised that I would bring a more notable person here after my last FAC, and I have done just that, nominating a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is an article that has a rather unique history. Back in 2008, this became part of a WikiProject Baseball article improvement drive, as we saw a few Hall of Famers who had rather poor articles. It became a GA easily, and for the moment that was all.
In December 2010, I saw him back in the news again due to his cancer diagnosis, and restarted work on it to try and bring it here. I realized that the prose wasn't really all that good, and over the past several months have essentially rewritten the entire article. He unfortunately died last month, and further modifications were again done to the article. The article was made tougher to modify because he was known as a nice, quiet guy; it's a lot easier to write about someone if they are (at least a little bit) verbose or controversial, as there's more to sink your teeth into.
In any event, I don't think I'll be able to improve this more than I already have, and I do believe it finally meets FAC criteria. It's a WikiCup nom, though I'm more concerned with it being another notable figure whose article the baseball project and wikipedia can be proud of. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Twins finished the 1968 season below .500 for the first time since 1961" - source?
- "Killebrew led the best offense in the league and rookie manager Billy Martin's Twins won the new American League West division as a result." - source?
- "He chose to be released" - source?
- Source for career hitting stats table?
- FN 2: page(s)?
- Why not include both authors for shortened citations to Pahigian?
- Official title of NYT is The New York Times
- Sports Reference or Sports-Reference?
- Compare formatting of FNs 37 and 43 - this inconsistency occurs more than once
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- FN 115: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In progress, though noting that I'm not sure the he chose to be released needs a source. He was given those three options, and the fact that he signed with another baseball team the next year shows that he chose the release option. Everything else is done sans the wikilinking; I'll take a close look through the refs tonight and catch any of those issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything is now done sans my point above, though if others also think it should be sourced I'll go find one to add in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In progress, though noting that I'm not sure the he chose to be released needs a source. He was given those three options, and the fact that he signed with another baseball team the next year shows that he chose the release option. Everything else is done sans the wikilinking; I'll take a close look through the refs tonight and catch any of those issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the legacy section seems a little repetitive to some of the rest of the article. And I know it's a product of this type of article but the career sections are kind of a dry this and then that sort of thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted; if I were to move the legacy information into the article, it may be able to fix the dry prose, since anecdotes and the like would be mixed in. Not sure how well that would read but I could give it a shot. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That could hinder navigation. I envision people seeing a "Legacy" section title in the table of contents and clicking on that to skip the boring career part. That wouldn't be possible if the legacy section were absorbed into the career section. Wknight94 talk 03:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and tried moving the legacy stuff into appropriate spots in the article, but it didn't read very well upon doing that, so I'll keep as is, though most repetition is out of the section now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That could hinder navigation. I envision people seeing a "Legacy" section title in the table of contents and clicking on that to skip the boring career part. That wouldn't be possible if the legacy section were absorbed into the career section. Wknight94 talk 03:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted; if I were to move the legacy information into the article, it may be able to fix the dry prose, since anecdotes and the like would be mixed in. Not sure how well that would read but I could give it a shot. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am not a fan of this sentence. Killebrew was a quiet, kind man who was not a fan of the partying lifestyle. Quiet and kind are subjective adjectives. Dincher (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added an extra ref for the adjectives. There are a myriad of refs out there that support and note Killebrew's quiet attitude, so I'd prefer to keep it in ideally. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Dincher (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source-checking – Articles that I can effectively spot-check for sourcing issues don't come around that often, but this is one of them. I went through around 20 cites and came up with the following concerns:
The first reference doesn't say anything about his AL right-handed home runs record being broken by A-Rod. I'd imagine it was written before that happened, and I'd imagine the fact was mentioned in an RS when the record-breaking homer was hit.It also isn't giving the figure for his number of games played in 1960, which is given in the article. Good news is that any stat site worth its salt should take care of it.In reference 3, the quote is different than the one found in the lead. SI: "Just washing the dishes, I guess". Article: "Well, I like to wash dishes, I guess". Are you sure this didn't come from another source? For what it's worth, a later reference from ESPN that I checked agrees with the SI version of the quote.First two words are missing from the title of ref 33. It also doesn't say that Maris broke the record, though this may be considered common knowledge for baseball fans.Says in the article that Killebrew made every All-Star Game from 1961 until 1972, but the source says his streak (ref 80) was only nine in a row when snapped. Is it only referring to fan balloting?Reference 110 doesn't mention anything about how Killebrew wasn't a partier; it just says he wasn't flashy. You'll definitely want to add another source to support that fact.Reference 115 doesn't say that Killebrew spread rumors about his being the model for the MLB logo; it says an announcer was responsible. The information clearly came from ref 116, so that should be used as a source here as well.While I'm here, please fix the use of Killebew after ref 85. Also, capitalize twins beforehand.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for that. Admittedly the source part was what I was a bit iffy about, given the multiple rewrites the article has went through while keeping many of the same refs. Fixed everything, just noting a couple things here. Maris's 61 home runs in 1961 is definitely common knowledge (a bit less so since 1998 but still). For the 1962-1972 streak, the nine in a row checks out (1963-1971 had nine games); the article says he was in every game from 1963 to 1971 rather than 1961, unless I somehow missed it twice (there were multiple all-star games in the early 1960s, but luckily that doesn't come into play here, even I get confused by that). I'll look around for a ref on the lack of partying, since I want to include that, but of course if there's no sources than I can't have it in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response on the All-Star Game issue: the article actually contradicts itself. The 1972 section has the apparently faulty 1961 date (it claims that was the last one he missed before '72), but the 1962 section indicates he missed the two All-Star Games that year. Looks like 1972 needs fixing.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Ah ok, looks like I just made a year typo there then, never a good one to make; all the uncrossed issues are fixed now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I see left to comment on from the source review is that the partying stuff is still in the lead and should probably be removed since it's been taken out of the body. If it can be sourced and put back in the body, obviously this becomes a moot point.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Whoops, forgot it was in the lead. That's gone now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah ok, looks like I just made a year typo there then, never a good one to make; all the uncrossed issues are fixed now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Admittedly the source part was what I was a bit iffy about, given the multiple rewrites the article has went through while keeping many of the same refs. Fixed everything, just noting a couple things here. Maris's 61 home runs in 1961 is definitely common knowledge (a bit less so since 1998 but still). For the 1962-1972 streak, the nine in a row checks out (1963-1971 had nine games); the article says he was in every game from 1963 to 1971 rather than 1961, unless I somehow missed it twice (there were multiple all-star games in the early 1960s, but luckily that doesn't come into play here, even I get confused by that). I'll look around for a ref on the lack of partying, since I want to include that, but of course if there's no sources than I can't have it in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images: File:TwinsRetired3.png has improper licensing; If it was a symbol used by the team, then the uploader does not own the rights to release. File:MOA Killebrew Drive 080705.JPG could do with a cleanup. Other than that, it checks out. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed first and cleaned up second. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've had a look to the end of the 1961-65 section, and intend to look at the rest. This article does look like it has been the work of several editors as the prose is slightly uneven, and the further into the article you look, the more awkward some parts become. I've copy-edited as I've gone along, but there are some parts that I cannot clear up myself and I have listed them below. I don't think the prose is up to scratch at the moment, but it fairly straightforward to fix and certainly it is not worth an oppose. It tends to lapse into sports-speak but it just needs a polish. If Wizardman has no objections (and I haven't mangled the article with what I've done so far) I'll try to copy-edit the rest as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to switch between RBI and RBIs. I'm not sure which is correct.
- "He had his finest season in 1969…" Could this be more precise? Finest how? The most home runs and/or RBIs? Or the only time he won the MVP award. Or because everyone says it is?
- "Killebrew was, in fact, a quiet, kind man…" Reads like POV; what about "Colleagues/friends/whoever regarded as a quiet, kind man". I think "in fact" is rendered unnecessary by "despite" at the beginning of the sentence.
- "In his youth, he was a farmworker, where he lifted 10-gallon milk cans, each can weighing about 95 lb (43 kg).": Does farmworker really need linking? And "in his youth" is a little imprecise: the location of this information after his school career suggests a young adult at least and I think a date or something more specific would aid the chronology here.
- "becoming the youngest player in the majors at the time": Does this mean he was the youngest player in 1954, or he was the youngest player who had appeared in the majors up until that point?
- "Killebrew was called on to pinch run for Clyde Vollmer, who had drawn a bases-loaded walk off of Chicago White Sox starter Jack Harshman while pinch hitting for Senators reliever Chuck Stobbs." Jargon: pinch run, pinch hitting and reliever need linking at least. And I'm afraid "drawn a bases-loaded walk off of…" defeats my limited knowledge of baseball!
- "…where he played behind veteran Eddie Yost": Er, does this mean he stood behind him in the field (forgive my ignorance!) or he was behind him in the "pecking order"?
- "and a home stadium where hitting home runs to left field was difficult." Again with my ignorance, I assume this is where the majority of his hits would go as a right hander?
- "…the only player to hit a home run over the center field wall at Engel Stadium…" Was he the first, or the only one to date? If the latter, unless the stadium no longer exists, this needs a "only one as of 2011" on it.
- "had a slow April in 1959 … but he picked up the pace in May": Slow is unencyclopedic here, and so is picked up the pace. But I'm not sure what slow would mean in this context, so I can't suggest anything.
- "He did not play in the second game, but in the first game, he hit a pinch hit home run to give the AL its first run." Awkward repetition of run.
- "his speed began to decrease": Speed of running presumably, the implication of this following the mention of his triples season being he could no longer run fast enough to score triples? Or was it a fielding issue? Possibly spell it out.
- "It was considered the most dramatic home run in Twins history…" Who considers it?
- "the Twins went 28–19…" I think the win-loss thing should be spelt out on its first use.
- "and Killebrew hit a World Series home run off Don Drysdale in Game 4…" Is a World Series home run different from another type, or does this simply mean he hit a home run in the World Series?
- "Overall, Minnesota was shut out in three other games, twice by Sandy Koufax, and the Dodgers won the series in seven games." I'm not sure what shut outs are in this context. Why three other games? No other shut outs are referred to, so it would be better as just "three games". Also, I'm not sure if the info on Koufax in relevant here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your copyedits to the article look good. Changes made, though a few notes: RBI and RBIs seem to be interchangeable in the baseball community, but most prefer the latter given that runs is plural, so I've fixed those. In 1969, he led the league in HR, RBI, and got his only MVP; the latter in particular is why I wrote his finest. I could change it to finest statistical year, which seems to be true. I couldn't find anything more accurate on the farmhand note besides him doing that as a youngster, but I'll look around. On the Yost point, it's the latter; Yost was the starter and Killebrew the backup. Most right-handed batters would probably pull the ball to left field, since ironically they are on the left side of home plate from the umpire's point of view. I removed it though since even I had to double-check that since I was unsure if that sounded right. A professional team hasn't played in Engel Stadium since 99, but it still exists; I'll leave it as is for now, but if you're certain on adding in the as of then I'll do so. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: Done up to 1970-74, still copy-editing as I go. Sorry this is taking so long. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Killebrew's home run prowess was on display during the 1967 season when..." Not too sure about this; it reads a little like sports journalism and I wonder if it is needed at all? I've reworded it slightly, but ... Maybe lose the prowess part and keep the rest?
- "Killebrew made a bold prediction at the beginning of the 1968 season. He was serving as a prosecution witness in a case where his name was being used to sell stocks, and when the defense attorney asked him how the Twins would do this year, he replied, "I hope it's a great one."" Not too sure here. Who says the prediction was bold? The court case is not really that important to the story unless more details are given (it sounds quite interesting) and the quote is a little underwhelming. It is not actually a prediction and is not really bold, it's more a case of "I hope we do well". Maybe I'm missing something or maybe the story needs a little more bite.
- "At the time, the injury was considered career-threatening, but he returned to limited action in September, having missed the six to eight weeks originally projected": I don't think we need the projection; how many weeks was he out?/
- "again defeating the A's..." I assume this is Oakland Athletics? Should it have an apostrophe?
- "while playing in all 162 games": Is this "in all" meaning in total, or in all meaning he played in every possible game?
- " the Baltimore Orioles used the league's best pitching staff to shut down Minnesota and sweep the series..." I'm a bit lost here in terms of "shut down" and "sweep the series" (presumably win all the games? A number of games may help here). "Used the league's best pitching staff" sounds awkward and suggests they borrowed them from somewhere else. What about "used their pitching staff, the best in the league, to ..."
- "Baltimore avoided Killebrew by walking him six times in the three games..." I think walking is already linked, but maybe expand this a little: am I right in thinking this tactic is to eliminate the risk of him hitting lots of runs because he was a dangerous hitter? For the uninitiated, it may be worth spelling this out here as it would give a bit more impact of his reputation.
- "He spent most of the season's first half..." This is odd as it suggests the second half was less successful. Yet after mentioning the close race in the All Star voting (were they direct rivals for one place, or more generally in terms of the most votes?), nothing is said about the second half except he was third in the MVP.
- Was there any reaction to his 500th home run? Presumably it was a big deal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues fixed. The 1968 anecdote was originally very interesting when I found it, but when I found a ref that actually noted everything, the quotation shifted to a rather mild form. I took out the "prediction" but left the case in. The A's are the short form of the Athletics; I wrote it out since that was around the time they changed locations so it could have been interpreted as a new team. There's 162 games in a year, so Killebrew did in fact play in all of them. You're right on the walking; generally if players are intentionally walked then the pitcher/manager is afraid of their run-scoring ability, so either they didn't want to pitch to him or the pitcher had no control; since the rest of the Twins weren't walked I'd say the former, so I tweaked that a bit (I have no way of knowing if the walks were intentional, but that's getting into a whole new section of strategy; that'll be for another day). Surprisingly, I found nothing aside from the usual batch of references for his 500th home run; I figured I would have found something big. I'll keep looking though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments, inclined to support: Sorry this has taken so long! The article looks very good and I will be delighted to support once these final concerns are addressed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of the Kansas City Royals section is currently a career summary. It includes a lot of "currently". This really needs "as of 2011" but to be honest it would look dreadful if each record had a "as of 2011". I'm not too sure how to fix this; possibly stick in a note which says all of the records are current in 2011, or possibly (my preferred option) would be to join all the records together, such as "as of 2011, he is the fifth XXX". I'm not too bothered either way, but it needs something.
- Later life: could a note or explanation be added about how the voting works for the hall of fame; reading that he had 59% and 71% of the vote is a little odd to someone who has no idea how it works!
- When he was a commentator, for which station(s) did he work?
- His divorce and remarriage are mentioned, but not his first marriage.
- The first paragraph of "legacy" does not really fit here as it is not about his legacy. Maybe it could be moved to the end of his career in the Kansas section? Or if the section was re-titled (see below) it would work better.
- The picture of the chair in the flume ride is presumably the one mentioned in the text, but this is not immediately clear. Could something be added to the caption to help here?
- Maybe I'm missing it, but there is an excellent "technical" analysis in the lead which discusses why he was good; this does not seem to be replicated in the main body. This kind of "style and technique" is the one thing missing, even if it is just a word or two. I might put it in the legacy section and rename this "Character, technique and legacy" although this is not the catchiest title.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did what I could here; moved the career summary in KC down to the legacy section and modified the title. I didn't add much else in the way of technique details just because they tend to be subjective and sensationalized in sports sources, though I did move it with the legacy stuff. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in one "as of 2011" which I believe gives the others context. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Most of my concerns are addressed. The prose would probably stand further tightening in places, but there is nothing too bad and I think this meets the standards comfortably. An excellent piece of work. (Copy-editing disclaimer) --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
early in the article, including the lead, but don't state how long it was until later:During the 1967 season, Killebrew showed his ability to hit long home runs when, on June 3, 1967, he struck the longest home run recorded at Metropolitan Stadium, a shot that landed in the second deck of the bleachers.[54]
This all needs to be disentangled somehow, and it reminds me that you may need to check for as of dates. An as of date isn't needed here because Metropolitan Stadium is no more, but the article should clarify that early on, and state how long the home run was earlier in the article, on first mention perhaps. I will try to read more later. The "longest in Twins history" does require an "as of" date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]On June 3, 1967, Killebrew hit a 520-foot (160 m) home run, the longest measured home run ever hit at Metropolitan Stadium and the longest in Twins history.
- I added the distance for both home runs in the lead; if I should add it in the body in 1967 as well I can do that. I added an as of for the Twins record itself, Thome almost broke it a few days ago so that's probably good to have. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments for me to address? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead looks good! from Cryptic C62 · Talk:
- I've made a few minor adjustments to the lead. Please look these over and let me know if there are any changes with which you disagree.
"striking 40 homers in a season eight times." I would advise against the use of "striking" in this manner, as it has a specific meaning in the context of baseball and may thus be somewhat confusing. Also, I would prefer to see "home run" instead of "homer"."He hit the most home runs for any player in the 1960s." There are a number of different ways that this statement could be interpreted, and I'm not sure that it adds a whole lot of substance to the lead. I suggest removing it, particularly since some extra space will be needed to address the next issue.I believe that the lead does not adequately summarize the Later life section. This section seems to be full of information that doesn't directly relate to baseball, whereas the lead section currently only mentions baseball-related factoids. At the very least, I think it would be appropriate to summarize the manner of his death at the end of the lead.- I went ahead and added a paragraph on some later life stuff to the lead, and made the other changes. I think the home runs in the 60s is a nice touch, but it's probably not lead-worthy, so I'll find somewhere in the body to put it instead. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool beans, thanks for that. I've switched the order of the last two lead paragraphs; it seemed odd not to have the paragraph describing his death at the end of the lead. Do you grok my jive, me hearty? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and added a paragraph on some later life stuff to the lead, and made the other changes. I think the home runs in the 60s is a nice touch, but it's probably not lead-worthy, so I'll find somewhere in the body to put it instead. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- on prose grounds, and it appears well-rounded.I'll jot some queries below and copyedit as I go (revert if I change meaning accidentally).Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
During his 22-year baseball career, he played for the Washington Senators..- the mention of the team renders the "baseball" redundant as it is implied. I think we can remove the adjective which is a tad repetitive...?
-
-
In 1965, he reached the World Series...- hmmm, I'll pay "The team reached." or "He played in...", but "He reached ..." sounds a little odd to my aussie ears...
-
The Kansas City Royals section seems a bit slim - is there any other info? Was everyone surprised he signed with the Royals? Was his old team annoyed? Did he have any interesting encounters that year palying his old team?
-
While still an active major leaguer, Killebrew converted to Mormonism, joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and never smoked or drank- why the need to mention his conversion twice? Why not just " While still an active major leaguer, Killebrew became a Mormon, and never smoked or drank"?
-
Otherwise looks good on prose grounds. Very keen on semicolons...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I didn't find much on his Royals tenure aside from statistical notes in game logs, but I'll look a bit more for anything extra. Since the Twins released him, I don't think his joining another team was a surprise. He did homer against the Twins in his first appearance back against them, so I added that in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah that all helps. No other deal-breaker prose guffs remain so I am happy to green-light on prose grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - link check. No broken external links, no DAB-links. Earwig's tool shows no results (source check already done - see above). GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2011 (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 Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [15].
This article just passed an A-class review from WP:MILHIST. Even though the bulk of the article is about McCreary's political career, I think the folks at WP:MILHIST have given the whole thing a good once-over and that it is now ready for promotion to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. The nominator links the A-class review above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check alphabetization of Bibliography
- Well, I screwed that up royally, huh? I know my alphabet; I promise! Fixed now.
- ref 34 and similar: why "in" here?
- There are two works in the Bibliography by the same author. I used that notation to distinguish between them.
- Yes, but why not use comma instead of "in" given that the Bibliography entry doesn't use "In"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know there was a guideline on this. I've used it without issue in other FAs. If it needs to be changed, though, I can change it.
- Yes, but why not use comma instead of "in" given that the Bibliography entry doesn't use "In"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two works in the Bibliography by the same author. I used that notation to distinguish between them.
- University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky?
- Technically, I think the "The" is part of the name. Fixed.
- Burckel 1978 and McCreary 1935: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what the issue is here.
- Dash in range shouldn't be spaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha. I love me some dashes. Fixed.
- Dash in range shouldn't be spaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what the issue is here.
Thanks for the review. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review The only issue I found was that the image description page for File:JudgeJMHarlan.jpg is lacking authorship information and needs a bit of cleanup. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A reasonable amount of time has passed and the concern from the image review was not addressed. Once that's handled this oppose can be struck. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I forgot about this note and was off-wiki most of the long weekend. I didn't upload this image, but since it's part of the Brady-Handy Collection, I assume the author must have been Mathew Brady or Levin Corbin Handy. If that's insufficient, I have uploaded some other images of Harlan to Commons myself and could speak more authoritatively to their origins. One of them could be switched out for this one. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. In all honesty, I thought that people would be watching their FACs all the time, as most concerns raised at this page get handled within hours. Getting nothing but static was surprising. It didn't occour to me that you might be gone. I'm sorry for that. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. With an eight-month-old at home, sometimes I'm "gone" even when I'm not gone! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh don't worry, it'll all get better... in seventeen and a half years or so. :D Sven Manguard Wha? 04:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. With an eight-month-old at home, sometimes I'm "gone" even when I'm not gone! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. In all honesty, I thought that people would be watching their FACs all the time, as most concerns raised at this page get handled within hours. Getting nothing but static was surprising. It didn't occour to me that you might be gone. I'm sorry for that. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I'm surprised that this has been lacking in reviews, so I took a look over it. Here's what I found:
- It's not really clear when he joins the confederate army. The article jumps from him passing the bar to the regiment being built in 1862. There may not be much on his joining other than the fact that he did, but if there is anything on a why/when it would be a nice addition.
- I think some of the ambiguity came from an edit made as a result of the peer review. I've tried to clean that up now.
- There's a few single-digit numbers out there (6 percent, 8 percent) that can be written out per mosnum.
- I think I got them all. I'm inclined to leave "2 percent" just before the "Construction of the new governor's mansion" section because of it's proximity to "8,718 votes", which clearly has to be expressed in numerals.
Those were the only couple things I noticed; upon them being fixed I would be happy to support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are other issues or if I missed anything. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have no further issues with the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Nineteenth century Kentucky is very much out of my comfort zone, but this is second from bottom and we seem to be lacking in reviewers, so I'll give it a once over. Actually, I enjoyed reading it more than I thought I would. It's very well written and strikes a good balance between comprehensiveness and over-detail. I do have a few comments, which I've posted below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:BIO suggests that nationality is what should be mentioned at the very beginning (it doesn't say anything pro or con about sub-national entities like US States). I would suggest adding "was an American lawyer and politician..." and possibly mentioning Kentucky a little later in the first paragraph if it's relevant to his notability.
- Do we really need to state that Kentucky is a US state and, if so, do we need to link to the article on the states?
- To both points ... sorry I'm not following, what are you saying is wrong with the first sentence? "James Bennett McCreary (July 8, 1838 – October 8, 1918) was a lawyer and politician from the U.S. state of Kentucky." - Dank (push to talk)
- Well, why not just say "...from Kentucky". Most people know that Kentucky is a US state, and the few of my compatriots who think it's part of the Empire have the link to Kentucky. And if we are going to say that it's a US sate, do we really need to link to the article U.S. state? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We could reword so that it's a little tighter, something like "He was a US lawyer and politician, the first governor of Kentucky." That at least implies Kentucky is a state, and as you say, they could follow the link. I disagree that we can assume the reader is familiar with Kentucky, because I've seen estimates of a billion people who speak or read English worldwide. When I was in Austria a while back, just about nobody I asked was familiar with North Carolina. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've adopted this "was a ___ from the U.S. state of Kentucky" first sentence for most of the politician articles that I've worked on after getting several comments that not all English speakers will know that Kentucky is a U.S. state. It seems to have flown well in other GAC and FAC nominations. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems a little unnecessary to me, since the article is about McCreary, not Kentucky. Those who don't know that Kentucky is a US state (and are interested) can click the link to Kentucky. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've adopted this "was a ___ from the U.S. state of Kentucky" first sentence for most of the politician articles that I've worked on after getting several comments that not all English speakers will know that Kentucky is a U.S. state. It seems to have flown well in other GAC and FAC nominations. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We could reword so that it's a little tighter, something like "He was a US lawyer and politician, the first governor of Kentucky." That at least implies Kentucky is a state, and as you say, they could follow the link. I disagree that we can assume the reader is familiar with Kentucky, because I've seen estimates of a billion people who speak or read English worldwide. When I was in Austria a while back, just about nobody I asked was familiar with North Carolina. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, why not just say "...from Kentucky". Most people know that Kentucky is a US state, and the few of my compatriots who think it's part of the Empire have the link to Kentucky. And if we are going to say that it's a US sate, do we really need to link to the article U.S. state? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To both points ... sorry I'm not following, what are you saying is wrong with the first sentence? "James Bennett McCreary (July 8, 1838 – October 8, 1918) was a lawyer and politician from the U.S. state of Kentucky." - Dank (push to talk)
- both houses is certainly overlinking. If it was an article specifically pertaining to the US Congress, you could get away with it, but linking to the generic article, especially when the very next link is to United States Congress, is unnecessary and doesn't add any encyclopaedic value.
- Is it unusual for Kentucky Governors to serve two non-consecutive terms?
- Only four men have done it: McCreary, Isaac Shelby, John L. Helm, and A. B. "Happy" Chandler. However, from 1799 until 1992, the governor was forbidden by the state constitution from succeeding himself in office, so serving two non-consecutive terms was the only way to serve two terms at all for most of the office's history. James Garrard served two consecutive terms prior to the constitutional prohibition. Paul E. Patton served two consecutive terms after the prohibition was abolished. J. C. W. Beckham ascended to the governorship after the assassination of William Goebel and was then re-elected; his eligibilty was challenged in court, but the court upheld it. As you can see, serving two terms as Kentucky governor is a rare thing period. :) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is graduating law school (as opposed to graduating from law school) American English, or does it sound as odd there as it does to a Brit?
- It's not wrong over here but I prefer "from". - Dank (push to talk)
- Ditto was twice chosen Speaker of the House.
- Stet. - Dank (push to talk)
- Is 11th Kentucky Cavalry likely to turn blue? This article spent a month prominently advertised within MilHist, so I'm surprised, if it's notable, that nobody there (where you're most likely to find interest in a military subject) took the initiative to create an article.
- At one time, Spacini was creating articles for all of the Kentucky Confederate infantry units, but I don't know if he was planning to do the cavalry as well. I suspect somebody somewhere might create it, but I do politics, not military history, most of the time. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A snippet in the lead about how he moved from law to politics might help to make the sentence a little less abrupt—it currently sounds like being elected was a natural progression from his legal practice.
- Perhaps split the third paragraph of the lead? either into a fourth, or by making the second a little longer, but it seems quite big (and is longer than the first two put together)
- I've done some re-arranging of paragraphs; see what you think.
- Is Bennett his mother's maiden name? It's common practice (though I don't know if it's codified anywhere) to indicate this with "née".
- Nay. Most Americans don't know the word (sadly, but we play the hand we're dealt). - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he pay for his commission? I know this was common in British and European armed forces of the day, I don't know about the other side of the Atlantic.
- How did Breckinridge come to know him?
- Did he do anything notable as a lawyer? He can;t have been bad at it, given that he kept returning to it every time politics didn't work out...
- and his well-established political machine doesn't strike me a particularly neutral. I'd remove the phrase altogether personally, I don't think it adds much.
- It is pretty well-established the Beckham was a political boss who controlled a political machine. This is the term that even modern sources use. I'm inclined to leave it in some form because the lack of support from Beckham's political machine explains how a sitting two-time governor could do so poorly in a Senate primary later in the article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One last question: did he ever consider running for president? It is, after all, the ultimate elected position in the US, and if he considered it, or had a reason for not considering it, that would make an interesting addition tot he article.
Oh, and there are one or two of my edits (indicated in the edit summaries) that you may want to double-check (I'm a Brit, so I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of American English). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great copyediting and comments, thanks. ACDixon, I hope I'm not intruding, I thought offering a few replies might be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are further issues. It may be Monday before I'm back on-wiki, as I'm expecting a busy weekend. Your patience will be appreciated. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm not a fan of the "from the U.S. state of Kentucky", but it's hardly enough to withhold support from an excellent article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All comments but a minor point addressed; seems to meet the criteria. Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]
- "He was the first governor to reside in the state's second (and current) governor's mansion and is the only governor to inhabit both the old and new mansions." This seems rather trivial to me, and the second fact is almost implied by the first; do you really need it in the lead?
- It's a rather interesting factoid, but maybe too prominent in the lead. I've moved it down a bit. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinions differ, I guess; I'd consider it trivial. Why not put this with the sentence about his being part of the committee to design the new mansion? Ucucha 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a rather interesting factoid, but maybe too prominent in the lead. I've moved it down a bit. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphing of the lead is a little odd; perhaps you should split the very long third paragraph.The first paragraph of "Early life" has a lot of short, choppy sentences, some of which may be better off merged."During his tenure, McCreary represented Kentucky's agricultural interests, introducing a bill to create the United States Department of Agriculture."—was this bill successful?- Apparently, this one wasn't, but one based on it was. Added.
Some of my comments are minor and may reflect my personal preferences rather than real problems with the article; feel free to disregard them. Ucucha 12:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've addressed these comments as best I can. See my note to HJ Mitchell above; I may be off-wiki all weekend, but I'll try to respond to any further comments on Monday at the latest. Thanks for your review. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (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 not promoted by Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [16].
- Nominator(s): --WillC 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I nominated it once before and no decision was made. Tried again, didn't pay attention to how many days had went by since closing. It was deleted. Now a few months later I've decided to give it another shot. Comments will be fixed as soon as possible.--WillC 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- http://www.tnawrestling.com/ redirects to http://www.impactwrestling.com/
- Must have renamed the website recently.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Turning Point (2008) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event..." I am sure that it was a normal professional wrestling event, which was broadcast only by PPV.
- Don't understand the issue.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 15 is a dead link.
- Been looking for a replacement. Surprised they removed it myself.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article looks terribly overlinked. Delink the links that don't need to be linked. See WP:OVERLINK.
- Overlinking is usually a problem, but I've made sure nothing is overlinked. At least I do believe nothing is. There is just alot of stuff included. Multiple people, matches, subjects, etc.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that YouTube is a high quality reliable source.
- The videos all come from the main source, TNA. They have a youtube channel which they promote through their website as well. Makes them reliable to use.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TGilmour (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All above have been completed.--WillC 22:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source for "X Divisions rankings..." table?
- Information in the event should cover it. Added ref 26.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes ProWrestlingHistory.com a high-quality reliable source?
- Gets its information from magizines, dvds, etc according to the project.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The project lists it as "not yet proven", saying "Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming you are using the style guide the project made. Yeah, that thing hasn't been updated since 2008 or 2009 I do believe. We've had a few discussions since then on sources, etc. Anyway, PWH currently only sources two simple things: Match times and Attendance which if I recall is what the project has agreed on, etc.--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of the project were you trying to point me to above? Also, can you link to some of the more recent discussions on sources that you mention? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't been involved on here in a big capacity since around sometime last year, so any directing would be tough. Search through keywords would be the best thing through the archive at WT:PW. As for project pages, I am referring to the WP:PW style guide. In 2008, there was this big discussion to change the PPV formats. Did such but never really kept the thing updated. I'm not sure when the last thing it was updated, but it is certainly way out of date.--WillC 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of the project were you trying to point me to above? Also, can you link to some of the more recent discussions on sources that you mention? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming you are using the style guide the project made. Yeah, that thing hasn't been updated since 2008 or 2009 I do believe. We've had a few discussions since then on sources, etc. Anyway, PWH currently only sources two simple things: Match times and Attendance which if I recall is what the project has agreed on, etc.--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The project lists it as "not yet proven", saying "Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gets its information from magizines, dvds, etc according to the project.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the qualifications of the author of this source and similar? What is the site's editorial policy?
- Adam Martin is a known wrestling editor. Interviewed through various magazines, websites, etc. I do believe he is the admin of WrestleView, owns it. That ref is a redirect from TNA themselves. Written by Bill Banks, who is a writer for TNA's official website. Used it and Pro Wrestling History in Lockdown (2008), another FA.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that specific article is probably okay, but what about others from this site? According to WP:PW, "source is marginally reliable, its use is strictly for television and pay-per-view results". Is that consistent with your use? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I direct to above again. Yeah, mainly just that. Only time it isn't used for just that I do believe is to cover the Scott Hall appearance details.--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that specific article is probably okay, but what about others from this site? According to WP:PW, "source is marginally reliable, its use is strictly for television and pay-per-view results". Is that consistent with your use? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam Martin is a known wrestling editor. Interviewed through various magazines, websites, etc. I do believe he is the admin of WrestleView, owns it. That ref is a redirect from TNA themselves. Written by Bill Banks, who is a writer for TNA's official website. Used it and Pro Wrestling History in Lockdown (2008), another FA.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods in reference formatting
- Hmm you the first to ever tell me that. For 3 years I've never thought much about watching for double periods.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a minor point, but still affects consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm you the first to ever tell me that. For 3 years I've never thought much about watching for double periods.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Titles or quotes can be corrected for minor MOS issues like hyphens vs dashes
- If you see any, please direct me too them. If there is a problem, they are invisible to me at this point. Worked on this article so much it has become stale.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, FN 5 should use an endash in the title instead of a hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, FN 5 should use an endash in the title instead of a hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see any, please direct me too them. If there is a problem, they are invisible to me at this point. Worked on this article so much it has become stale.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you expound on the editorial policy and author qualifications of this site? When I try to access it, my pop-up blocker goes beserk
- They have always had alot up pop ups, very annoying they are. I use the website because it is probably the most reliable article the project has. Lets see where to start, the wesbite's main writers are James Caldwell and Wade Keller. Both have been featured in magazines, interviewed, etc. Keller wrote a book. I do believe both have connections to the Wrestling Observer, a respected (I guess, sounds weird saying) wrestling newsletter, website, etc.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't include full bibliographic information in both Footnotes and Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused by above. Someone changed the format to the references when I nominated an article once before and since I've changed all my references to this format.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use the footnotes-bibliography format, but in conjunction with shortened citations to avoid redundancy. For example, FN 23 is identical to the first Bibliography entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, yeah I kinda did that on purpose. Mainly since I always hear stuff above just not having an inline source. Just wanted to not have to hear things about unsourced statements since that is the only way I can source that info I have found so far. I'll remove one of them if you wish, no difference to me?--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer, you can use shortened citations instead of removing it altogether. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else is sourced, only include it in the biblo for the hell of it. Removed it.--WillC 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer, you can use shortened citations instead of removing it altogether. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, yeah I kinda did that on purpose. Mainly since I always hear stuff above just not having an inline source. Just wanted to not have to hear things about unsourced statements since that is the only way I can source that info I have found so far. I'll remove one of them if you wish, no difference to me?--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use the footnotes-bibliography format, but in conjunction with shortened citations to avoid redundancy. For example, FN 23 is identical to the first Bibliography entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused by above. Someone changed the format to the references when I nominated an article once before and since I've changed all my references to this format.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
- Several images are of pretty low quality. I replaced the existing Beer Money image with a much higher quality one from their article, as the previous image was one of the lowest quality images I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The A.J. Styles image could use a less blurry replacement, there isn't one in his article, really, although Sting, his opponent in the event, does have some good quality images. The Kurt Angle image also is a tad blurry.
- We don't get alot of good pictures. I usually just chose the ones which fit and look the best. Which Sting picture are you speaking of?--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, he was out of costume for the only good one. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't get alot of good pictures. I usually just chose the ones which fit and look the best. Which Sting picture are you speaking of?--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Images where one person is being pictured but multiple names are listed in the caption need to be clarified. "John Doe (pictured) was pitted against Bob Public..." or something along those lines.
- I usually do that, must have forgotten it for the Beer Money picture. Just noticed I need to add alt text as well. Guess I better fixed that soon.--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I meant the ones that were not of Beer Money, but whatever, really, it's implied that the one listed first is the one depicted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd assume it would be obvious. Anyone who didn't fail English in school would under the subject in the sentence and direct the picture would be of the subject.--WillC 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I meant the ones that were not of Beer Money, but whatever, really, it's implied that the one listed first is the one depicted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually do that, must have forgotten it for the Beer Money picture. Just noticed I need to add alt text as well. Guess I better fixed that soon.--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The FUR for File:Turning Point (2008).jpg isn't suitable for a GA article, let alone an FA article. I'll try and fix it, but someone who knows the subject matter needs to come along behind me and add something respectable into the "Purpose of use" section. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm unusual, the tag for the poster was changed last time this was nominated if I'm not mistaken. Pretty much the purpose is to just illustrate the event. Not sure what needs to be changed. I just write the info. Comes to pictures I left all my knowledge on commons a few years back.--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll figure something out. I really don't like "To illustrate the event in question" as it's a cop-out, although I've put it in myself when I have no idea what's being depicted but the fur is incomplete. "To illustrate the event in question" is not, however, acceptable for an FA. On second thought, I'm finding it rather hard to justify having the image there in the first place. I know that event posters are the norm, but what does it really add? In this case we have a ton of free images, which cannot be said for things like comic books, movies, television shows. I'll have to think on it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Come to think of it there is alot of reasons to have it included. Besides just being a picture to show the event, it is a sign of promotion for the event. Helping to work with the production section. It shows lengths at which the company went to build up the event. I'd say it is quite handy.--WillC 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then something with those points, rather than "To illustrate the event in question", should be in the purpose field of the image description page. Do you want to do it or should I? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a shot.--WillC 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. What's important is that there is in fact some semblance of legitimacy for the image being included and the FUR isn't generic. You've met the requirements. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a shot.--WillC 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then something with those points, rather than "To illustrate the event in question", should be in the purpose field of the image description page. Do you want to do it or should I? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Come to think of it there is alot of reasons to have it included. Besides just being a picture to show the event, it is a sign of promotion for the event. Helping to work with the production section. It shows lengths at which the company went to build up the event. I'd say it is quite handy.--WillC 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll figure something out. I really don't like "To illustrate the event in question" as it's a cop-out, although I've put it in myself when I have no idea what's being depicted but the fur is incomplete. "To illustrate the event in question" is not, however, acceptable for an FA. On second thought, I'm finding it rather hard to justify having the image there in the first place. I know that event posters are the norm, but what does it really add? In this case we have a ton of free images, which cannot be said for things like comic books, movies, television shows. I'll have to think on it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm unusual, the tag for the poster was changed last time this was nominated if I'm not mistaken. Pretty much the purpose is to just illustrate the event. Not sure what needs to be changed. I just write the info. Comes to pictures I left all my knowledge on commons a few years back.--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Don't believe the hyphen in "late-2008" is needed. There's also one in Reception.- Fixed--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background: "In October 2008, three events were rescheduled: Genesis, Final Resolution, and Turning Point. Turning Point...". Try not to have the repetition from one sentence to another, if possible (it's tough in this case).- Added some words.--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"while a Final Resolution event was announced for some time in December." Don't think "a" or "event" is needed; "while Final Resolution..." sounds nice and tight.- Fixed--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Storylines: "Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or heroes in the scripted events that build tension and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches." With past tense ("were"), "build" should be "built" and "culminate" should be "culminated". Also, I think "into" would be better served as "with".- Changed--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reception: Try not to have a sentence begin with a number, like the first sentence of this section. A simple addition of "A total of" would fix the issue, though it is wordier that way. Or you could just spell out the number.- Done--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"which was a .5 above the 2007 event's rating of 6.5 by Chris Sokol." Remove "a" as an excess word?- Done--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The event was released on DVD on March 24, 2009 as apart of the 'TNA Wrestling: Cross The Line Vol. 2' box set". "apart" should be two words.- Done--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath: "This time the rules were different than at their previous at Turning Point". Previous match?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Yeah, the Eight Man Tag Team match at Final Resolution was promoted as a title defense by Sting against AJ. Anyone from AJ's team got the win, AJ became champion. So it was Sting's and AJ's second match.--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that a word should be added to the sentence, as in "than at their previous match at Turning Point." Right now the sentence isn't making it clear what the previous item was.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- You know what? I just deleted that part, not adding much anyway. I had no idea how to fix it, so just went ahead and made it short and to the point. I hope you agree?--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the Eight Man Tag Team match at Final Resolution was promoted as a title defense by Sting against AJ. Anyone from AJ's team got the win, AJ became champion. So it was Sting's and AJ's second match.--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In section "Results", substitute "Times" with "Duration" TGilmour (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--WillC 08:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone have any more comments they'd like to state? If so please post them below.--WillC 13:51, 17 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [17].
- Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suillus pungens is a (barely) edible mushroom found in coastal California. I think this article is up to par with the other three featured articles on Suillus species, and would like for it to join its fungal brethren. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media: Something of a worry: File:Suillus pungens 69689.jpg is currently listed on MO as NC only. Neither File:Suillus granulatus.jpg nor File:Elfenbeinroehrling.jpg have English descriptions. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a read through:
- "Bishop pine" Why caps?
- "one meaning of which means "pungent"" rephrase?
- "Ponderosa Pine" Caps?
- "the "pine spike" (Chroogomphus vinicolor)" Why common name? Also, note that the link goes to the genus article because of a redirect
- "Gardes and Bruns" Perhaps give them something of an introduction the first time they're mentioned?
- "Bonello and colleagues" Same
This is a very well written article; I think you get the balance of technical terminology with accessible English just about right. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review JM. I've taking care of most of the above comments (will fix that redirect soon by making a stub for the pine spike). About the image, this is another case of the user changing the license post-publication. I emailed the tech guy at Mushroom Observer to complain about this, and he agreed to start logging license changes so it will be less hassle for us to track what was licensed when; I'm not sure if the logging feature will work retroactively (I hope so, one of our featured pics by the same photographer is now apparently cc-by-nc). At any rate, I've removed the image for now and substituted another in its place. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The logging at MO would be the best solution; what I thought of was a system similar to Flickr on Commons- that is, a bot or trusted user "confirms" the license. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done.
- Ref 10: page(s)?
Sources appear appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will have to get back to you on this, it's an online reprint and they haven't included the page #'s from the original edition; I can probably track down someone with a paper copy though. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All issues resolved. Ucucha 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]
- I think you are significantly overinterpreting the phylogenetic study of Kretzer et al. (1996). The tree shown in the article is apparently based on the neighbor-joining tree in the source—an algorithm whose only virtue is its speed. The source also shows a maximum-parsimony tree, which is less well-resolved, but should preferably be used. However, I would actually prefer that no cladogram be included. I think we should have a cladogram when there is consensus in the literature about a certain pattern of relationships; otherwise, we are effectively presenting a poorly supported hypothesis virtually as fact. The tree currently in the article is based on a single, 15-year-old molecular phylogenetic study, and most branches shown had very little statistical support even in that old study. I can't see how the statement "The results indicated that S. pungens is most closely related to S. collinitus and S. granulatus" in the text is supported by the reference.
- I've been doing some reading about this very topic recently, and I agree completely. I've removed the cladogram (and will soon do so for other Suillus articles it's in). Regarding the statement, S. collinitus and S. granulatus are on the closest branches to S. pungens, and therefore, are the most closely related of the tested Suillus species. Am I overinterpreting this too? At any rate, I have reworded to hopefully avoid generalizing. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I would think "most closely related to" usually means "sister to", so even the current statement seems too much to me. The MP tree placed it in a polytomy with a whole lot of other species; perhaps those should be mentioned.
Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's a better solution—done. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "inequilateral in profile"—what does this mean?
- added profile view (to distinguish from face view mentioned just before), is this sufficient? Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "inequilateral" a word you would expect the reader to know, though? Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a wiktionary link. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does "ixotrichodermium" merit a link?
- Don't think so, it's a subtopic of pileipellis (already linked in close proximity) and not worthy of a separate article. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a separate paragraph on chemical tests, but the previous paragraph already mentions a chemical test on the cystidia.
- The paragraph describes macrochemical tests that can be performed in the field (rather than under your microscope); have made that explicit. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the taste of dishes cooked with the mushroom will assume its unpleasant odor"—the taste will assume an odor?
- Well, it is more or less what the source says ("The harsh odor does not disappear upon cooking but rather becomes the taste of your dish."), but I've reworded. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Ponderosa pine not linked?
- It looks linked to me? Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I decided to add the link myself and then forgot to remove the item here. Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need to link "field studies"?
- Nah. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A 1998 study by Pierluigi Bonello and colleagues showed the latter explanation to be true."—perhaps it would go into too much detail, but I think it would be interesting to add how he determined that.
- Sure, I added a few words. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, that doesn't explain why they thought the carbon-efficiency explanation was true. Reading the paper, it looks like they say that if it would invest more energy in fruiting and less in vegetative growth, you would expect small and transient genets, and if it is better at gathering carbon than other species, you would expect large, persistent genets. The latter is what they found. Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added some words to this effect. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I gather it hasn't been found outside California? You don't explicitly say that, and its host pines apparently do reach Baja California.
- Haven't seen any source that says its in Baja California; I haven't been explicit about where it's not because the sources just give where it is. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently says it's in the "Northwestern United States"; shouldn't that just be "California" in that case? Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources I found:
- This was a proof of concept paper to demonstrated that it's possible to use position-specific labeled isotopes of glucose to draw inferences about metabolic flux in lipid biosynthetic pathways in EM fungi... I couldn't think of any general statement to draw from the study that the average reader would be interested in (or that was really specific to this fungus). Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This paper discusses changes in carbon sink strength of ectomycorrhizal fungi due to addition of nitrogen, and tries to draw generalizations based on these in vitro results; like the paper above, S. pungens is used as one of several examples of EM fungi. The takehome mesage is not so much about how this particular fungus works, but more about how the EM association works—I don't think there's anything in here that needs to be in the Wikipedia article. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The recolonization of S. pungens in post-fire EM fungal populations (only briefly mentioned in this article) was more fully investigated in the 2002 paper by the same primary author, so I don't think anything needs to be added from this. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 02:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks kindly for your incisive review! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comments Usual high standard, I removed what looked like a redundant "the", couple of queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isolates — link or gloss, since this looks like a technical usage
- broadly convex to convex — I'm not sure what this means
- Thanks Jim. I linked to genetic isolate, and simplified the wording of the shape description. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I really can't find fault with this, it's an excellent article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the copyedits and support. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So a source previously mentioned on this page's comments states that the dishes containing the mushroom will assume the odor of the mushroom. Does that mean that the taste could be "pleasant, resembling bananas" (a possible smell of the mushroom cited within the article) as opposed to unpleasant? Should the article be edited to reflect this? Also, is the source stating that the dish could assume the odor of the mushroom still in use in the article, out of curiosity? Micromann (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has already been edited to indicate that it "will assume an unpleasant taste"; the same source is still in use to cite this (Kuo's "100 Edible Mushrooms"). Sasata (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comments Hello, this is the first time I've reviewed a featured article candidate and here's what I've got: (1) According to WP:Manual of Style#Serial Commas we should make a decision on the use of the serial comma in the article. (2) I made a small change to the prose but nothing major I don't think. (3) I changed "Iron sulphate" to "Iron(II) sulfate", but I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do. Wouldn't the American spelling be used since the rest of the article is in American English? (4) A "see also" section might be a good addition. Overall, it is a great article and I love to see more biology/science featured articles! Great work! Scientific29 (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Scientific29, thanks for the comments and support, and welcome to FAC reviewing! Replying to your points: (1) I'm a serial comma user, so if you see any violations, please point them out (or feel free to fix them yourself); (2) your prose tweak is fine with me (3) Yes, you are correct, I missed the Brit Eng spelling of sulfate—thanks (4) Do you have any suggestions for links to include (that are related to the subject but not already linked in the article?) Sasata (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2011 (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 not promoted by Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [18].
- Nominator(s): upstateNYer 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a concise article covering the history of the nickname of New York. Surprisingly, the history behind the name is unknown, being limited to rumor and conjecture. As such, the topic is not covered widely in books and other resources about New York State history. At the time of this nomination, I believe I have exhausted my resources for the name and covered the poorly documented topic well. upstateNYer 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an article about etymology, so I was surprised it does not include the first documented use of the term (only claims that the term was well known at a particular time). The OED says the term was first used in 1834; Google Books gave me apparent uses in 1825, 1825, and 1820 (I'm cautious because many Google Books have incorrect publication dates; this one seems to be correct). The OED also cites uses of the term for other U.S. states, a theme this article does not cover. Ucucha 04:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually an article on toponymy, not etymology, but nevertheless I share your concerns Ucucha. I don't at all see this as a credible FA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor do I, but please note that the earliest OED citation does not amount to "The OED says the term was first used...", merely that this was the earliest use they were aware of, usually at some point back in the 1890s etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead must not contain references. TGilmour (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 06:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid that I feel that the article is a long way from featured status at this time, and is much more suited to GA status. I strongly suspect that there are a number of sources out there that have not been plummed; the sources currently cited are, noticeably, all online. Admittedly, I know nothing about New York history, and so I am not in a position to point you towards books that may contain information, but there must be some, surely? In my head, I'm comparing this to "little known" academic topics that I am qualified to comment upon; an article on the Taylor-Warrender thesis (a controversy within scholarship on Thomas Hobbes), for instance, could not possibly survive on online sources only. A look at this or this may point you in the right direction. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it happens to be coincidence that Klein's book (and the pages I cite) is online. I actually wrote the article using the hard copy I have. Then I went to the Encyclopedia of New York State (also my hard copy). Klein wrote the article in there too. It was Klein's work that pointed me to the old Flick references, the first of which I make note of is not online. You'll note that Klein's book is a publication of the New York State Historical Society, which hasn't published a comprehensive state history since that book was published. I actually did all of the work on Bibliography of New York and quite frankly have read thousands of pages of New York history. This is a subject that almost nobody takes on other than a fleeting glance, which is why so little is known (and probably why it took almsot ten years for the article to be started in the first place). upstateNYer 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "universally known"? Absolutely not, particularly not with a single New York source and no in-text attribution
- New York or New York City?
- You'll note all references to New York City include the word 'city' upstateNYer 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 4: page(s)?
- Be consistent in whether you provide states for non-NYC locations
- All locations (except Virginia) are cities in New York upstateNYer 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 8: location should not be italicized.
Talk to the creators of the {{Cite news}} templateWait, it's not italicized. upstateNYer 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- The issue was that Times Union (Albany) wasn't linked or shortened to Times Union, so the Albany part was mistaken as its location. That was fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Broadly agree with the source comprehensiveness issue raised by J Milburn. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I hate the citation style used in this article. I suggest using shortened footnotes. Template:sfn. TGilmour (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's unfortunate, but the citation style currently used is acceptable so long as it's consistently applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Only one issue. The source for File:Manhattan at Dusk by slonecker.jpg, which is currently "SXC #350175", needs to be clarified. If that refers to the image hosting/browsing/sale service SXC, then a link needs to be provided. If it dosen't refer to that, a more specific explanation of what "SXC #350175" is still needs to be furnished. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had an OTRS member confirm it. Please see updated file page. upstateNYer 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All I really wanted was the SXC to be linked. The OTRS is even better though. I'd say images check out now. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Forgive me for being blunt, but why does wikipedia need an article for a nickname? That's what it is anyways, just a nickname, not a toponym, the toponym is New York. The content will of course be a duplication of the New York article content. It can be a Good Article, but according to wikipedia's policies, this is fork content. Please prove me wrong, because in my opinion, this article deserves a redirect more than a FA stamp.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes the history of a subject's name is pretty notable in its own right, as Category:Nicknames in general, and Windy City in particular, can attest. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll agree on notability and on the fact that the New York article would be too long, should this one redirect to it. But I insist that it should be treated as an etymological article and probably renamed to Origin of the name "Empire State", whereas Empire State should become a dab page.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable, and I support it. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like Empire State (term) or Empire State (name). J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Empire State (name) seems more appropriate, as I don't see the former option much frequently used.Divide et Impera (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that a large percentage the article is given over to the name's origin, I would second the above "Origin of the name "Empire State"", to fall in line with the Windy City article. I've also slightly abridged an image caption as it seemed to me to stretch onto too many lines, making a little more white space than looked right. Feel free to revert if the appearance before was preferred. GRAPPLE X 23:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Made the change to Origin of the name "Empire State". I'll get on the rest soon. upstateNYer 01:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I feel I could support this article given a few changes. Aside from the naming being discussed above, which seems to be a simple issue, I support this article. It's by no means extensive, but that in no way precludes it from being exhaustive. Obviously it's a narrow field but it appears to have been covered in well-written, well-researched detail, and would make an interesting addition to the Featured ranks. A few additions could be made, however—simply looking at the Empire State (disambiguation) page turns up a few other uses which could be at home in the Namesakes section, including the troop ship TS Empire State VI, which seems worth noting. Given the tone of the article, it would be understandable to refrain from mentioning 'pop culture' uses of the term, though there also exists the fictional Empire State University, should you wish to make passing reference to it. The state of Georgia is also nicknamed the "Empire State of the South", and commentary on this relationship may be worth a mention. Given that the article's size seems to be an issue for other commentators here, it would perhaps be best to look into adding some of this information. I would also quibble that the lead contains a quote by Eldridge not found in the body's text, and material in the lead not expanded in the article proper is generally to be avoided—however, this is perfectly understandable given how tiresome repetition within such limited space would seem. Perhaps paraphrase it in the lead and quote it properly in the article? GRAPPLE X 23:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- It seems odd to me that the lead image is of George Washington. I am of the opinion that Curious George should be moved to History and an image of NYC be used for the lead.
- "one credits aggressive trade routes, and another associates the nickname with New York exceeding Virginia in population." First, is it possible for a trade route to be "aggressive"? I'm not sure I even know what the adjective means in this context. Perhaps "extensive" or "centralized"...? Second, I'm thinking that both of these items would benefit from the inclusion of time frames, perhaps something along the lines of "one credits aggressive trade routes throughout the 19th century, and another associates the nickname with New York exceeding Virginia in population in the early 1800s."
- "None have been proven true." This wrongly implies that it is even possible to prove such a theory true. Math has proofs. Science has data. History has consensus.
- "It is often attributed to the state's wealth and resources,[2] but this is probably not the case." By whom is attributed as such? Why is this probably not the case?
- Caption: "The Empire State Plaza (1965–1978)" What is the purpose of this date range? As far as I can tell, the plaza still exists and is commonly referred to by this name.
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 14 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [19].
- Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, this was a Wikiproject Birds collaboration for April 2011, which I have carried on with till here. It got an exhausive GA review by J Milburn, and I feel it is within striking distance of FA status and believe I can deal with any queries promptly. It is a wikicup nomination. Have at it, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media is unproblematic, though a link to the base image of File:Haliaeetus leucogaster distr.png, if there is one, would be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As well as dealing with the many niggles I raised in the GAC, Cas has managed to expand the article so that it does not feel so Australia-centric. I have nothing further to add. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to withdraw my support for now, as Sasata raises a very valid point about the possibility of including a number of other sources. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone through all extra sources apart one about a record of it eating a prickly toadfish which I can't get fulltext of. Given its consumption of a wide variety of prey, I don't think it is essential but would be nice to add if I can get. But you might want to delay revising your support until I deal with more bits and pieces below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article's looking great. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
- Grewal citation should be standardised for multiple authors
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No citations to del Hoyo et al
- gah! you're right! that book was added before I began buffing the article, and the only inline ref was lacking a page number, and I didn't use it anyway, so (belatedly) removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps indicate that 1980 is not the original publication date for Liddell & Scott
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct format of citation 6 (Schreiber & Weitzel)
- took me a while to figure that one...done now Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency required Retrieved v. retrieved
- appears (frustratingly) to be a template problem - not sure what's going on there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency of publisher location required (Kennedy v. Liddell & Scott)
- added Oxford Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources & citations look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional source comments after edit conflict
- FN 8: can omit university name from the italicized portion
- removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Debus entry should include page numbers
- fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dove or Dove Publications? EMU or Emu? Check for consistency
- conformed.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how volumes are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two more source comments
I noticed that several multi-paged journal articles only give the first page #How about changing the subheading "Cited texts" to the more accurate "Cited literature"?Sasata (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- sounds good. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Literature review by Sasata (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found several recent articles (post-2002) from a Web of Knowledge search that weren't used in this article. Will post these to the article talk page so as not to take up too much room here.Sasata (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- all processed/checked apart from one I can't get. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My concerns have been dealt with, and I think the article complies with the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sasata
"It is opportunistic, and also consumes carrion and a wide variety of animals." Why "also"? Doesn't the first part of the sentence imply the second?
- yep. reworded to "Opportunistic, it consumes carrion and a wide variety of animals." - wasn't too keen on the "and" actually Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
why link India and Australia, but not Tasmania? (lead)
- linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link indigenous to Indigenous Australians?
- linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lead seems a touch thin for the length of the article
- agree - just added a note on immature plumage but hard to figure out the next-most important fact to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
two "first described" in the first two sentences of Taxonomy
- trimmed and join so sequence is clear Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link Java, Captain Cook, specific name, genetic divergence, mitochondrial (DNA), New Guinea, molecular, allozyme, plumage
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"dark-head" no hyphen required
"This species pair has at every age at least some" seems a bit awkward to express it like this
- reworded to "Both these species have at least some dark colouration in their tails" - age bit is redundant on second reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"They are relatively abundant in Hong Kong, where the population increased from 39 to 57 birds between 2002 and 2009." I don't understand how about 50 birds can be considered relatively abundant compared to a global population of 10-100 thousand?
- HK is really tiny (~1000 sq. km), the range of this critter is huge - Australian and southern Asian coastline. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A review of average egg-shell thickness between 1947 and 1993 to evaluate the impact of the pesticide DDT on egg breakage found that the shells of White-bellied Sea Eagle eggs had thinned by 6%, which was not thought likely to result in more breakage overall although individual clutches would have been more affected." Too much info stuffed in here awkwardly.
- It's easy to forget that many people aren't familiar with DDT - I added an intro sentence, and split a long sentence. Do you think that helps enough or shall I revisit? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked the wording a bit, please check. Still having trouble with this sentence:" "This was not thought likely to result in more breakage overall although individual clutches would have been more affected." ... needs something, I don't know what Sasata (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworded it to, "This average level of thinning was not thought likely to result in significantly more breakage overall, however individual clutches that had been even thinner might have broken. ". The idea is that statistically 6% won't result in more breakage, but that the 6% is an average, hence some might have thinned more (and broken). Tricky point to get across... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easy to forget that many people aren't familiar with DDT - I added an intro sentence, and split a long sentence. Do you think that helps enough or shall I revisit? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link habitat destruction, Murray River, Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, Darwin (Northern Territory)
- linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"… is listed as vulnerable" elsewhere this is capitalized
- oops. got it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The community held localities around Booderee National Park to be connected with it." I cannot parse this sentence easily… "held" is synonymous here with "considered", correct?
- yes
- I changed to "considered", revert if you disagree. Sasata (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- works fine for me Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- yes
there are five instances of "known as" in two paragraphs of "Cultural significance", perhaps reword a couple
- reworded 3 Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
why is "Kuna-ngarrk-ngarrk" capitalized but not "nairanaa"?Sasata (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- capped second one Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The cite doi template has been recording page ranges from start page, fixed them now. Some articles are only single page short notes though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General comments by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial support (of the cultural aspects section), following the changes discussed below. Will leave others to review the rest of the article, which looks fine to me in terms of copyediting and readability, but is getting closer scrutiny from others as regards the content (and has been looked at by WikiProject Birds editors in any case). Apologies for not having time to review the whole article. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I then started to read the 'Cultural significance' section more closely, and that struck me as a bit of a scattered collection of facts with no unifying narrative and an undue emphasis on Australia (possibly due to existing bias in the available sources - I noted this before I realised above that some attempts had been made to address this after the GA nomination, so possibly more still is needed here to avoid undue focus on Australia). Hopefully there is something on the aspects of sea-eagles in general, even if not this one, in the mythologies other than those in Australia (I've looked, but it seems a keyword to differentiate between sea eagles in the mythologies of the subcontinent and sea eagles in the mythologies of North American Indians is needed).
One (specific) comment: the sentence on the Malay magnate seems to have been placed where it is to go with the other "nest" sentence, but the general structure of the section appear to be geographical, so it might make more sense grouped with the other "Malay" sentences. Failing that, some date context is needed, as it is not immediately obvious that you are going from a nest observed in Australia in 2010 and 2011 to an observation tower built much earlier (presumably) as the magnate in question died in 1964 - the obvious question that the article leaves unanswered is when this tower was built.
In general, some of the stuff mentioned in the 'Cultural significance' section also comes across as trivial and/or WP:RECENTISM (the bit about the EagleCam attracting 'statewide attention' in particular seems aimed at Australian readers), but would be a logical endpoint for the article if the Malay magnate sentence were given a year and moved to the third paragraph of this section (the one including the Malaysia material). Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with alot of this - one of the frustrating things about cultural material is the piecemeal nature of the information available. Regarding the tower in Malaysia, I couldn't find a building date from that source, but will have a look to see if I can find that elsewhere. Regarding the notability of the EagleCam, the park it is in is one of Sydney's biggest and most notable parks, and one has to also remember that very few ornithological items ever make the news, they are generally deemed not notable enough. This one did, and this camera has been a fixture there for over three years now, so I figured that was pretty significant for a bird-related story. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn - no dates on google anywhere - I moved it so all Malay material together. I'll see what else I can find and recalibrate lead as summary of salient points of section with appropriate weighting. Give me a bit of time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the Sanger (1995) reference while looking as well. A similar story is related in one of those Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society articles. This obituary might also help (it also mentions the story). It is also mentioned here. There are also some hits on Google Books (see here). The Illustrated London News report (see here and search for 'Loke') gives a year of 1949 for the observations made from that tower. I also looked at some of the other cultural stuff, and it might seem less piecemeal and more encyclopedic if you give more of the history. For example, when was the 10,000 Singapore dollar banknote issued? From Singapore Bird Series currency notes (see link at bottom), it was 1 February 1980 (you probably also want to add a link from this bird article to that article). Similarly, when did this bird become the emblem of the Malaysian state of Selangor? When did this bird become the emblem of the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles rugby league team? Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha. thanks for that.
Will get to it. Got most, but yet to realign lead and body of text. See answer below to Ucucha. Tolkien never described Gwaihir as white did he...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha. thanks for that.
- I found the Sanger (1995) reference while looking as well. A similar story is related in one of those Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society articles. This obituary might also help (it also mentions the story). It is also mentioned here. There are also some hits on Google Books (see here). The Illustrated London News report (see here and search for 'Loke') gives a year of 1949 for the observations made from that tower. I also looked at some of the other cultural stuff, and it might seem less piecemeal and more encyclopedic if you give more of the history. For example, when was the 10,000 Singapore dollar banknote issued? From Singapore Bird Series currency notes (see link at bottom), it was 1 February 1980 (you probably also want to add a link from this bird article to that article). Similarly, when did this bird become the emblem of the Malaysian state of Selangor? When did this bird become the emblem of the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles rugby league team? Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nissan Island is in Papua New Guinea, not in the country of the Solomon Islands. It's arguably in the Solomon Islands (archipelago), but saying that this species is mentioned in folk tales in "the Solomon Islands", as the current lead does, is confusing at best.
- agree - just removed any locality from lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The map shows this species occurring in the Solomon Islands (the country), where the article says Sanford's Sea Eagle occurs.
- Aaah, that's why there is that paler blue circle - adjusted map caption accordingly Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sanford's and White-bellied are called a superspecies in the lead and a species pair in the "Taxonomy" section. Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms, but it's better to be consistent, and "species pair" redirects to cryptic species, which I don't think is appropriate.
- superspecies done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The talons, bill, and eyes are dark as in all Gondwanan sea eagles"—I couldn't find this in the cited reference (Wink et al., 1996). I'm not sure the word "Gondwanan" is a good choice here, since those eagles probably evolved long after the breakup of Gondwana; why not use "Southern Hemisphere" or so?
- Ok, latter is plainer English too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Also, is the reference correct? Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- duh! I shoulda realised - dark yellow..fixed now. nuts to my speed-reading...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Also, is the reference correct? Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, latter is plainer English too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the Wedge-tailed Eagle and Grey-headed Fish Eagle not linked?
cos I hate themsloppiness, fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The White-bellied Sea Eagle is generally sedentary and territorial, although it may travel long distances. They have been reported travelling upriver to hunt for flying foxes (Pteropus)"—is this really accurately cited to Tarr (1962)?
- Damn, something's gone awry there and a reference has dropped out.
I'll update once found. Found it and added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn, something's gone awry there and a reference has dropped out.
- "(including one record of seizing the last species when unsuccessful in obtaining its prey)"—sounds awkward; probably better put it in a separate sentence
- duly split now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear now whether the prey was the eagle's or the gannet's. Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- duly split now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A study of the species in Jervis Bay showed increases in the numbers of immature and subadult birds in autumn, although it was unclear whether these were locally-fledged or (as was considered more likely) an influx of young birds born and raised elsewhere in Australia"—why is this not under "Breeding", together with the information about the breeding season?
- I was intending on some notes on territoriality and seasonal movements in the beginning bit because it is focussing on outside breeding season more than the breeding season itself....it leaves a very small behaviour section if I move it out Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The White-bellied Sea Eagle is listed as marine and migratory"—what is the relevance of the "marine and migratory" part?
- I have reworded it a little - it is the marine and migratory categories under those tow pages which make it a protected species nationally in Oz. Is a rewording sufficient (as both categories are linked on the national page), or do you think I should also link both original rulings on the wikipedia page? Casliber (talk · contribs)
Like Carcharoth, I think the "Cultural significance" section is rather piecemeal. Do we need all those names, for example? It obviously has names in the area where it occurs (the interwikis will give you a few more), but we don't normally list those except when they are otherwise relevant. The Aboriginal tribe that uses the same name for itself and for the eagle is quite interesting, for example.
- @Ucucha and Carcharoth - I have reworked into three paras (1) australian indigenous beliefs (2) those beliefs elsewhere (3) more modern material. There is a nice covering phrase in the thesis for Australian beliefs, but none for elsewhere. I mean, it would be great if someone had pointed out its loud call had been written about in several folk tales (the Malay, Indian and Nissan stories), but none exists so I can't do the OR and tie it together. Have also tried looking for more extra-Australian material but without much success... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Still, do we need all those names? Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have removed the ones which were just isolated "the name of the bird is X" ones - I left the gulbi one as it is in Colebee as well, ditto Mak Mak. Listing Kuna-ngarrk-ngarrk helps show the Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park (which is not far from where the Mak Mak are) is from a distinct source/story/people etc. The other four help flesh out the people/locales talking about the Sea Eagle and are good for flow. If I removed all them it'd sound more listy again. Casliber (talk · contribs)
- Thanks. Still, do we need all those names? Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ucucha and Carcharoth - I have reworked into three paras (1) australian indigenous beliefs (2) those beliefs elsewhere (3) more modern material. There is a nice covering phrase in the thesis for Australian beliefs, but none for elsewhere. I mean, it would be great if someone had pointed out its loud call had been written about in several folk tales (the Malay, Indian and Nissan stories), but none exists so I can't do the OR and tie it together. Have also tried looking for more extra-Australian material but without much success... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some refs need to be formatted: for example, current ref. 9 (to Baldwin 2010) should probably use {{cite thesis}}, refs. 26 and 33 repeat the name of the department (and are otherwise inconsistent), ref. 68 shouldn't have "Manly Sea Eagles Official Site" italicized, etcetera.
- done first, one of the repeated ones is actually how they ask to be referenced on the bottom of the department web page, tweaked the other department one (note that state and federal gov'ts are different entities), the "Manly Sea Eagles Official Site" is the work= parameter of the cite web template, reduced it to "Official Site". Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to fill in both |publisher= and |work=, and I think the latter is rarely needed in cite web. There are a few more like this; the ref to Birds Australia apparently has |publisher=Birds Australia|work=Birds Australia website; that's not helping anyone. Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, work parameters removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to fill in both |publisher= and |work=, and I think the latter is rarely needed in cite web. There are a few more like this; the ref to Birds Australia apparently has |publisher=Birds Australia|work=Birds Australia website; that's not helping anyone. Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done first, one of the repeated ones is actually how they ask to be referenced on the bottom of the department web page, tweaked the other department one (note that state and federal gov'ts are different entities), the "Manly Sea Eagles Official Site" is the work= parameter of the cite web template, reduced it to "Official Site". Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/birds/Haliaeetus_leucogaster.htm a high-quality reliable source?
- I left it in as I couldn't find the information elsewhere....and upon thinking about it there may be a good reason why it isn't elsewhere (i.e. not quite accurate), and then I realised much of it is in next sentence, so deleted it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, COI, comments I'm a member of the Bird Project, and I've made a number of minor edits to this article. Unsurprisingly, I can't find much wrong with it, so just two comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Description" veers from singular in para 1 to plural in para 2
- duly singularised Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should "coot" be bolded since it refers to a single species?
- yup. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any critters that prey upon this critter?
- aaargh - even though it is blindingly obvious that it is an apex predator, finding a source which say just that is elusive :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aargh indeed -- I know the frustration. If you happen to stumble upon a source for this fact, it would be a great addition, but we obviously can't invent facts, so don't fret over it too much. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- aaargh - even though it is blindingly obvious that it is an apex predator, finding a source which say just that is elusive :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How big is this critter?
- added stats of larger size. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How long have people known about this critter?
- added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [20].
- Nominator(s): Ucucha 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a small group of Malagasy rodents, discovered only in 1998. Unfortunately, the most recently discovered genera of Malagasy rodents—this one and Monticolomys—are also among the less interesting ones, since unlike all the others they lack any conspicuous specializations, but this remains an intriguing example of unique and long-unrecognized Malagasy diversity. The articles on the two species are featured and good, respectively, and this article is also a GA thanks to a review by Rcej. Thanks for your reviews, Ucucha 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: The only issue is whether it would be more consistent to use "et al." for the three-name string. Otherwise all looks in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. As for the et al., that is what the template I am using produces, and there is no actual inconsistency, since all works with more than three authors do use et al., and all those with less don't. There are, in fact, scientific journals using this same convention. Ucucha 12:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image - File:Madagascar_rivers.svg (one of the source files) cites as a source a multi-page PDF that needs page number(s) added. Also, is "records" the correct word in the caption? I would use "Recorded sightings" or something of that nature. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the page number for the multi-page PDF. If you want the description cleaned up further, just ask. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Nikkimaria, "records" is a standard term in this context. It's actually places where they have been trapped; I doubt anyone has seen a Voalavo in the wild otherwise than in a trap. Ucucha 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose you could find an image of the little critters? That would certainly be nice. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to help Ucucha with this, but I struck out with Carleton and now I'm hoping that he will put me in touch with Goodman. Apparently Goodman is the only person who would have pictures of these species. Let's keep our fingers crossed. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose you could find an image of the little critters? That would certainly be nice. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Nikkimaria, "records" is a standard term in this context. It's actually places where they have been trapped; I doubt anyone has seen a Voalavo in the wild otherwise than in a trap. Ucucha 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments [from Visionholder]: As always, the article looks very good. Here are a few thing:
"In the skull, the facial skeleton is long and the braincase is smooth." To me "In the skull" sounds weird... maybe "With the skull"?- I like "in the skull" better here, but would be fine with either. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a big deal. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like "in the skull" better here, but would be fine with either. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I can try writing to Carleton and inquire about photos for both of the two species. Do you have a recent email address for him? Granted, if I succeed, we'll have to wait on the OTRS process, but I may be able to enlist a volunteer to expedite the process.- His e-mail address is listed at [21]. Thanks for the offer. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written to him and he didn't have any. I've asked him to put me in touch to Goodman, but we'll see if I ever hear anything back. It was worth a shot. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- His e-mail address is listed at [21]. Thanks for the offer. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for Nikkimaria's comment above, maybe say "Known localities" rather than "Known records"? Just another option...- Changed. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Voalavo is a small rodent resembling a mouse and with gray fur." – Can we drop the "and"?- Yes, done. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Monticolomys koopmani not linked for a reason? Also, the sentence it's in is a teaser—it doesn't say how exactly it compares in size. Can (or should) that be fixed?- It's linked up in "Taxonomy". I've changed "comparable" to "close". Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"However, all species of Eliurus have a pronounced tuft of elongated hairs at the tip of the tail, a structure that..." – Is that a "structure" or a "feature" or "characteristic"? Just sounds like an odd word choice.- Used "feature" instead. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter titles in the references: capitalized or not?- They shouldn't be capitalized, and I don't see any that are. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be blind... sorry about that. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They shouldn't be capitalized, and I don't see any that are. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Otherwise, the article looks really good. I'm eager to add my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support FAC criteria are met. Sasata (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments — Looks very good, only minor nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
suggest linking musk, taxonomy, morphology- Did the first two; morphology is linked in the "Taxonomy" section.
"These genera are more distantly related to the other nesomyine genera and then to the other subfamilies of the family Nesomyidae, which occur in mainland Africa." the "and then" part is confusing me, should this be "than"?- No; I've clarified this poor wording by substituting "even more distantly" for "then". Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
gloss/link laminae- Glossed. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the article mentions that subfossil remains have been found, any more information about that?- No, unfortunately. I guess they are still working on them. There are also allegedly multiple new species of Eliurus in that collection; we'll have to wait and see. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't remember if we've talked about this before, but isn't it odd that the IUCN citations are the only ones that don't have the publication year in parentheses?
- Yes, I need to fix the template. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now done. Ucucha 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I need to fix the template. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if I really wanted to be nitpicky, I could mention that the ISBN numbers are not consistently hyphenated. But I won't.- But I'll fix it anyway. Thanks for the comments and for the fixes to the article. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments [from Dana boomer] - Looking very good, but a few comments/questions:
Description, "among other characters. In other characters," First of all, redundant. Second, this is the first time I've seen "characters" used in this way. Is this a common biological usage? IMO, "characteristics" might fit better here.Description, "In other characters, Voalavo shows one of several states seen among Eliurus species." Not sure what this is trying to say. What is "states" referring to in this context?- I've rewritten both of those sentences. "Characters" is a term I often see in the literature, but there are alternatives. I think technically a "character" such as length of the incisive foramen can have several "states" (i.e., short, long, intermediate). For some characters, different species of Eliurus show various traits, and Voalavo has one of several traits. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution, "have been found in Mahajanga Province". As provinces were abolished in 2009, perhaps this might be better written as "...found in what was previously Mahajanga Province" or something similar. Or find out which of the regions (Betsiboka, Boeny, Melaky or Sofia) the fossils were found in and make it more specific.- It's probably in Boeny, Sofia, or both, but the source is not specific. I've put in "former" and hope the future publication of this stuff will be more specific. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution - Is there any more information that could be given in this section? Predators? Where does it live (burrows, grass nests, hollow logs)?- None is known as far as I am aware. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I click on the link for "Musser, G.G.; Carleton, M.D. (2005). "Superfamily Muroidea"" in the Literature cited section it takes me to the main MSW homepage. Any way this can be made more specific?
- It could, but I don't think it's desirable. I could link it to the page on Muroidea, but the references in this article are not to the piece about Muroidea per se, but about other taxa, and linking to this particular page is not very helpful. Because the references in the article are to various accounts in Muroidea, there is no specific page that is appropriate to link to. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused then. When I click on the link, it takes me to the home page. Then, as a reader, how am I supposed to know what to do next to see the page that verifies what's in the article? At this point, the link is completely useless to the reader, as they don't know what they are supposed to be doing after they end up at the home page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What would the alternative be? If I link to some subpage, the reader will still be confused about how to verify a statement that is somewhere else. Ucucha 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many different pages are we talking about? Perhaps a note of the sort "information can be found on website by searching for x and y"? Or perhaps piping the link through the title instead of the chapter (section?), so that it's more obvious to readers that the link is taking you to the entire book/database, instead of the page on Muroidea. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of these seems feasible to me; I've just removed the link as it is not helpful for verifying the references as used in this article. Ucucha 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That works too. Everything looks good, and obviously I've already changed to a support above. Thanks for the prompt responses. Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of these seems feasible to me; I've just removed the link as it is not helpful for verifying the references as used in this article. Ucucha 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many different pages are we talking about? Perhaps a note of the sort "information can be found on website by searching for x and y"? Or perhaps piping the link through the title instead of the chapter (section?), so that it's more obvious to readers that the link is taking you to the entire book/database, instead of the page on Muroidea. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What would the alternative be? If I link to some subpage, the reader will still be confused about how to verify a statement that is somewhere else. Ucucha 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused then. When I click on the link, it takes me to the home page. Then, as a reader, how am I supposed to know what to do next to see the page that verifies what's in the article? At this point, the link is completely useless to the reader, as they don't know what they are supposed to be doing after they end up at the home page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It could, but I don't think it's desirable. I could link it to the page on Muroidea, but the references in this article are not to the piece about Muroidea per se, but about other taxa, and linking to this particular page is not very helpful. Because the references in the article are to various accounts in Muroidea, there is no specific page that is appropriate to link to. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once these are dealt with, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck - Checked several references and found no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the check. I try to always be on my guard against close paraphrasing, but it's good to have some independent confirmation that I'm doing well in that regard. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [22].
- Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, simply put, I feel it is now ready. This is the article's second FAC; its first candidacy ended without any opposes, but one editor did make the suggestion it receive another copy edit. With this suggestion now completed, I am confident the article is up to snuff. It has already received a GA review, peer review, and two copy edits by experienced editors. Much thanks to all for your comments. Ruby2010 comment! 16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review I did a little bit of work on File:Fringe Olivias Fight.png, but the source section needs to include not only the direct link (already there), but also a link to the blog itself, since I couldn't backtrace from one to the other. The "Purpose of use" section could also use another line or two; people get antsy when that's not really good. The other images are fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tracked down the actual article of the screenshot, and also added to the purpose rationale. Hope it looks good. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, looks like you got it. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead must not contain references. TGilmour (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply incorrect. Please stop wasting time. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use endashes for ranges
One of the copyeditors changed the dashes, so I could just undo this edit. I'll wait to hear back before I do that though. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Looks like User:Gyrobo converted the dashes to something else. Let me know if they look alright. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 23: why the doubled publisher?
- Be consistent in how newspaper publishers are formatted
- Do mean which template is used (news versus web cite), i.e. the work/publisher parameters? I strove to place both where possible, but had to change some of the automatic formatting (i.e. italics in the work parameter for the Digital Spy refs). Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
- Don't repeat cited sources in External links
- Ref 88: location shouldn't be italicized
- Compare formatting on refs 100 and 101
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply to your concern about io9 as a RS, I would cite this discussion. The site is controlled by its own editorial staff (Charlie Anders etc), and has been frequently been used as reliable sources for other FAs (such as Blade Runner and Batman). I'll address your other concerns when I get a chance. Thanks! Ruby2010 comment! 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like io9, AOL's TV Squad contains its own editorial staff, including syndicated columnist Jane Boursaw and TV critic Maureen Ryan (who used to write for the Chicago Tribune). Ruby2010 comment! 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—It looks good to me. I reviewed the article during the previous FAC and it still appears to be in fine condition. I found no other concerns beyond the one addressed below. Good work! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—The first paragraph of "Part two" seems a little disjointed; it jumps back and forth between the different characters then leaves some unanswered questions. For example, it says:
Walternate is informed of Walter's presence in the hospital, but Bell and Olivia rescue him. ... "Fauxlivia" (Torv) and "Alt-Charlie" (Kirk Acevedo) are unable to capture Walter.
Well yes, the second follows from the first. Why not something like:
When Walternate is informed of Walter's presence in the hospital, he dispatches "Fauxlivia" (Torv) and "Alt-Charlie" (Kirk Acevedo) to bring in Walter. Before they arrive, Bell and Olivia liberate Walter and escape the scene.
It then says:Fauxlivia sees a surveillance shot of Olivia and Walter and goes to confront Walternate. Peter meets Fauxlivia, who drives him to his new apartment.
Wait, wasn't Fauxlivia on the way to meet Walternate? Did this happen? Also, why is she going to confront Walternate?—RJH (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be cleared up now. Let me know if anything else is confusing. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have read over the article again and still feel satisfied it meets the criteria, and the prose is still clear. Although it would help if the infobox image caption can tell who Olivia is and who Fauxlivia is. -- Matthew RD 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added (left/right) and that she is a FBI agent. Thanks for the support, Ruby2010 comment! 23:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I know you say this has been copyedited since its last appearance, but it still needs a bit of work I think. A few examples:
- "They are the 22nd and 23rd episodes of the season, and the 42nd and 43rd episodes of the series overall. Both episodes were written by ...". That's at least one too many episodes.
- episodes -> parts Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... each of which is in possession of various historical idiosyncrasies." How can a universe be in possession of anything?
- In possession of -> contain Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The finale's narrative follows what happens when Peter (Joshua Jackson) is brought back to the Other Side by his real father". Should be "taken back", unless you're writing this from the Other Side.
- "While Walter's team journeys to meet with William Bell (Leonard Nimoy) at Central Park, while Peter reunites with his real mother, Elizabeth (Orla Brady)."
- "Walter's team splits up when Bell does not arrive and the alternate Fringe Division attacks them." That's inherently slightly ambiguous. Did they split up after Bell's non-arrival and the attack, or did they split up after Bell's non-arrival and were then attacked?
- Clarified Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Walter traveled into another universe twice to save him—which counts for something—Peter forgives him." It's not all clear whose opinion the parenthetical "which counts for something" is expressing. Yours?
- Just rewatched the scene in question. The "gotta count for something" line is a direct quote, so I added quotation marks Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Olivia is revealed to actually be Fauxlivia, infiltrating our side". It seems strange to consider the name of one universe a proper noun but not the other.
- Fixed 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Walternate visits her, cruelly stares at her without speaking ...". How can you stare "cruelly". In whose opinion was the stare cruel?
- Well, it was a cruel stare (i.e. not exactly benevolent!) But I removed it anyway 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "They were originally going to have Olivia sacrifice herself to allow Peter and Walter's return to the prime universe ...". Which is the prime universe? Is that its name in the series?
- Yes I believe that's what the series calls it. The prime universe = Our Side. The meaning was established in the lead but a Copy Editor changed it. For clarity's sake, I removed all references to a prime universe and simply changed it to "Our Side". Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article isn't consistent in whether or not it's using logical punctuation. Consider the difference between "He 'graciously agreed'." and "We were ecstatic when we figured [the cliffhanger] out." Or "... he felt that he looked 'like such a doofus holding a gun,' but changed his mind when he saw the finished production." and "The actor, the producers, and some fans have called the new character 'Scarlie', in reference to a scar on his cheek ...". (Check out where the commas are after the embedded quotes).
K, I'll look them over Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)I've gone through the production's accessible sources and verified where quotations fall in relation to the original text. There are some that were taken from the audio commentary. In that case, should I leave the punctuation where it is? I'm not entirely clear on where commas, periods etc fall in those situations.Also, I have yet to go though the reception section; I'll work through it in a bit. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The parallel universe has a number of famous comic book issues from DC Comics, similar to the prime universe, but with notable differences." We've already been told this in the Writing and filming section.
- Yes, but this section details exactly what some of those differences are (and thus qualify under cultural refs, at least in my opinion). Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's no need to tell us again that DC Comics produced some covers, we already know that. You could, for instance, say something like "The covers produced for the series by DC comics of some of their famous issues showed notable differences from the originals." Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems strange to me that about half of the Awards and nominations section is about submissions that didn't lead to nominations, much less awards.
- Because we're talking about the Emmys (the biggest awards night for television), I felt submissions would be good additions for this section. Would you suggest I rename it? Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a suggestion, it just seems strange to me. But if that's normal for this kind of article then fine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for very much for looking the article over! I hope I have made all your changes or responded back satisfactorily. Thanks again, Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article has now received two copy edits, so I'm not sure what another one would do for its significant improvement. Thanks :) Ruby2010 comment! 00:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting that you ask for it to be copyedited again (my opinion of the general standard of GOCE copyedits is unprintable anyway), just that you look closely through it again for the kinds of things I've pointed out, in particular the consistent logical punctuation. I know I'm being tough, but FAs are supposed to be our best work. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I know FA is a tough playground. :) Ruby2010 comment! 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having now gone through the reception section, I believe I have now addressed your concerns with the punctuation. Thanks! Ruby2010 comment! 03:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're getting there, but I'm still not entirely happy about the prose. For instance, in the Part one section it says "They form a plan that uses Olivia's universe-hopping ability, and amplify it with the help of three other Cortexiphan test subjects". How do you amplify a plan? And plans don't really "use" anything, why not "a plan that exploits ..." instead? Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed that particular sentence. I also made a few other c/e fixes in the plot section. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind I've never seen this series, and am never likely to, but I don't understand this from the Part two section: "Fauxlivia arrives and meets Peter, who drives him to his new apartment." Up to that point I'd thought that Fauxlivia was a girl, so I can't make head nor tail of the "who drives him to his new apartment" bit. Also, "After a fight, Olivia knocks Fauxlivia unconscious". After the fight, not during the fight? Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both plot issues now clarified. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd really like to be able to support this article, but I still can't: "Nick is shot and Sally stays with him, producing a suicidal fireball that burns both them and the Fringe Division's principal investigator". So her staying with him produced a fireball? In general part two of the plot section has an uncomfortable staccato feel. I still think it's close, but no cigar as yet. Malleus Fatuorum 05:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be sure, is it just that section (the plot) that is preventing your support? I tried to clean it up a bit. Part of the problem may be that two copy editors have gone through it and tweaked a few things, which while helping with flow might have made it slightly more confusing for some. Hope it looks better now. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is. It's not that I find the plot section confusing, rather that it's a series of "he did this", "she did that", "he then did something else". Copyeditors aren't always your best friends if they don't allow your voice to shine through. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "staccato" style writing was meant to keep the section under the minimum basic plot length for a two hour episode (as with most TV episodes/films, plots can easily go over the word limit). After the recent tweaks, how does it look now? Ruby2010 comment! 04:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your changes look great, and really added some much needed flow. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes makes all the difference. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "staccato" style writing was meant to keep the section under the minimum basic plot length for a two hour episode (as with most TV episodes/films, plots can easily go over the word limit). After the recent tweaks, how does it look now? Ruby2010 comment! 04:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is. It's not that I find the plot section confusing, rather that it's a series of "he did this", "she did that", "he then did something else". Copyeditors aren't always your best friends if they don't allow your voice to shine through. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be sure, is it just that section (the plot) that is preventing your support? I tried to clean it up a bit. Part of the problem may be that two copy editors have gone through it and tweaked a few things, which while helping with flow might have made it slightly more confusing for some. Hope it looks better now. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd really like to be able to support this article, but I still can't: "Nick is shot and Sally stays with him, producing a suicidal fireball that burns both them and the Fringe Division's principal investigator". So her staying with him produced a fireball? In general part two of the plot section has an uncomfortable staccato feel. I still think it's close, but no cigar as yet. Malleus Fatuorum 05:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both plot issues now clarified. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind I've never seen this series, and am never likely to, but I don't understand this from the Part two section: "Fauxlivia arrives and meets Peter, who drives him to his new apartment." Up to that point I'd thought that Fauxlivia was a girl, so I can't make head nor tail of the "who drives him to his new apartment" bit. Also, "After a fight, Olivia knocks Fauxlivia unconscious". After the fight, not during the fight? Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed that particular sentence. I also made a few other c/e fixes in the plot section. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're getting there, but I'm still not entirely happy about the prose. For instance, in the Part one section it says "They form a plan that uses Olivia's universe-hopping ability, and amplify it with the help of three other Cortexiphan test subjects". How do you amplify a plan? And plans don't really "use" anything, why not "a plan that exploits ..." instead? Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having now gone through the reception section, I believe I have now addressed your concerns with the punctuation. Thanks! Ruby2010 comment! 03:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I know FA is a tough playground. :) Ruby2010 comment! 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting that you ask for it to be copyedited again (my opinion of the general standard of GOCE copyedits is unprintable anyway), just that you look closely through it again for the kinds of things I've pointed out, in particular the consistent logical punctuation. I know I'm being tough, but FAs are supposed to be our best work. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article has now received two copy edits, so I'm not sure what another one would do for its significant improvement. Thanks :) Ruby2010 comment! 00:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like a very strange series. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much appreciated for your great suggestions and support Ruby2010 comment! 22:46, 17 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [23].
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The sixth in a projected ten article series about the Great Recoinage of U.S. coins between 1907 and 1921, we return to the initial battles which we saw in Saint-Gaudens double eagle between sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Mint Chief Engraver Charles E. Barber and President Theodore Roosevelt, who went so far as to threaten Barber with decapitation (a certain appropriateness there, what with Barber's cutting name). Since it covers the same time period as the double eagle article, I went to some effort to not use the same quotes or images (excepting one) which are used in the double eagle article. This has passed GA and received a PR. Enjoy it. Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing bibliographic info for Vermeule
- FN 16: which Burdette?
- FN 31: formatting should match Bibliography entries. Also, GBooks links don't require retrieval dates
- FN 35: check author. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is not required, I prefer to do it, as who knows what Google will do tomorrow. Thank you for the check, I will fix the items you mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I peer reviewed this article and such very small quibbles as I had have been addressed. I leave comment about the images to those who police such matters, but in all other regards, this article seems to me to meet every FA criterion. Interesting even for those of us to whom numismatics is a closed book. The article is a credit to Wehwalt and will be a credit to Wikpedia. – Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review - Just about everything checks out from a copyright standpoint, my only concern is that the name of the source publication for File:High relief eagle.png isn't actually listed, it just says there is one. I'm also really not sure why we need the two mint medals of the directors, the image quality isn't too great and the images themselves seem superfluous. Finally, File:Pt eagle.png looks artificially enlarged, so I'm going back to the source and doing it over. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pt eagle.png handled. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source was in there but it was lower case and not italicized, my apologies. I was only going to have the one mint medal (Preston) but both of my photographic images of Roberts are left-facing and I needed an image that would work on the left. If the quality is poor, I can rescan them, though I won't be home for a couple of weeks. Thanks for working on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two mind medals look blurry, most noticeably on the edge lettering, with Roberts being especially bad. Either the scanner moved while it was being scanned or the image itself was artificially enlarged too much. Everything left of Roberts' ear is pixelated heavily, especially the back of his coat across from the GE of George. I don't know what the answer is, I don't want to hold this for weeks at a time. Being that they look fine in the article itself, I suppose it's okay to let it go until you can do a rescan, and not let it choke up the review. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, probably has to do with the high relief of Mint medals. I may go back to using a camera on them, as I have a small collection of about ten Mint directors and one Secretary of the Treasury.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two mind medals look blurry, most noticeably on the edge lettering, with Roberts being especially bad. Either the scanner moved while it was being scanned or the image itself was artificially enlarged too much. Everything left of Roberts' ear is pixelated heavily, especially the back of his coat across from the GE of George. I don't know what the answer is, I don't want to hold this for weeks at a time. Being that they look fine in the article itself, I suppose it's okay to let it go until you can do a rescan, and not let it choke up the review. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source was in there but it was lower case and not italicized, my apologies. I was only going to have the one mint medal (Preston) but both of my photographic images of Roberts are left-facing and I needed an image that would work on the left. If the quality is poor, I can rescan them, though I won't be home for a couple of weeks. Thanks for working on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for telling me about the new images Wehwalt. The wire rim checks out iff it really has no copyright notice. I would have no way of knowing since its not online, but if there's no notice, there's no notice. If there is a copyright notice buried somewhere, then we get into the discussion I had about the other coin at FAC now; which is that the image itself does not qualify for copyright because it doesn't meet the threshold for originality that US law requires. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I thought. All these materials are in a public archive, they are open 1030 to 5, or if you called the librarian, it could be verified that way. Not saying you're going to do it, but it is verifiable. I probably wound up with about three hundred coin images that if I had the patience to upload all of them would have similar license tags. Kagin's, Steve Ivy, and MTB were the offenders who did not copyright their work! Very pleased, I put in a hard two days work there. I should be able to replace many of the images on wiki of coins that have defective copyrights.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLeaning to support: I have a few minor issues with this otherwise characteristically informative coin article:-
- Lead
- "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model that the sculptor had prepared for the cent instead for the obverse of the eagle". The "instead" is awkwardly placed, though other placements are equally problematic. I've made lots of attempts to reframe the sentence, but can do no better than: "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model for the obverse of the eagle that the sculptor had intended for the cent" - which may not be much better.
- Can ending a paragraph and beginning the next with "Saint-Gaudens" be avoided?
- Inception
- Pipe-link "Liberty Head" to Liberty Head Gold Dollar? On the same theme, should "the head of Liberty" be piped to Liberty (goddess)
- No, on the first, they had different designers, yes on the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "...had remained the same for 25 years..." → "...had remained the same for more than 25 years..."
Longer, I think. This is always a pain to explain, which is why I put the quote from the law in the dime article. Once you are in the 25th year, you can replace the design. You don't even have to strike coins in the 25th year, the Mint had no intention in 1916 of striking any Barber pieces, though they eventually had to with a silver shortage and delayed designs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Preparations
- I'm not sure what the "collar" is in coin terms, and I am baffled by the wording "the Mint's machine shop worked to invent the collar." Invent?
- That is per source, but I will work for a better phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you couls also exclaim what is meant by "rim"
- Design
- I'm a bit concerned by the double hyphenation in "olive-branch-wrapped". But can anything be "wrapped" in a branch?
- Perhaps "with"?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Release and production
- Small point: you mention that the eagle series had begun in 1795. I think this quite significant piece of background information should be mentioned in the lead.
- Collecting
- Conventionally, "forty" should be "40"
- I would have, but with a year following, I think you will agree that "forty 1933 eagles" is better than "40 1933 eagles".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "satin proof" mean?
- The long image caption, which elaborates on information given earlier in the text, displaces the References section. Would it be better to have the expanded information in the text, and a short summary caption?
I see no difficulties resolving these and look forward to fully supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All those things are done, with slight variations, except as noted above. If I missed anything, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with these responses (I think I understand what a "collar" is, now). Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Support Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC) —1a, MoS, referencing.[reply]
- "Both the obverse and the reverse were designed by sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, though he did not live to see the coin released"—opening not logical.
- "President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins"—where is this referenced? I might have missed it below, but it's a key claim, and "beautiful" can't be found elsewhere. It's an interpersonal epithet, which is slightly uncomfortable, whereas "new" is a normal epithet.
- "originally" twice in five seconds, and then again, and again.
- "intended ... intended" ... can't the second one be binned?
- "US coins which were then"—should there be a comma, and possible a semicolon after 1907?
- "the President decided on a design featuring a standing bald eagle which had been originally intended for"—this is a good example of why the Chicago MoS says to favour "that" rather than "which" (so there's no doubt about comma/no comma). "that was originally" is possible, and neater. Or "bald eagle, originally intended (or "first intended").
- We have "ten-dollar coin" and "twenty-dollar piece", but "ten dollar gold piece" in the very first line.
- "and months were occupied with design modifications"—this is a bit uncomfortable. Aren't the workers occupied with the task? It's possibly a matter of idiom, not logic.
- Probably "differed".
- "When the new coins reached the public"—just once, we lose the chronology.
- "the modification and small changes to the design"—unclear.
- "stopped production"—for phonological reasons alone, consider inserting "the".
- "at the direction by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933."—direction of?
- "and the 1933 issue is a great rarity, as few were distributed". Is "great" encyclopedic? I'm not exactly sure. "Few" issues? There's a clash.
- Infobox: consider a nbsp before "eagle". Why do Gold and Copper have initial caps? MoS: closing range two digits. Space poor, better "stars (1907–11); ...". Better 13 than spelled out in a space-poor infobox. " An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows; the arrows are wrapped by an olive branch." possibly neater as "An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows that are wrapped by an olive branch." I tried without "that are", but maybe it's necessary to include those two words.
I haven't looked beyond the lead. I'm surprised to find so much to discuss in so short a text that was written by an expert in the topic, and a prolific FA writer for whom I have a deal of respect. Tony (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended discussion moved to talk. Summary: Wehwalt has made some changes in response to Tony1's points; Tony1 wants him to either make all requested changes or provide reasoning for not doing so. Tony1 also requests that SandyGeorgia recuse as delegate on this FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded there, informing Tony that his comment was so offensive he is conflicted out from reviewing the article, and has no right or interest to demand a delegate recuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, Raul has now expressed on his talk page his confidence in Sandy's ability in this matter. That ends it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-serving twaddle. You need to address the review points in good faith. I've changed to "Strong oppose", and will scrutinise the article now beyond the lead. There is no way that SandyGeorgia could do anything but recuse from this nom: she has prejudiced herself on my talk page and elsewhere. Tony (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, Raul has now expressed on his talk page his confidence in Sandy's ability in this matter. That ends it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded there, informing Tony that his comment was so offensive he is conflicted out from reviewing the article, and has no right or interest to demand a delegate recuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I believe that all of the points Tony raised above have now been addressed with the exception of one with which I don't agree:
- "New pieces were given to the President on August 31, which differ from the coins struck later for circulation.". I think that "differ" rather than the suggested "differed" is correct, as the coins still exist and still differ. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on criterion 1a but with some minor concerns:
- Here, "proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins", would "introduction" be better than "use", which would make "new" redundant and stop the clash I hear, but cannot explain, of "new" and "beautiful"?
- Here, "prompting the Mint to hire Saint-Gaudens to create those pieces, why not write "them"?
- Here, "proved in too high relief for the Mint to readily strike", why not say "was in too high", or am I missing some nuance?
- I would prefer "finished" to "finalized".
- Here, "Saint-Gaudens foresaw resistance from Barber in the question of the new coinage". Should this not be "on the question"?
- Here, "Roosevelt was impressed by some models Saint-Gaudens had prepared for the cent", would "designs" be better?
- Something seems to be missing here: "The Saint-Gaudens studio moved quickly on revised images." Is it just the definite article?
- I think "utilize" is an ugly word and prefer the more humble and friendlier "use".
- How about a simple "and said" (or wrote) rather than "stating that". I think the verb to state is overused and should be confined to courts of law.
Thank you for another engaging contribution in this series. I might want to add a few more nitpicks following a second reading, but I do not see any reason to not support this. Well done. Graham Colm (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome. I will try to get to your comments as soon as I can. Frankly it isn't easy right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those things are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When you've addressed the matters I raised above, there are a few more things. I must say, the rest of the article is on a much better level than the lead. Why?
- Trivial, but a dot is missing from the metal model caption.
- MoS: no need to square-bracket a case change: instructing him to "[h]ave this matter .... I see another instance of this. It's much smoother to the reader to remove the clutter-brackets.
- "About five hundred pieces"—can't this be in numerals?
- newly-designed. MoS breach.
- "Roosevelt desired to omit"—I'm trying to think of a more comfortable wording. "wanted to"?
- Comma splice: "The House of Representatives passed a bill ordering the use of the motto on the new eagle and double eagle (which also lacked the phrase) in March 1908, the Senate followed suit in May, and Roosevelt, finding public opinion against him, signed the bill into law that month."
- You might consider removing one comma to make these pretty long sentence easier to parse: "During World War I, with gold coins commanding a premium above face value, and many gold pieces returning from Europe to pay for war materials, there was little need for new gold coins, and coinage of eagles was discontinued after 1916." It's a more subjective thing, but this could be more arresting and drive home the trajectory of the sentence: "there was little need for new gold coins: coinage of eagles was discontinued after 1916." Generally, you might consider slightly carefully reducing the use of commas in just a few mid-sentence places ("and" is the trigger). Here's another (consider the bumpy effect and the fact that the psychological subject of the sentence casts over the second half as well): "Many of the gold coins seen today had been exported to Europe before 1933, and repatriated once restrictions on holding gold were ended."
- "prior to 1920"—please consider "before 1920", which is much more natural to English. Tony (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Sandy has asked me to at least consider Tony's comments, I made several changes, where the points seemed to me to be valid. Where they seemed to me to be merely stylistic (I prefer to have numbers spelled out when MOS allows me to do so, as it does in this case: "five hundred" is three syllables) matters of word choice, and I felt my choice was as valid or superior, I have ignored them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy is headed towards a very bad place. "asked me to at least consider Tony's comments": no, you need to address the comments in exactly the way you do for other reviews. I see no explanations, no evidence, here. The Strong oppose stays until you stop this nonsense, abetted, apparently, by SandyGeorgia. Tony (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think that all the valid points raised by Tony have been addressed either by Wehwalt or by me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review and your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus, you're being Wehwalt's servant, are you? But this corrupt system will still encourage Wehwalt to aggressively assert ownership over the article, in breach of the Pillars. Why does Saint-Gaudens double eagle open with "twenty-dollar gold coin", but the hyphens are missing from this article? I've already pointed out this issue. It seems to be the only matter outstanding. Tony (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You had, as I understand it, asked for it to be consistent, so I removed all hyphens. Fine, I'll put a hyphen in all three.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus, you're being Wehwalt's servant, are you? But this corrupt system will still encourage Wehwalt to aggressively assert ownership over the article, in breach of the Pillars. Why does Saint-Gaudens double eagle open with "twenty-dollar gold coin", but the hyphens are missing from this article? I've already pointed out this issue. It seems to be the only matter outstanding. Tony (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I not infrequently try to make helpful edits to FACs, but it's the first time I've been called a servant for doing it. Are you suggesting that the article should be allowed to fail because a few hyphens are missing? I've made quite a few edits to this article before today in fact, and Wehwalt has never exhibited any signs of ownership as a result. I can only go by what I see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, well let's fix the problem at the opening, so this article is consistent with the others of this topic that Wehwalt owns. Tony (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fixed now isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly owns; RHM22 has done major work in the area. Thank you both for your work and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fixed now isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, well let's fix the problem at the opening, so this article is consistent with the others of this topic that Wehwalt owns. Tony (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I not infrequently try to make helpful edits to FACs, but it's the first time I've been called a servant for doing it. Are you suggesting that the article should be allowed to fail because a few hyphens are missing? I've made quite a few edits to this article before today in fact, and Wehwalt has never exhibited any signs of ownership as a result. I can only go by what I see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
"As his successor, San Francisco Mint Superintendent Frank A. Leach, did not take office until November 1, former Mint Director Robert Preston served as acting director in the interim.[14]" – should be "As his successor, San Francisco Mint Superintendent Frank A. Leach did not take office until November 1; former Mint Director Robert Preston served as acting director in the interim.[14]"; that would make senseyes you are right; I understand the meaning of the sentence after re-reading."With Landis on vacation,[17] Cortelyou passed the President's letter on to the acting Philadelphia Mint superintendent, Dr. Albert A. Norris, instructing him to "have this matter taken up at once and the President's instructions carried out; and everything possible must be done to expedite the work."[18]" – capitalicize "superintendent" for consistencyI now understand"Norris, in his subsequent letter to Acting Director Preston noted that the Mint had been having trouble with the collar, which would strike the edge of the coin and impress 46 stars, representing the number of states there would be after Oklahoma's already scheduled admission to the Union later in 1907." – "Norris noted in his subsequent letter to Acting Director Preston that the Mint had been having trouble with the collar, which would strike the edge of the coin and impress 46 stars, representing the number of states there would be after Oklahoma's already scheduled admission to the Union later in 1907."; this is correctthank you. You now see why the point position is of big importance."A total of 32,000 eagles were struck using the Barber-modified Saint-Gaudens dies, for the most part using ordinary coinage presses." – not sure, but shouldn't it be "Saint-Gauden's"?"With the admission of New Mexico and Arizona as states in 1912, the number of stars on the edge was increased from 46 to 48. [40]" – no space after period"LLC" or "L.L.C."; I would say "LLC""Victory and peace" or "Victory and Peace" (in the caption)?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]It is still inconsistent. In the caption it says "Victory and peace" and in text "victory and peace". Sorry, I know it is a nitpick, but I believe this article should be excellent and should not even contain the smallest things you could ever thing of (for example the "space-to-much" comment above).
- Thanks for the comments. I am not totally convinced by the first one, do you feel that a semicolon is the way to go there? The others I'll get to tomorrow, I've been spending a hard day on research and would prefer to get some sleep, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think a comma is better, however, I do not consider this a big deal, and am happy to consult with other editors on this. "Superintendent" is properly lower case due to that comma (had there been no comma and all of that was grafted onto Norris's name as a title, then it would be capitalized. "Saint-Gaudens" is proper in referring to the design like that, for example Saint-Gaudens double eagle, the companion to this article. All others are done as per your suggestions. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Will support after nitpick resolved =).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 11:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Will support after nitpick resolved =).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 11:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think a comma is better, however, I do not consider this a big deal, and am happy to consult with other editors on this. "Superintendent" is properly lower case due to that comma (had there been no comma and all of that was grafted onto Norris's name as a title, then it would be capitalized. "Saint-Gaudens" is proper in referring to the design like that, for example Saint-Gaudens double eagle, the companion to this article. All others are done as per your suggestions. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I am not totally convinced by the first one, do you feel that a semicolon is the way to go there? The others I'll get to tomorrow, I've been spending a hard day on research and would prefer to get some sleep, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your thoughtful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Nice piece! Way more interesting than I thought it would be. HA! Both the content (personality and art) as well as the way you write it up. Kudos. I only skimmed it, so can't support or oppose. Just some surfacey thoughts, FWIW:
- Concerned that there has been little reviewer engagement/discussion of the content itself. Huge engagement on the writing, but I am already comfortable with your ability there (even though I think the nits have mainly been "right").
- I wonder (not a strong suppositiong, something to check) if the part at the end about circulation and collecting could use more info. Seems like we hit the history really hard and well and your article will be a fun and good resource for that, but want to make sure we cover the more analytical aspects well also.
- Once the coin is released, it usually ceases to make news, therefore there is not much to be said, excepting the design tweaks. If a coin runs a long time, like the Lincoln cent, there are things to discuss, if not, well, not. Eagles didn't really circulate that much anyway, they were used as reserves for gold certificates and in international trade transactions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest getting a few reviewers to read the thing and comment on it from different perspectives and perhaps engage a bit more in the content. Some possible slants (Project USA and kumioko, a main contrib to the TR article, sculptor (irl or someone who's done good Wiki articles there, another currency person (ideally not just your compadre) or maybe a stamp-collector, biographer, layperson).
- Always glad to hear new angles. I own the major bios on TR and I've been disappointed they don't talk about coins. The story isn't over yet, there was more conflict over the smaller gold coins ($2.50 and $5), which will be covered when I get to those coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Halperin book on coinage of Saint Gaudens (Ivy Press) at all additive?
- Not terribly. It is mostly discussions of each coin by date and mintmark, rarity, market discussions, sometimes auction results for the rare dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is the aspect of content that (I wonder if we) are light on. Could be the problem and the solution...;-) TCO (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The things I have said are the highlights out of such books that do individual treatments of the date and mintmarks. The thing is, for the general interest reader, it gets too technical, while for the collector, he doesn't want to hear it from us, he'll either have or review the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is the aspect of content that (I wonder if we) are light on. Could be the problem and the solution...;-) TCO (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not terribly. It is mostly discussions of each coin by date and mintmark, rarity, market discussions, sometimes auction results for the rare dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Layout of images is really crisp, congrats. I do wonder about using the images for the sculptor and engraver as their medals. You can't see them as well as in a real photo. (It really is a picture of the medal, not the man and we lose contrast and detail.) I guess you were trying to keep it all coins, but I almost wonder if we end up appreciating some non-coin-y images.
- I understand. I had started with an image of Roberts, but it's left facing, and as you may notice, almost all the images are left facing, even the birds! The Roberts medal is at least right-facing. BTW, inclusion of the medals serves a more serious purpose: it lets the reader see Barber's work, the only opportunity in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wire rim eagle image is fuzzy. Also small. Should we not display at same size as regular coin (for comparison)?
- Better than what was there until yesterday (you might want to check to see if what you saw is what is still there).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was going off the old one.TCO (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better than what was there until yesterday (you might want to check to see if what you saw is what is still there).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonder if we had some more analytical image somewhere towards end, for visual appeal and also to describe some of the stuff that is easier scanned that way than only in prose (a table, a chart; perhaps of numismatic value or circulation numbers or mint mark versions or the like).
- I'm open to suggestions, but I don't have that kind of image talent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I's have to read it to figure it out, but think about if you were giving a presentation at work using a Powerpoint. I suspect something like numbers produced per year per mint, and current valuation, etc. would be helpful in a table format. (maybe a bar or line chart, or even a pie). (I really think it would be good for you to take a hack at it, in terms of what content would be good. As far as making the image...MissMJ will do that for you, very well, if you just ask nicely.) Think of the kind of reader who will skip to those sections. Also that in general comparing numeric data is hard in sentences, but easier in tables or graphs (keep the sentences too, just give another way to absorb and process the info).TCO (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to suggestions, but I don't have that kind of image talent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Layout is really nice, again. But if you want to show more or are having text wrap or siding issues, there are some tricks that can be done with gallery or tables of images (and not the junky galleries at the bottom with lots of white space).
- I hesitate to move anything!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I side with Tony, not Malleus on the tense of the coins differing. Just because we use past tense does not logically mean that we think the coins died or no longer differ, and I doubt the reader gets that impression. Plus the past-present-past within that sentence is an akward shift. (It's really a small deal, just my two cents.)
- I favor "is", as well, but believe in not jumping up and down on the FAC just to see if it will break :)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe an angled or side image would be cool. I don't have any gold coins and was intrigued what the stars look like, we can barely see them on the heads and tails shots.
- If I ever get to photograph one from the side, I certainly will.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nice work and good luck! Peace...TCO (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (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 not promoted by Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011 [24].
- Nominator(s): ShannºnTalk 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Missouri, that longest river of North America yet listed as a tributary of the Father of Waters, later that legendary pathway of the romanticized explorers and hardy pioneers of the American West, most recently publicized as that ongoing "problem" for failing levees in North Dakota and nuclear plants in Nebraska. This tremendous year of rains and snowmelt has given new life to reaches of the river that haven’t seen its thunderous power since the six Pick-Sloan dams were put in, and it only seems fitting that the Missouri be honored on Wikipedia as well by granting it FA status. I believe this complete, well referenced and well illustrated article meets the FA criteria or at least is squeakingly close enough to it. I have been through two fruitless FACs and one fruitful GAN with this, I’m ready for what’s next... ShannºnTalk 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was the GA reviewer and consider this to be the highest quality article that I have reviewed at GAC in my time on WP. I have been waiting for months to see this at FAC so that I could show my support. You can gather by the lengthy review at Talk:Missouri River/GA1 that my concerns have been addressed. I tried to be fairly critical at GA and give a PR as well as a GA analysis in order to help this twice-failed FGAN get over the hump. I know the article is greatly improved from its last visit here. I hope that the FAC community will be receptive to this contribution and accommodate the pace of response of its main editor, which may not be as fast as all you folks tend to like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose layout. I know this is your baby. And I love rivers too! Plus I see you have been through the mill a few times. So I feel bad to oppose. That said, this is really a huge and important topic and important that we do well. It does not look professional to me, right now, sorry.
Blue mass of coordinates in infobox is very uninviting. I suggest not having an infobox and just putting that content at the bottom in a more organized table (with columns dividing up some of the blue-links). I do like the blue lead image though. The map is probably your most important image, but you have it stuck in the infobox. It ought to be centered and large at the beginning of Course. Also, the river ought to be a different color, and maybe trim out some or all tribs. A lot of the other images are too small to be useful. I like that you have a graph (we should do that more), but then it lacks axes, is dublicated as a table, and is too big. The bulleted list of tribs should be in a table. I'm wondering if there is a way to put them at the end (but I see why they are near Course). See Also is too long and should have all the list of state rivers cut. I really didn't look at it that close or get into substance...because of the issues I saw in presentation.
- I temporarily removed your "blue mass of coordinates", see if that looks better. Personally, I actually like the aesthetics better this way. ShannºnTalk 18:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying, according to WP:RIVERS the map belongs in the geobox. ShannºnTalk 19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to mess around with the flow graphs a bit, see if I can transfer the data in the tables to the graphs. Because they're kind of difficult to handle. (In fact, they were stolen from the Russian Wikipedia...) ShannºnTalk 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also some overlinking (wheat? Fort Peck Lake AND Fort Peck Dam?) Given how much we really have to link (and on this article, I actually think you should like North America...because it is a key concept), cut the gravel and such.
- Removed some... ShannºnTalk 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- North America is linked in the lead, and in the Watershed section, and in the Native American section. Are you sure that isn't actualy a case of overlinking? ShannºnTalk 05:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that TTT spent a lot of time with you and that a bunch of things got adressed in the GAN. Still kind of think it's not there...although admitting I only skimmed the article, didn't really read it.
TCO (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I disagree with your comments about the infobox. It should definitely stay, with the coordinates in it. I think this is exactly the kind of information that ought to be in an infobox. It makes it easy to find all important numbers, coordinates etc, and makes the presentation of them consistent with other river-articles. Iusethis (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of the infobox, it is twice the length of almost all FA river articles (Bull Run River (Oregon), Chetco River, Columbia River, Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Jordan River (Utah), Little Butte Creek (Rogue River), River Parrett, Rogue River (Oregon), and St. Johns River). However all of those are less than 60 miles in length except the Rogue (215 miles), St. Johns (310 miles), and Columbia (1243 miles). Basically, the majority of FA rivers are streams and creeks. The only high-importance FA to WP:RIVER is the Columbia. The only significant difference in the infobox between the Missouri and the Columbia is in the source detail. However, this detail should be evaluated by topic experts, but seems relevant to me based on the text, IMO. I think the extra detail is due to the magnitude of the topic, which simply has more details that need to be provided.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should list the source in the geobox as Brower's Spring? ShannºnTalk 19:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A MOS review is needed (hopefully someone will get to it before I have to find time to list everything), and there is a daunting amount of unnecessary sea of blue (see WP:OVERLINK). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for my influence on OVERLINKING. I have asked for several links in the article. I am not sure, which are problematic here, but I may be at fault for some of them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:
- This article is in need of extensive editing for WP:MOS issues. On a quick skim I see heavy overlinking, "%" to be spelled out in article text, numbers under 10 should usually be spelled out in article text (ex. "2nd" -> "second"), etc
- WP:W2W/WP:NPOV: don't use phrases like "definitely not true", particularly without an immediate citation, don't tell the reader to "note" something
- I don't think 'definitely not true" in that context is arguable at all – who would deny the difference between 2,300 miles and sixty? ShannºnTalk 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference formatting needs cleanup for consistency. All web citations need publisher and accessdate; all print citations need page numbers. Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized when, etc.
- Would you mind clarifying if this is a widespread or small problem? I believe the references' format is fine. ShannºnTalk 19:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
- There were only two that needed it; fixed anyway; others are all NWIS citations or two pages or less. ShannºnTalk 19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TOC is too long - some shorter subsections (ex. "Longest") could be merged
- Shortened by four or five headers/subheaders... good? ShannºnTalk 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also is also too long - some of those links would be helpful in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shortened about 50%. ShannºnTalk 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Oppose 1a. Sorry, but the article really needs a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor. Here is a small sampling of questionable prose; these problems are abundant, and evident throughout the article. Sasata (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The river has had a continuous history of different tribes and groups," what does this mean?"However, after Europeans got to North America" the phrase "got to" is at best colloquial"The first Europeans to see the river were the French explorers Louis Jolliet and Jacques Marquette in 1673 who shortly after looking at Piasa petroglyph paintings on the bluffs above the Mississippi River near the present-day location of Alton, Illinois heard the Missouri rushing into the Mississippi." too much information for one sentence"Bourgmont had further infuriated the French by illegally trapping and for immoral behavior when he showed up at French outposts with his Native American wife." verb tenses not in agreement"However after Bourgmont's two documents, Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville, founder of Louisiana, said that rather than arresting Bourgmont they should decorate him with Cross of St. Louis and name him "commandant of the Missouri" to represent France on the entire river." First part of sentence does not jibe with the rest"After squabbling with French authorities over financing of a new fort on the Missouri and also suffering a yearlong illness, Bourgmont established Fort Orleans near present day Brunswick in the north central part of present-day Missouri, which was the first fort and first longer term European settlement of any kind on the Missouri, in late 1723 near his home at Brunswick." Again, poor grammar (too much info for one sentence)
- Going through this, but I'm not convinced – the vast majority of this is from the first three subsections Explorers section, the only portion of the article that I did not write. ShannºnTalk 19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. ShannºnTalk 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like I've responded to all the comments... I'd be glad to hear a disagreement... ShannºnTalk 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my oppose to a weak oppose, because I agree, the rest of the article isn't as bad as the sections I initially read. But I still maintain the prose should be picked over with a fine-tooth comb (and I don't have the inclination to do a sentence-by-sentence review on the entire article, sorry). Here's some more examples from the lead and first section:
- do we really need links to Canada, U.S. states, and France?
- "European and American explorers began to wander the region" missing a word?
- "The headstreams of the similarly sized Madison River, in turn formed by the Gibbon and Firehole rivers; and the smaller Gallatin River emerge from Yellowstone National Park in northwestern Wyoming and flow north and northwest into Montana." grammar or punctuation problem
- "It flows north, shortly being joined by the Gallatin, then passing through Canyon Ferry Lake, a reservoir west of the Big Belt Mountains." verb tense issue (flows -> passing)
- "… a series of five substantial cataracts." The link for cataracts goes to waterfalls… why not just say waterfalls?
- "… before crossing into North Dakota where the Yellowstone River, its greatest tributary, joins from the right." greatest by size? volume? reputation?
- "At the confluence, the two rivers are approximately the same size." Does "size" here mean width?
- "It turns east at Kansas City, where the Kansas River enters from the right, and so on into north-central Missouri." so on?
Sasata (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shannon, very good. A few things: — Tony1 19:24, 30 June 2011 UTC — continues after insertion below
- WP:OVERLINK needs to be accounted for (US, Nth Am, French).
- "uri then proceeds to form the boundary of South Dakota and Nebraska, then after it receives the James River, forms the Nebraska–Missouri border (en dash). Same for US–Canada border.
- similarly-sized"—MoS says no hyphen after -ly.
- "including the 100-mile (160 km)-long Shonkin Sag"—consider "including the Shonkin Sag 100 miles (160 km) long"
- 13–16 ... you could choose to use M or million instead of all those zeros.
- Is it possible to do that without removing the conversion template? ShannºnTalk 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the creation of giant reservoirs has trapped —can "also be later in the sentence?
- "also stayed along the Missouri"—remove "also", I think.
- Native Americans who ...
- Where is this phrase? ShannºnTalk 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your pics could be 240px without any trouble.
- "during this time period"—remove time.
- 1926–27
- MoS says US not USA.
- That map could be larger, and possibly on the right.
I must ask that SandyGeorgia recuse as delegate from this nomination because of bullying, threats, and an ominous statement claiming there are things "I have to factor when reading your reviews." Tony (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Older 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 by Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [25].
- Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the more significant cyclones I've written about on WP, and it's been a work-in-progress for a couple years now. I've recently added some final touches from a few journals and newspaper articles I hadn't yet looked at, and I think this piece covers all aspects of this important hurricane well. Juliancolton (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source reviews - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
- No citations to Schwartz 2007
- Ref 3: page?
- Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Done" for the first two, I'll get on the last two issues sometime soon. Thanks for the review, as always. Juliancolton (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
*"However, the storm made landfall on Hispaniola, causing it to weaken into a tropical storm." – Maybe you could say something like "causing it to weaken back to tropical storm status" instead, since you already once mentioned how it intensified "into a tropical storm".
- "Eloise, a weak and disorganized cyclone, emerged into open waters of the northern Caribbean Sea" – Though it is technically correct, it's sort of an awkward mid-sentence interruption. What's wrong with "A weak and disorganized cyclone, Eloise emerged..."?
- "The origins of Hurricane Eloise trace back to a tropical wave which emerged" → "The origins of Hurricane Eloise trace back to a tropical wave that emerged"
- "Satellite imagery indicated that the system was initially "unimpressive" – I don't understand. How was it unimpressive; on what grounds did the imagery indicate this? Please clarify if possible, or change to something like "The system initially exhibited a disorganized structure on satellite imagery."
- "On September 16, the storm attained tropical storm status and was designated Eloise" – Maybe you can use "the system attained" instead for less repetitiveness.
- "While the anticyclone over Eloise became better organized" – In its current state, the sentence implies that the anticyclone was previously mentioned in the article, which isn't the case. It should read something as "With an organizing anticyclone aloft, Eloise..." or "While in the vicinity of an organizing anticyclone aloft, Eloise..."
- "However, the cyclone made landfall on the Dominican Republic, inhibiting further development." – Maybe add "subsequently" or "went on to make landfall" in there to make it flow better?
- "Initial forecasts predicted the storm to remain north of land, although the storm" – Repetitive
"However, the cyclone made landfall on the Dominican Republic, inhibiting further development. Early on September 17, Eloise weakened into a tropical storm. Initial forecasts predicted the storm to remain north of land, although the storm moved across northern Hispaniola and then tracked across southeastern Cuba. The mountainous terrain caused Eloise to deteriorate into a minimal tropical storm, as much of its circulation was over land for about 36 hours." – This entire part confuses me. It mentions weakening twice, and the sequence is all jumbled up. You mention it makes landfall and weakens; then you mention initial predictions of a track north of land; and then you again mention it interacting with land to weaken, while you already did so. I really think you could be more concise and fit this in 2, at the most 3 sentences.
- That's all for now.★ Auree talk 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried to take care of all of this. Good points, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mention it. This still needs revising though: "Eloise became better organized, the storm rapidly intensified and reached Category 1 hurricane status 18 hours after being named." ★ Auree talk 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops... Juliancolton (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mention it. This still needs revising though: "Eloise became better organized, the storm rapidly intensified and reached Category 1 hurricane status 18 hours after being named." ★ Auree talk 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried to take care of all of this. Good points, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all for now.★ Auree talk 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*"Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, Eloise quickly organized. The trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center,[1] allowing for the storm to strengthen once again to reach hurricane force about 345 mi (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana." – Pretty sure you could fit this into one sentence.
- "Several ships passed through the storm's center during its passage through the gulf" – Pass... passage. Tweak for less repetitiveness?
- "Several ships passed through the storm's center during its passage through the gulf. The hurricane also moved over two experimental buoys which recorded data on the storm, aiding meteorologists in their forecasts." – Actually, you could probably just merge this into one sentence as well.
- "Shortly after making landfall, the hurricane rapidly degenerated. Just six hours later, it had weakened into a tropical storm, while situated over eastern Alabama." → Shortly after making landfall, the hurricane rapidly degenerated; it weakened into a tropical storm just six hours later, while situation over eastern Alabama.
- "It further weakened into a tropical depression at 0000 UTC on September 24. The depression transitioned into an extratropical storm over Virginia, and became indistinguishable by later that same day." – Again, this could be one sentence...
Overall, I think the prose is a bit stubby, with many short and repetitive fragments throughout the article. I think you should look it through extensively once more. It's a nice article, though. ★ Auree talk 02:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]I agreed with all of your recommendations in your first bout of comments, but I'm not so sure we're on the same page at this point. I think for most of the cases you suggested merging sentences, the only way to condense them would be to force the use of semicolons, else I'm left with a bunch of run-ons. I'm already splicing around 10 sentences using semicolons. For the first sentences you highlighted, merging would result in Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, Eloise quickly organized, and the trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center,[1] allowing for the storm to strengthen once again to reach hurricane force about 345 mi (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana. Quite clunky, and I believe using varied sentence length is a good way to keep the writing from becoming monotonous on the researcher. Again, I really appreciate the look-through, I'd just like to discuss this a bit more. Juliancolton (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]As for the first sentence, I'd suggest something like this "Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, enhanced wind divergence aloft allowed for further organization, and the storm restrengthened into a hurricane about 345 (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana," or even "Tracking over the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of enhanced divergence aloft, the storm restrengthened into a hurricane about 345 (555 km) south of New Orleans." These are just two of many examples of how concisely this could be said instead. You can even mention the trough in there, though personally I don't think it's necessary.★ Auree talk 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. There are no major issues left in the article, and I feel its overall quality does meet FA standards. ★ Auree talk 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It says packing winds of. I think I know what that means but it's a bit obscure to me. Can it be written more plainly?
- Units check
- It says 1.5 million pounds of shrimp and 801,000 cubic yards of sand. These need conversions
- Lightmouse (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How's that? Juliancolton (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. We don't link common units but I've fixed that. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How's that? Juliancolton (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Source link for File:Hurricane_Eloise.jpg appears to be broken, as does the link for File:Hurricane_Eloise_beach_house2_damage.jpg. Images and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found updated URLs for these. Juliancolton (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Meteorological history: "The trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center, allowing for the storm to strengthen...". Prose redundancy here with the two "the storm"s.Preparations: There's an excess word in "warnings for heavy for rainfall" in the beginning of the section.Impact: Puerto Rico was just linked in the last section; another one isn't needed here. There's also a repeat Cuba link here.Reference 20 should be moved outside the parentheses."inundating the city of Frederick and compromised the city's supply of fresh drinking water." If this structure is to be used, doesn't "compromised" need to be "compromising"?- "an additional 4 in of rain in central Maryland triggered severe flash flooding." Feels like something is missing after the state...
The Hurricane Agnes link should be moved up a paragraph to be where it's first mentioned."and in the words of Schwartz (2007)". First, the writer's first name could be given here; I don't think it was mentioned before. Second, is it normal to mention the year like in a citation?Aftermath: What state was Ruben Askew governor of? Florida?"In at least one instance, the hurricane and its associated storm surge had a lasting effect on local geographical". Something feels off toward the end. Either a word is missing, or "geographical" should be something else, like maybe "geography"."The corresponding name that was used in 1981 in replace of Eloise was Emily." "replace" → "place"?Here's a link for reference 3 (the one missing a page number). Hope this helps.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments and help in finding that link. I believe I've addressed nearly everything, directly or indirectly. Thanks again for the review, it's much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I had forgotten this was up on FAC. I checked through the article, and I'm confident it uses a great variety of sources. The writing is great all around. One thing that stands out is that the lede is only two paragraphs, despite it being a rather significant hurricane and the article being fairly lengthy. Also, the first lede paragraph says it dissipated by September 25, but the Infobox says 24th, so you might wanna change that. Otherwise, it's a great article for a notable hurricane. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the date issue, and I'll look into expanding the lead. Thanks for the review! Juliancolton (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I had one issue to the author which I told him off-wiki. He addressed that, and as such I support. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentThe article looks solid, but the images in the Florida impact section are too close to each other and produce a very narrow column of text at the start of the section. I would recommend moving the images around to remove that problem. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, thanks. Also, is there a reason in particular why all the images are different sizes? In particular, the HPC rainfall image seems to be rather massive. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like to make graphics bigger than the visuals, since you can tell that the house is a house, for example, at an extremely small thumbnail, but the rainfall map has information that is harder to see at small sizes. Juliancolton (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, there is no reason why it couldn't be the same size as the Puerto Rico HPC image. In either case it's a minor detail that shouldn't hold back the promotion of the article, so I'm supporting. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like to make graphics bigger than the visuals, since you can tell that the house is a house, for example, at an extremely small thumbnail, but the rainfall map has information that is harder to see at small sizes. Juliancolton (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, thanks. Also, is there a reason in particular why all the images are different sizes? In particular, the HPC rainfall image seems to be rather massive. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [26].
- Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC), Ucucha, Sasata[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because we feel this article meets the FA criteria. This article is another product of the WP Mammals Collaboration. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check alphabetization of literature list
- Could you please clarify your expectations because to me, the literature list is alphabetized. The Nekaris refs are a little tricky, but I've sorted them by last1 -> year -> last2 -> last3, etc. If that's wrong, what is the proper way? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use of retrieval dates seems inconsistent. In what circumstances do you use them? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikkimaria, I have fixed the order and removed two unnecessary retrieval dates. Sasata (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see more slow loris here. [from J Milburn]
- "its fur, morphology" Would its fur not be an element of its morphology?
- Yes, removed "fur". Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't this technically use Australian spelling? It's not something I'm concerned about, but I can imagine someone may be...
- Well, Java isn't in Australia, and I don't think we do spelling according to the closest English-speaking country. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus), was" lose the comma?
- Yes.
- Category:Animals described in 1812?
- Yes.
- The lead implies that it was always considered part of a different species until recently (or that's the impression I got)
- Added a little.
- Does the genus "Bradylemur" still exist? It would be worth a link if so.
- I believe it's a synonym of Nycticebus; it's certainly no longer valid. The name was also reused for a subfossil lemur, now considered a synonym of Archaeolemur. People liked to change names around at that time. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to Nekaris and Jaffe" Full names would be nice, along with links/clarification of who they are
- Removed that piece; it was redundant. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "in a 2000 field guide on Indonesian primates" Do we know the title/author(s)? In any case, this is, surely, wrong- Saint-Hilaire saw it as a separate species!
- Yes, they are cited, but I'm not sure we want that much detail in the text. I added an "again" to address your second point: they were likely the first ones since the early 20th century at least to recognize it as a species. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a tiny bit of overlinking to other species, I feel. You "introduce" them (with common name, specific name and a link) several times apiece.
- I could only find the Bengal linked twice; removed the second link. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "from six specimens rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java," I'm not sure this information is necessary. It doesn't feel massively NPOV.
- Not sure. The information that this is based on captive specimens may be good to have, because captive specimens may show different features. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was probably going by the source when I wrote it, and it can be important to know where the specimens came from (if it's noted). I guess you could argue that the selection of specimens may have been previously altered by poacher for buyer preference... Using animals from a market is certainly an non-standard sampling method. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, but I feel the phrase "rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java" is overly emotive. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we could just swap the verb "rescued" for something more neutral sounding... "obtained"? Sasata (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems fine to me. Ucucha 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sasata (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems fine to me. Ucucha 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we could just swap the verb "rescued" for something more neutral sounding... "obtained"? Sasata (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, but I feel the phrase "rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java" is overly emotive. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was probably going by the source when I wrote it, and it can be important to know where the specimens came from (if it's noted). I guess you could argue that the selection of specimens may have been previously altered by poacher for buyer preference... Using animals from a market is certainly an non-standard sampling method. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. The information that this is based on captive specimens may be good to have, because captive specimens may show different features. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The block of stats doesn't read too well either, but I'm not sure how you'd get around that, so this isn't really a helpful comment...
- Unfortunately, the source just lists the stats, making it hard to elaborate from that. Sometimes tables help with long lists, but in this case, I don't think that would be appropriate. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the "forms" actually forms? You never give them names, nor link the term; the reference to them in the third para of Anatomy and physiology is confusing in this regard
- We don't know what they are. Form (zoology) seems an ill-defined topic. We do actually give names to the morphological variants (javanicus and ornatus); not sure where the unclarity is. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "a "transition towards Cheiroptera, Carnivora, and other inferior Mammalia" from" Per the MoS, links in quotes should be avoided
- Reworded to avoid the quote. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "its unique form of locomotion, which does not involve jumping" Unique to what? This is the only loris which doesn't jump?
- Lorises in general don't jump, as far as I know. I've removed that piece, which seemed to have little specific to the Javan. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Distribution is perhaps worth merging with the above section; there's some information about its distribution which you've lumped in with "behaviour".
- Moved some sentences around. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "incessant poaching" - "incessant" is inherently a negative term. "Continuous"? Just remove it altogether?
- Removed. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Indonesia it is sold as an exotic pet more frequently than it is used in traditional medicine, despite myths of it having magical and curative properties." The phrasing implies we (the readers) were expecting it to be mostly for its magical "uses". How about something like "In Indonesia, it is sold primarily as an exotic pet, though it is also used in traditional medicine as there are myths of it having magical and curative properties." or something. That's not perfect, but I think you'll get my point.
- Reworded. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know anything about the magical stuff attributed to it? That's potentially interesting.
- I'm not sure; perhaps Visionholder knows more about it. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that the papers that discuss this stuff cover all slow loris species (in general), and stories from Java itself don't necessarily differentiate the two slow loris species found on the island. The entire region has a lot of myths about animals and their magical properties, particularly out in the bush. Honestly, if the reader wants to know more, they should follow the "See also: Conservation of slow lorises" at the start of the section. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two? There's only one, unless you are referring to ornatus, which should also be covered in this article. Ucucha 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... my bad. I was looking at the small versions of the ranges on the IUCN Red List and thought I saw an overlap with N. coucang. Either way, the sources don't explicitly state the Javan slow loris when they talk about myths, but there may be one we could add that talks about a myth in Java if everyone's comfortable with it. Again, it will come from Conservation of slow lorises. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this still an outstanding issue? Do people want me to add more information about the myths from Java, or is the link to Conservation of slow lorises enough? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... my bad. I was looking at the small versions of the ranges on the IUCN Red List and thought I saw an overlap with N. coucang. Either way, the sources don't explicitly state the Javan slow loris when they talk about myths, but there may be one we could add that talks about a myth in Java if everyone's comfortable with it. Again, it will come from Conservation of slow lorises. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two? There's only one, unless you are referring to ornatus, which should also be covered in this article. Ucucha 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that the papers that discuss this stuff cover all slow loris species (in general), and stories from Java itself don't necessarily differentiate the two slow loris species found on the island. The entire region has a lot of myths about animals and their magical properties, particularly out in the bush. Honestly, if the reader wants to know more, they should follow the "See also: Conservation of slow lorises" at the start of the section. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure; perhaps Visionholder knows more about it. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "although "effective law enforcement with respect to wildlife protection laws is all but non-existent in Indonesia"." I think this is the kind of quote which should really be attributed in the prose. Who's saying this, and on what authority do they make this claim?
- Added the authors. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a little overcritical. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, and don't worry about being overly critical. I prefer it. It makes me see the article from a completely different perspective, which ultimately makes the article stronger. Anyway, I'm busy at the moment, but will work on addressing any lingering concerns later this evening. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am happy that the article is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Just one question from the conservation section: Population data for the species is sparse,[25] but a few studies have shown a low population density of 0.20 to 0.02 individuals per km2.[1]. The population density is literally less than one, am I correct? ceranthor 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the researchers typically have to search an area of several square kilometers to see a single individual. Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I read this some time ago, thought I'd already supported — I'm getting to be as slow as a loris. After J Milburn's thorough review, I can't see anything to query Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple comments:
- There are still some animals being introduced in too much detail. For example, "The species is a host for the parasitic flatworm, Phaneropsolus oviforme (class Trematoda, order Plagiorchiida)". Wouldn't it be better to just say the name of the species and then create a stub for Phaneropsolus oviforme with the class and order? We don't need extraneous information on an unrelated species in a FA.
- Removed the order and class; it's unnecessary. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure the more common term for Dieng Mountains is Dieng Plateau, but they may be separate. Could you double check?
- From the maps in doi:10.1046/j.1365-3008.1998.d01-24.x, it seems the Dieng Mountains are a somewhat larger area. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems a little awkward. "He argued against grouping strepsirrhines with Insectivora (a now-abandoned biological grouping) and noted that the brain had features transitional between other primates and "inferior" mammals such as bats and carnivorans." Perhaps "He argued against grouping strepsirrhines with the now-abandoned Insectivora and noted that the brain had features transitional between other primates and "inferior" mammals such as bats and carnivorans." However, I am still on the fence about whether or not Insectivora's abandonment is pertinent to the article.
- It is, because we need to summarize Flower's piece and do so in comprehensible terms. An explanation of a subject in a few words is not off-topic. I haven't used your edit, since it does not make clear that Insectivora is (was) a biological grouping, a taxon. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you quite certain that "It was first recognized as a distinct species again in a 2000 field guide on Indonesian primates" (an issue raised above) should not state the author directly, or at least the place of origin of the field guide? The fact that it was recognized as a separate species in 2000 by an Indonesian scientist may be pertinent, as their findings are sometimes debated by foreign scientists.
- I've added the names. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still some animals being introduced in too much detail. For example, "The species is a host for the parasitic flatworm, Phaneropsolus oviforme (class Trematoda, order Plagiorchiida)". Wouldn't it be better to just say the name of the species and then create a stub for Phaneropsolus oviforme with the class and order? We don't need extraneous information on an unrelated species in a FA.
- It looks pretty good so far, but there are still a few issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after the above fixes and comments by Ucucha. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [27].
- Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Indian Camp" is the first short story Ernest Hemingway had published. Some critics consider it his most important, while others consider it to show the genesis of many of his themes in subsequent stories and novels. This, happily, is shorter, than my last nomination here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is nice to see Hemingway's another work for FAC (with The Sun Also Rises being the first).
"Indian Camp" is a short story written by Ernest Hemingway". Maybe indicate that Hemingway is an American Nobel prize-winning author like in SAR? TGilmour (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've thought about this and decided I'd prefer not to. I didn't mind that you added it to SAR, which will be on the main page, and is an important book, but this is a small short story, in the back water of Hemingway's work. For the same reasons that we don't put birthdate and deathdate in each page, I don't think it's necessary to add Nobel Prize winning for every Hemingway article. I'd prefer to link into the main Hemingway biography where it's mentioned in the second or third sentence of the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you use 1964 or 1973 for Young refs
- Fixed by Truthkeeper. TGilmour (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check formatting on ref 15
- Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 17: dash in page range
- Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is Durham? Cranbury?
- Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strychaz or Strychacz?
- Strychacz. Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check alphabetization of source list. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything's okay. TGilmour (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Nikkimaria. Although TGilmour fixed ref #15 I intend to switch that out with a hardcopy edition. I've misplaced the book, but will pick one up at the library tomorrow, and reformat then. I'll post here at that time. The rest have been fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 15 has been fixed and made consistent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by Ruhrfisch I am leaning towards support, but have some concerns that I would like to see addressed first.
I assume both books were published in Paris - if so, this sentence should probably say so. During their absence from Paris, Hemingway's first book, Three Stories and Ten Poems was published; months later a second volume, in our time (without capitals), was published. Also could the sentence avoid using "was published" twice? Perhaps the last phrase could be something like "followed months later by a second volume, in our time (without capitals)."?Missing word? The small volume included six vignettes and a dozen short stories [by?] Hemingway.[1]- "By Hemingway". Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since he has already had two books with stories in them published, this sentence makes no sense to me It was Hemingway's first piece of fiction to be published and the first for which he was paid—less than $10, but he was thrilled to see his work in print.[7] Also is the month of publication known (and if so, can it be included here)?I would also specify that the book In Our Time was published in New York City (not Paris) in 1925Us seems somewhat unencylcopedic in In "Indian Camp", Hemingway shows us the events that shape the Adams persona. Perhaps shows the reader would be better?- Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be related to the chronology of events in the story as published? Is young Nick left alone in the woods before or after helping with the C-section? In the cut section, later published as "Three Shots", Nick is left alone in the forest, terrified of dying.Unclear to me - I know that both Hemingway and his father committed suicide (and suspect his father was dead before this story was ever written). I have not read all of the Nick Adams stories - does Nick kill himself too? Does the character of Nick's father? Young thinks it unavoidable to focus on the fact that the principal characters in the story—the father, based on Clarence Hemingway, and the boy, based on Hemingway himself—end up committing suicide; and Kenneth Lynn writes that the irony to modern readers is that both characters in "that boat on the lake would one day do away with themselves".[24][25] I think a sentence before this that explains who kills themselves - ie just the real Hemingways, or them and the characters of Nick and his father - would help. Perhaps it could be a note, but I think a sentence would be clearer.My understanding is the original in our time collection (no caps) did not include this story. Starting the Reception and legacy section with When in our time (without capitals) was published in Paris in 1924—in a small-print run from Ezra Pound's modernist series through Three Mountains Press—the writing style attracted attention. thus is a bit confusing (at least to me). Perhaps if something were added to "Indian Camp" received considerable praise. that would help? So something like: When it was published the next year, "Indian Camp" received considerable praise. Not great, but you get the idea.Not really actionable, but what happened to the uncle - how is he not in the boat the next morning? How does he get "home"?Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear TGilmour, please do NOT convert my numbered list to a bullet point list (I have changed it back). I did this because of Sandy Georgia's request here. I will not move your comments, but the idea is that you are not supposed to break up my points, but instead respond to them by number below (i.e. Number 2 is fixed). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Ruhrfisch for the comments. I believe I've covered / fixed everything. I've removed the bit about "Indian Camp" being the first piece he sold, which doesn't make sense in light of the other books being published earlier, but will research that a bit more and clarify it when I have answers. I've added to the plot section that uncle doesn't return. We don't know what happens to him, so not much I can do there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have switched to support - nicely done. I still do not know where the fragment that became "Three Shots" came in relation to the final story - was Nick left alone in the woods before the C-section or after? Apologies if I missed it, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He was left in the woods the night before they went to the Indian camp, which I added. I'll see if I can tweak it a bit more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I have struck all my quibbles above. Thanks again for an interesting article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the good review and the support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Does NARA use ID or archive numbers to facilitate locating materials? If so, it would be helpful to include this image's number
- File:ErnestHemingwayHadley1922.jpg: if the photographer is unknown, the "life of the author plus 70 years" tag would not be correct - it's quite possible for a photographer in 1922 to have lived until 1941 or later. The image is likely PD, but not based on this rationale. The PD-US tag may be correct, but you would need to provide information on the image's first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review. I've added the NARA archive ID to the passport photo. I've fixed the license for the second photo and added that all these Hemingway photos from JFK library were gifted to the public and entered into the public domain. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I contacted the JFK Library to check on the copyright status of all their public domain Hemingway photos. Basically Mary Hemingway donated the licenses and photos she and Ernest owned the copyrights to and the US Governemnt (JFK Library is a branch of the US NAtional Archves) has made them PD. I have been in contact with J Milburn and am going to make a Commons license for all the PD Hemingway images from thel ibrary with an OTRS tag for the email. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A well-written and seemingly comprehensive article. ceranthor 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reading and for the support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My only niggle is the "qtd." I don't know if that's just your personal style, but I'd rather quoted was just spelled out. Otherwise, it's a wonderful article. ceranthor 15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I follow MLA style, which is typical for subjects in the humanities. Their style manual isn't available on-line, but this link shows in the "Indirect sources" section that "qtd." is correct. I've always done it that way. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO support. Very important writer and then an important piece for him. In addition to its famousness, it is intrinsically interesting because of the harsh surgery that a boy watches. This will be a highly clicked-through Front Page article, with its juxtaposition of sex, violence, and children. You present it very readably also. I had never read the story, but feel educated, now. Nailing exactly what we should be doing as an encyclopedia.
My vote is based on hours of reading for content and prose. Will send separately a longish list of very minor suggestions, that do not change my support. Major suggestion would be to try to get "guttier" in the writing within the Writing Style section. (Keep all the litrary concepts and terms, but eschew "the fact that". Don't say "events of his life", say "his life". That sort of thing. Given the topic is already a little academically remote, even more reason to aim for clean prose.) I did not check image rights, endnote formatting, or source materials (for content or copyvio), but have no impressions there would be any problems. I'm not a literature scholar, but the reference list sorta passed my Bayesian sniff test for being sound. Kudos and thank you.TCO (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for spending the time reading and for the support. I'm pleased with your reaction - it's a small article about a small story, but seemed to me important to do it right. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone done any spotchecks? Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only used one oneline source - the rest are books and journals. Obviously I can't do it myself (though I did doublecheck the online source and it was fine) so would appreciate if one of the other reviewers could have a look. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have access to The New York Times and checked both articles from it used as references here. The sentences in the article referenced to them accurately reflect what is in the newspaper pieces, and I did not find and copying or too close paraphrasing. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have access to The New York Times and checked both articles from it used as references here. The sentences in the article referenced to them accurately reflect what is in the newspaper pieces, and I did not find and copying or too close paraphrasing. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On my display the layout of the images results in a considerable amount of whitespace in the article body. Perhaps the images could be re-arranged to eliminate this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, thanks for the comment. I don't see it on my display but will try to get to a different monitor later in the day. It's a small page with only three images - I've tweaked a bit, but can you tell me where you see the whitespace? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have TOC turned off, so the space that it would use at the top isn't there. As a result, the 2nd image, the couple, pushes the H1 below it down about 3 inches. I'm wondering if the first image is useful in context? Perhaps the 2nd would be a better lead? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like me to email you an image? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd - I"ve turned off the toc and it's still formatting okay for me. Maybe we can see what others have to say, or what they see. As for images, we're using the ones from JFK library that have links - so go ahead an add the link to the article talk-page. A lot have already been uploaded. I'd prefer not to use the one with Hadley in the lead - Hemingway was the author, so it makes sense to have him at the top, in my view. 13:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [28].
- Nominator(s): – iridescent 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your point of view, the LNC was either a visionary attempt to use new technology to solve a public health crisis and to introduce the concept of dignity to funerals for the poor, or it ranks alongside Mirabel Airport and the Atmospheric Railway as one of the great examples of harebrained overengineering schemes. If it's remembered at all today it's generally only as the operator of one of the world's more peculiar railway lines, but it had an enormous impact; the LNC was directly or indirectly responsible for the world's largest cemetery (since overtaken, but still the largest in the UK), the introduction of cremation to England, one of the most important military memorials in the Commonwealth, the resurrection of the cult of King Edward the Martyr, and the creation of the town of Brookwood. – iridescent 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 21: why include "(News)" here?
- Note 22: ref link appears to be broken
- Use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations to The Times traditionally have a different citation format than citations to other newspapers, for reasons lost in the dim-and-distant past; the section and column number (in this case "News" and "D") are always included, whereas they're not for other papers. It's why we have the separate {{Cite newspaper The Times}} template. It is worth keeping the section-and-column in, as those are what the Times archives are organized by so it makes it much easier for readers to check the sources for themselves.
- Fixed a missing anchor; should work now.
- As far as I can see, it is consistent (D M Y in text, yyyy-mm-dd in references). Can't see any deviations on a skim-through, but point them out and I'll fix them. – iridescent 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 75 uses yyyy–mm–dd, 152 uses D M Y (for retrieval date). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it, thanks—an artefact of the "helpful" new editing interface which autocompletes the accessdate field. That's the only online citation in the article, so there shouldn't be any other instances. – iridescent 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have your reasoning, but I was confused as to why the first image did not have a description or a caption that translates its latin motto (which I was intrigued about, and think others might be too). I've translated the motto very approximately and done as per my suggestions above, but obviously revert both if it wasn't what you intended. Good luck with the article, it seems an interesting subject. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no such thing as the "Logo of the London Necropolis and National Mausoleum Company", in 1852 or otherwise; AFAIK they never used an emblem of any kind other than abstract ornamentation. The concept of "corporate logo" didn't exist until much later (the first is generally considered to be the Bass Beer triangle, trademarked in 1876). This image is the seal of the LNC; I don't see any point in captioning it, but have no strong opinion either way on it if you think it's useful. I'm not sure where your translation has come from, but it's wildly out; "mortuis quies vivis salus" translates to "a good (or healthy) life and a peaceful death", not "rest is the salvation of the dead"; I've changed it. – iridescent 18:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I think the idea of that being a logo came from the filename... It is an interesting set of symbols. A skull and crossbones, a sand timer where the sand has run out (with obvious symbolism), and a worm ouroboros. It was a seal they would have used on company documentation? Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the idea of it being a logo came from the file description, which I believe you yourself uploaded. The translation came from my bog-standard Latin knowledge - I'm glad that yours is better than mine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I think the idea of that being a logo came from the filename... It is an interesting set of symbols. A skull and crossbones, a sand timer where the sand has run out (with obvious symbolism), and a worm ouroboros. It was a seal they would have used on company documentation? Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support following the comments and discussions below, which have addressed the minor points I raised. The only slight concerns I still have is that the article is a tad long, and the division of the content between different articles is not 100% clear yet (though this will undoubtedly become clearer as the supporting articles are polished up). Overall, a very interesting, informative and well-written article. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a brief comment, as the mention in the FAC blurb of a military memorial meant I just had to read this article and find out more. The major CWGC memorials in the UK that I've heard of are at Chatham, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, and Tower Hill, and it's nice to be able to read here (and in the cemetery article) about this one as well, but I'm puzzled as to why this CWGC memorial is being given prominence in an article about the London Necropolis Company. I can understand the article giving details of how the land owned by the LNC was disposed of, or set aside for other purposes, but why have a paragraph (in an article about the LNC) giving the subsequent history of that land while under the management of another organisation (the CWGC)? Did the LNC have anything at all to do with the design and construction of the memorial, or with the military cemeteries in general, and/or did the company get any income or other advantage (e.g. contract work)? I looked at the following CWGC links: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. But those don't really go into any detail. Do your sources have anything to say about the relationship between the LNC (or the later cemetery owners) and the CWGC and ABMC? Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The land was sold to the CWGC (and the US, French, Czech etc equivalents) in 1917 and 1947. (The CWGC didn't exist until May 1917, hence the delay.) The LNC built the American cemetery and the LNC's exhumation division handled the 1949 operation to exhume all Belgian casualties buried across the UK and rebury them in a single plot at Brookwood, but I'm not certain if the CWGC used their own contractors for the main cemeteries and the Brookwood Memorial. To the best of my knowledge, the LNC didn't have any direct benefit from the maintenance of the military cemeteries (there may have been the odd bit of masonry work, gardening etc, and the stations in the cemetery were used as temporary military mortuaries on occasion). There would have been indirect benefits in terms of increased publicity, people visiting the military cemeteries and deciding they wanted to be buried in the civilian cemetery, and so on, but all of that's impossible to quantify. I don't really want to go into too much detail on the military cemeteries in this article, which is explicitly about the company—however, I think they ought to be mentioned, both as an explanation for why the LNC land holdings shrank by 37 acres, and because they're the part of the Brookwood complex with which people are most likely to be familiar so I think people will expect a mention. (The Brookwood Memorial isn't well known these days, but it's a very significant one—its status as the symbolic "grave" for the missing means it's the official memorial site for the all the SOE agents who died in concentration camps, among others.) – iridescent 21:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, the setting aside of the land for military cemeteries needs to be mentioned (whether it was donations, sales, or both at various times), I'm just concerned that the article then goes into the subsequent history of the military cemeteries and memorials without linking that history to the role played by the LNC. If there was not much of a role played by the LNC, it may be best just to mention the cemeteries and memorials and then move on. Which is pretty much what the article does at the moment. However, what is not made clear is who subsequently managed the cemeteries. If you explicitly mention the IWGC (later CWGC) and ABMC, and their management roles for the cemeteries, that will make things clearer. At the moment, given that it is a cemetery management company, a reader might think that the LNC were responsible for managing those cemeteries, especially as the image caption for the memorial says it was unveiled "in the final months of LNC independence". That the LNC was still in independent existence doesn't seem relevant there - the takeover would not have affected anything, would it? Anyway, it is a fine line between the article being a history of the company or a history of the cemetery. At times it veers into the latter before getting back on track, but I eventually managed to finish reading it (with some minor copyedits), and the article was interesting enough to make me want to visit the cemetery at some point! Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the section slightly to try to clarify the relationships between the LNC, IWGC/CWGC and ABMC. It's a fine line; a lot of countries have cemeteries there and I don't really want an "and the Czech Military Cemetery, and the Belgian Military Cemetery, and the Italian Prisoner of War Cemetery, and the Memorial to Commonwealth Casualties in Russia, and the Free French Military Cemetery, and the Polish Military in Exile Cemetery, and the Sepoy's Cemetery…" laundry list in what's already a very long article, but equally the US and Commonwealth (particularly Canadian) cemeteries are the best-known parts of Brookwood so people will expect to see them mentioned.
This is explicitly an article on the company, and not Brookwood Cemetery or London Necropolis Railway, but since the cemetery and the railway were the company's main activities, IMO they need to be covered to a significant extent. (I've tried to strip the coverage of both down to the bare bones[sic] but it's not possible to exclude their histories, since the shifting fortunes of the cemetery and railway defined the ups and downs of the company itself.)
The fact that the Brookwood Memorial was built before the takeover is important (to my mind). Although I can't find a source to say as much explicitly, when choosing a site for a major national monument the CWGC was far more likely to select a site where the surrounding cemetery was run by a company with a proven 100-year track record in cemetery maintenance, than a site run by the succession of spivs and asset-strippers that ran the LNC from 1959-1985. – iridescent 15:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those changes are excellent and address the slight concern I had. I do have a couple of comments on the rest of the article, but will do that separately. If this discursion on the military cemeteries is overwhelming the review, please feel free to move it to the talk page and leave a link in its place. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the section slightly to try to clarify the relationships between the LNC, IWGC/CWGC and ABMC. It's a fine line; a lot of countries have cemeteries there and I don't really want an "and the Czech Military Cemetery, and the Belgian Military Cemetery, and the Italian Prisoner of War Cemetery, and the Memorial to Commonwealth Casualties in Russia, and the Free French Military Cemetery, and the Polish Military in Exile Cemetery, and the Sepoy's Cemetery…" laundry list in what's already a very long article, but equally the US and Commonwealth (particularly Canadian) cemeteries are the best-known parts of Brookwood so people will expect to see them mentioned.
- I looked at the sources, and noticed that most of the article is sourced to two books by John M. Clarke. I found a page on the 2004 book here. Not sure if there is a need to include the full title: 'London's Necropolis: A Guide to Brookwood Cemetery'? But what I did want to check is whether these two works, this one and the 2006 work 'The Brookwood Necropolis Railway', are the definitive guides to this company and cemetery? I also looked for a bit more about Clarke, and found this page which says he is the "founding chairman of the Brookwood Cemetery Society and author of three books on the site". My question is whether anyone else has done anything on the cemetery and company comparable to these works by Clarke, or are they the definitive guides? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any authoritative works on the LNC other than Clarke's two books. Brookwood Park Ltd (the former LNC) has a list of publications on their website, and that doesn't mention any other histories of the company as opposed to the cemetery or railway. There are a lot of mentions in fiction and memoirs as a piece of period detail, and a lot of passing mentions of the railway in books on railway history, but to the best of my knowledge there's never been a published history of the LNC other than Clarke's. I see "A Guide to Brookwood Cemetery" as a subtitle rather than part of the title; while it's on the cover it's in very small print, and not on the spine. Worldcat seems split about whether it constitutes part of the title or not. – iridescent 2 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Few more general and mostly minor comments:
Edwin Chadwick linked twice, referred to as Sir once and the Sir is dropped the other time (in the image caption as well).Miasma explained in parentheses twice: (i) "the belief that airborne particles released by decaying flesh were the primary factor in the spread of contagious illness"; (ii) "disease-carrying vapour". Do you need both explanations?After his initial introduction, Broun is mostly referred to as 'Broun', but there are three instances where the full name creeps back in in different forms, which is an inconsistency: (i) "Sir Richard Broun lobbied vigorously"; (ii) "suggested by Sir Richard Broun"; and (iii) "Although Richard Broun had calculated". The first should be just 'Broun', the second is distant enough in terms of text from the previous mention to be OK, and the third is very distant from the others, but should probably have a 'Sir' added to be consistent.- Is the 'Waste of Woking' mentioned in an earlier section as the intended purchase for the scheme the same as the actual purchase of the 'Woking Common' mentioned later on? Article is not clear on whether the purchase made was that envisaged by Broun and Sprye. The implication is that it is the same land, but the different name used is confusing.
- Repetition in burial estimates: (i) "The business had been established on the basis that the cemetery would handle between 10,000 and 50,000 burials per year, but the number never exceeded 4,100 and over its first 20 years of operations averaged just 3,200"; (ii) "Although Richard Broun had calculated that over its first century of operations the cemetery would have seen around five million burials at a rate of 50,000 per year"; (iii) "Although at its founding the LNC had hoped to handle 50,000 burials per year and even without being granted a monopoly on London burials had planned for 10,000 per year". Is there a way to reduce this repetition. By the time I read this for the third time (fourth, if you include the lead section, fifth if you include another mention of the 50,000 per year figure), I was getting the distinct (and correct) impression I'd read the figures earlier in the article.
Also, the "5,830,500" figure seems to be repeated in the later mention of "5,000,000" (except it has been rounded down). Southern Railway (SR) is not linked. Is it the same as the (linked) 'Southern Region of British Railways' mentioned later? Actually, you say in a later bit "British Railways after 1948". I suppose it is South-West Trains now, getting back more to the LSWR days?- The "in terms of 2011 consumer spending power" bits grate a bit in the main text - can they not be relegated to a footnote?
Repetition of British Railways bit: (i) "SR (British Railways after 1948)"; (ii) "The LNC continued to lobby the SR and its 1948 successor British Railways".Station history repetition: (i) "South Bar continued to operate as a refreshment kiosk"; (ii) "Following the suspension of railway services in 1941 South station had been renamed South Bar, and remained in use as a refreshment kiosk."I had thought "The last operators of the refreshment kiosk in the former South station retired in the late 1960s" was repeating the earlier bit, but I see that the earlier bit about the Dendys retiring was the North Station refreshment kiosk.Might be worth mentioning that Ramadan Guney died in 2006.- Hyphenation:
should "first class" and "second class" and "third class" be hyphenated in some instances?Other possible hyphenation: "ten year window" (twice), "five year extension" (twice), "83 year old" - there may be other instances as I stopped looking at that point.
OK, most of that is minor nitpicking, but I hope it helps in polishing things up a bit more. Overall, on the second reading, it is still long, but still readable and enjoyable (though I would quail at a third reading), and can't find too much wrong with it. Will wait to see what others have to say, but will likely support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the double-link to Edwin Chadwick. I've removed the use of "Sir" throughout when referring to knights, other than Lt. Gen. Sir Henry Goldfinch, where I've used his full title. With Richard Broun I've removed "Sir" from the text, but kept it for the explanatory biographical footnote on him, as it compares the real life Sir Richard with the fictional Sir Vavasour. I've also retained the title in the citation to Broun, as that's the name on the book.
- I think the miasma theory (airborne transmission of toxic particles emitted by decaying corpses is the primary cause of disease) and the definition of miasma (air contaminated with such particles) are both concepts so unfamiliar to modern readers that it's worth defining both of them, even though it does mean a slight "didn't I just read this?" moment. Not sure what others think.
- For Richard Broun, I've used his full name in those instances when he hasn't been mentioned for a while. To my eyes, that's less jarring than assuming readers at the bottom of the page will still remember who he was, while avoiding constant repetition of his full name.
- Broun wanted a site at Brookwood, but hadn't specifically selected the site which was actually bought. His original plan was long thin cemeteries of roughly equal size, on both sides of the railway line. After Broun and Spyre left the LNC the plans were changed to include the railway line, which meant that a single cemetery extending a long way from the main line was more practical.
- I know that "planned 50,000 burials per year" is repeated, but can't see an obvious way to avoid it; each time it's used (other than in the section on the original LNC scheme) it's used to contrast the optimistic projections with the 5% of capacity reality. (The "5,000,000 in a century" figure is actually only repeated once. The 5,830,500 is a different figure; that's the theoretical maximum number of individual plots at Brookwood. Because traditional English practice has always been for husbands, wives and children to be buried in the same plot, it doesn't mean that had the cemetery worked to capacity it would have been full in 117 years.)
- Linked Southern Railway, which was the artificially-created company which operated the former LSWR between 1923–48 following the forced amalgamation of most of Britain's railways. South West Trains was created in the 1990s to take over services out of Waterloo; these include about 50% of the former SR.
- Inflation is always problematic. I've intentionally used CPI as the index here, as that's what railway tickets and funeral costs most closely relate to. Because this gives slightly odd results when talking about capital expenditure, I think it's necessary to spell out in full which index is being used. (Using two different indices would I think be too confusing to the reader.)
- I think the repetition of British Railways is probably necessary. It needs to be explained that the SR was only temporary, but I don't really want to introduce railway nationalisation too early as it distracts from the narrative.
- Reworded to remove the repetition.
- Reworded the part about the post-closure cemetery stations to try to make things clearer. The detailed history of these is given on London Necropolis Railway, so I've tried to keep the history on this article to a minimum.
- I'd like to avoid going into detail on the Guney family. Cyril Tubbs's death can be seen in hindsight as marking the start of LNC decline, but the succession from Ramadan to Erkin Guney didn't have any impact on how things were run. Plus, there are certain BLP issues if the Guneys are discussed with any degree of detail.
- I don't really like hyphenation in general. In these particular cases, my thinking is that the LNC didn't hyphenate "first class" etc (and likewise, nor do the present day Network Rail), so hyphens aren't what people reading articles on British railway lines expect to see. – iridescent 18:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a few more points, to respond to some of what you said:
- (i) I agree that repetition of the 'Southern Railway (soon to be succeeded by British Railways)' bit is needed, as I now see that the first bit is funerals and the second bit is tickets. But this raises another question. The matter of cheaper tickets you tie up by saying that the LNC abandoned attempts to get cheaper tickets from the rail companies in the 1950s, but I don't think you say when the matter of permission for funerals ended. You say that "coffins were carried in the luggage space of the SR's coaches" - do your sources say when this ended? Have the LNC and its successor companies technically always been permitted to convey coffins to Brookwood on the railways or was the 13 May 1946 agreement about carrying funeral parties on the trains rescinded at some point? (Presumably it is unlikely that anyone nowadays would want to arrange for their last mortal remains to be conveyed by train to Brookwood from London, but you never know).
- (ii) The impression I'm getting is that Woking Common was an area that was part of the 'Waste of Woking', with the latter being larger than the former. What would help, of course, is a map showing the boundaries (if known) of these areas, and also showing the extent of the land originally purchased by the LNC, and what happened to it over the years, and where the current cemetery is located within that. (In colour and animated to show the changes over time would be nice, but might be pushing things a bit far). Do the books you have contain any such maps, or does the text give some indication of the extremities of the land so that people can look it up on a map and get an idea of the bounds or shape of the "2,200-acre tract of land stretching from Woking to Brookwood"? I can see the land extended east from the current cemetery to Woking, but what shape was the land? Maybe say how far it is from Brookwood to Woking if the land stretched all the way to the then-boundaries (which have obviously changed since)?
- (iii) My point about the CPI is not which index is being used, but the formulaic use of 'in terms of 2011 consumer spending power' three times in the main text. It disturbs the flow of the narrative (for me at least). What I was suggesting was that all three calculations and the set wording be made into footnotes accessed by links to the 'Notes' section (or even a separate 'monetary comparisons' notes section). Compare what you are saying in the CPI parentheses to what you are saying in the notes. If the stuff in the notes can be placed there, why can't the CPI stuff also be placed there?
- (iv) Hyphenation: I accept what you say about class of tickets (and have struck that), but the other examples are less easy to justify lack of hyphenation. I think most people would hyphenate in the examples I gave. Above, they are un-hyphenated, the hyphenation I am suggesting is: "ten-year window", "five-year extension", "83-year-old". Elsewhere in the article, you correctly hyphenate "1,500-acre" and "2,200-acre" and "200-acre". And going back to classes (of graves this time), you hyphenate "third-class grave" once (search for '-class'). Article probably needs just a quick check for things like that.
- (v) Repetition: I stand corrected on the 5,830,500 figure. I hadn't realised the 5,000,000 figure is mentioned twice, but now you mention it I see it is mentioned once in numbers and once in words. Maybe the '5,000,000' second mention should be written out in words like the first mention ('five million')?
- (vi) Loose ends: Since the 'logo' is actually a seal, should the file (File:LNC logo.jpg) be renamed to avoid confusion (as seems to have been the case above) and the image description amended so it is not saying it is a logo? The other loose end is the comment I made above about the sources used for the article. Pointing these two comments out in case you missed them earlier.
- Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The details of how, when and why funeral trains were discontinued is covered on the London Necropolis Railway daughter article; by this time the costs and revenues from railway operations were minimal, so I don't really want to give them undue weight on this parent article. After the formation of British Rail new regulations meant coffins needed to be carried in a dedicated coach and couldn't be put in with other freight or passengers, so it meant attaching a goods van to the train purely to carry the coffin. As Brookwood station wasn't designed to handle goods vans, the coffins then had to be unloaded at Woking and driven the last four miles by car. By the time all that cost and inconvenience was factored in, there was no advantage to using the railway. In 1985 British Rail (and its successors) formally stopped carrying coffins. (Dedicated funeral trains are still sometimes used to transport mourners, in cases where the funeral service is a long distance from the burial site and the number of mourners is so high that it would be impractical to travel by road—Princess Diana is an obvious example—but the coffins are transported separately by road or air. A special dispensation was given for the funeral of Jimmy Knapp in 2001, but that was in honour of his links to the railway industry.)
- I can do a map, but it might be more confusing than enlightening. "Waste of Woking" was a derogatory nickname owing to the uselessness of the land for farming, not a formal placename, so doesn't have a "boundary" as such.
- I'll wait to see what others think about the inflation figures. I know some people strongly support making it extremely clear in the text exactly what index is being used, to avoid anyone being misled into confusing capital inflation, wage inflation and price inflation.
- Neutral on hyphenation; my personal preference is to minimize their usage as much as possible. The "200-acre" etc in measurements are an artefact of a template which another user keeps re-adding to this article despite it conferring no benefit.
- The image probably ought to be renamed, but MediaWiki in its wisdom doesn't allow file renames. I've fixed the description on the image page. – iridescent 2 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the replies. That addresses or rebuts or leaves uncertain most of the (very minor) points I was making, and now that you've clarified the situation with the sources, I'm happy to support. You may get random editors trying to add hyphens at some point, though, so good luck on that. File renaming (by which I mean moving the file to a different title) has been possible for a few years now (since some point in 2009, I think). See Commons:File renaming. Try it for the local file you have here and see what happens - I was able to get as far as the rename page when I clicked on the 'move' option, so it should work. Oh, and as always, now that I've decided whether to support or not, please feel free to collapse, tidy or move my comments, or ask me to do so, if they are taking up too much room. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Were unearthed remains scattered or stored? Be consistent between captions and article text
- Some of the captions are quite long - consider incorporating into article text
- Captions that are not complete sentences should not end with periods
- "The rate of burials by the LNC was much lower than anticipated and around 80% of graves are unmarked, making Brookwood distinctively uncluttered when compared to other cemeteries." - source? On a quick scan I couldn't find this in the article
Images themselves are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified that slightly; the charnel houses (bone storehouses) were themselves overwhelmed and bones began to be scattered wherever they'd been dug up, or tossed into pits. The pre-industrial English attitude to death was radically different to today; the belief was that the soul left the body after burial, so other than the relics of saints dead bodies were just considered refuse and treated as such.
- I disagree; the two long captions are explaining the layout of detailed schemes, which aren't obvious to viewers without explanation.
- I can't see any fragmentary captions with periods, unless you mean "Third class coffin ticket, issued between April–September 1925." which I think looks odd without a period.
- That the rate of burials was only 5% of that projected is cited (repeatedly) in the article, as is the fact that 80% of those burials which did take place were in unmarked pauper graves. If the objection is to the statement that other cemeteries are cluttered, to me this is a cite-that-the-sky-is-blue situation. English cemeteries are notoriously overcrowded; the burial crisis the LNC was meant to solve has never been resolved. (This article is a fairly accurate summary of the reality of London burials, and here's a citation that English cemeteries have hit 100% of capacity and the old practice of new-graves-above-the-old has had to be revived.) If you think it's too WP:SYN, the caption could be shortened to "The rate of burials by the LNC was much lower than anticipated and around 80% of graves are unmarked", and allow readers to fill in the blanks. – iridescent 2 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying here to Nikkimaria's last point above (leaving room for Iridescent to reply up there). On the 80% figure, that bit of information is in this sourced sentence: "While the majority of burials conducted by the LNC (around 80%) were pauper funerals on behalf of London parishes [...]". The pauper burials were unmarked, as far as I'm aware. The bit about the rate of burials being much lower than anticipated is present several times in the article text (search for '50,000' and '203,041' - both appear together twice). Or are you asking for a source for 'distinctively uncluttered when compared to other cemeteries'? Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I worked at Brookwood Hospital many years ago and therefore was vaguely aware of the cemetery, but I had no idea about the LNC & this article has provided a comprehensive, well written and referenced insight.— Rod talk 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with just a few niggles.
- Lead:
- "Formally" or "formerly"? If the name was only until 1927, it doesn't make sense (to me) to use "formally" here, since it's not NOW known that way formally.
- Does cemetary REALLY need linking?
- Background:
- Again, really don't need the link to cemetary here. Or graveyard.
- "Decaying corpses contaminated the water supply and the city suffered regular epidemics of cholera, smallpox, measles and typhoid..." this implies the the cemetaries were the sole source of the epidemics - they probably contributed, but the living conditions also had a part in the epidemics. Can we reword this to avoid the implication that the cemetaries are solely responsible?
- Formation:
- "The former Woking Common, owned by the Earl of Onslow at Brookwood was chosen as the site for the new cemetery." Is there supposed to be a comma after Brookwood? It just looks weird to me with only one comma.
- Tubbs:
- "The LNC was hired by the US government to landscape this area and build a chapel, creating American Military Cemetery (later the Brookwood American Cemetery and Memorial), the only burial ground in Britain for US casualties of the First World War." shouldn't it be "...creating the American Military Cemetary..."?
- End:
- The second paragraph repeats a great deal of information found in the fourth paragraph of the Closure section - any way this duplication can be eliminated?
- What is a "day return ticket"?
- Legacy:
- "The Guney's efforts to attract new custom..." do you mean "Guney's efforts..." or "The Guney family's efforts..."?
- "...and the principles established by the LNC influenced the design of many other cemeteries worldwide." What principles are these?
- General note - why are the footnotes duplicated? I noted this, "On 13 April 1927 Cyril Tubbs died, after almost 40 years as surveyor, general manager and later a director of the LNC.[2] Shortly afterwards, during meetings of the LNC's shareholders on 16 June and 14 July 1927, the words "National Mausoleum" were formally dropped from the LNC's name, the company being officially renamed the London Necropolis Company.[2] On 28 December 1927 George Barratt, who had worked for the LNC for 63 years and been Superintendent of Brookwood Cemetery for 41 years, also died.[2]" but there are other spots where the refs could usefully go at the end of consecrutive sentences, which you've done elsewhere in the article. There is another run of this sort in "after the takeover", first paragraph.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Formally", not "formerly". It was officially the London Necropolis & National Mausoleum Company until 1927, as it was created by Act of Parliament and that was the name the law decreed, but because the National Mausoleum never existed they never used the name and all their documents, signs etc just read "London Necropolis Company" or "London Necropolis". There's an explanatory footnote linked from the initial sentence, but I don't really like to clutter the lead with a long explanation of the name;
- Yes, "cemetery" and "graveyard" definitely need linking. The distinction between a graveyard and a cemetery is absolutely critical, since it was the banning of graveyards and their enforced replacement by cemeteries that led to the LNC's creation in the first place. Because graveyards have been illegal in London for over 150 years and very few remain, and given that a disproportionate number of this article's readers will presumably be in London, a lot of readers won't be familiar with the concept;
- Reluctant to reword that. We know now that the graveyards weren't responsible for the epidemics, but Western medical orthodoxy at the time was the miasma theory, in which graveyards (and other sources of decayin flesh such as slaughterhouses) were the sole cause of contagious disease, hence the rush to abolish graveyards and replace them with cemeteries;
- Reworded;
- Fixed;
- A day return ticket is a ticket for travel to a place and back on the same day. If I include an explanation it will look very strange to most readers, since it's the standard ticket type in Britain (single tickets usually cost the same as a day return, so are rarely sold) and it will look as incongruous as giving a definition of "horse" on every racehorse article;
- "The Guney family's". Reworded to make it clearer;
- I've cited each sentence rather than single-citation-at-the-end-of-the-paragraph in places where I think it's reasonably likely subsequent editors will add further information in between. I know some people dislike it, but to my mind it makes an article more stable as there's less risk of facts becoming detached from their sources. – iridescent 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with all of the above explanations, except for the day return. There are 300 million English readers in the US who will have no clue on what the ticket is. And perhaps others around the world too. Can't just write for the Brits... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it to "return tickets for same-day travel from London to Brookwood and back", although I'll wager someone will change it back. – iridescent 17:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the following niggles:
- Lede:
- "... closure of London's existing graveyards in 1851."
- I think "existing" is unnecessary.
- "London did arrange for the LNC ..."
- "London arranged for the LNC ..." (more succinct)
- "... closure of London's existing graveyards in 1851."
- Background:
- "Edwin Chadwick testified that each year ..."
- There is no context to know what role/importance Chadwick had here (expecting readers to go to another link to find out may not be reader-friendly).
- "Edwin Chadwick testified that each year ..."
- Formation of the London Necropolis Company:
- "... the private Act of Parliament authorising the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses ..."
- "... the private Act of Parliament authorised the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses ..." (tense issue)
- "... the private Act of Parliament authorising the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses ..."
- Brookwood Cemetary:
- "... a Committee of Enquiry into the mismanagement of the company recommended the ..."
- I think "setup to look" should be inserted after "Enquiry", should it?
- "... a Committee of Enquiry into the mismanagement of the company recommended the ..."
- Cemetary railway line:
- "... was poorly suited as a railway trackbed."
- "... was poorly suited for a railway trackbed."?
- London railway stations:
- "The arches of the huge brick viaduct ... were easily converted into mortuaries."
- Am I reading this correctly? The arches of a bridge were hollow and used as rooms? Do we mean the "piers" of the viaduct (i.e. the pillar[s] of an arch) or the spaces under the arches?
- "The arches of the huge brick viaduct ... were easily converted into mortuaries."
- Burials:
- "A first class funeral allowed the person buying the funeral to select ..."
- "A first class funeral allowed its buyer to select ..."
- "... at the time of opening prices began at £2 10s ..."
- I recommend a comma in between "opening" and "prices" to reduce possible confusion.
- "Although the LNC was forbidden from using mass graves (other than the burial of next of kin in the same grave) and thus even the lowest class of funeral provided a separate grave for the deceased, third class funerals were not granted the right to erect a permanent memorial on the site."
- "Although ... and thus ..." does not seem to sound right... suggest "The LNC was forbidden from using mass graves other than the burials of next of kin in the same grave; thus even the lowest class of funeral provided a separate grave for the deceased. However, third class funerlas were not granted the right to erect a permanent memorial on the site."
- "A first class funeral allowed the person buying the funeral to select ..."
- Developments and difficulties
- "While some parishes did choose Brookwood ..."
- "While some parishes chose Brookwood ..." (succinct)
- "... had led to only 15,000 of the 25,000 LNC shares being sold, ..."
- "... had led to the sale of only 15,000 of the 25,000 LNC shares, ..."
- "With far fewer burial contracts with London parishes then had been ..."
- "With far fewer burial contracts with London parishes than had been ..." (typo?)
- "While this left 1,300 acres (2.0 sq mi; 5.3 km2) theoretically able to be sold, ..."
- "While this left 1,300 acres (2.0 sq mi; 5.3 km2) theoretically for sale, ..."
- "While 214 acres (0.33 sq mi; 0.87 km2) were bought by the government as sites for prisons and a lunatic asylum, the LNC struggled to sell the remainder."
- "After selling 214 acres (0.33 sq mi; 0.87 km2) to the government as sites for prisons and a lunatic asylum, the LNC struggled to sell the remainder."
- "While some parishes did choose Brookwood ..."
- End of LNC independence:
- "... even without being granted a monopoly on London burials had planned ..."
- I recommend a comma between "London" and "burials" to reduce possible confusion.
- "Even with the unusually large individual 9-by-4-foot (2.7 × 1.2 m) grave sites offered by the LNC for even the cheapest burials, ..."
- The second "even" seems repetitive and redundant.
- "... even without being granted a monopoly on London burials had planned ..."
- Image:
- Would you consider using File:Great Seal of the London Necropolis Company.svg for the lede image?
- Miscellanous:
- Page 824 of the Joint Stock Companies Directory for 1867 states that the 15,000 stocks yielded 150,000 pounds sterling of startup capital. The names of the directors, bankers, etc. are also listed. Is this information useful for inclusion?
- I think the above issues I raised should be easy to address or resolve, so I am not withholding my support here. I had not read an article about a graveyard before, and this one had an interesting past. It made me wonder what would be the situation now if the venture did take off and 5,000,000 bodies are piled in that location... Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, removed;
- I think "some parishes did arrange" is more accurate in this context than "some parishes arranged". The difference is subtle, but it exists;
- Added "Commissioner and sanitation campaigner" to Chadwick; I don't really want to go into too much detail on him as he's a fairly tangential figure (his rival scheme was rejected);
- The wording "the private Act of Parliament authorising the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses" is correct. The Act which authorised the LNC, compelled the LSWR to work with it;
- No; commissions of enquiry are "Commission on topic", not "Commission set up to look into topic"—c.f. Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada, Royal Commission on London Government etc etc;
- No, "poorly suited as" is correct;
- "Railway arch" is absolutely standard British English for "the space beneath an arch supporting a railway line". When Transport for London offer to sell you a railway arch they're selling the space beneath it, not the actual bridge;
- Reworded;
- Can't see the problem here, but feel free to add a comma if you think it's necessary;
- Same reply as previously on the semantic difference between "chose" and "did choose";
- To my eyes "had led to the sale of only 15,000 of the 25,000 LNC shares" is a jump to US grammar which would grate in a Br-Eng article, but I've no strong opinion;
- Fixed;
- "Able to be sold" isn't a synonym of "for sale"; the current wording is deliberate;
- No. "After selling 214 acres they struggled to sell the remainder" implies a chronology of events which isn't accurate;
- They wanted a "monopoly on London burials", not a "monopoly on London"; a comma would be misleading;
- I don't think SVG files containing text should ever be used; they look terrible in a lot of browsers. I wouldn't use this particular one regardless, as it's subtly but distinctly inaccurate. (The actual seal uses varying font sizes to slightly reduce the prominence of "London" and "Company" and emphasise "Necropolis & National Mausoleum"; plus, the SVG is displaying in the wrong font on my browser at least.);
- I definitely don't want to list the directors, since the LNC in this period was going through repeated changes of board; it would look very odd to list one set but not any of the others, but listing all of them would mean a huge laundry-list. I don't think it's particularly useful to mention the £150,000 raised from the initial stock issue, since it was never the primary source of capital and the other income streams aren't quantified. – iridescent 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems, I stand by my support. Jappalang (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [34].
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishing Stories was a relatively minor science fiction magazine, but it managed to publish early fiction by some of the biggest names in the field, such as Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. It also launched the editorial career of Frederik Pohl, one of the most important sf magazine editors; he was only nineteen when Popular Publications hired him. It lasted for sixteen issues, from 1940 to 1943. The covers are out of copyright so I've been able to include several as illustrations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clute & Nicholls or Nicholls & Clute?
- Shorten citations to Way the Future Was or The Way the Future Was?
- No citations to del Rey
- Where is Garden City? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this excellent article, but inevitably with a couple of minor comments:
- "Popular saved money by using whichever word count was shorter—the author's count or a recount done by Popular's staff. The result was a savings of forty to fifty dollars per issue. Some more space was saved by reusing snipped elements of black and white illustrations to fill space in the issue; multiple uses of the same artwork did not require additional payments to the artist." It wasn't exactly a "recount", as Popular's staff didn't do the first count, but more importantly is the emphasis of the third sentence. We're in a section describing cost savings, not space savings, therefore I think the sentence needs to be flipped around a bit to reflect that.
- "Instead of replacing him directly, Popular assigned editor-in-chief Alden H. Norton to edit the magazines." I'm not at all sure what "replacing him directly" means.
Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both reworded; let me know if either still seems unclear or inaccurate. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me now, hope you didn't mind my fiddling around with your opus. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all; as always your copyedit was a big help. There's just one change you made that didn't look right to me: shouldn't "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received when he was the editor" be "when he had been the editor"? It's past perfect, isn't it, since we're talking about an event further in the past? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right, the tenses didn't quite match. On the other hand I think that "he had received when he had been the editor" is a bit wordy, so my alternative offering is "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received as the editor". But of course it's ultimately up to you, I'm just suggesting stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all; as always your copyedit was a big help. There's just one change you made that didn't look right to me: shouldn't "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received when he was the editor" be "when he had been the editor"? It's past perfect, isn't it, since we're talking about an event further in the past? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me now, hope you didn't mind my fiddling around with your opus. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Image - Astonishing issues grid.png is an image of a table. It's better to show tables as tables.
- It says The colors identify the editors. Coding isn't accessible if it relies on colour.
- Is it possible to produce the table as a table? Lightmouse (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does include the same information, either in the caption or elsewhere in the article, so I think the information is still accessible to a colour-blind reader. For the general question, there have been previous discussions, and I set up a sandbox to show the best available table versus the image. The layout goals for a table are described on the talk page of that sandbox. If we can resolve those issues I would be happy to switch to a table but currently I don't think the presentation justifies it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I forgot our previous discussion about this issue. Can anyone else find a solution? Lightmouse (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just come across a good example of a table that may be a template for you. See 1952_Winter_Olympics#Calendar. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that one solve the problem of text running too close to the table when you float the table so text runs round it? That's one of the ugliest things about the current floating tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, saw this on LM's contribs list. Ah yes, I remember this issue from when it was raised before. I must say, the general look of these screen-shot tables is not so good to me. The blue and yellow for the two editors is a nice idea, and to us non-colour-blind it's all rather a bore to clip our wings by not using colour-coding (apologies to LM); but I get the point. Perhaps a discreet asterisk for Norton's editions instead of the colour? Tony (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't create a myth that accessibility forbids colour on web pages. That's as false as saying it also forbids stairs in hospitals. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility) "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information."
- Lightmouse (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Tony meant it quite like that. Tony, I think the key for me is that this is a visual aid that is additional to the information. The whole point is to provide a visual presentation that can supplement the text; the image/table is not the primary presentation of the data. The asterisk would not be as good at conveying the information at a glance, and in many cases there are more than two editors, so multiple colours are needed. See Planet Stories, for example. I do want this to be accessible, but I think I have two bad options at the moment -- a table with layout problems or an image that is inaccessible to screen readers. I think the image is the better choice at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, saw this on LM's contribs list. Ah yes, I remember this issue from when it was raised before. I must say, the general look of these screen-shot tables is not so good to me. The blue and yellow for the two editors is a nice idea, and to us non-colour-blind it's all rather a bore to clip our wings by not using colour-coding (apologies to LM); but I get the point. Perhaps a discreet asterisk for Norton's editions instead of the colour? Tony (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that one solve the problem of text running too close to the table when you float the table so text runs round it? That's one of the ugliest things about the current floating tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - ignoring the table discussion above, licensing appears unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, I just don't understand why normal wiki table syntax can't be used. These images of tables look unprofessional to me in terms of resolution and design. They're jpegs, are they? Wiki tables are much crisper in appearance. And why the dotted lines? Tony (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables can certainly be used if there's a consensus that they look better. I would like to solicit opinions at WT:FAC if it looks like we're going that way, just because these images are in a dozen FAs and so far there hasn't been a consensus that they have to be switched to tables; but if the result is that people think the tables look better, I've no problem with switching. Personally I think tables look worse. Take a look here to see a direct comparison, and see here for a list of issues. I think the worst problem is the lack of space in the text flow around the table, but there are other issues too. I also want to reiterate that I agree the images have problems too -- neither is perfect. If we can solve the table problems then the table is clearly a better choice, but I think the tables are worse at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of margins can easily be fixed by tweaking your CSS a bit, as I've done (without your permission, so sorry for that) in your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No apology needed, though I will probably reverse it (or at least tweak it) shortly as it appears to have had the side effect of blacking out some of the cells. Yes, that does seem to have fixed the issue. But does that help? Any individual user could apply this fix for themselves, but a random visitor to the page would still see the pre-CSS-change text flow, wouldn't they? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's the static CSS in the table that's been tweaked, not the CSS for an individual user, so everyone sees the the same thing. And setting a margin can have no effect on the table cells. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I think that problem is solved. (Not sure what happened with the cell images; they went grey on me for a while but look OK now.) I've listed on the talk page of that sandbox the three remaining issues -- I think it's pretty close now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can fix those remaining issues if you're still happy for me to stick my prying fingers into your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. There's also an accessibility issue that needs to be addressed with the table, and I'll fix that as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please go ahead; thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing that remains problematic is the cell padding, hence the "excessive" white space you're complaining of, which there doesn't seem to be any nice way to resolve. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is much improved; thanks. I'll let others comment on which they prefer; I'd like to see the cell padding shrunk if possible as otherwise it is likely to push into headings, but I'll go with consensus. I really appreciate your work on this. One odd thing, which has nothing to do with your changes: in IE the yellow cells all appear black. I've seen this on two different computers, and it happens when I'm logged out, so it should be possible for others to see it too. Can you take a look and see if you spot it too? I went back through history and it none of the yellow cells appear yellow in IE, right back to the first version with colour. Any idea what's going on with that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that may have been because you specified the background colour as "FF9" rather than "#FF9", but I don't have immediate access to a machine running IE to check whether or not that's fixed the problem. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That didn't fix it. If I get time this weekend I will see if I can figure it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is now resolved: Jappalang has provided an svg file that avoids the resizing fuzziness. Malleus has provided a good deal of additional help on the table layout but it is still not quite where I feel it should be, so I will use the svg file for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That didn't fix it. If I get time this weekend I will see if I can figure it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that may have been because you specified the background colour as "FF9" rather than "#FF9", but I don't have immediate access to a machine running IE to check whether or not that's fixed the problem. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is much improved; thanks. I'll let others comment on which they prefer; I'd like to see the cell padding shrunk if possible as otherwise it is likely to push into headings, but I'll go with consensus. I really appreciate your work on this. One odd thing, which has nothing to do with your changes: in IE the yellow cells all appear black. I've seen this on two different computers, and it happens when I'm logged out, so it should be possible for others to see it too. Can you take a look and see if you spot it too? I went back through history and it none of the yellow cells appear yellow in IE, right back to the first version with colour. Any idea what's going on with that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing that remains problematic is the cell padding, hence the "excessive" white space you're complaining of, which there doesn't seem to be any nice way to resolve. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please go ahead; thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I think that problem is solved. (Not sure what happened with the cell images; they went grey on me for a while but look OK now.) I've listed on the talk page of that sandbox the three remaining issues -- I think it's pretty close now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's the static CSS in the table that's been tweaked, not the CSS for an individual user, so everyone sees the the same thing. And setting a margin can have no effect on the table cells. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No apology needed, though I will probably reverse it (or at least tweak it) shortly as it appears to have had the side effect of blacking out some of the cells. Yes, that does seem to have fixed the issue. But does that help? Any individual user could apply this fix for themselves, but a random visitor to the page would still see the pre-CSS-change text flow, wouldn't they? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of margins can easily be fixed by tweaking your CSS a bit, as I've done (without your permission, so sorry for that) in your sandbox. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables can certainly be used if there's a consensus that they look better. I would like to solicit opinions at WT:FAC if it looks like we're going that way, just because these images are in a dozen FAs and so far there hasn't been a consensus that they have to be switched to tables; but if the result is that people think the tables look better, I've no problem with switching. Personally I think tables look worse. Take a look here to see a direct comparison, and see here for a list of issues. I think the worst problem is the lack of space in the text flow around the table, but there are other issues too. I also want to reiterate that I agree the images have problems too -- neither is perfect. If we can solve the table problems then the table is clearly a better choice, but I think the tables are worse at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from Steve T • C. This is an excellent article; nice work on finding so much information about what was a marginal publication in the history of SF. My only real comments concern a couple of ambiguous points, and a few snippets of information that you may or may not wish to include. Feel free to disregard any of these; some of them merely provide additional detail (trivia, even) around points the article already makes, or may place too much emphasis on one author, so their inclusion or otherwise won't affect my support:
- "Stowaway" appeared in Astonishing under the name "The Callistan Menace". Is there any reason you've gone with the former title here, other than that it was the story's first (and presumably, Asimov's preferred) title?
- I think I had a reason, but I can't remember it so I've changed it to the published title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In March 1940, Pohl told Asimov that the response to "Half Breed" was such that he felt justified in asking for a sequel, the first time that Asimov had been asked to write one. According to Asimov, "Half-Breeds on Venus" (at ten thousand words long) was the longest he had sold up to that time, and "Pohl's magazines were doing so well that his budget had been increased and he was able to pay me five eights of a cent a word for it – $62.50". Submitted to Pohl on June 3, "Half Breeds on Venus" marked the first time an Asimov story provided the cover art for a magazine.
- The financial details are captured in a footnote which you may have overlooked; I thought it didn't need to be more prominent than that, but let me know if you disagree. The point about it being Asimov's first cover story I considered but decided was not really necessary detail for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Heredity" (nicely pictured) was yet another that was rejected by Campbell at Astounding before finding a home with Pohl. Maybe the wider point about Pohl's willingness, and indeed enthusiasm, for snapping up rejected stories could be made clearer, but this might be harder to cite.
- I do have a sentence about this at the top of the Contents section -- do you think more is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Asimov, Pohl was relieved of his editorship because his magazines had begun to sell poorly, which seems to conflict slightly with the implication in this article that Pohl left the magazine because his request for a raise was turned down.
- This jibes well with a comment in The Way the Future Was about Steeger having complaints; I've added that and put Asimov's supporting comments in a footnote. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also according to Asimov, Astonishing was actually killed by the World War II paper shortage.
- I missed that; I've now found a mention of it in The Early Pohl and added a cite to that, which I think is a bit better than Asimov as a source since Pohl was working at Popular and would have known the reason first-hand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stowaway" appeared in Astonishing under the name "The Callistan Menace". Is there any reason you've gone with the former title here, other than that it was the story's first (and presumably, Asimov's preferred) title?
- I'll gladly provide the citations to any of these if you need them; I'm being a little lazy by not typing them out right away, but you might not want any of this information and I thought I'd save a little space. They're mainly from The Early Asimov, a collection in which Asimov provides introductions to each story while giving a few comments about its background and history, especially with regard to his relationship with the magazines and editors of the period. (Unfortunately, I've mislaid volume one, which IIRC contains some possibly-useful information about publication of "The Callistan Menace" and "Half-Breed"—if you can access a copy, it may be worth the time.) But, once again, nice work. Steve T • C 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these -- very helpful. I should have thought of going through The Early Asimov, but it never occurred to me. Let me know if you think more is needed on the points above; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me; I hoped to find something in I, Asimov too, but as he does with most subjects in that book, Asimov applies too broad a brush just at the points when fine detail would be useful to us. All the best, Steve T • C 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these -- very helpful. I should have thought of going through The Early Asimov, but it never occurred to me. Let me know if you think more is needed on the points above; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image issues resolved with their removals
Oppose for image copyright issues:The copyrights for all issues of this periodical have been properly renewed; as such, the three (or any) covers (I have noted their registrations in their PUFs) are copyrighted material and would have to satisfy all 10 NFCCs if left in the article. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- All cover images removed -- I don't have a sufficient justification to keep them if they're not free. I would very much like to know how you found these; I use this as my guide to finding copyright, and the Project Gutenberg listing linked there does not contain that renewal as far as I can see. I've used that to search for several other magazine renewals so I would like to recheck other articles I've written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments: I have a few suggestions for the language in the first section.- "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year, and visited Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, to ask for a job as an assistant."
- "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year. He asked Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, for a job as an assistant."
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year. He asked Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, for a job as an assistant."
- "Erisman turned him down, but suggested ..."
- "Erisman turned him down and suggested ..."
- Not so sure, but I think suggesting an alternative is not necessarily a contradiction (or unexpected action) to a rejection?
- I'd like to leave this as is -- I think the underlying sense is that Pohl attempts to get a job, he fails, but he then gets an opportunity. The "but" is contrasting failure with possible success. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... new line of low-paying magazines ..."
- I think "low-paying" is redundant here (and hence can be removed for a smoother read), considering a fuller exposition is given later.
- Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "low-paying" is redundant here (and hence can be removed for a smoother read), considering a fuller exposition is given later.
- "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was bimonthly, with Super Science Stories appearing in the alternate months."
- "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was a bimonthly periodical, alternating monthly with Super Science Stories."
- I made part of this change -- I left out "periodical" as I think it's unnecessarily wordy at that point; the reader knows it's a periodical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was a bimonthly periodical, alternating monthly with Super Science Stories."
- "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year, and visited Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, to ask for a job as an assistant."
- I am favourable to support this article, pending the resolution of the above image issues. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I have a question about the svg you created (for which thank you); I'll post that at your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems, I have answered your query. As for this article it was an brief, entertaining, and educational read. Pohl's actions as an editor who buys his own stories does raise my eyebrow on his ethics—and if he was discovered, but I do not think this is necessarily part of the coverage for this periodical. So I am now supporting this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Re Pohl: I'm sure I've seen a comment in his memoirs to the effect that one reason he used a lot of pseudonyms was to conceal from Popular how many stories he was buying from himself. If I can find that I might add a footnote; it implies he was doing something he shouldn't, but I think it was also clear from context that Popular expected him to do it to some extent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems, I have answered your query. As for this article it was an brief, entertaining, and educational read. Pohl's actions as an editor who buys his own stories does raise my eyebrow on his ethics—and if he was discovered, but I do not think this is necessarily part of the coverage for this periodical. So I am now supporting this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I have a question about the svg you created (for which thank you); I'll post that at your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [35].
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Top level article on the Manhattan Project. Attempts to cover the project as a single coherent article, while at the same time acting as a gateway to the hundreds of sub articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Note: The nominator has another article at FAC at this time. A delegate granted special permission for this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- restarted Jul 27 previous I am copying over the reiterated supports from the last 24 hours, after notice was given by another reviewer that much had changed. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, can you please identify the new sources that have been added so that they can be checked quickly? also, have there been any new images added since the check was done? Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Detailed review was going on here. My support still holds, of course. Nageh (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still support. I've been engaged with the thing for quite a while and kept up with the changes. My support remains. Carcaroth, you came in late and some of the changes have been related to your suggestions. Would think you could pretty easily see what's been added. If you want to hold out over parks and a FL, fine. But on just assessing the article, this should not be that hard for you given how insightful your initial review was and how you've assessed the changes.
I would have no problem with this if it were a client report in the work world or an academic review. And I'm easily capable of watching and endorsing evolution, and pretty used to it happening. I'm actually very cheered that there has been major wrangling and work on the content, rather than some of the MOS-prose only reviews I see on other articles. (I also like that we pushed the Canoe River thing on substance as well.) Manhattan Project is an outstanding piece of work, full of juicy goodness, and Wiki should be proud and star it.TCO (reviews needed) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I guess I didn't say that explicitly before). Hawkeye has done a nice job with an inherently difficult article, both before the nomination and during this FAC process.
However, my support doesn't prevent me from continuing to seek improvement. I'm glad to see the additions to the map of sites in the U.S. and Canada, but I'm still a bit puzzled by the "Sylacauga" entry in Alabama, since most sources I've seen (including the linked Wikipedia article) say that the heavy water plant was at Childersburg. Some sources and the MP article text say the plant was "near Sylacauga" which I suppose is an indication that no one is expected to have heard of Childersburg. However, Sylacauga has about 13,000 people versus about 5,000 in Childersburg, so it's not obvious that Sylacauga is much less obscure than Childersburg. IMHO, the map should label "Childersburg" rather than "Sylacauga", the text should give both place names (for example, say it was "near Sylacauga at Childersburg"). --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that all contemporary sources refer to Sylacauga, and any book on the subject will refer to Sylacauga. So as far as this goes, yes it more obscure. It seems that the city limits and the zip code were moved some time in the 1950s. Mentioned both in the text, but want to retain "Sylacauga" on the map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Probably one of the best articles I've seen on Wikipedia. JefffBeck (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New sources
- Gilbert, Keith V. (1969). History of the Dayton Project (PDF). Miamisburg, Ohio: Mound Laboratory, Atomic Energy Commission. OCLC 650540359. Retrieved 21 July 2011.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Hewlett, Richard G.; Duncan, Francis (1969). Atomic Shield, 1947–1952. A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-520-07187-5.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Home, R. W.; Low, Morris F. (September 1993). "Postwar Scientic Intelligence Missions to Japan". Isis. 84 (3). The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society: 527–537. JSTOR 235645.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Weinberg, Alvin M. (21 July 1961). "Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States". Science, New Series. 134 (3473). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 161–164. JSTOR 1708292.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
New Images
- File:Manhattan Project emblem.png
- File:Manhattan Project US Canada Map 2.svg
- File:Hanford workers.jpg
- File:Ames Process pressure vessel lower.jpg
- File:Ames Process pressure vessel remnant slag after reaction.jpg
- File:Ames Process uranium biscuit.jpg
- File:Clinton Engineer Works.png
- File:K-25 aerial view.jpg
- File:Hanford Engineer Works.png
- File:Remote handling of a kilocurie source of radiolanthanum.jpg
Media Review - captions not checked
- Alert: File:Trinity device readied.jpg - the source is a deadlink.
- The images in the main infobox, all three of them, are too large in my opinion.
- No helping the top one, but I did shrink the other two down a bit.
A small number of images have information that should be stuck into infoboxes. I'll do it for you.Done.- Made a few tweaks to the captions, nothing major. Everything else is fine with them.
- Everything else is fine.
Check back later in case I come up with caption issues.
Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On first, partial appraisal, the writing looks very good. In copyediting the lede, I made one substantive alteration, which merits discussion.
While the lede stated that the Trinity Test took place at Alamogordo, N.M., I noticed that the lede to our topical article Trinity (nuclear test) states that it took place near Socorro, N.M., and does not mention Alamogordo. In Working on the Bomb, S. L. Sanger summarizes the issue:
Usually, the test is linked with Alamogordo, New Mexico, probably because the Manhattan Project borrowed the site from the Army's Alamogordo Gunnery and Bombing Range, now the Army's White Sands Missile Range. The town itself is 60 miles south. The closest towns of any size are Socorro and Carrizozo, 30–35 miles away.
Convention seems to call for Alamogordo to be used in a context such as our summary lede, while an interest in accuracy suggests that it is preferable to name the bombing range, rather than the town. I have made that change. (I will also add the name of the range to the lede of the Trinity Test article.)
- Just bringing myself up to speed. By the time Trinity was conducted, the site was no longer officially designated the Alamogordo Gunnery and Bombing Range, but was the White Sands Proving Ground, which incorporated the Alamogordo Range along with ORDCIT (the name of another, smaller range) and portions of the Fort Bliss Artillery Range. It is White Sands that needs to be named in the lede, which I have done; I will leave it to the primary contributors to determine if and how "Alamogordo" should also be included in the lede. (The most obvious way would be "...conducted at the White Sands Proving Ground near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." If that change is desired, then we will want to modify the lede to the Trinity article in complementary fashion.) In any event, White Sands definitely needs to be named in the main text in the Trinity subsection.
In the lede, I find two other issues, related to each other, that need to be dealt with:
(1) It is fine to title the infobox with a name that is different from that used for the article title, if the name used in the infobox is more official or complete, so long as the relationship to the featured name is clear. It is not currently clear in this case. In part, that is because the infobox title—"Manhattan Engineer District (MED)"—does not appear in the lede, whereas the implicitly official "Manhattan District" does. Given point 2, below, the infobox title should probably be changed to either "Manhattan Project" or "Manhattan District". If the primary contributors strongly favor "Manhattan Engineer District (MED)" for the infobox, then that term must appear in the text of the lede.
(2) The following statement in the lede is not supported by the main text:
The Army component of the project was designated the Manhattan District, but "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename, "Development of Substitute Materials", for the entire project.
When we turn to the main text, we do not find this supposed distinction--that "Development of Substitute Materials" officially defined the entire project, while "Manhattan District" officially defined only its Army component.
The main text tells us, "Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project 'Development of Substitute Materials.'" I note that all three men were Army officers.
The main text then tells us, "Since [Army] engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to instead name it the Manhattan District." Nowhere between the first statement I have quoted and the second is there the slightest suggestion that one name was designating the entire project while the other was designating merely a portion of it.
We then learn that "Manhattan District" was made the official name and "Informally, it was known as the Manhattan Engineer District, or MED."
If the main text is correct and, for relevant purposes, complete, then the lede is currently incorrect and must be edited to agree with the main text. Of course, it is possible that the lede is correct, in which case the main text here must be corrected and/or expanded.
Assuming the main text is correct, here is the status of each name in summary fashion:
- Development of Substitute Materials: official codename
- Manhattan District: official name
- Manhattan Engineer District (MED): original informal name
- Manhattan Project: later informal, and now conventional, name
Again, I believe this suggests that either "Manhattan District" or "Manhattan Project" is a better title for the infobox than "Manhattan Engineer District (MED)". It also raises a third issue:
(3) It would be helpful to readers—though it is not absolutely necessary—if the article stated when and where the phrase "Manhattan Project" was first verifiably used.
I look forward to reading the rest of the article.—DCGeist (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the term "White Sands Missile Range" is anachronistic. It was the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range in 1941, and became the White Sands Proving Ground in 1945. I prefer "Alamagordo" in the lead, but linked to White Sands.
- Both the lead and main text are correct. The lead simply summarizes the main text. I have changed the infobox title to "Manhattan District". "Manhattan Project" and "Manhattan District" are not the same thing. The infobox refers to the Manhattan District.
- I am uncertain as to when "Manhattan Project" was first used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, while you state "the term 'White Sands Missile Range' is anachronistic", neither I nor the source I adduced advocated using that term for events in 1945. I explicitly favored the version of the name pertinent at the time, the White Sands Proving Ground.
(1) At any rate, while a reasonable case can be made for either "Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range" or "White Sands Proving Ground" on the grounds of accuracy, your preference here for the former is problematic in two ways:
- It is a violation of WP:EGG. If White Sands Missile Range is the proper link, then our Manual of Style strongly favors White Sands Proving Ground for the text.
It addresses a "problem" (the potential absence of "Alamogordo" from the lede) for which there is a superior solution. I suggested it in my previous comment: "...conducted at the White Sands Proving Ground near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." This gets both crucial terms into the lede, at no expense to accuracy or clarity, without violating WP:EGG, and for a net addition of just two words.
- I've now looked at multiple high-quality sources, and I can see that the case on accuracy for "White Sands Proving Ground" may be even weaker than that for "Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range". Most particularly, in White Sands Missile Range (2009), credited to Darren Court and the White Sands Missile Range Museum, the Trinity test site is explicitly placed "80 miles north of the White Sands Proving Ground" in a location "that had also been part of the Alamogordo Bombing Range". (The location is now apparently part of the White Sands Missile Range.) I'm ready to say that the current solution is acceptable, though others may well fell that the exclusion of "White Sands" from the lede and/or the EGG-ishness of the solution and/or the questionable accuracy of the phrasing are objectionable. However, I will say this: Given the irresolvable diversity of authoritative descriptions of the official designation of the military range encompassing the site, I would go with this: "...conducted in the Jornada del Muerto desert basin near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." No, not conventional, but irrefutable.—DCGeist (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(2) In your response, you emphasize that "'Manhattan Project' and 'Manhattan District' are not the same thing." Indeed. But that should have drawn your attention to another problem in the lede paragraph. According to our Manual of Style, it is alternative names for the article title name that are conventionally bolded in the lede. As the Manhattan District represents only a portion of the Manhattan Project, per your emphatic reminder, it is not a true alternative name—though its bolding in the lede is certainly defensible and I agree with it. Development of Substitute Materials, on the other hand, is a true alternative name for the Manhattan Project. It thus should probably be bolded in any event; as the less synonymous Manhattan District is bolded, Development of Substitute Materials really must be as well here. I have made that edit.
(3) Attention is now brought to another issue. Development of Substitute Materials is referred to as a "codename" in the lede, but simply as a "name" in the main text. Well, a codename is a special, unusual sort of name. If "codename" is correct (i.e., WP:Verifiable), then that lede characterization needs to be supported and should also appear in the main text. Also, if "codename" is correct, that arguably justifies the ubiquitous use of quote marks around DSM. But if it's just a name like Manhattan District, then in most grammatical constructions under your prevailing style it should have no quotes around it, just like Manhattan District. (And that would be OK, because just as with Manhattan District those proper noun capitals already mark it out and render quote marks unnecessary much of the time.)
(4) You declare that "both the lead and main text are correct," but fail to acknowledge the problem that I clearly identified and detailed—that the lede's claim that the Army part of the project was designated the "Manhattan District" while the official designation for the entire project was "Development of Substitute Materials" was not well supported. I see you did edit the relevant main text passage to make it more clear and supportive of the lede, though you, oddly, did not see fit to mention that in this thread. The edit was helpful, but insufficient. Let me try to draw your attention to the crux of the problem. It has been in this passage:
Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project "Development of Substitute Materials", but Groves felt that this would draw attention. Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to instead name it the Manhattan District.
Given the phrase "instead name it", any sensible reading must conclude that "it" is "the project" given a different name in the preceding sentence—implicitly, the project as a whole.
I have changed the passage to the following, which is clearer and conforms with your (I believe proper) assertion that the lede is correct:
Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project "Development of Substitute Materials", but Groves felt that this would draw attention. Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to name the Army's component of the project the Manhattan District.
If that can be improved on, great, but what we can't do is have it as it was.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call this...
(5) In the process of making a simple style-related copyedit to the Cost section, I checked a source and discovered a significant problem in the text. The text claimed:
By comparison, the total price [of the Manhattan Project] by the end of 1945 was about 60% of the total cost spent on all other bombs, mines, and grenades produced [by the US]
According to the source cited, the total cost of the Manhattan Project by the end of 1945 in constant 1996 dollars was $21.57 billion. And according to the source cited, the total cost of "All bombs, mines and grenades" for that period in like currency was $31.5 billion.
So, if source's "All bombs, mines and grenades" does not include the four Manhattan Project bombs, then the cost of the latter was 68% of the cost of all other bombs, mines, and grenades. On the other hand, if source's "All bombs, mines and grenades" does include the four Manhattan Project bombs, then the cost of the latter was 217% of the cost of all other bombs, mines, and grenades. The source cited does not make clear whether "All bombs, mines and grenades" does or does not include the Manhattan bombs. In either case, the percentage given was significantly off. For the moment, I have deleted the unverified and inaccurate claim. Another source must be adduced if some version of it is to be restored.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call this...
(6) There were issues with both insignia images in the infobox. I was able to correct one: The source for the unofficial Manhattan Project emblem was a Google Books link that led to a page that neither illustrated nor discussed the emblem. I have substituted a link that, it is to be hoped, will lead everyone to the proper page. The nominator might want to add the hardcopy cite as well to the image page, as Google Books links are fairly fickle (which is why I never use them myself). The other is entirely up to the nominator to correct: The Commons image page for the Manhattan District shoulder patch provides no support whatsoever for the claim that the image content originally came from a United States Armed Forces badge or logo. Personally, I have no doubt that it did, but the image page, of course, must give us some means, however cursory, to verify that.—DCGeist (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would [:http://shop.amse.org/browse.cfm/manhattan-project-patch/4,40.html this] be good enough? or this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That patch has been described to me, by proud veterans of the project (the few survivors of whom are now very elderly), as the patch of the Army Corps' Special Engineer Detachment (article is Special Engineering Detachment, lame as that article is). Thus, it is not a patch for the entire project, but only for some of the military personnel assigned to it. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The third page of the online document at [36] (a copy of a published memoir) has a black and white photo of the patch with a caption that indicates that the patch was issued after the Hiroshima bombing. Thus, not only was it specific to the SEDs, but it was essentially a souvenir. (I think I've heard that before.) --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nichols, The Road to Trinity, pp. 226-227 tells the story of the patch. It was actually designed by the WAC detachment. Nichols tells how he went through all the hoops to have it officially approved by General Somervell, Secretary Patterson, the Quartermater General and the Adjutant General. See this photograph Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: have a close look at this photograph, which is in the article itself. General Groves is wearing the patch. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added three citations to the file page; in sum, they should address any questions.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The third page of the online document at [36] (a copy of a published memoir) has a black and white photo of the patch with a caption that indicates that the patch was issued after the Hiroshima bombing. Thus, not only was it specific to the SEDs, but it was essentially a souvenir. (I think I've heard that before.) --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have DCGeist's other comments been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They have. I was waiting to find time to read the whole thing top to bottom to make my support explicit, but I have no outstanding concerns.—DCGeist (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- "cost nearly US$2 billion ($24.4 billion in current dollars).": You and I know there's a template lurking there that will update the inflation figure every year, but without looking at the edit screen, the reader has no way to know that, and will likely assume that the figure will become dated. I tweaked it to: "This is roughly equivalent to ${{Formatnum:{{Inflation|US|(price)|(year)|r=2}}}} as of 20{{CURRENTYEARYY}}.{{Inflation-fn|US}}", which will update the year as it updates the inflation price. The inflation template page asks for a citation, which is provided by the inflation-fn template. There's some disagreement over when the inflation template is the relevant measure. (Not my area, so I won't get into it.)
- postwar vs. post-war; the former has more support in AmEng dictionaries, the latter in other dictionaries. There were lots of both; I went with "postwar".
- "He also agreed to coordinate the effort with that of the British, and on 11 October he sent a message to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, suggesting that they correspond on atomic matters.": If this is accurate, it might be better: "On 11 October he sent a message to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, suggesting that they correspond on atomic matters and coordinate their efforts."
- I added an "s" after Beams', and Nageh reverted. There's an argument from MOS:POSS that I shouldn't have added the s, since MOS lists 3 acceptable styles, so I changed it from one acceptable style to another. However, American guidance has (finally!) started to coalesce around recommending the "s"; I can give you a long list, but it's simplest and usually best to track Chicago, in this case 7.16: "including names ending in s, x or z". If I can ask a favor, let me at least copyedit this so that we'll have a link to point to that conforms to Chicago, then if people want to fiddle around with it, that's their business. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad apostrophe s: I reverted in the sense of WP:BRD but I'm open to any outcome, i.e., feel free to put it back in. Nageh (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All these changes are fine.
- A lot of editors wanted a cost figure in the lead. I am very aware of the drawbacks of CPI, having been involved with MEIs for some years. I was most concerned that it would not seem very much to a modern reader in comparison with, say the International Space Station or the Joint Strike Fighter Program.
- AmEng seems to be moving away from hyphens.
- The text is accurate. To me, there is a subtle different between the two: Roosevelt's initial reluctance.
- My AusEng style guide requires the additional s where the subject is singular.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, we lose hyphens every year, I don't know if that's a worldwide trend. Good to know about the 's.
- "Nor were they impressed with estimates ...": Is "they" Marshall and Groves? Whose estimates?
- I'm going to leave "codename" alone, even though Webster's New World apparently thinks it's two words, and Merriam-Webster likes "code name" for the noun and "code-name" for the verb.
- "1,200 tons", "1,720 tons": short tons? What is that in tonnes? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Long tons. 1,200 long tons (1,200 t); 1,720 long tons (1,750 t). Note the effect of scientific rounding, of which I heartily approve. Basically, I did not feel that the difference was great enough. What you always have to be on the lookout for is the measurement tons. I have added conversion templates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick note: I think I can finish up in two hours, and I may leave cranky edit summaries and revert people while I'm doing it, because Wikipedia is horribly slow right now for long articles like this. I'll do more explaining of my edits when I'm done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that someone just inserted a fact-tag on a footnote; I'm guessing it's sourced in the following citation. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing. "Instead, it was placed atop a steel tower 800 yards (730 m) from the weapon, nicknamed "the Gadget", as a rough measure of how powerful the explosion would be.": Put modifying phrases next to the words they modify when possible, and it's possible here. - Dank (push to talk)
- Taking a guess on this and the next two so I can finish up and support. I moved things around, although I'm not confident that I got the cites in the right places. - Dank (push to talk)
- "An Alsos team went to Stassfurt in the Soviet Occupation Zone and retrieved 11 tons of ore from WIFO. In April 1945, ..." If this happened before April 1945, maybe "in what became the Soviet Occupation Zone"? (I can't tell from our article what period that phrase applies to.) If after, then the narrative isn't chronological. - Dank (push to talk)
- I went with "in what became ..." - Dank (push to talk)
- "... Silverplate, the codename modification of B-29s to carry the bombs." Our article says: "Silverplate was the code reference for the United States Army Air Forces participation in the Manhattan Project during World War II." So, was Silverplate the codename for just the modification of the B-29s, or for everything the USAAF did in support of Manhattan? - Dank (push to talk)
- Okay, it looks like the name "Silverplate" was used that way at that time. - Dank (push to talk)
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—This is an excellent article on an important topic and I think it satisfies the FAC criteria. My primary concerns were addressed. There are a couple of unaddressed concerns, but I can live with those. Thanks for your revisions. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—Overall excellent, but there are a few areas that I think need to be refined:
In the first paragraph of 'Origins', it looks like the authors are using some creative arrangement of the details. But to me the flow doesn't work very well. The writing implies that the reader should already know about the Einstein–Szilárd letter, then launches into an explanation. It should begin with the writing of the letter, then lead into the formation of the advisory committee.- Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk)
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, in Britain, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls...": needs a date to put 'meanwhile' in context."Oliphant goaded the Americans into action" requires clarification. The Americans were already "in action", as indicated by the earlier paragraphs.- Not sure about this. It says a proposal was made and an executive order was signed; that doesn't mean anything was happening. In the next paragraph, the project was approved, not long after Oliphant's goading, so I don't see anything in the writing that makes it implausible that he had an effect. - Dank (push to talk)
- Yes, but what effect is it talking about? Approval, planning and coordination are certainly activities. I think the article should better define "in action". RJH (talk)
- Hawkeye fiddled with these sentences; looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not clear how Oliphant persuaded the Americans. Was it because he met with the Uranium Committee and spoke with Lawrence? Who did eventually get the effort going? Nageh (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is hard to explain. Oliphant could be a very persuasive person, and once Lawrence got going his enthusiasm was enormous. All American accounts credit Oliphant with sparking the American effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, much clearer now. I did read it up eventually in a copy of the History of the US AEC book before incidentally discovering that it was the same source you were using. :) Nageh (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is hard to explain. Oliphant could be a very persuasive person, and once Lawrence got going his enthusiasm was enormous. All American accounts credit Oliphant with sparking the American effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not clear how Oliphant persuaded the Americans. Was it because he met with the Uranium Committee and spoke with Lawrence? Who did eventually get the effort going? Nageh (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye fiddled with these sentences; looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but what effect is it talking about? Approval, planning and coordination are certainly activities. I think the article should better define "in action". RJH (talk)
- Not sure about this. It says a proposal was made and an executive order was signed; that doesn't mean anything was happening. In the next paragraph, the project was approved, not long after Oliphant's goading, so I don't see anything in the writing that makes it implausible that he had an effect. - Dank (push to talk)
What is "the centrifuge project"? The three methods have already been listed.- Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk)
"Compton recommended Oppenheimer, who had two drawbacks." This reads as peculiar because it is normal to state the positive benefits of the choice before the liabilities. I.e. "X recommended Y, who was brilliant, a capable leader, and well-respected by the scientists. However, he had two drawbacks."- Tweaked. From memory, Hawkeye has previously pointed to his excellent reputation as a project manager. Hawkeye, is that covered in the sources cited? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he had no such experience. You have to remember that the scope of the bomb design was not foreseen to be as great as it later became. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. I was trying to remember: "... Oppenheimer was not known ... to be an efficient leader of large projects." I had it right except for the "not" :) What you've got now looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "total exclusion zone"?- Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...concerns that even Oak Ridge was too close to Knoxville...": this should clarify that it was "too close to a population center", rather than just to Knoxville in particular.- Done, and good call; your way requires just a little less effort for the readers to parse it. I left it alone when I saw it because I'm "over my limit" (and over Hawkeye's limit too, I suspect :) on minor tweaks designed to make the article just a little easier to read. This is one reason multiple copyeditors are a big plus. Btw, you're doing great. - Dank (push to talk)
"...about the poor access road and the water supply...": was the concern of the lack of a water supply?- Stet; I don't know what else "water supply" could mean here. - Dank (push to talk)
"...from the exchange process from...": doesn't make sense.- I tweaked it to "the exchange process water"; better? - Dank (push to talk)
- Hawkeye went with "the water". - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked it to "the exchange process water"; better? - Dank (push to talk)
What is "chromia"?- Linked. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "...later replaced by Bennett Lewis." When?
- "When" only matters if the changeover was significant in some way ... if there was some drama, or it made a difference. I don't think it would harm the text to include a date, but Wikipedia sometimes gets a little boring mentioning dates of no real significance, I think. - Dank (push to talk)
- If it doesn't matter, why mention it? The sentence already says Cockroft was the first director, implying a future change. RJH (talk)
- What would you like to see here? Would you prefer we not mention Lewis? - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can determine, Bennett Lewis took over in 1946. The lab was apparently closed the same year. If so, is it worth even mentioning him? RJH (talk)
- That does seem to be after the meat of this story; I removed "first" (which raised the question of who was second), and the mention of Lewis; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source says "The first director of the new laboratory was to be John Cockroft, although he was replaced before the first pile went critical by W. B. Lewis, who went on to dominate the Canadian nuclear scene for decades." Given the nature of the article, I thought that he should be mentioned. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That does seem to be after the meat of this story; I removed "first" (which raised the question of who was second), and the mention of Lewis; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can determine, Bennett Lewis took over in 1946. The lab was apparently closed the same year. If so, is it worth even mentioning him? RJH (talk)
- What would you like to see here? Would you prefer we not mention Lewis? - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't matter, why mention it? The sentence already says Cockroft was the first director, implying a future change. RJH (talk)
- "When" only matters if the changeover was significant in some way ... if there was some drama, or it made a difference. I don't think it would harm the text to include a date, but Wikipedia sometimes gets a little boring mentioning dates of no real significance, I think. - Dank (push to talk)
- They were part of the Manhattan Project. It included the Canadian effort. This had important ramifications for the US-Canada-UK relationship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...preferred design for the nuclear reactors were helium cooled...": Should 'design' be plural or 'were' singular?- Oops! I at least try to catch subject/verb agreement. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
"3 tons": was the unit in use? Normally an article on a scientific topic will use SI, per WP:UNITS. In the next section the text switches to using long tons, with metric tonnes in parentheses. Consistency would be good.- Yep, Hawkeye was working on these today. - Dank (push to talk)
"Edgar Sengier, the director of Union Minière du Haut Katanga, the mine owner." Should it not say "the owner and director of..."?- Nope. Tweaked to "the company that owned the mine". - Dank (push to talk)
- I'm not clear that the image gallery in the 'Ore' satisfies WP:IG. However, the {{Multiple image}} template could be used to move the images inline.
"...hybrid of the familiar laboratory mass spectrometer and cyclotron." Most readers will not be "familiar" with these devices. Please use a more appropriate word.- Oh, excellent point. Tweaked to "standard". - Dank (push to talk)
"It was reckoned that..." seems too folksy and may be WP:WEASEL.- I paused there too, for those two reasons. What made me go on was that "reckoned" is also used in non-folksy contexts ("he reckoned on the first bullet but not on the second"), and we've got a running battle in history articles over what constitutes excessive weaseliness, and I don't want to use my copyeditor role to get the last word in. But you're quite right to point out the possibility that reviewers may want attribution here (apart from the obvious advice: click on the cite for the attribution). - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye removed "it was reckoned that", and on reflection, you're both right and I'm wrong, as judged by the usual reactions from reviewers. I'll remove phrases like this in the future if the sentence can stand without them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I paused there too, for those two reasons. What made me go on was that "reckoned" is also used in non-folksy contexts ("he reckoned on the first bullet but not on the second"), and we've got a running battle in history articles over what constitutes excessive weaseliness, and I don't want to use my copyeditor role to get the last word in. But you're quite right to point out the possibility that reviewers may want attribution here (apart from the obvious advice: click on the cite for the attribution). - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Y-12 shipped its first few hundred grams of uranium enriched to between 13% and 15% uranium-235 to Los Alamos in March 1944": is an awkward sentence. Please re-write it.- Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk)
"...uranium-235 feed in by January 1945." An unnecessary 'in' here? Or perhaps 'fed in'?- I went with "feed", but maybe it should have been "fed in". - Dank (push to talk)
"Electro-deposited nickel mesh..." seems a little ambiguous. Is the mesh being electro-plated with nickel, or is the mesh being created by that process?- Hawkeye rewrote this; seems clear now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...which now only had to work with uranium-235...": this statement is puzzling to me. What did it "work" with before? Is this a reference to the idea of a plutonium gun device that was briefly mentioned in the lead? If so, the text should clarify this because plutonium is not covered until the next section.- Yes, that is right. I will re-word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Metallurgical Laboratory eventually developed an improved welding technique...": When?- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Modifications over time... in July 1944": is that 'by' July 1944?"It seemed that the reactor had a half-life..." seems to be WP:WEASEL.- Not really; obviously reactors do not have half-lives. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no. You can't expect all readers to understand that, nor to recognize what appears to be a physics joke. RJH (talk)
- I removed the "half-life" sentence ... feel free to revert, Hawkeye, but I think the readers got specific enough information in the previous two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that it needs to be removed; just attributed to somebody. Thanks. RJH (talk)
- The point is that the periodic nature of the problem provided the clue as to what was wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point you added about the xenon isotope's half-life made it clearer I think, Hawkeye. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that the periodic nature of the problem provided the clue as to what was wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that it needs to be removed; just attributed to somebody. Thanks. RJH (talk)
- I removed the "half-life" sentence ... feel free to revert, Hawkeye, but I think the readers got specific enough information in the previous two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no. You can't expect all readers to understand that, nor to recognize what appears to be a physics joke. RJH (talk)
- Not really; obviously reactors do not have half-lives. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"lanthanum fluoride" should be linked.- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...before settling on ... the fast explosive and ... slow explosive": I think this needs a little more clarification. Why are there two types of explosives?- Because. Read through the article on explosive lens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I don't think that will suffice. A reader shouldn't have to hunt in other articles for an explanation. It should be easy enough to include a brief explanation as a sentence clause. RJH (talk)
- I went with an extra clause, feel free to tweak: "fast and slow explosives were needed to focus the compression wave on the spherical core."
- That's fine. It really took a von Neumann to think of this. My approach would have been like Neddermeyer, who used explosives to crush a cylinder into something resembling a rock. This is not good enough though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went with an extra clause, feel free to tweak: "fast and slow explosives were needed to focus the compression wave on the spherical core."
- Sorry but I don't think that will suffice. A reader shouldn't have to hunt in other articles for an explanation. It should be easy enough to include a brief explanation as a sentence clause. RJH (talk)
- Because. Read through the article on explosive lens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Between January 1943 and June 1945, there were 62 fatalities and 3,879 disabling injuries, which was about 62 percent below that of private industry." Wait, what? Is this a comparison by rate, or by total? is it compared to a specific industry? It's difficult to believe that private industry killed more 62 people out of 129,000 every two years. But perhaps I'm mistaken.- Comparison rate. (added) Yes, you're mistaken. In 2009, the fatality rate in the United States was 3.3 per 100,000 workers per year. So a similar project today would expect 3.3 x 1.29 x 2.5 = 11 fatalities. But things were more dangerous in the 1940s. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Legacy section, the association between the "Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory" and the Manhattan Project is unclear. It is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and it does not appear on the Project sites map.- The radLab? It appears in the electromagnetism section. Decided to link it down the bottom too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work RJ. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please check ISBN formatting consistency. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they are inconsistent of course. Ran a script that makes them all the same. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the Physics WikiProject on this FAC well before the restart; can anyone confirm whether anyone from WP Physics has been by? If not, they had their notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked user pages of folks who have weighed in after the restart; no one is obviously a member of PHYSICS, though Orlady has personal knowledge of Oak Ridge, and RJHall is a member of the Astronomy project. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In References, Hewlett and Hansen are wikilinked twice. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have all concerns been addressed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding a link to the annotated bibliography for the Manhattan Project from the ALSOS Digital Library for Nuclear Issues (http://alsos.wlu.edu/qsearch.aspx?browse=warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summaryfare/Manhattan_Project)- Frank Settle fsettle@wlu.edu
- Added. You guys do a great job. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2011 (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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:30, 21 July 2011 [37].
- Nominator(s): PresN 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I'm back with what shockingly appears to be another indie video game. Super Meat Boy, indie darling of this past fall/winter, is a recent GA, has been given a good copy-edit scrubbing by Diannaa of the WP:GOCE, has all of its refs working and archived and using the new |deadurl=no, has alt text, and no redirects. It's ready to be mercilessly torn apart for obvious flaws that I should have seen myself! Oh, and I guess I'm still in the Wikicup? I'll be submitting this for points if this passes while I'm still "competing". --PresN 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Why link Twitter in FN 23 and not FN 18?
- FN 25: spelling of author's name doesn't match source
- FN 45: UK shouldn't be italicized
- FN 46: PC Gamer should be italicized. Check for other italicization errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues fixed, and I ran through it checking for italics errors. Cite and statement it was referencing removed, could have sworn I did that earlier. Thanks for the review! --PresN 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media checks out; nice work on the thorough rationales. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through-
- "Team Meat" - worth a redlink?
- I don't believe so; they've only made this one game, and both of the designers have their own articles- an article on the group would just be a three-way copypaste job. --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "follows Meat Boy" A couple of words explaining who the character is?
- "Hidden warp zones are accessed by finding portals in specific levels. These feature retro-styled bonus levels, which have a limit of three lives or are patterned after another video game." The terms "warp zone" and "retro-styled bonus levels" are not all that accessible. Also, is that meant to be "or"? As in, are all of them either three lives only or "patterned after another video game"?
- "Clearing certain warp zones or collecting enough bandages, which are hidden within the game's levels, unlocks guest characters from other indie games.[5] A replay function that can be accessed after a level has been completed shows all the player's attempts at completing the level simultaneously.[6]" The sentences do not appear to be linked to one another.
- Para three of gameplay, you mention "the portal", but only explain it later.
- "These characters can be unlocked by collecting enough bandages or completing certain warp zones." You've already mentioned this; perhaps mention of the bonus characters should be kept out of the main gameplay section?
- Commander Video doesn't seem to link to an article on a character as such
- That is one strange article; it does- last sentence of the lead and the section "The Character" --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the non-linked games worth redlinks?
- "It has currently garnered over 840,000 views at Newgrounds, and 8 million overall, since its release." Sourced to a fairly old article- perhaps "as of"?
- "the game; the game" Repetition
- "McMillen and Refenes live on opposite sides of America" Probably should be shifted to past tense. Where they live now is not important.
- "The game includes over 300 levels.[3]" Already mentioned.
- "The next day they announced that while all versions would be released in the same month, the game would be released for XBLA first due to "contractual obligations".[18] The developers were contacted by Microsoft in August 2010 with the prospect of a promotion for the game at Microsoft's 2010 Fall GameFeast XBLA promotion." So they had contractual obligations before signing the contract with Microsoft?
- Tried to clarify- it was contracted to come out for XBLA when it was done; the promotional thing was an additional thing proposed later, not part of the original contract. --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Due to Microsoft's low expectations for the game, Super Meat Boy was only lightly promoted, despite greatly outselling all of the other games in the GameFeast event." This implies the promotion came after the heavy selling.
- Last para of development is a little choppy.
- "for Canabalt and Gravity Hook" What are these, and why should we care?
- "on Bandcamp" What is this?
- "It won and was nominated for awards at Penny Arcade Expo 2010," Is it worth mentioning which ones?
- "TheSteam" Typo? Link?
- "and added," Unwarranted comma?
- "The reviewer from GameTrailers" Implies we should already know about them. "A reviewer writing for" perhaps?
- "other reviewers comments" Apostrophe!
- "game's precise control, excellent level design, and smooth difficulty curve." Without quote marks, this implies that we are endorsing that opinion
- "Official Xbox Magazine (UK)'s" "(UK)" is not part of the title, surely?
- Which is why (UK) is not italicized; this was only fixed 2 hours before you posted this review, so it may have still been there. --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You link warp zone in reception, but haven't previously?
- Should not be linked; that article uses a different definition of warp zone than this game. --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Like other characters in the game, Meat Boy has appeared in other games" I had to reread this before I understood
Very nice article generally, I suspect it will soon make a great FA. Furthermore, sounds like a game I'd really enjoy. Good work! J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all of these issues. As a courtesy to the delegates, I've only replied inline when I had a more substantive comment than "Fixed". Thanks for the review! --PresN 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'm close to supporting, but I just want to make sure that the gameplay section is as smooth as can be.
- "Completing a level within a certain time will earn an "A+" grade, which unlocks a harder alternate level in the "dark world"." What's the dark world? How is the level related to the one that has been completed, if at all?
- Again, sorry, the phrase "retro-styled bonus levels" is not so accessible
- "The Xbox Live Arcade version features an unlockable mode called "Teh Internets", which is freely updated with new levels." Official new levels?
- What's the difference between the level editor and the developer modes?
- "These characters can be unlocked by collecting enough bandages" The bandages are presumably items found in the levels?
Good work so far. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed these last 5 points; sorry for taking so long, I was out of town/busy. --PresN 20:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I feel this article is ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple "quick" comments: — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "through over 300 levels filled with deadly hazards." to "through over 300 hazardous levels." (or deadly or synonym) -- "deadly" and "hazards" are tautologies, plus "filled with" passive voice can be substituted with an adjective. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gameplay section should start off by saying it is a platform game, as that is the main fact about what the game is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "which is freely updated with new officially curated levels" -- I am not sure "freely" can be used as an adverb this way. "Freely" implies "easily". So perhaps "which is updated with new free officially curated levels"? Although I realize it bunches up adjectives a lot. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is "bandage" in "bandage items" links and not the item (or perhaps the whole phrase)? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "McMillen and Jonathan McEntee's flash game" and "The original Meat Boy is a Flash game" -- it should probably spell out Adobe Flash game (at least on first occurrence) and not easter egg link to "browser game", which is a superset of flash game. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The game was initially set to include around 100 levels, and to have both co-operative and competitive multiplayer modes" -- Cooperative gameplay could be wikilinked. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "evoking the aesthetics" -- you cannot "evoke" aesthetics. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would WP:TRADEMARK capitalization guide apply to "Super Meat Boy HANDHELD"? Although I prefer as it is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the game's soundtrack was released as a download-only album via the online" -- "download-only" can be wikilinked to digital distribution — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Xbox 360 version of the game currently has an aggregate score of 90/100 at Metacritic and 90.41% at GameRankings.[39][37] The Windows version has similar scores, with a 91.25% at GameRankings and 88/100 at Metacritic.[38][36]" -- ref order — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "as well as in the XBLA game ilomilo." -- italics for game name. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, your reviews are always very helpful! Addressed all of the above points. --PresN 02:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. PresN is clearly keeping this article up to a high standard.--SexyKick 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's the start of my review. It's going to be nit-picky.
- "Super Meat Boy is a platformer indie game developed by Team Meat, designed by Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes." -- This is fairly minor, but, since it's the first sentence, I've got to bring it up. "... Team Meat, designed by ..." is clunky. Try "designed by Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes and developed by Team Meat".
- Day-month-year dates in lead sections are difficult reading. Cutting it down to month-year or even just the year is enough for the general reader. If they want more, the infobox or the rest of the article will provide it.
- The lead doesn't contain enough on the Music section. In fact, I'd say that it doesn't contain enough material related to the Gameplay or Development sections, either.
- "Players control a small, skinless, cube-shaped character named Meat Boy as he attempts to rescue his girlfriend, Bandage Girl, from the villainous Dr. Fetus through over 300 hazardous levels." -- "Players control Meat Boy, a skinless, cube-shaped character, as he attempts to rescue his girlfriend, Bandage Girl, from the villainous Dr. Fetus. The game contains over 300 levels and [another important gameplay element, to add more connection to the Gameplay section]."
- "The game received acclaim from critics. In 2010 it received an award" -- unnecessary double "received". Could be fixed by changing the first sentence to "was acclaimed by critics". A comma would be preferable in between "2010" and "it".
- "not all consumers would appreciate the difficult levels." -- "not all players would appreciate the level of difficulty" would be better.
- "multiple chapters" -- "multiple" is redundant, since the "s" on the end of "chapters" already tells us that more than one is present.
- "The player can jump and run and can jump off or slide down walls." -- I can't think of a clean way to rephrase this without a complete rewrite, but it's difficult reading as-is.
- "The core gameplay, requiring fine control and split-second timing, has ..." -- "The core gameplay requires fine control and split-second timing, and has ..."
- "new free" -- "new, free".
- "which players have created" -- unnecessary double "which"; change this one to a "that".
- "The level editor features a level portal where users can upload created levels." -- We were already told that PC users could access user-created levels a few sentences back. I recommend merging this sentence into the first one.
- "Along with Meat Boy, there are several unlockable characters appearing from various video games, generally from other indie games." -- "The player may control characters other than Meat Boy, many of whom first appeared in other indie video games."
- "enough bandage items placed ..." -- "enough" is redundant.
- "Some bandages can only be collected by using certain characters. Some levels ..." -- "Some bandages can only be collected by using certain characters, and some levels ..."
- That's all I've got for tonight. Sorry I couldn't do the whole article, but I'm getting too tired to focus. I'll try to pull together the rest of my review tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed all of part 1; not responding inline so as not to clutter up the page. --PresN 19:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Part two:
- The amount of "McMillen"s is a bit jarring. Try changing "McMillen's Flash games" to "his Flash games" and "McMillen was working" to "he was working".
- "to come up with something that felt fluid and logical" -- Too informal and vague. Try "to find one that felt fluid and logical".
- "The pair designed the game to be deliberately "retro", imitating the aesthetics of traditional platform games, but with a modern sensibility regarding difficulty: rather than a frustrating type of difficulty, they wanted the game to be rewarding and challenging; to this end they included infinite lives, quick restarts of levels, obvious goals, and short levels." -- This is quite a snake. Try chopping it up into two, maybe three sentences.
- "This was pushed back" -- "The release date was pushed back"
- "extra levels in form of the dark worlds" -- There's a missing word in there, but I'm not sure merely adding it would fix this. But, for some reason, I can't think of a solution right now.
- "February 22, 2010, revealed" -- Second comma should be removed.
- "The next day they announced that while all versions would be released in the same month, the game would be released for XBLA first due to "contractual obligations"." -- "The next day, they announced that, while all versions would be released in the same month, the game would be released for XBLA first because of "contractual obligations"."
- "The developers were contacted by Microsoft in August 2010 with the prospect of a promotion for the game at Microsoft's 2010 Fall GameFeast XBLA promotion if the game was finished by then." -- Run-on with an unnecessary double "promotion". Needs restructuring.
- complete on the game, so for the final two months they worked daily, slept" -- "complete on the game, so, for the final two months, they worked daily, slept"
- "The PC release went smoother from a promotional standpoint, but highlighted many hardware-related bugs that had been missed in testing that were quickly fixed." -- I don't really understand what this sentence means. How did it go smoother? Also, the "highlighted many hardware-related bugs that had been missed in testing that were quickly fixed" confuses me, on top of being a strange run-on. I don't understand it well enough to offer a suggestion, though.
- Both "Due to Sony's" and "due to the challenge" need to be "because of" or "as a result of".
- "pulled from the removed from the from the iTunes store" -- Surprised the copyeditor didn't see this.
- "into an expanded and cohesive soundtrack" -- Sounds a bit POV when phrased like this. Clarifying the meaning would probably alleviate the issue.
- I'll have part 3 up later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Address all of part 2; again not commenting inline to keep the size down. --PresN 19:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a few tweaks to shorten the review. Here's part three:
- "Sales have been strong, with the Xbox 360 version moving nearly 140,000 units by the end of 2010." -- "have been" is a quickly-dated term on Wikipedia. I recommend changing the phrasing to be more timeless. Also, "moving" isn't the best word to use for a digitally distributed game.
- "Critics praised the game's platform elements, with specific commentary often directed at the game's difficulty." -- "Critics praised Super Meat Boy's platforming elements, and often commented on the game's difficulty."
- "Gilbert specifically cited the level of difficulty as the reason for not giving the game a perfect score, as while it was the core of the game, it made it inaccessible to some players." -- "Gilbert cited the level of difficulty, which he believed made the game inaccessible to some players, as his reason for not awarding the game a perfect score."
- "unique retro art style" -- Perhaps "unique, retro art direction". There might be a better way.
- "noted that the game's visual presentation is unique" -- "noted the uniqueness of the game's visual presentation"
- "classic 8-bit games. He lauded the game's soundtrack" -- "class 8-bit games, and lauded the game's soundtrack". Also, go ahead and axe the "he stated".
- Everyone's "stating" things in this paragraph. It starts standing out around Holmes' quote, so try changing that to "wrote".
- "December 1, 2010, to promote" -- Second comma goes.
- That's all I noticed. Content looks solid, sources seem fine, FURs are good, etc. A few prose tweaks and a beefier lead are all that's needed for me to support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed all of part 3. I'd like to apologize; this article isn't up to my usual standards and I'm feeling a bit embarrassed about all of the obvious prose flaws you and others keep finding. --PresN 19:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - based just up the number of issues I found with the lead, which is all but one of the points below. The additional one is a very serious criticism - response would be interesting.
- It would be worth adopting the full version of "platformer indie game". More encyclopedic language and more reader-friendly.
- Sure, done. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that Meat Boy is as notable as Super Meat Boy. So link it, even if it's a redlink.
- Why do you assume that? But sure, linked.
- Meat Boy is a flash game, but Super Meat Boy is a...? Or is the mention of flash too detailed for the lead?
- Is a PC and Xbox Live game. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be my lack of technical knowledge. I perceived Flash as a software and the others as hardware. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a "skinless" character?
- A character without skin. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still none the wiser. Is Pacman a character with or without skin? What difference does the skin/lack of make, ie how is it perceived, why is it important etc? I'm not being pedantic here, I genuinely don't understand. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the original description came from McMillen specifically countering PETA that the character was "made of meat", saying that he was instead "skinless"; I don't think it's that important, though, so if it's confusing I'll just change it to "red". I don't think readers are that bothered by McMillen's odd character design quirks. --PresN 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Red definitely does work, lol. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS says "Dr", not "Dr."
- It actually doesn't. It says to use "Doctor". Except that the character's name is "Dr. Fetus". --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Puzzled by your first two sentences, but your third is 100% persuasive. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "300 hazardous levels" sounds like sales speak and certainly breaches peacock at least, if not NPOV. If it's from their sales patter, source and quote.
- Adjectives won't kill you, you know. But removed, thanks for the insinuation that I'm plagiarizing. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. Sorry, rereading it, it does seem that I was insinuating it, but I assue you I wasn't. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of the game is that it is hard. So that should be given some mention in the Gameplay section. The particular phrase was also addressed above already, and is a rather precise description of the game's levels. So perhaps we can keep the adjective, but add some of existing references from Reception where reviewers call the levels/game hard? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a good option. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "an award" should be plural, as it becomes the subject of several bodies who have made awards
- Done.
- personal preference for the encyclopedic language of "although" over "though".
- Is it more encyclopedic or just your personal preference? But done. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, apologies, I could have been clearer, that IMO it's more encylopedic language. At least I was clear that it was a personal preference! --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "unique retro art style" The last word is redundant. The first is peacock unless a quote and in any case is a word to avoid in good writing (anything that's not a direct copy is "unique")
- Fixed. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Either reference everything in the lead (some peoples' preference) or nothing (mine). Either works. Minor bits of referencing looks like either you've included unreferenced material, or you have material in the lead that's not mentioned in the body. Both alternatives are Bad.
- Done. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 600,000 copies... worldwide?
- Since I didn't state a region, stating worldwide would be redundant. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is very short for a Featured Article candidate.
- I'll see what I can do. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another paragraph or so, in regards to this and Blackwing's point above. --PresN 19:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd expect a proper section detailing sales worldwide to meet our criteria of comprehensiveness - is there a reason this isn't included?
- All of the information that is available is there, in the Reception. Those two sentences, saying how much it has sold by date x. Pretty much no video game FA has more, as such data is generally not made publicly available. --PresN 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, you should give the rest of the article a read. I agree that the lead is rough, but it isn't representative of the article's quality. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, happy to do so. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, sections about the sales of a game are only necessary if a large amount of coverage is available. Most VG FACs do not have such sections. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an online distributed indie game through Steam and XBLA, so "worldwide" has little meaning in this context. Both distributors don't offer public sale breakdown by region and there is not enough material for such a section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that I redirected Meat Boy to Super Meat Boy as the former is a plausible search term, but at this time does not have an article and is perhaps not notable beyond being the basis for to Super Meat Boy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it may not be notable, then the redirect is a good idea, and of course there's then no need to include the link in the article as a redirect. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes. I take the point that the rest of the article may be in better shape. I'll review when I can. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now—I've gone through and made some minor tweaks, so the prose looks good to my eye. However I did a random spot check on some of the sources, current refs 1,2,5,10, and 15, and I found some discrepancies, for example:
- "The game is divided into multiple chapters, which together contain over 300 levels."→"multiple chapters" division not supported by [38] (2)
- "Along with Meat Boy, there are several unlockable characters appearing from various video games, generally from other indie games"→"indie characters" not supported by [39] (5)
- "Players must guide Meat Boy to the end of each level while avoiding buzzsaws, salt, and various other fatal obstacles. The player can jump and run and can jump off or slide down walls. The core gameplay, requiring fine control and split-second timing, has been compared to traditional platform games such as Mega Man and N."→Doesn't mention salt, doesn't mention "N" by name as far as I can see.
- More checks may be warranted, especially in the gameplay section.
- What about some of the complaints of the game? Sure, it was mostly positive, but there were still less-positive comments—IGN, for example, noted that the cut scenes showed the lack of production value[40], PC Gamers noted minor bugs[41], and Games Radar pointed out that while he felt the game earned the right to be insanely difficult, it could still turn off some players[42]. Considering the Edge review is the lowest score I could find (8/10) I think you could do with adding those reviewers' comments to the mix (X201 might have a copy, although unfortunately I can't use the database to find exactly when the review was done so you'll have to make an educated guess.
- Ugh, sorry about that. Your above concerns have all been addressed. All of the points were there in the refs- "chapters" was covered by ref 5, "indie game characters" by ref 2, "N" by the MTV review, etc., but the right refs weren't covering the right sentences. I'll go through the gameplay section line by line this afternoon to make sure that I didn't transpose facts between refs anywhere else. Some negative reception has been added by SCB below; I'll find some more as well. --PresN 19:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article looks more than enough to be a featured article. I've added some of the reviewers complaints of the game in the reception section with sources. I've also fixed the sources that support "indie games" being written; changed "salt" to "crumbling blocks" and changed "N" to "Ghosts 'n Goblin"-SCB '92 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for that! --PresN 19:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My concerns have been addressed. The article looks good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotchecks
- From this source I've found close paraphrasing that needs rewriting, and am having trouble with source verification:
- article says:Players must guide Meat Boy to the end of each level while avoiding buzzsaws, crumbling blocks, and various other fatal obstacles.
- The source says: In Meat Boy you must guide the protagonist through an increasingly difficult series of (often) vertical scrolling levels filled with crumbling blocks, spinning saw blades, and other deadly obstacles.
- The article says: The game was initially set to include around 100 levels, and to have both co-operative and competitive multiplayer modes. However, the multiplayer option was dropped in favor of increasing the number of levels. The source says 100 levels have been developed and multi-player functionality is expected to be added; it doesn't say one was sacrificed for the other.
- The article says: The core gameplay requires fine control and split-second timing, and has been compared to traditional platform games such as Mega Man and Ghosts 'n Goblins. I can't find anything in the source about the timing, and I think the bit about being compared is off - the developer said he wanted it to be a recreation of those games (in other words they inspired this game), which is different, in my view.
Will check a few more as soon as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This source is a video, which should be indicated in the cites.
- From this source in the article is written, Completing a level within a certain time earns an "A+" grade, which unlocks a harder alternate version of the level in the "dark world", an optional set of difficult levels. Hidden stages called warp zones are accessed by finding portals in specific levels. These warp zones feature bonus levels that have either the art style of older video games and a limit of three lives, or are patterned after another indie video game.[2]. Although in quotation marks, "dark world" isn't mentioned in the source. According to the source the player has to get a "grade A", not A+, to access the alt levels. According to the source all of the alt (warp) levels are retro style. To access the alt levels the source say "with a Grade A they'll unlock the alternate expert version of that level" which is slightly too close to our version of " an "A+" grade, which unlocks a harder alternate version"
- This source is a blog. What makes it reliable? Also in this source the OP says the development mode (dev mode) is buggy and rough - doesn't mention tools. The article says, Players can also access an unsupported developer mode inside the game to edit their own levels using the "rough" tools that Team Meat used to create the game - I'd suggest rewording this per the source a bit.
- Ref 9 is also a blog. It seems to be published by the game developers, so again, why is it reliable? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1.c. About 15 or so refs (about 25 percent of the refs) are pages from the blog Team Meat which appears to be written by the game developers, which is an over-reliance on a questionable primary source. Try to find the information from these pages in more reliable secondary sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The game developers are a questionable source??? They're the "experts" at the knowledge of the internals of the game, there is no way that should be considered unreliable. There are some of the announcements that they have in this that could be replaced with sourced coverage from other media (for example, I'm pretty sure the availability of the physical soundtrack was noted across other vg sites), but when they are talking about specific design elements and decisions for the game, there is absolutely nothing wrong with their own blog as the source, since if there are news stories, they are going to be likely pointing right back to that blog. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to speak for Truthkeeper, but I'd say the issue is not that this source is likely to contain errors, but that it's a primary source - we tend to prefer secondary sources for FAs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikkimaria, basically that's what I'm driving at. I see a couple of problems that need to be resolved before I can strike the oppose.
- I'd consider this a primary source because the developers themselves produced it. Also, because I can't find a publisher for the site, I'm concerned it might be a publicity site. And finally, it could fall under WP:SPS. I think used sparingly I might say okay, but am on the fence in that regard, but for a page to rely so heavily on a questionable source is problematic, and needs to be resolved to some extent.
- The few spotchecks I did showed some close paraphrasing that needs to be rewritten. I've only looked at a few sources and noted what I found.
- In the instances I noted there are discrepancies between the source and the article. These need to be resolved.
- I've stopped spotchecking until the existing issues, which I consider actionable and easily taken care, have been resolved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that over-reliance on the primary sources can be a problem normally; I know several can be replaced as they are just news items (soundtrack release, etc.), but I don't think all of them can be, and may leave, say, 8-10 of them still in place. The point I question is the issue of being reliable, as the confirmed developers of the game are the most reliable source on its creation. While some of what Team Meat has stated has then been duplicated by third-party sources, this doesn't change the reliability of the original info to begin with. And sometimes, these development aspects are just not covered by third-parties (not necessarily the case here, but moreso for any indie games to begin with). --MASEM (t) 18:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that primary sources are critical to almost every video game FA. Only the biggest games receive secondary coverage of their development cycles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, my question is whether we're making an exception for video games? Normally I write about books, but many of the modern books I like to write about only receive coverage on blogs and such, and I'd consider an author blog to be unreliable. I don't really see the difference between an author blog and a game developer blog - unless I'm missing something. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Busy at work, I'll get to your issues soon, but just wanted to interject- so, in your opinion, if the developer says "I did blah while making this game(/book)" it would be unreliable, but if a journalist asked them in an interview and they said "I did blah", that would be reliable? Because in both cases- heck, in all cases- the information has to come from the devs; no one else could possible know anything about the game's development other than the people who were there. Primary sources can't be used for notability/importance, and you're probably right that I'm relying on them too much (25% is high), but I don't see how they could not be used to verify facts about things that only they could know about. --PresN 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, my question is whether we're making an exception for video games? Normally I write about books, but many of the modern books I like to write about only receive coverage on blogs and such, and I'd consider an author blog to be unreliable. I don't really see the difference between an author blog and a game developer blog - unless I'm missing something. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that primary sources are critical to almost every video game FA. Only the biggest games receive secondary coverage of their development cycles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nikkimaria, basically that's what I'm driving at. I see a couple of problems that need to be resolved before I can strike the oppose.
- Not to speak for Truthkeeper, but I'd say the issue is not that this source is likely to contain errors, but that it's a primary source - we tend to prefer secondary sources for FAs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The game developers are a questionable source??? They're the "experts" at the knowledge of the internals of the game, there is no way that should be considered unreliable. There are some of the announcements that they have in this that could be replaced with sourced coverage from other media (for example, I'm pretty sure the availability of the physical soundtrack was noted across other vg sites), but when they are talking about specific design elements and decisions for the game, there is absolutely nothing wrong with their own blog as the source, since if there are news stories, they are going to be likely pointing right back to that blog. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have yet to read the full article, but something that caught my eye was the list of playable characters. I would call such content game guide info. I suggest summarizing the content. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:58, 19 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [43].
- Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cuisine of Madagascar is distinctive and diverse, and reflects the island's unique history as a crossroads of the Indian ocean. This is the second FAC run for this article, which if promoted would become the first Featured Article on a cultural/historical topic related to Madagascar. This is a very underrepresented area on Wikipedia. All the changes proposed during the first FAC run have been made and I believe the article is ready to be promoted. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing bibliographic info for Bradt 2010
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Nativel's co-author Faranirina Rajaonah or Rajaonah Faranirina? Check for consistency.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how you notate author/editor of larger works (ie. "In...")
- I can't seem to make the Martin ref match the others (using "In...") because the volume doesn't have an editor name provided. The only way to do this would be to create a manual reference. Is that how you'd like me to handle it, or do you know another way? Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the Martin ref is fine as-is (except for the malformatted page range). What I was looking at was the author/editor name format on refs that already use "In..." - for example, "In Ade Ajayi" vs "In Reade, Julian". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the page range issue for Martin. The editor name format is in fact consistent - the full name of the editor in question is Jacob Festus Ade Ajayi, so it is in fact showing his last name, (comma) first name. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure all foreign-language sources (like FN 52) are notated as such.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (GermanJoe) - no dabs, no broken links. Interesting, comprehensive article with solid prose and referencing. One small question though:
- Lead states "Throughout almost the entire island, the contemporary cuisine of Madagascar consists of a base of rice" and "In parts of the arid south, pastoral families may replace rice with maize, cassava and curds made from fermented zebu milk.". However section 'contemporary cuisine' states "Throughout the country, rice is considered the preeminent food and constitutes the main staple of the diet in all but the most arid regions of the south and west." (emphasis mine) ==> One of the statements seems inaccurate, what's the situation in the west for the lead? GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch - the region in question is broadly the southwestern region, but because these are pastoral people they migrate in both directions (south and west). Now both points in the article read "south and west". Lemurbaby (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated Vote, after another read-through. Good work with the article. 2 small niggles not affecting vote:
- 1650-1800 "The prickly pear cactus (raketa), also known in southern Madagascar as sakafon-drano ("water food"), was brought from the New World ..." ==> "the New World" could mean a whole continent or more and is kind of vague here (and the similarly vague linked article doesn't help). Do your sources name the area of origin more specifically?
- Unfortunately not, probably because it was brought over during that period of the trans-Atlantic slave trade when ships might stop at numerous ports in the Americas collecting produce etc before returning to Africa. It seems the circumstances of the introduction of this particular plant to Madagascar are unknown. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- laoka "...; other variations on the achard are found throughout Southeast Asia where they are known by variant names such as acar or achar." ==> the whole phrase is slightly off-focus and could be removed completely without loosing content for Madagasy cuisine itself. GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks for the support vote! Lemurbaby (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't there anything more recent than 1935 for the history section? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything more recent is discussed in the Contemporary section. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I provided a thorough review during the first FAC nomination of this article. All of my concerns were addressed then, and I see nothing that would cause me to change my support this time around. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead must not contain any references, as it only summarizes the information given below. TGilmour (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that comment regarding the reference on the photo caption in the lead? I didn't see any refs in the actual text part of the lead but perhaps my eye is missing it. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TGilmour, that information is incorrect; please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned... will this be promoted with only two supporting votes and no opposing votes?Lemurbaby (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- You're looking for 3 or more supports, but the reviewers also need to indicate that they've given the article a thorough review. Any opposes would have to find important flaws in the article, and you would have to fail to address them. As long as you address all concerns, here and/or in the article, you should be fine. Unfortunately, getting reviews is tough for everyone. And being new to the FAC process makes it harder because you probably feel uncomfortable doing your own reviews. At this point, I'd say that it's best to jump on in, carefully read the FAC criteria, and start doing some reviews to the best of your ability. If you're lucky, this and your future FACs may receive more traffic as a result. At least that's the theory. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments Close to support, and it's good to have a food and drink article, but some niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Names of countries, including Madagascar, should not be linked
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking. Are readers really going to need a link to onion, tomato etc. I've removed a few, but there plenty more unnecessary links including repeats of some I delinked
- Fixed. As regards ingredients, I only retained links to those that might not be immediately known by an Anglophone 5th-grader. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Inconsistency in giving local names for non-native ingredients. Why rice, beef and prickly pear, but not tomato and ginger? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I'd suggest sticking to Madagascan names only for endemic ingredients and dishes
- Fixed, I think. After a read-through, I've kept the local names for dishes and for ingredients that are somewhat less common in the grocery stores of Anglophone countries. Note that oftentimes the name of a dish is simply the name of the primary ingredient, which is why I provide the local names for things like fish, beef, eel etc. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overuse of italics. I would suggest that biryani, croissant etc are Anglicised enough not to need italics. It's also inconsistent — why are samosa and vinaigrette spared?
- Fixed. I switched to using italics on the first use of foreign non-Anglicised words only. I have to remark, however, that it makes for a somewhat humorous effect when it comes to the word mofo (even if the word in Malagasy is pronounced "moof"). Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the reviewers: I'm noticing the need for greater consistency in providing the pronunciation of Malagasy-language terms. After comparison with other GA food and drink articles, I'm seeing the pronunciation is not provided throughout the article. However, these examples are all Romance language-based (i.e. French cuisine, Italian cuisine, even Mayan cuisine uses Spanish for the most part), where most Anglophone readers will know basically how the words should sound. This isn't the case with Malagasy words where the pronunciation is not self-evident (i.e. "o" is pronounced "oo"). Part of me feels it's important for people to know how to say these words correctly, but that means adding in even more descriptive pronunciation in places where it's currently been omitted. Please advise. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I am fine with adding more pronounciation, but agree it is only really needed for the non-European / Malagasy names. Could these be added as notes perhaps? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the rest of the pronunciation. I could do them as notes but would like a second opinion on that before going forward with the change. Is this how pronunciation issues have been handled in other articles? If there is a precedent I wouldn't hesitate. I guess that's what it comes down to - I feel like we're setting a precedent here so we need to figure out how it should be done (unless someone is aware of how a similar situation was dealt with before). Lemurbaby (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with adding more pronounciation, but agree it is only really needed for the non-European / Malagasy names. Could these be added as notes perhaps? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did a copyedit on this article a while back and it has improved since then. Comprehensive and well structured with more than adequate referencing. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did a peer review on this some time ago and on re-reading it just now I find it is even better now, and that it fully meets the FA criteria. My only quibble is that the addition of pronunciation is not done consistently - sometimes the IPA are in square brackets and parentheses like "rum (toaka gasy [ˌtokə̥ ˈɡasʲ])", while others are only in square brackets like "rum, called betsabetsa [ˌbetsəˈbetsə̥],". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I believe. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review I reviewed all of the images in the article and they are all freely licensed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (cont'd):
- Have spotchecks been done? Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to do this myself, and got stalled on this source. Perhaps I'm using the search function wrong, but I couldn't find any of the words in the text cited in the source (canoe, outrigger, etc), and I get the impression the paper is about a hypothesis, but we see statements of fact in the text. Can someone clarify, and point out the exact sentences from the source used to support the text cited?
- In their outrigger canoes they carried food staples from home including rice, plantains, taro, and water yam.[4] Sugarcane, ginger, sweet potatoes, pigs and chickens were also probably brought to Madagascar by these first settlers, along with coconut and banana.[4]
- Next I tried to check pages 107 to 111 here, but they aren't in the preview, so I'm afraid I made no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried searching the first source Sandy mentioned and it is not searchable at all (even words like Ocean and the author's last name came up as not found). I read 9 of the first 23 pages and it discusses plantains, taro, water yam and and Autronesians carrying them with them in their boats. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Next I tried to check pages 107 to 111 here, but they aren't in the preview, so I'm afraid I made no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, I see a mixture of spaced endashes and unspaced emdashes in the article text-- pls be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed use of n- and m-dashes in line with MoS guidance. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead comments:
- "Malagasy cuisine encompasses the many diverse culinary traditions of the Indian Ocean island of Madagascar, each reflecting various degrees of influence from the Southeast Asian, African, Indian, Chinese and European migrants that have settled on the island since it was first populated by seafarers from Borneo between 100 CE and 500 CE." This is a massive sentence. I am of the opinion that there are far too many ideas being crammed into one sentence, which is particularly problematic since this is the illustrious opening sentence. Considering that the lead is meant to give a broad overview of the subject, is it necessary to mention when the island was first populated? I think not.
- It's a long sentence but not a run-on. I personally like it as a lead, but maybe others would like to propose something else? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the population date, it does seem important as well since Madagascar was the last major landmass to be populated by people, and quite recently too, which has had an impact on how long the cuisine has had to develop. How would you like to see this handled? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a long sentence but not a run-on. I personally like it as a lead, but maybe others would like to propose something else? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "which contributed to the extinction of the island's megafauna." Is this relevant to a cuisine article? Perhaps, but not so important that it should be mentioned in an already massive lead.
- One of the distinguishing features of Madagascar is its unique ecological diversity and endemism. In fact, I would suspect most people looking for information about Madagascar are looking to learn about the animals, not the people (there are many FA-grade articles on Malagasy animals, for example, but this will be the first related to culture). I think this is a point of interest for readers and a good hook to keep them reading as well. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From my experience, it is not common practice to include the pronunciation of foreign words with the exception of the title of the article. I particularly disagree with the inclusion of vary; if this were a particular variety of rice, its inclusion would be logical, but as far as I can tell, vary is simply the Malagasy word for rice.
- There is no way to overstate how important rice is in the local diet. It really IS the meal, every meal, every day, and as such merits translation - laoka is just a bonus. Additionally, I explain the translation of "to eat" as "to eat rice", and translating vary allows the reader to potentially draw the connection with the translation of the verb (in theory) - mihinam-BARY - particularly if they click through to the article on Malagasy language and see that V becomes B in some contexts.
- As far as pronunciation, it's true that no other FA-grade cuisine article has pronunciation throughout like this. At the same time, the others are written using languages more English-speaking readers are likely to be familiar with (i.e. Romance languages) so pronunciation is less likely to matter. Spoken Malagasy is often so far from how it's written that readers are going to read it through and hear the incorrect pronunciation in their minds. I guess the question is, what's worse, unusual inclusion of translation or incomplete learning by way of wrong mental pronunciation? I could go either way but I think it's a point worth discussing all together. As I mention above we are possibly setting a precedent here by including the pronunciation throughout so we need to discuss collectively whether and how it should be done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In parts of the arid south and west, pastoral families may replace rice with maize," This reads like a suggestion for the reader rather than a summary of what actually happens. I suggest replacing "may" with "often", "sometimes", or some other frequency word.
- It may not be advisable to use a frequency word because I have no source for how frequently it happens. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a question that does not appear to be answered in the lead (nor, as far as I can tell, in the body of the article): To what extent has Malagasy cuisine influenced other chefs/cuisines? With Madagascar having served as a trading port for so much of its history, surely its culinary traditions must have seeped out into neighboring areas at some point. On a similar note, are there any foods or drinks (perhaps the spiced rums) that are made primarily on Madagascar that are then exported to other countries?
- Thank you for raising this point. The cuisine hasn't traveled far in terms of influence (although the expat community has set up their restaurants here and there overseas), but it has been important in Reunion, Mauritius and to a lesser extent Comoros and Seychelles where Malagasy were taken as slaves in the 18th-19th centuries. I'll put together a few sentences on this over the weekend. Thank you for your review and comments, Cryptic.Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:42, 12 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [44].
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the history and current role of one of the Royal Australian Air Force's most interesting squadrons. No. 79 Squadron saw combat in World War II between 1943 and 1945, was reformed to be deployed to Thailand for six years during the Cold War, was briefly active as a fighter unit based in Malaysia in the late 1980s and has provided initial jet aircraft training to new RAAF pilots since 1998. The article passed a GA review in January and a military history wikiproject A class review in March and has since been further improved (including through a copyedit conducted by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs)). As such, I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- EN 3: why include title here?
- Because it's a website with no page numbers, but I agree that it's not needed (as a note, the website was created by the author of the book Darwin Spitfires to publish additional material and appendices to expand upon the print edition. The book was professionally published by the University of New South Wales Press, so the website is a RS).
- EN 46: need endash in page range
- Done
- EN 51, 58: don't repeat RAAF
- Done
- EN 55, 56: page(s)?
- Done
- Where is Weston Creek?
- In the ACT, added
- Sadler: volume, issue, pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added (the magazine uses a combination of date and number to designate each issue). Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. (Caveat: I didn't check the new subsection No. 79 Squadron RAAF#Butterworth. Also, in No. 79 Squadron RAAF#Current status, it seems odd to be using the present tense with 2004 ... do you have any more recent information?) - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Re the 2004 information about the duration of training courses; unfortunately not. This isn't the kind of thing which is frequently published outside of official government reports. It's likely that the course structure hasn't changed much (if at all) since then. I've fiddled with the wording to remove the tense issues. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- good work as usual, from memory I reviewed this at MilHist ACR but have gone through it again from top to bottom:
- Prose: Completed my usual copyedit but generally looked fine -- no further issues as far as I'm concerned.
- Structure: Looks good, just not sure why you don't employ your usual (and for me preferred) "Citations" instead of "End notes" or, more particularly, "Bibliography" instead of "Works consulted".
- Not sure either; I imagine that it made sense to me at the time. I've changed the headings. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Referencing: All points cited, all references look reliable, just slight inconsistency in the bibliography since you include retrieval dates for Pathfinder and NAA, but not Cooper and Fruhling.
- Fixed
- Supporting materials: Image licensing, captions, alt text look okay.
- Detail: Thorough without being overpowering.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and edits Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:CartwheelAreaMap.jpg - is the author known?
Licensing and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's signed 'F. Temple' in the original (available here). I've just updated the image's record on Commons to reflect this. Thanks again for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Not seeing any jargon issues or missing links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw
What do the phrases "These raids did not eventuate immediately" & "No air threat eventuated" mean & could they be put more simply?- Done
The link to Mitsubishi A6M Zero has the text A6M "Zero" with speech marks around Zero which doesn't seem to be used for other aircraft types. Is there a particular reason for this?- 'Zero' was the Allied fighter pilots' reporting name for this kind of Japanese fighter, which has since morphed into its common name in the west (and in Japan as well, I think). I've also provided the reporting names for the other Japanese aircraft mentioned in the article (eg, "Tony" for the Kawasaki Ki-61). English-language sources tend to use both the Japanese name and the World War II era reporting name, so there's a need to include both.
- The speech marks for "Tony" are outside the wikilink which is probably why I didn't spot them. Not sure if this needs to be made consistent.— Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea - done Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.— Rod talk 12:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea - done Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The speech marks for "Tony" are outside the wikilink which is probably why I didn't spot them. Not sure if this needs to be made consistent.— Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Zero' was the Allied fighter pilots' reporting name for this kind of Japanese fighter, which has since morphed into its common name in the west (and in Japan as well, I think). I've also provided the reporting names for the other Japanese aircraft mentioned in the article (eg, "Tony" for the Kawasaki Ki-61). English-language sources tend to use both the Japanese name and the World War II era reporting name, so there's a need to include both.
The statement "flying was hampered by a shortage of spare parts" isn't supported by a reference. Do we have evidence this was the reason or is it speculation? Ref 14 or 16 a few sentences later may apply but this is unclear as they are separated by a bit about the death of the Squadron Leader.- That's supported by reference 14. I've repeated the reference at the end of this sentence though as I agree that it could be clearer.
Who/what/where is "Butterworth" & what is the connection with "Malaysia's policy of neutrality"?- RAAF Base Butterworth is specified as being in Malaysia when its first mentioned in both the lead and the body of the article. Malaysia's neutrality towards the perceived threat to Thailand is noted in the third sentence of the first para in the 'Ubon' section.
- Sorry I missed this - you are right it is clear on second reading.— Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RAAF Base Butterworth is specified as being in Malaysia when its first mentioned in both the lead and the body of the article. Malaysia's neutrality towards the perceived threat to Thailand is noted in the third sentence of the first para in the 'Ubon' section.
- Why are battle honours for WWII & Thailand given out so many years after the deployments?— Rod talk 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. The Ubon honour was issued as part of series of new battle honours to mark the RAAF's 90th anniversary (I've added a note to the article on this), but I'll need to look into the rationale for the World War II honours. In the last couple of years the Australian military has handed out quite a few retrospective battle honours, and I presume that this is part of that process. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not having any luck with finding the reason for the delayed World War II honours... Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It would still be nice to know about the delayed honours but I can't see any other issues so I'm happy to support.— Rod talk 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It would still be nice to know about the delayed honours but I can't see any other issues so I'm happy to support.— Rod talk 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not having any luck with finding the reason for the delayed World War II honours... Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. The Ubon honour was issued as part of series of new battle honours to mark the RAAF's 90th anniversary (I've added a note to the article on this), but I'll need to look into the rationale for the World War II honours. In the last couple of years the Australian military has handed out quite a few retrospective battle honours, and I presume that this is part of that process. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [45].
- Nominator(s): Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that cirrus cloud meets the FA criteria. It is an important topic, and appears to be read every so often in schools (judging by the number of times I have to rollback the article). I've gotten this article from a little, tolerably-sourced start to DYK and then to GA. I would now like to get it all the way to FA status, and I have had a peer review to help it along. Thanks for everybody's help along the way, and I guess it is now my time for my baptism by fire. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- McGraw-Hill Editorial Team or Staff?
- Staff. Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Many of your footnote-to-bibliography links appear to be broken
- I don't know how to get them to work. Could somebody please point me to an example of them working? Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Californium is the next article on the FAC list to use them, and they work there. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, fixed. (I was missing the
|ref=xxx
parameters.)
- Thanks, fixed. (I was missing the
- Californium is the next article on the FAC list to use them, and they work there. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to get them to work. Could somebody please point me to an example of them working? Reaper Eternal (talk)
- FN 15: why not include the other authors here? Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Added "et al". Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Date for Hamilton?
- As this actually is an eBook, it doesn't appear to have a date of publication. I check Google books and the publisher's website, and neither gives a date of publication. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Be consistent in whether you include a comma before "et al." or not
- Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Missing bibliographic info for Ahrens 2007
- Sorry, typo (meant Ahrens 2006). Reaper Eternal (talk)
- FN 4: spell out or link NOAA
- Spelled out and linked. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
- I think these are all fixed now. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- FN 14: should include information on original source
- Oops, this was an old link to the McGraw-Hill book. Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers
- All (2) removed, as it is unimportant Reaper Eternal (talk)
- FN 27: why the difference in date format here?
- Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- FN 49: check formatting on page range
- Hyphen changed to en-dash, abgbreviation fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
- Added. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- FN 53: should include the name of the interviewee
I added the interviewer's name, but the interviewee's name is not given.Removed because this broke the{{cite interview}}
template by not having interviewee's name. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- No need to include page numbers for books in Bibliography, since page numbers are in footnotes
- Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Retrieval dates aren't needed for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)
- Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Some of the sources marked as eBooks in fact appear to be normal books.
- Sorry, I thought that the "eBook" was referring to the fact that the link was to Google Books. EDIT: One actually is an eBook, however. Reaper Eternal (talk)
In general sources appear reliable, but formatting needs to be cleaned up. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! I try to only cite reliable sources to prevent errors from creeping in. However, my formatting is not very good
:P
! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hopefully get around to looking at this. This edit serves only as a reminder to myself to do so. Carry on. :) -Atmoz (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO comments.
Please do not let Atmoz disturb you. He is a global warming skeptic. Try to keep to mainstream science and don't let this McIntyre-lover upset you.- I'm a global warming skeptic myself, so he won't bother me. :) I just try not to let my POV show in the articles I write, but just state what the sources say without asserting global warming's existence or nonexistence. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Break the lead into paragraphs (not arbitrarily, but with structure).
- Fixed while resolving another issue. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Mention the altitude in lead.- Done. Added to the short, choppy sentence on color, which now reads nicer too. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Consider dropping the ubiquitous Infobox. Not helpful for this kind of article. Keep the pictures...scrumptious.
- Dropped. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Add some pics in "Description".- Added a couple in various locations. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Further down, there are a bunch of pics at 150 (way too small). Think about ways to present these better (perhaps centering).- I increased the size to 250px. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Try to make the article have a little more "putting things into a larger context" or structure. I just felt like I was not getting a good sense of where this cloud fits into the family of clouds in general.
- I added a description in the lead of the various cloud forms and how they compare to the cirrus clouds. Incidentally, this also fixed the issue with the lead being one paragraph. I cannot split it any more without just breaking it at some random location. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Also, clarify a little more if some of the aspects listed are peculiar to this kind of cloud (like the "glory" or hurricane association) or happend with all clouds.
- Most of the optical phenomena are peculiar to ice-crystal clouds (various cirriform clouds. It appears that only cirrus clouds are associated with hurricanes, or at least no source that I could find describes any other. The problem with this is I am essentially trying to prove a negative, and all sources I can find state the positive. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- (NEW)Try to do some illustration of a concept, that is a non-photograph of a cloud. Is there some analytical diagram, chart, map, comparison, or the like, that would help educate us? Maybe some Excel analysis shown in a chart (reffed properly of course), or a table or something? A measurement instrument? An effect? Predecessors and successors (arranged in a "this leads to this" set of images)? I really don't know what...just pushing you to think about it and see what you can come up with.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For instance, a quick google found this image ([46]) which kinda answers my "where does it fit in the family question. Here is a google search on cirrus+cloud+chart ([47]): scanning down, I see a few diagrams and charts.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a diagram and added it next to the description in the lead. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- For instance, a quick google found this image ([46]) which kinda answers my "where does it fit in the family question. Here is a google search on cirrus+cloud+chart ([47]): scanning down, I see a few diagrams and charts.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than that, looked pretty polished, although I skimmed, no parsed. Just work a little more on context and structure, so my mind does not wander. TCO (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, and I think I have fixed all of your issues. Does the chart showing cloud height and the paragraph describing the relationships added to the lead help?
will be back later to work on the rest!Reaper Eternal (talk)21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)15:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, and I think I have fixed all of your issues. Does the chart showing cloud height and the paragraph describing the relationships added to the lead help?
- Comment. That lede image is massive. Please shrink it, as it looks rather bad in small-resolution screens. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrunk. My screen resolution for my home PC is 1920x1080, so I hadn't really noticed it being very big. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. Also, the link to Graeme et al (1990) is dead. I recommend linking to the J. Atmos. Sci page directly at [48]. (It shouldn't be behind a paywall, given that it was published in 1990.) Also consider adding Bibcodes to the references, such as [49]. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Link fixed (thanks for the new, better link), and bibcodes added to all but Miyazaki et al's and Parungo's papers, which don't appear to be in that database. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's "Relevance," not "Relevence," by the way... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spelling corrected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. Also, the link to Graeme et al (1990) is dead. I recommend linking to the J. Atmos. Sci page directly at [48]. (It shouldn't be behind a paywall, given that it was published in 1990.) Also consider adding Bibcodes to the references, such as [49]. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrunk. My screen resolution for my home PC is 1920x1080, so I hadn't really noticed it being very big. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Units check
- It says 200 mb and has other instances intended to mean millibar. The symbol for millibar is 'mbar'.
- Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- It says .001 millimeters to .1 millimeters. Decimals should have a leading zero.
- I think I fixed all these now.... Reaper Eternal (talk)
- It has inconsistent 'er' and 're' spelling. Make it consistent with the article's spelling status of US or nonUS spelling.
- All changed to "er". Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Lightmouse (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got all these issues. Anything else need fixing? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the unit edits. It looks good from the units point of view now. Lightmouse (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got all these issues. Anything else need fixing? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead must not contain references, as it only summarizes the article (per WP:MOS). TGilmour (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TGilmour, that information is incorrect-- please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work on getting the number of citations in the lead down to a better number, but a couple, like the ones sourcing the name, cannot be removed easily. Also, the lead can contain citations for material likely to be challenged, such as claims about "tuft of hair" and "Latin for curl". (See WP:LEADCITE.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (GermanJoe) Oppose for now, though the article will certainly be FA with a bit of changes. It has comprehensive information, good prose and structure in most parts. There are 1-2 very basic problems with lead (see WP:LEAD) and images and a few minor things:
Lead - "Cirrus clouds can form on other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and [possibly] Neptune". ==> Main text doesn't state Neptune as a matter of fact, just as a possible occurence. Both statements need to be consistent.- Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Lead - "They range in color from white to a faint gray, and form at altitudes of 6,100 m (20,000 ft) and above." ==> Those facts aren't in main text (neither the color nor the altitude value) and seem to contradict several other altitude information in text: Lead last paragraph states, that high-etage clouds (all types?) can occur as low as 3,000 m above sea level. "Description" in main text states "The cloud's height above sea level can be anywhere from 4 km ...". If those differing values are due to different background information or measurements, this should be clarified. If not, the values should be made consistent.- Made consistent by offering explaining that they form at different altitudes at different latitudes. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Lead - Last two paragraphs of lead do not follow WP:LEAD guidelines, lead should be a summary introduction and all facts from lead should be present (with more detail) in main text. If this information is needed, it should be trimmed in lead and the main part moved somewhere to main text, maybe together with the diagram, which is a bit distracting in the lead.- Moved to its own section. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Lead - The systematic listing of all cloud forms also strays away from article focus, are all those details really needed to understand cirrus clouds? A lot of this information may be better put into an article about clouds in general.- I added this because TCO wanted information about cirrus clouds as related to other clouds. It has been moved to its own section under the lead, but I am thinking it maybe should be moved to between the cirrocumulus section and the "ex-earth cirrus" section. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Lead - Generally all lead statements need to be checked: Are they summary style? Is lead information present and consistent in the main text?- I've rewritten the lead to have better flow, have more consistency, and be a better summary of the body. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Values - article switches between 4 km and 4,000 m several times. One consistent method should be used (no idea, if MOS recommends one of them).- Changed all to meters. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Images - Probably not always possible, but placement of images should be improved, avoid sandwiching of text between 2 images (in sections "Optical phenomena" and "formation in cyclones", see WP:MOSIMAGES).- I'll do my best, but there are always going to be issues depending on what size screen is used. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Images - are 2 halo images needed? Moon halos aren't mentioned in text. Consider removing moon halo image.- Removed that image and moved the solar halo image into its place. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Formation in cyclones - "the top reaches reaches the tropopause" ==> second "reaches"?- Oops. Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
Description - the structure of first paragraph is a bit confusing. The article states all averages for certain cloud features in one list and then goes on to list the ranges of the same features again in a separate list. A structure combining average with range variations for each single feature would probably be easier to follow.GermanJoe (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I rewrote this paragraph to keep the ranges with their corresponding averages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has undergone several improvements in regards to structure, i stroke the main concerns and will try to have another read-through before supporting.
Consider splitting up the first lead paragraph, it's overly long and not really "inviting" to the article with that much information at once. Not sure, where to draw the line to split, maybe start a new para with "Jet stream-powered cirrus ...".GermanJoe (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for splitting it! So is there anything else you see? I'll try to give it another copyediting pass today to improve the prose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has undergone several improvements in regards to structure, i stroke the main concerns and will try to have another read-through before supporting.
- Comments by Atmoz
Oppose for now neutral I'd still like to look this over more, but I have no reason to oppose at this time.
In my view this article does not satisfy criteria 1a and to a lesser extent 1b. I'll be editing the article to fix what I can and posting here for clarification on what I can't. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you using Kelvin and Rankine for temperature units (in the lead and #Effects on climate? WP:UNITS suggests that we use units that would be easiest to understand, in this case Celsius and Fahrenheit. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Celsius and Fahrenheit. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- In #Formation, the sentence starting with "Streaks may appear straight..." seems to describe all cirrus, not just contrails (there's no reference). Is that what you meant? (It should be.) If so, it should not follow immediately after the sentence on contrails. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed that sentence entirely as it was almost worthless. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- Actually, the whole #Formation section seems confused between contrails and "natural" cirrus. You need to split the formation of contrails into a completely different paragraph. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've cleaned this up. Reaper Eternal (talk)
- The first paragraph of #Formation is especially weak. You have 3 sentences, 2 of which say the same thing. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed this issue. Reaper Eternal (talk)
I'll probably be adding more comments later. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I look forward to seeing them! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note : I just went through and attempted to clean up the prose and remove redundancies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to point out this diff where I removed a bit. In the paper, there were two "experiments". In the first, the cloud base was kept constant at 8km and the cloud thickness changed. In all cases, the temperature below cloud base increased. In the second experiment, they redid the first but lowed the cloud base to 5km. What we see there is that the temperature below cloud base increased for the low cloud depths, but decreased in the 3km case. Whether there is warming or cooling below a cloud layer depends on its optical depth (not physical depth) and the albedo of the surface below. So by using physical depth and not optical depth, Liou is confusing the reader (I think he used physical depth because its published in MWR). The important point is that the switch from warming to cooling occurs when the optical depth changes values (around 1), and in this hypothetical "experiment" that happened to occur at 3km. In general though, clouds with an optical depth greater than 1 would not be classified as cirrus. Also, the blackbody thing (even though it's in Liou) is not important. -Atmoz (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that explains things. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- #Optical phenomena: Why are you referring to specific optical phenoms by date rather than in general? -Atmoz (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now rewritten the paragraphs to refer to optical phenomena in general. The picture caption now mentions the date and location of the picture. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will the person who is adding interspersed unsigned comments please stop it? Not only do we not know who wrote all of those one-liners-- they are unnecessarily increasing the length of the FAC. Please sign or add {{unsigned}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that, they were all my comments. This is my first FA nomination, so I'm not too certain about how I'm supposed to format them. They should all be signed now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (GermanJoe) Some more suggestions and minor prose tweaks (my previous comments were adressed):
Lead: "Cirrus clouds can form on other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and possibly Neptune." ==> would it help to clarify, that some of those clouds are not water-based? Would also add to the length of the short 3rd lead paragraph.- Done. 3rd paragraph looks better now too; thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Description: "The final measurement source is simply visual observations from either airplanes or the ground." ==> Calling observations "measurement" sounds a bit odd, maybe "Visual observations from either airplanes or the ground provide additional information about cirrus clouds." instead.- Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Cirrus clouds come in six distinct subforms ..." ==> How are those subforms sorted (most to least common)? Also explain the subforms later in the same order (mixed up at the moment).- Now sorted alphabetically. Apart from cirrus fibratus, I am uncertain if any research has been done on the relative prevalence of individual species. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forecasting: "The random, isolated cirrus cloud does not have any particular significance. [A cirrus castellanus ... instability at the cirrus level.] However, a large number of cirrus clouds may be a sign of an approaching frontal system or upper air disturbance." ==> "However" probably relates to the first sentence, not the second one. Try to restructure to clarify the connections between those 3 thoughts.- Rewritten. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Within the tropics, 36 hours ... of the cyclone." ==> This would fit better moved to the 2nd paragraph, which deals with hurricanes.- Moved to first sentence of second paragraph, as it definitely fits better there. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Effects: "When cirrus clouds are 100 m (330 ft) thick, they reflect only around 9% of the incoming sunlight, [and yet] they prevent almost 50% of the outgoing infrared radiation from escaping." ==> a simple "but" is more formal. Avoid overly "narrative" or essay-like phrases.- Agree; changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cirrostratus: "Cirrostratus clouds sometimes look a lot like altostratus clouds." ==> I don't like such comparisons as first sentence, as they practically explain nothing to the layman, who isn't familiar with either term. Maybe start with "Cirrostratus clouds can appear as ..." and then use the comparison as additional detail. Also "a lot like" is too colloquial, suggest "similar to".- I moved the comparison after the description and removed the colloquial phrasing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extraterrestrial: "Cirrus clouds also occur on Mars." ==> A bit short and not really engaging to start the section, maybe "Cirrus clouds have been observed on several planets in the Solar System.", just add a bit more meat to the intro sentence.- Agree, so changed lead sentence. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking forward to support this fine article, when the last round of minor improvements is finished. GermanJoe (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All points adressed, changed vote to support, 2 points not affecting the vote:
- Images look fine,
but image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CirrusField-color.jpg has a clean-up tag for out-dated copyright tag. The tag indicates, it's only a minor cleanup without affecting the basic copyright status, but it would probably be best to have an image expert look into it - just to be sure.
- I've asked Fastily. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fastily has fixed the license. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistant, if you link planets or not - Saturn and Uranus f.e. are not linked (as planet articles usually have additional atmospheric information, i'd prefer to link all of them).GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all now linked in the lead, where they are first mentioned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look fine,
Getting better. Was asked to relook at the article. From a quick scan, one major upgrade I would have for you is to tighten up the writing. You can be more definite (which will both read stronger and save words). Instead of c clouds can form many shapes, c clouds do form many shapes. Instead of "can take on a variety of shapes", -> "take on a variety of shapes", or "occur in many shapes". There was a place (not finding it know) where you said something like "it has been observed that blabla", when you could say "blabla". Similarly, "researchers of this phenomenon" -> "researchers". A front to back prose edit to clean up un-needed qualifiers and caveats would help this thing sing. Other than that, I'm not sure I will have time to really review it enough to support (nor did I before). I suggest getting another layperson, another general scientist, and another weather scientist to review it. I wish you the best and appreciate your hard work on the article! TCO (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments! I've gone through the article and attempted to tighten up the prose, and I think I've gotten most of the extraneous cruft worked out now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Small bug. Ref. "Nucleation" got lost in the editing frenzy :) and is now broken in ref 27. Not sure, if you planned to replace the source completely, or i would fix it myself. GermanJoe (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! I removed it from a place where the cited text was not given in that citation and forgot that another bit of text depended on it! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – but I think the prose could do with another pair of eyes to improve flow and remove redundancy. I have made a few edits [50] in the hope of reducing some of the latter. Please check my edits in case I have introduced factual errors. The few spot checks for close paraphrasing, and the like, that I have done have not revealed any worries, and the image usage seems sound. I love clouds. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And no, you did not introduce any factual inaccuracies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is groovy and saucy.
I'm a bit puzzled as to why the lead discusses the shape of the cirrus cloud in so many different places: "characterized by thin, wispy strands, often bunched into tufts"; "cirrus clouds commonly resemble curly hair"; "they ... take on a variety of shapes"; "cirrus clouds can grow long enough to stretch across continents".- I initially discuss the appearance of cirrus clouds as a lead-in and to make mention of/establish context for alternative names for these clouds. I then go on to describe their location (altitude) and size (up to transcontinental). I did remove one unnecessary mention "take on a variety of shapes". Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does "anvil" mean in this context? How about "fire rainbow"?- I wikilinked "anvil" to "Anvil cloud", as I am refering to the formation of cirrus clouds from cumulonimbus clouds (thunderstorms).
"Fire rainbow" wouldn't make sense because cirrus clouds do not form from fire rainbows—light scatter through the cloud forms fire rainbows.Oops, you meant to wikilink Fire rainbow farther down. That's done now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wikilinked "anvil" to "Anvil cloud", as I am refering to the formation of cirrus clouds from cumulonimbus clouds (thunderstorms).
"a pattern of small cloud tufts which include droplets" Not sure that "include" is the best word here. How about "contain"?- "Contain" is better, thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does not adequately summarize material from Use in forecasting.- Added mention of what the cirrus formation from thunderstorms and cyclones indicates. (This summarizes the forecasting section.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One question that should be answered in the lead: Do these clouds produce precipitation? Readers should not have to delve into the body or navigate to other articles to determine if this is the case.- Added mention of this. It fit in nicely after the discussion of what cirrus clouds indicate, since while they indicate the arrival of precipitation, they themselves make none. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Cryptic C62! Any other issues that need fixing? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I'm a happy clam! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: no doubt these are is a really stupid, but my knowledge of meteorology is only basic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- During the night, it determines cirrus cloud cover by detecting the Earth's infrared emissions.: why only at night?
- A different method is used during the day, since the majority of radiation then is being reflected out (sun shining on the top of the cloud). At night, there is no reflection, so a different method had to be used. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can cirrus clouds form anywhere on Earth? Are there significant differences between, say, North American and European clouds?
- I haven't found any studies that cover Europe by itself; I've only found ones for the US and the whole earth. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on satellite data, cirrus clouds cover an average of 20% to 25% of the Earth's surface worldwide. Is that year-round? Oh, and "Earth's surface worldwide" is redundant. ;)
- That's averaged by year. Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- However, in the tropical regions, cirrus clouds cover around 70% of the region's surface area. Does that mean they form in lower concentrations elsewhere?
- My guess is that is the case. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Effects on climate: how does this compare/contrast with other clouds?
- Hmm, I'll need to look for information on this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so I've found some information on this. According to this, "the net effect of clouds on the climate today is to cool the surface by about 5°C (9°F)." As this describes clouds in general, I'll have to think of a way to incorporate this information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is now added after the discussion on the heating effects of cirrus clouds as a mention of how cirrus cloud heating is in contrast to the average. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so I've found some information on this. According to this, "the net effect of clouds on the climate today is to cool the surface by about 5°C (9°F)." As this describes clouds in general, I'll have to think of a way to incorporate this information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'll need to look for information on this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are we describing something that forms in the air by the surface area it covers?
- This is because the relative difference in the area of a circle at 30,000 feet of altitude compared with a circle with the same areal angle at ground level is 0.2858% larger. Additionally, the climatic effects are based upon the surface area covered. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What does Cirrus clouds also are the remnants of thunderstorms. mean?
- Reworded slightly to make this clearer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand is not a phrase I would normally expect to see in an encyclopaedia. It's a bit conversational for my liking.
- Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the red link Benito Vines one that has a prospect of turning blue (ie is the link there because you came to the conclusion he's notbale, or because someone else put it there and you didn't feel like unlinking it)
- I'm not certain yet if he's notable, as there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him (granted, he was alive in the 1800s, which makes sources hard to find). Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Times: AM and PM should be lower case, per MOS:TIME
- Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the evidence does not support this: in plain English, does that mean the theory is bollocks, or that the hypothesis just hasn't been proven (yet)?
- It's because the hypothesis has not been proven—it's a possible scenario just like the negative-feedback hypothesis. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and please check my copy edits in case I inadvertently changed the meaning of something.
- I've undone one which kind of gave the impression that cirrus clouds only occur on earth. Thanks for the others, though! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images All seem to be in order and all are freely licensed. The source for File:Cirrocumulus4 - NOAA.jpg is a dead link, so ideally a link would be added to a previous version of the page or the image linked to at its new location if it's moved, but that's not a big enough issue to slow down the FAC imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A fascinating article and a good read. I'm happy that all my WIAFA-based comments have been addressed. I'd still suggest finding an archive URL for the image dead link, and I'll leave the comparison with other clouds fro consideration, but neither is essential, in my view, for promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One archive url for you - [51]. - JuneGloom Talk 13:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the archive URL, but I've already replaced the image. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I replaced the image with another, better-quality image. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've cleaned up all the issues. Thank you for your comments HJ, and anything else need fixing? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, all my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. Excellent work—you've genuinely increased the layman's understanding of an important topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One archive url for you - [51]. - JuneGloom Talk 13:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Overall a good work that appears to satisfy the FA criteria. There were a few statements that needed refinement, but I performed a copy-edit rather than listing them here. Hopefully those revisions are to your satisfaction. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2011 (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 SandyGeorgia 12:07, 15 July 2011 [52].
- Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to commit myself to editing again in a big way. :) One day last year I was hungry and chose to rework the article on the particular food I was craving. Gumbo is more than just something to fill your belly. In my family, there were few major events, holidays, illnesses or family gatherings that did not include this dish. There are millions of varieties of gumbo - I can often identify the occasion simply by seeing which particular ingredients my grandmother threw in the pot that day (shrimp and crab on Christmas Eve, crawfish and oysters on Memorial Day, chicken - no sausage - on my birthday, etc). Two Cajun cooks can argue for hours (or days) on the best way to make gumbo. The only thing they'll agree on is that it must be served on top of rice and you must also provide potato salad and beer. Lots of beer.
I've deliberately chosen not to consult popular cookbooks but to stay with more scholarly sources. User:Jappalang provided very useful feedback at the peer review in September.
Bon appetit, cher. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not include both editors for Davidson refs?
- No bibliographic info for Theriot 2009
- ref 12: should include page number(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Nikki, obviously it's been too long since I did one of those checks. I've fixed those three issues. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support consider everything stricken below; I've just reread the article and I think it meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Sasata[reply]
- lead: link Choctaw
- "vegetables are cooked down" what does this mean? The liquid is reduced?
- "The dish boils for a minimum of three hours" Would "simmers" be more accurate?
- I don't think rice is a high-value link for the lead; "greens" would probably be less familiar to the average reader.
- link etymology
- "…filé, or ground sassafras…" does this refer to sassafras root or leaves or …?
- Can we have a citation for the first quote?
- why is the okra picture so small?
- second link to sassafras not required; cayenne pepper, callaloo, and thyme should be linked earlier
- translate potage aux herbes
- link metaphor; Louisiana is linked too many times
- "18th century Cajun practice" needs hyphen
- link grits
- "The use of corn and filé powder, may imply that the dish was derived from native cuisine." lose comma
- Dr. John Sibley -> I believe the MoS says not to use Dr.
- "when Chef Paul Prudhomme's popularity" should chef be capitalized?
- link tureen; "… although in wealthier or fancier homes the dish might be transferred to a tureen on the table." I doubt tureens are the exclusive domain of the rich or fancy; I have one, and consider myself neither!
- 3 feet (0.91 m) deep; 2 feet (0.61 m) -> one too many sigfigs in the metric conversion
Sasata (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay, Sasata, but thank you so much for your comments. I've fixed everything but the following:
- "cooked down" - this means the veggies essentially turn to mush. I'm not sure a better way to word this - most cookbooks use this phrase and it's really common on Google.
- By the first quote, do you mean the quotebox? The book and the page number are listed there.
- My family has tureens too, and we serve soups in them, but never gumbo. Gotta be high in the instep to eat your gumbo that way ;)
- I think the translation of potage is "potage". I didn't think it was necessary to say potage aux herbes (pottage with herbs), but I can.
- Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media: One problem- File:Zherbes.jpg is available in a larger format on Flickr as all rights reserved. Judging from the usernames, it's probably the same person, so nothing sinister going on, but we're gonna need an OTRS ticket, I reckon. I've fired off an email to the Flickr user just double checking. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got a reply- forwarded the email to OTRS. Everything checks out. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much, J Milburn! That was really helpful and above and beyond the call of reviewer duty. :) Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Before I begin, allow me a moment to offer a huge bucket of win to Karanacs for working on this article. Wikipedia desperately needs more Food and Drink FAs, and I can't imagine how hard it was to put in the time for this while also juggling the duties of FAC delegation. Good shit. Anywho, let's see what I kind of trouble I can rustle up: I've moved the bulk of my review to the talk page to avoid clutter.
- For some reason, Social aspects seems like an odd section title to me. How about Culture or In culture instead?
- "Culture" always seemed to me to indicate that we'd be talking about other aspects, like literature or media references/influences. I am not that fond of "Social aspects" either, but the theme of the section is that gumbo is a dish for social gatherings. I'll think about it overnight and see if I can come up with something better. Karanacs (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stay tuned, there's more to come I like bagels! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cryptic, and my apologies for the delay in responding. I fixed the first two wording issues.
Taking a read through.
- The "main ingredients" list seems to use unwarranted capitals and bold text
- Sassafras would be worth linking to somewhere
- Overuse is as bad as underuse, bear the comments about italicising non-English words. Your call.
- "ham or crabmeat are occasionally" "is", I think. If it was "and", it would be "are".
- "fostered an environment where cultures" in which?
- "In 1721, 125 Germans settled 40 miles (64 km) in New Orleans." What does this mean?
- I agree with Sasata about providing a translation of "potage aux herbes". "Pottage" is not the most familiar term anyway- a link wouldn't hurt.
Very interesting and readable. I think you made a good choice avoiding cookbooks and sticking to more scholarly sources, though I must say the dish itself doesn't sound all that pleasant. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it sounds fantastic, and potage is the French word for soup, a perfectly familiar term to us Europeans. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review J Milburn (and thank you for the ce efforts, Malleus). I fixed all the issues you listed (and translated potage to soup). I went through and think I've now only italicized foreign words used as words (like kombo) and not foreign dishes. Gumbo has a very strong flavor and tends to be very spicy - a lot of my Yankee and European friends don't like it (although one of my Swedish friends can eat more than I can). Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've just given the article another quick look-through, and I'm happy that it now meets the featured article criteria. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments Nice article, just a couple of things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked Bell pepper since it's not called that this side of the pond. I wondered whether to link hog, since that's unusual now in the UK, but it's obvious enough
- The dish is the official cuisine of the state of Louisiana — Can a single dish be a cuisine?
- rice seed — reads oddly, it's what we normally call "rice"
- Thanks for the review, Jim. I've fixed "rice seed" - my brain must have been asleep. What do you call "bell pepper"? I didn't know it had another name. I agree with you about a dish not being a cuisine, but apparently the state legislators didn't know that [53]. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually "Sweet pepper" as opposed to chilli [sic] pepper. It's like coriander/cilantro or courgette/zucchini; same thing, different name. I say tomato... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- I'll read over and copyedit as I go - comments and queries below. Revert if I guff the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It consists primarily of a strong stock,...- you mean strongly-flavoured?
- In the Etymology section, are there any analogs or very similar recipies in other cultures with different names? Might be worth a line or two here.
Gumbo cooks for a minimum of three hours and is often simmered all day-? I'd reverse the active/passive to "Gumbo is cooked for a minimum of three hours and often simmers all day" (or "often let simmer all day")
Otherwise looking very appetising...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cas, for the review. I've made the 2 cosmetic changes you mentioned - thank you. There are a few other dishes that are slightly similar; these are mentioned in the origin section. I don't have any sources that specifically compare and contrast them, so I could say "Gumbo bears similarities to the Caribbean dish callaloo and French bouillabaisse", but that's as far as I can go. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments. I've never had gumbo, but that bowl of shrimp gumbo in the lead has my mouth watering. A few comments:
- The lead says that there are "several" different varieties of gumbo, yet lists only two. And later in Cajun vs Creole section it says that there are commonly considered to be only two varieties. As a matter of interest, is there any reason why beef and pork are rarely used?
- The Background section says that "Colonization of the French colony Louisiana began in 1718". Obviously there's at least one word too many there. What about something like "The French colonization of Louisiana began in 1718"?
- "Traditionally, okra and filé powder are not used at the same time". I guess you mean that they're not used in the same dish, as opposed to added simultaneously during cooking?
- "In 1721, 125 Germans settled 40 miles (64 km) in New Orleans." Not sure what that means. Forty square miles of New Orleans?
- "The new laborers introduced new foods, including the African vegetable okra, and hot pepper plants, which were traced to Haiti." What does "traced to Haiti" mean? Sourced from Haiti? Brought from Haiti? Later researchers discovered that's where they'd come from?
- "Louisiana became a United States state in 1812." That "States state" is rather awkward.
- "Bienville's housekeeper, Madame Langlois, taught the women how to improve the basic gumbo, using okra, which they had learned from their slaves." Who is the "they" being referred to here? The subject seems to be Mme Langlois.
Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Malleus, and thanks for the copyedit. I've fixed the wording issues. I have no idea why beef and pork aren't used - none of the sources addressed that, and it was just one of those facts of life when I was a kid. I suspect that beef and pork were more easily dried and preserved and gumbo instead used meat that would spoil more quickly, but nothing solid I can use in the article.
- I'm unsure how to handle the "varieties" issue. Some people say the varieties are Cajun, Creole, and gumbo z'herbes. Some say it's seafood vs chicken. Others say it's okra vs file vs roux. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC) PS If you ever make it to Texas I'll make chicken Cajun gumbo with roux for you - it's the only kind I eat. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [54].
- Nominator(s): Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that after much work this meets the FAC criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) It has been suggested that I add a little more to the nomination: Pinter was acclaimed as one of the most influential English language playwrights of the post-WWII era and the award in 2005 of a Nobel Prize confirmed his status as a giant of literature. His work inspired debate and critical commentary world-wide and his influence on modern theatre was marked. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has multiple errors of fact and format, which Jezhotwells and its "peer reviewers" have not corrected. The current version of this article does not meet criteria for featured article designation. Please see both the current talk page and its archived talk pages as well as the 2007 "good article" review leading to its "good article" designation, and also see more recent "peer review" archives. The article is still subject to unresolved disputes, including incorrect use of quotation marks, insufficient use of quotation marks, misquotation, and erroneous attribution of quotations (wrong sources listed). Jezhotwells and an administrator or administrators enlisted by him have banned users who have tried to correct the problems in this article and then semi-protected the article "indefinitely", preventing the correction of these errors, which were introduced mainly by Jezhotwells and others participating in the most recent "peer review"; they have made no attempt to correct their own errors after some of these errors have been itemized as examples on the current talk page. This article does not currently "meet" the most basic Wikipedia editing criteria, such as factual accuracy and accuracy of source citations. Thus, it does not meet "the FAC criteria" in this version. The current version of this article also contains misinformation about a living person, Henry Woolf, Harold Pinter's friend of over 60 years [who is a living person], and thus it violates WP:BLP [see {{Template:Blpo}} on the current talk page]. Such errors are supposed to be corrected "on sight"; yet the error remains, despite its being pointed out in the current talk page. Multiple problems pointed out in the current and archived talk pages and "peer review" archives still need to be corrected and resolved before this article should be submitted as a FAC. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (updated) --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not sufficient for you to say that the article contains factual errors, without your saying what they are. So let us have some specific examples, please. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As already indicated, some of these specific examples are already itemized on the current talk page. It is not necessary to list them again. That is why the current talk page is linked in the listing. People can refer to it directly; the most recently composed section w/ specific examples is: Talk:Harold Pinter#Multiple factual and source errors throughout article due to "peer review"; previous sections detail other problems, some of which were archived by a bot. Given Jezhotwells' and others' unwillingness to examine their errors, it is a waste of time to list them here again. Please consult the talk page and its archives. Thank you. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) [added section link for your convenience]. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I have studied the comments made by this IP on the article talk page and addressed the specific instances. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This update occurred over a month after the errors and format problems were pointed out to Jezhotwells. He ignored the comments when they were originally made and made no attempt to make the corrections that he made only after I made this comment here after he submitted the article as a FAC. There are still errors that need correction. Please see the current talk page about this matter. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had checked out my talk page, you would have seen that I was on vacation. Is this comment really necessary? --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This update occurred over a month after the errors and format problems were pointed out to Jezhotwells. He ignored the comments when they were originally made and made no attempt to make the corrections that he made only after I made this comment here after he submitted the article as a FAC. There are still errors that need correction. Please see the current talk page about this matter. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I have studied the comments made by this IP on the article talk page and addressed the specific instances. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As already indicated, some of these specific examples are already itemized on the current talk page. It is not necessary to list them again. That is why the current talk page is linked in the listing. People can refer to it directly; the most recently composed section w/ specific examples is: Talk:Harold Pinter#Multiple factual and source errors throughout article due to "peer review"; previous sections detail other problems, some of which were archived by a bot. Given Jezhotwells' and others' unwillingness to examine their errors, it is a waste of time to list them here again. Please consult the talk page and its archives. Thank you. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) [added section link for your convenience]. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The use of non-free content is extremely excessive at this time. In an article like this, one non-free picture of the subject will sometimes be required (preferably, of course, none) but rarely more than that.
- File:HaroldPinter.jpg should be deleted ASAP. As an image from a commercial file imagebank, it is eligible for speedy deletion and our use here clearly fails NFCC#2. Yes, it's widely used, but that's probably because the other sources have paid for it.
- Thanks for finding the replacement image. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg I get the point that his appearance was different, but is the difference in appearance really that significant?
- Good point, but I think it is illustrative of his appearance as a rep actor. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the image is extremely helpful in illustrating the part of the article about Pinter as a young actor. His appearance is so strikingly different from the other images of him as an older man that this is needed for comprehension of his career. An actor's appearance is important in understanding the kinds of roles that they would be considered for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, but the mere fact that he was an actor does not mean that multiple images of him at different stages of his life are justified. If there was sourced discussion about how his appearance affected his early career (say, if he was something of a sex symbol...) this argument may hold some water. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pointing out that the same objections to this image were made by "NYScholar" and they led to the banning of that user by Jezhotwells et al. Please consult the block history. A note in the section about Pinter's acting career already links to the photo ("The Acting Career of Harold Pinter," compiled by Batty). It was never necessary to have the photo in the article, since any reader would see it when clicking on the linked source, which features it. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, but the mere fact that he was an actor does not mean that multiple images of him at different stages of his life are justified. If there was sourced discussion about how his appearance affected his early career (say, if he was something of a sex symbol...) this argument may hold some water. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very disappointed by the removal of this image. As NYScholar points out, this image survived a previous discussion about it, and there is plenty of discussion in the article about Pinter's acting career that this image aptly illustrates. Jezhotwells, I encourage you to find that old discussion and reinstate this image. As the other fair use images have been removed, the NFCC criteria now permit the use of this image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no system of "one in, one out". As many or as few non-free images as are required should be used. I'm just questioning how required this one is; right now, it's a long way from clear. As I said, an image like this may, hypothetically, be usable, but it's a matter of demonstrating that it is the case. If his early career was based on his appearance or some such, this image may be justifiable, but the mere fact that he looked different does not automatically justify its use. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the image is extremely helpful in illustrating the part of the article about Pinter as a young actor. His appearance is so strikingly different from the other images of him as an older man that this is needed for comprehension of his career. An actor's appearance is important in understanding the kinds of roles that they would be considered for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, but I think it is illustrative of his appearance as a rep actor. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Harold Pinter.JPG Has this been published? Is the author notable? Or is this just a sketch from some guy on the internet that may or may not be based on a copyrighted image?
I have asked the question at Commons. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a recognized artist, Reginald Gray (artist). The Harold Pinter article says the image was published in the New Statesman on 12 January 2008, but that information should be added to the image page itself, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SSilvers has sourced this - Reginald Gray who uploaded it to Commons himself and it was used in the obit 12 January 2009.[55]
- Then I most certainly support its use there. As mentioned, it's worth mentioning the artist and the use in the article, as it gives the picture some legitimacy beyond "a sketch on the internet". J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SSilvers has sourced this - Reginald Gray who uploaded it to Commons himself and it was used in the obit 12 January 2009.[55]
- He's a recognized artist, Reginald Gray (artist). The Harold Pinter article says the image was published in the New Statesman on 12 January 2008, but that information should be added to the image page itself, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:HaroldPinterKrappsLastTape.jpg Ok, the role was important, but do we need to see a picture? Was his appearance in role something of great importance, or is it an issue best discussed in the article on the show?
- It was his last stage performance. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a reader of the article, I found it very interesting to see how Pinter appeared in the role, having battled cancer and other physical challenges for several years. His intense expression in the photo helps to explain why he must have been such an effective actor, even under such circumstances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Our own emotional responses to the image/our own interest in it are all well and good, and so is the significance of the role, but that does not mean that it meets NFCC#8. Basically, the use of the image has to add significantly to reader understanding of the article. His role in the stage show is discussed comparatively briefly; in fact, his performance/role is only mentioned, while the show is discussed briefly. While the details Ssilvers outlines may well be important, they are more suited to the article on the show, in which the image is more legitimately used. We should aim to minimise the use of non-free content, and this seems to be a clear case where the image is not strictly needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Our own emotional responses to the image/our own interest in it are all well and good, and so is the significance of the role, but that does not mean that it meets NFCC#8. Basically, the use of the image has to add significantly to reader understanding of the article. His role in the stage show is discussed comparatively briefly; in fact, his performance/role is only mentioned, while the show is discussed briefly. While the details Ssilvers outlines may well be important, they are more suited to the article on the show, in which the image is more legitimately used. We should aim to minimise the use of non-free content, and this seems to be a clear case where the image is not strictly needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a reader of the article, I found it very interesting to see how Pinter appeared in the role, having battled cancer and other physical challenges for several years. His intense expression in the photo helps to explain why he must have been such an effective actor, even under such circumstances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was his last stage performance. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pinterdvd.jpg doesn't even have a rationale. It's very rare that DVD covers (or album covers, book covers, etc) are going to be needed. What's so significant about this cover that reader understanding is significantly diminished if they cannot see it?
- It does have a rationale, and it does illustrate the fact that this was a video Nobel lecture, in itself a notable event. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had added the additional separate rationale after seeing J Milburn's objection; please see the editing history for the jpg file. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As that section of the article mentions Pinter was unable to attend the Nobel prize ceremony on medical grounds, so he made the video himself. --Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinter had not "made the video himself" at all; it was made by a commercial company named Illuminations; please consult the image history and follow the links for the source. Please do not make false claims about the video. The video was arranged to be made by Channel Four and broadcast on Channel Four in the UK after it was shown in Stockholm; please consult the sources. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't suddenly mean that the cover is so significant that a reader cannot fully understand the article without seeing it. Of the three questionable images remaining in the article, this is the one that clearly does not belong. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The images have been discussed in earlier now-archived talk pages; they have been the subject of disputes. As the image is linked via the Wikipedia internal link to the DVD, it is not that significant if it is not in the article too; however, there is a clear-cut rationale for the DVD jpg, since it is the subject of the section of the article that it illustrated before Milburn's (recurrent?) objection and Jezhotwells' more recent removal of the jpg. Again, one can consult the DVD article directly if needed. It's really no skin off anyone's teeth, so to speak, whether it is in this section of the article or only in the DVD article. I happen to think it is within its fair-use rationale in the article, and I know from past communications with Illuminations that Illuminations has had no objection to its being included in this Wikipedia article section of Harold Pinter; but I am not able to share with Wikipedia my email with Illuminations about this matter, so it may have to remain out. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the copyright holders have any objection to the use here is not of great significance- instead, we must turn to the non-free content criteria. If, on the other hand, the copyright holders are willing to release the image under a free license, we can use the image near enough however we like while sticking within Wikipedia policy. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The images have been discussed in earlier now-archived talk pages; they have been the subject of disputes. As the image is linked via the Wikipedia internal link to the DVD, it is not that significant if it is not in the article too; however, there is a clear-cut rationale for the DVD jpg, since it is the subject of the section of the article that it illustrated before Milburn's (recurrent?) objection and Jezhotwells' more recent removal of the jpg. Again, one can consult the DVD article directly if needed. It's really no skin off anyone's teeth, so to speak, whether it is in this section of the article or only in the DVD article. I happen to think it is within its fair-use rationale in the article, and I know from past communications with Illuminations that Illuminations has had no objection to its being included in this Wikipedia article section of Harold Pinter; but I am not able to share with Wikipedia my email with Illuminations about this matter, so it may have to remain out. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does have a rationale, and it does illustrate the fact that this was a video Nobel lecture, in itself a notable event. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that this is an issue that some do not really care about, but it is one that, like any other, really needs to be dealt with before an article can be considered ready for FA status. A single identifying image of the subject may be necessary, but that's only when you're certain that free content does not exist (and preferably, at this level, once you've made a significant effort to locate some). J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the lead image, and replaced it with a free one. It's not great- you may prefer to use the full image, or attempt a crop. Alternatively, you could put a bit of effort in to get a stronger image released. However, better that than a non-free image, and certainly better that than a non-free image from a source like that. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have actually asked over thirty rights holders for permissions over the last three years or so, but so far without success - I guess too many people think they can make money form the images. If others agree with your points I will remove these images. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that I have now addressed your points by removing the non-free images. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the current format for the photo is not really effective; it needs a bit more cropping and enlargement perhaps, or a better version. It's really hard to make out any details in the photograph. This photograph has been accessible for quite some time. It never seemed entirely appropriate for an infobox photograph. It's not a question of money; it's a question of the reliability and dependability of other internet users: people with their own personal photographs of Harold Pinter may not be willing to have them posted and re-posted all over the internet. To have that happen may be offensive to Pinter's living relatives and friends. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image has been freely released, and so should be used in favour of a non-free image. If you feel that it is not the best picture (and I agree) then the best course of action is to attempt to get a better one released under a free license. I'm afraid I don't really understand the second part of your post. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the current format for the photo is not really effective; it needs a bit more cropping and enlargement perhaps, or a better version. It's really hard to make out any details in the photograph. This photograph has been accessible for quite some time. It never seemed entirely appropriate for an infobox photograph. It's not a question of money; it's a question of the reliability and dependability of other internet users: people with their own personal photographs of Harold Pinter may not be willing to have them posted and re-posted all over the internet. To have that happen may be offensive to Pinter's living relatives and friends. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that I have now addressed your points by removing the non-free images. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have actually asked over thirty rights holders for permissions over the last three years or so, but so far without success - I guess too many people think they can make money form the images. If others agree with your points I will remove these images. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Declaration of interest: I peer reviewed this article, and earlier contributed a little to the nominator's Herculean attempts to knock the article into shape following crippling WP:OWN problems with a now-banned editor NYScholar (whom, from the tone and content of her/his comments, I take to be the anonymous 66.66.27.196 above; those comments are, in my view, of no merit.) I offer no opinion on the images, as I am inexpert on the intricacies of the WP rules about fair use etc. Otherwise, in my judgment, having taken part in reviews of very many FA nominations (and having taken a few of my own contributions to FA) I believe the content of the article clearly meets all the FA criteria. I send sincere applause to Jezhotwells for a wonderful job. Tim riley (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user needs to follow Wikipedia's own policies regarding other users, especially those who are clearly living persons: WP:NPA and WP:Harass. Some of his earlier comments need to be stricken from Wikipedia history. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while the issues I raised above remain. Why the nominator has not replied here, I am not sure. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have responded. I have been rather busy in real life. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I have struck my oppose, but I cannot support as I am yet to give the article a proper look through. Thanks for taking the image issues seriously. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks foe your comments and for pointing out where the images failed to meet the criteria. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I have struck my oppose, but I cannot support as I am yet to give the article a proper look through. Thanks for taking the image issues seriously. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have responded. I have been rather busy in real life. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I proofread and copy edited this article before it was promoted to GA. Since then, the nominator has continued to improve the article. The nominator has responded to extensive peer review comments and also to the comments of 66.66.27.196, to the extent that specific comments were raised. I believe that the article is comprehensive, thoroughly referenced and meets the other FA criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Until all of the errors of fact and format are corrected. The "peer reviewers" seem unable to perceive their own errors. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- .196 is banned User:NYScholar. Moondyne (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please specify here the remaining issues which you feel do not meet the criteria. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moondyne's addition above is most helpful; would it be possible and proper for an admin to strike through all the long and disruptive interpolations by NYScholar/66.66.27.196 to enable bona fide reviewers to find relevant material more easily herein? Tim riley (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Just skimmed through the Sport and friendship section, and the following caught my eye: "a lifetime support[er] of Yorkshire Cricket Club". Assuming this isn't from a quote, there's no need at all for the brackets. Just saying "lifetime supporter" is perfectly fine.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have tweaked that sentence a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO comments.
1. Lead could be made more engaging. Don't give us 8 (I counted) different roles that the fellow had in the first sentence. Later in the first paragraph, it is also a bit too listy (be selective). Second paragraph feels too pompous academic art critic-y. Try to boil it down a little more (lead should be engaging). Third and fourth paras seem better. Advise having some lead-master like Wehwalt or Tony give it a little help to pep it up. Make it shine!
2. Also, please don't take this as a snipe, or off topic, but in the FAC listing if you can tell us what the subject is and why we should care, it will help people decide if they want to click through to look at it...or to review. Obviously you had some "love" for the topic to do all that work on it to make an FA, so communicate a little feeling for it! :)
TCO (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points which I shall attempt to address by Saturday. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tweaked the "listy" sentences. I think the second paragraph is a fair summary of the critical commentary on Pinter, which is probably far more extensive than that for any other contemporary playwright. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points which I shall attempt to address by Saturday. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of citations in the lead is a bit excessive - per WP:LEAD, most of this material, except for quotes, should be cited in the body, not the lead
- Fixed Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do "Hobson's prophetic words" appear in FN 108?
- No, removed POV phrase. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct name of NYT is The New York Times ("The" is part of the title)
- Don't repeat full bibliographic details in Notes for works that appear in Works cited
- FN 8: are you citing two different articles here? If so, are we missing a URL? If not, formatting seems off
- FN 16: why "guardian.co.uk" but "Independent"? Be consistent in whether you use website or newspaper titles. Also, why does FN 44 include both?
- Be consistent in how cf entries are formatted (capitalized or not)
- Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers
- FN 69: access date?
- Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as it results in inconsistent formatting
- FN 93: check formatting, make sure it's consistent
- FN 98: access date? There are a few other weblinks also missing access dates
- Print sources without weblinks need page numbers (ex. FN 106)
- Be consistent from which angle you notate reprints - ie. rpt in or rpt from
- FN 151: is this meant to start with a hyphen?
- FN 204: formatting
- I am working through all of the cites and reformatting as neccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "Faber" and "Faber and Faber" the same thing?
- Be consistent in what is italicized - for example, "BBC News" sometimes italicized and sometimes not
- Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized
- Don't include "Eng." in UK locations
In general sources appear reliable but formatting needs some editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all of these points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, but there are still some formatting inconsistencies. For example, compare refs 33 and 36, you're spelling out NYTC in ref 58 not 21, compare refs 56 and 57 (and need endash in page range for ref 56), missing accessdate for ref 88...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, sorry about missing those but the points immediately above have now been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, but there are still some formatting inconsistencies. For example, compare refs 33 and 36, you're spelling out NYTC in ref 58 not 21, compare refs 56 and 57 (and need endash in page range for ref 56), missing accessdate for ref 88...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all of these points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TCO is too kind, I do not think I write ledes particularly well, but the articles get promoted so I must be doing something not too wrong. Anyhoo, I rewrote the first paragraph. If you find it an improvement, I will work on the rest. TCO is correct, the lede is really too advanced, which sometimes happens. Use the second paragraph to tell about a good part of Pinter's biography, the man is being lost behind his works. Keep the whole lede to no more than four paragraphs, though. Once you've done that, ping me again on my talk and I'll come look at it. Also, there is no need to have citations in the lede, unless there is something not mentioned in the body which is in the lede.
Of course, if you are appalled by my machete work on those stone tablets, I will not be offended if you choose to look elsewhere for editing help. Either way is fine. I should also add I don't intend to either support or oppose, because I don't have time to review the article in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your work, I have incorporated your comments and wonder what you think? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much better. I made some minor changes. Just looking across at the prizes in the infobox, perhaps you are overly dependent on chronological order? I would put his major prizes first. And I'd rank the CH above the Nobel, as there are fewer CH than there are Nobel Prize winners at any one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, awards re-ordered. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much better. I made some minor changes. Just looking across at the prizes in the infobox, perhaps you are overly dependent on chronological order? I would put his major prizes first. And I'd rank the CH above the Nobel, as there are fewer CH than there are Nobel Prize winners at any one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your work, I have incorporated your comments and wonder what you think? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead reads like a lead now. Kudos, both ov ya! Don't plan to review or work with the article, but wish "Harold" the best.TCO (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I wish this article well, I'm concerned that it is now headed by an "under construction" banner. This, as the banner explains, indicates that the article is "in the middle of an expansion or major reconstruction". Such heavyweight work is incompatible with the FAC page, which is about review not rebuilding. Perhaps the work taking place is largely supperficial, in which case the banner is inappropriate and should be removed. However, if major changes are under way with the prose and structure, the article needs to be withdrawn from FAC until these operations are complete. At a glance, it looks to me more like the former than the latter, and that it is the banner that should go. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I was reformatting citations, now that that is nearly completed, I have removed the banner. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine now. For future reference, the "underconstruction" banner should be used only when an article is being substantially rebuilt. Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck sources for close paraphrasing, accurate representation of sources needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you point out specifics. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean. A spotcheck for compliance with WP:V and close paraphrasing is needed for all nominators-- have you had one on another nomination? If so, please link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand - well will someone undertake a spot check please? Presumably i can't do it myself. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had one previous momination, please see: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol Bus Boycott, 1963/archive1. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If, having peer reviewed and commented extensively, I am eligible, I shall be happy to undertake a spot check. The sources are extensive but I have access to the British Library, and so can check the refs in this article against all published sources. (Grateful for a quick reply on this, as I may need to order some Pinter-related books from the BL's stores, which can take a few days for the more recherché stuff stored offsite.) Tim riley (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had one previous momination, please see: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol Bus Boycott, 1963/archive1. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand - well will someone undertake a spot check please? Presumably i can't do it myself. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean. A spotcheck for compliance with WP:V and close paraphrasing is needed for all nominators-- have you had one on another nomination? If so, please link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course, thank you, Tim riley-- peer reviewing doesn't confer a COI wrt spot checking sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good! I'll attend to this tomorrow and report back here. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have spot-checked for accuracy and compliance with WP:V and Wikipedia:Sources#Copyright_and_plagiarism, against references 2, 6, 7, 8, 19, 30, 40, 50, 60 (both) and 70 from printed books cited; and against online references 21 (eight citations) and 33 (five citations on different pages with the same url). That is slightly more than a 5% sample. Is that sufficient? All examples listed accurately represent their source material and are duly rewritten where necessary (e.g. when the original is not reproduced in quotation marks or a quote is not plainly indicated). On this 5% sample, the spot-check is wholly satisfactory,
though n.b. that I cannot verify accuracy and proper paraphrase for ref 189 because I cannot get the Pinter sub-page to open. (As a passing comment, I wonder if ref 124 is lacking "Pinter" as its first word?)Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks, Tim. Yes, Pinter was missing from ref 124, but is now added. Ref 184 although the internal page link to "Harold Pinter" does not work, the obituary is there further down the page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have spot-checked for accuracy and compliance with WP:V and Wikipedia:Sources#Copyright_and_plagiarism, against references 2, 6, 7, 8, 19, 30, 40, 50, 60 (both) and 70 from printed books cited; and against online references 21 (eight citations) and 33 (five citations on different pages with the same url). That is slightly more than a 5% sample. Is that sufficient? All examples listed accurately represent their source material and are duly rewritten where necessary (e.g. when the original is not reproduced in quotation marks or a quote is not plainly indicated). On this 5% sample, the spot-check is wholly satisfactory,
- Very good! I'll attend to this tomorrow and report back here. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course, thank you, Tim riley-- peer reviewing doesn't confer a COI wrt spot checking sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment. I just glanced at this, I haven't done a proper review (I might if I get time). I fixed an MoS issue, but I noticed a few issues with teh very first sentence in the body:
Pinter was born on 10 October 1930, in Hackney, east London, to Jewish, lower middle class, native English parents of Eastern European ancestry: his father, Jack Pinter (1902–1997) was a ladies' tailor; his mother, Frances (née Moskowitz; 1904–1992), a homemaker who was described by Pinter as a "wonderful cook".
- First of all, that's an incredibly long sentence, and not easy to read (try reading it out loud). Second, is his mother's culinary ability really relevant? And finally, even before the colon, we have five commas in one sentence! It could do with breaking up a bit. I haven't read the rest of the article, but would suggest reading it aloud. Oh, and is the "biography" header absolutely necessary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. Overfamiliarity on my part, I think. I have stripped this down and simplified. Some one else split the sentence. I'm a little bit puzzled by the comment about the Biography header. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Life? I have seen Biography used ferquently in FAs - overcourse, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if it was my article, I'd remove the "biography" and "career" headings, and have the heading under them as level 2s rather than subheader of biography and career. But I guess it's personal preference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. Overfamiliarity on my part, I think. I have stripped this down and simplified. Some one else split the sentence. I'm a little bit puzzled by the comment about the Biography header. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Life? I have seen Biography used ferquently in FAs - overcourse, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almostsupport.- But I can't support a nom that has a sentence in it that I can't understand: "In 1964, four years after the success of The Caretaker, through its long run at the Duchess Theatre, which garnered an Evening Standard Award, The Birthday Party was revived both on television (with Pinter himself in the role of Goldberg) and on stage (directed by Pinter at the Aldwych Theatre) and was well-received." Please split this in two and make clear which play had the long run at the Duchess and which play got the Evening Stndard Award: in each case was it The Caretaker or The Birthday Party?? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted out - I hope to your satisfaction - once again my overfamiliarity with the artcile cause me to miss that. thanks for pointing it out. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted out - I hope to your satisfaction - once again my overfamiliarity with the artcile cause me to miss that. thanks for pointing it out. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments. Sorry to be late to the party, but I think there's a little bit more polishing required; a few parts seem rather leaden. Some examples:
- The award of the Nobel Prize in Literature to Pinter and his sharp political statements have elicited strong criticism and even, at times, provoked ridicule and personal attacks. The lack of a comma after "Pinter" makes it at first sight appear that Pinter shared the Nobel Prize with his sharp political statements.
- Mountain Language (1988) concerned the Turkish suppression of the Kurdish language." Use of the past tense makes it appear that it no longer does, which can't be true. It also makes it appear that the play was in some way worried about Mountain Language.
- In the first paragraph of the Marriages and family life, the last sentence repeats what we were told in the fourth sentence, that Betrayal was inspired by Pinter's relationship with Bakewell.
- "Pinter also adapted many screenplays from other writers' novels". Surely you don't adapt a screenplay from a novel, you adapt a novel to a screenplay?
- "His commissioned screenplay adaptations from others' works for the films ...". Shouldn't that be "of" rather that "from"?
- "On 16 June 2009, Antonia Fraser officially opened the Harold Pinter Room & Studio at the Hackney Empire, renaming the Hackney Empire Hospitality Suite." Not sure what that means. Was it previously called the Hackney Empire Hospitality Suite?
- "In solidarity with the Belarus Free Theatre, which was invited to bring Being Harold Pinter to Chicago for the month of February 2011, collaborations of actors and theatre companies joined in offering additional benefit readings of Being Harold Pinter across the United States." Awkward repetition.
- "In November, however, discovering an infection that would nearly kill him, his doctor hospitalised him and barred such travel". That's a strange sentence, made stranger by the use of "would nearly kill him". The doctor didn't "discover" an infection as Pasteur discovered a rabies vaccine, rather he diagnosed Pinter as having an infection.
Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points, I will look at these tomorrow. Thanks for your copy-editing, Malleus. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to these points in order:
- 1. That is why the third person plural "have" is used, but I see the chance of confusion. I have reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to these points in order:
- 2. changed tense and verb Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3. OK, removed final sentence Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 4 and 5. Reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. removed repetition Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. Reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that all of those points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you have, so I've now supported. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 14 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [56].
- Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forget what you've read about stuffy old-fashioned Georgian social values, the truth was that if you wanted a bit of hows-your-father, London, specifically Covent Garden, was the place to go. And if, once there, you wanted to know where the best prostitutes might be found, from out-of-work actresses to rich courtesans to rotten old hags, then Harris's List was what you bought - if you could afford it. Harris's List somehow escaped the censors for about 40 years, before a society of busybodies realised that its publishers (who remain largely anonymous) could be done on a trumped-up libel charge. Few copies remain today, but those that do provide a valuable insight into the seedier side of Georgian London. Parrot of Doom 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing bibliographic info for Raven 1992
- Done.
- FN 32: seems like the italicization should be almost the reverse of what it is now. Same for FN 59
- That's a function of the template used, however, I added italics to the titles and it seems to have fixed it.
- FN 45: need dash in page range. Also, is 1970 part of the title?
I use whatever formatting the page sourced uses, if it uses a hyphen then so do I.I fixedthe year thoughboth.
- FN 48: should note that login is required
- Done.
- Denlinger 2002: number shouldn't be part of the title
- Done.
- Location for Henderson 1999 and Cruickshank 2010? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to Henderson as I pulled a quote from a snippet view (judged the context as the same quote was used in another source). Fixed Cruikshank. Parrot of Doom 14:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very quick driveby on Henderson—is the publisher really Longman? It's dated 1999, but AFAIK Pearson retired the Longman imprint in 1998 and rebranded everything as either Pearson Education or PearsonLongman. – iridescent 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the details from the Google Books site. Usually I click through to the book's first few pages but as a snippet view, it won't let me do that. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very quick driveby on Henderson—is the publisher really Longman? It's dated 1999, but AFAIK Pearson retired the Longman imprint in 1998 and rebranded everything as either Pearson Education or PearsonLongman. – iridescent 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to Henderson as I pulled a quote from a snippet view (judged the context as the same quote was used in another source). Fixed Cruikshank. Parrot of Doom 14:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Inflation is fantastic, a guide on how to do it, "Priced in 1788 at two shillings sixpence, Harris's List was affordable for the middle classes, but expensive for a working class man." with footnotes. This contextualises any other use of 18th century figures adequately for a reader. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Covent_garden_c1720.jpg: use creation or publication rather than upload date
Licensing and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So much for the shiny new Commons uploader. Fixed. Parrot of Doom 18:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsphoowaawwrrr - enough of that, I'll copyedit as I go and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
published from 1757–1795 - looks odd combining from and a dash --> "published from 1757 to 1795"?- Agreed, fixed.
between 120–190 - ditto "+ and" instead of the dash..?- Changed to "about 120..."
frowned on --> "frowned upon"?- I think upon is a little formal for discussion of prostitutes and the like. The two words are interchangeable. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, I'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think upon is a little formal for discussion of prostitutes and the like. The two words are interchangeable. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some editions may have been written by Samuel Derrick (why the bold?)- Well, I was about to create Samuel Derrick for real, replacing the redirect, but someone else decided to restore it and bold the text, so I didn't bother. I'm not sure if things need to be bolded in that instance or not.
- I de-bolded as it ain't in the lead...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was about to create Samuel Derrick for real, replacing the redirect, but someone else decided to restore it and bold the text, so I didn't bother. I'm not sure if things need to be bolded in that instance or not.
Covent Garden was not spared, and the Shakespear's Head Tavern was raided. - lack of a time attached leaves the reader hanging a bit. Can any temporal addendum be added at all?- Same time as the general raids (hence, "not spared"). There's no precise date AFAIK. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if it can't be added then it can't be added....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Same time as the general raids (hence, "not spared"). There's no precise date AFAIK. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise a fun read and eminently and imminently supportable :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead, "A Grub Street hack," In this context, "hack" is not easily understood, at least to me. Perhaps this is a bit of British English with which I'm not familiar? Repeated in "Possible authors" section.
- Hack linked.
- Commentary, "Some lists also contain defences of prostitution; earlier editions claim that the trade guarded against the seduction of young women, provided an outlet for frustrated married men, and kept other young men from "le péche [sic] que la Nature désavoue [the sin that Nature repudiates]", or sodomy." Some of this sentence seems redundant to the preamble described in the first paragraph of the Content section.
- The point is to introduce the reader to the idea that the lists' authors were ambivalent toward homosexuality. The previous mention of the preamble is just a physical description of the first pages of each list.
- Commentary, "and while generally, most entries in the lists look favourably on those women who refrained from swearing" I'm not understanding the need for the comma?
- Breathing space.
- Possible authors, "who lived with the actress Jane Lessingham," Is this actress well known in Britain? Because I have never heard of her, and so my first thought was "so why should I care that he lived with her?"
- A notable actress who doesn't have an article yet. She has an OED entry.
- Possible authors, "Born perhaps around 1720–1730," Is "perhaps around" redundant?
- No, the date, or even the range of dates, is unknown. Parrot of Doom 07:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a very nice (and very interesting) article on a publication that I had never heard of. I kept getting sidetracked reading all of the articles about the madams and prostitutes though - a treasury of Wikipedia information that I had not stumbled across before. A few comments above; when these are resolved I shall be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough on the above. Everything else looks good, so changing to support. Great work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read through this some time ago, and I can't find any serious issues now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks all. I have a couple more sentences to add on the Roaches (publishers), but nothing critical. Just been a bit preoccupied lately with other matters. I'll do it in the next few days. Parrot of Doom 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple of prose points in the lead:-
- "two shillings sixpence" is not idiomatic. It was "two shillings and sixpence" (I'm old enough to remember)
- You're surely not 250 years old ;) The wording above is the same as that used by the source, but it isn't something I'm at all attached to.
- Well, it's my birthday today, though I'm not quite 250. Notwithstanding the wording in the source, I think you should write in today's idiom, not that of 250 years ago. As written it looks wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know my mother would disagree but as I've said, I'm not attached to it. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not change it, then? Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I think it's fine as it is. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not change it, then? Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know my mother would disagree but as I've said, I'm not attached to it. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's my birthday today, though I'm not quite 250. Notwithstanding the wording in the source, I think you should write in today's idiom, not that of 250 years ago. As written it looks wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're surely not 250 years old ;) The wording above is the same as that used by the source, but it isn't something I'm at all attached to.
- The sentence "A contemporary report estimates in 1791 that it sold about 8,000 copies annually" is wrongly constructed. You could say "A 1791 report..." or "A contemporary report (1791) estimates that..." but not as written.
- What if I replace estimates in 1791 with of 1791 estimates? Parrot of Doom 07:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would work, too. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What if I replace estimates in 1791 with of 1791 estimates? Parrot of Doom 07:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to read the rest in the next day or so, and leave further comments. An intriguing article, I must say. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [57].
- Nominator(s): Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the previous nomination, the article underwent an extensive peer review by JimmyBlackwing, during which the prose was largely reworked to fulfill criterion 1a of the featured article criteria. I think that this addressed the concerns of those who opposed the last time, so I am giving Resident Evil 2 another shot at FAC...before the inevitable remake comes along. Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just a quick comment, why use the European box art? From what I understand, predominant sales of the game were in the US and Japan. Maybe the US cover would be better suited. I will go through the prose momentarily.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone who knows the video game guidelines might need to correct me, but I was under the assumption that the box art used is that of the first release chronologically (or the first English language release chronologically). In this case it was released in NA (North America) then in JP (Japan) a week later, then PAL (Most of the rest of the English speaking world, including most of Western Europe and Australia) over four months later. The North American box art really should be used here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the guidelines of WikiProject Video games, cover arts do not follow chronological release orders but are meant to be identifiable to the reader. This is the reasoning I gave for the precedence of the European box art in this case. Prime Blue (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone who knows the video game guidelines might need to correct me, but I was under the assumption that the box art used is that of the first release chronologically (or the first English language release chronologically). In this case it was released in NA (North America) then in JP (Japan) a week later, then PAL (Most of the rest of the English speaking world, including most of Western Europe and Australia) over four months later. The North American box art really should be used here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose review - Prose are fairly good, however I have small fixes I find to better the articles grammar.
- is a 1998 survival horror video game originally released for the PlayStation. -> is a survival horror video game originally released for the PlayStation in 1998.
- its story -> plot, events
- "Zapping System", -> ,"
- This is wrong, actually. MOS:LQ. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- puzzles -> for such a basic word, try using a synonym, since you already used it in the last sentence. Repetitious use of basic words can make the prose appear unprofessional
- Hideki Kamiya and produced by Shinji Mikami -> why not linked? Many other terms or people are linked in the infobox and still linked in lead. Whatever the decision, be consistent
- redesign introduced, that employs -> tense issues
- This is only from the lead. I find the prose to be well executed, but can be bettered if basic fixes are made. Try and apply these type of fixes throughout the rest of the article. I'll have more soon.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the European versions of Resident Evil 2 use the same cover art as the Japanese releases, this is the most identifiable one. Incidentally, the "1998" sentence was just changed before, so I guess this is more of a preference-based issue. Are you sure on changing "story" to plot or "events"? "Its plot takes place" sounds very strange, and events is already used in the same sentence. Usage of key words has been introduced in the peer review to correct the ambiguity that the old article versions suffered from. That being said, changed "puzzles" to "obstacles", although I am not quite satisfied with its vagueness. Figured readers were less likely going to check out biographical articles from the lead section, thus did not link Kamiya and Mikami. I think the "redesign" sentence is legit the way it is worded. The redesign introduced a presentation that is still supported by a soundtrack that still employs "desperation" as an underlying theme. Prime Blue (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is only from the lead. I find the prose to be well executed, but can be bettered if basic fixes are made. Try and apply these type of fixes throughout the rest of the article. I'll have more soon.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - You are right that most of that is preference. I read through the rest of the article, and (I have played the game) and understood everything and find it to be written very well. You have earned my support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your prose review and support. Prime Blue (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as peer reviewer. It's, in my opinion, a comprehensive, neutral, nicely written and well-researched piece of work that should definitely be featured. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media mostly checks out (kudos for the detailed and accurate rationales on the screenshots) but the rationale on the sound file could do with a cleanup (a more explicit purpose of use, tied into the article text, as with the screenshots). J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the cookie-cutter fair-use rationale and wrote a stronger one. Prime Blue (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, all legit according to the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the cookie-cutter fair-use rationale and wrote a stronger one. Prime Blue (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was happy with it last time, and it qualifies still WRT prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is fraught with Japanese text/letters, is it necessary? TGilmour (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only noticed Japanese characters in the lead translation of the game's title. Are you referring to the characters used in the quote-refs? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in the refs. They seem superfluous. TGilmour (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I included the Japanese and German quotes in accordance with WP:NONENG ("When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote"). Prime Blue (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood.
- I included the Japanese and German quotes in accordance with WP:NONENG ("When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote"). Prime Blue (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in the refs. They seem superfluous. TGilmour (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only noticed Japanese characters in the lead translation of the game's title. Are you referring to the characters used in the quote-refs? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely meets the criteria. TGilmour (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a source review or spotchecks yet? Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1: page(s)?
- Does Suleputer provide catalog numbers for album notes?
- Ellipses shouldn't use square brackets unless the quote uses ellipses
- You seem to be relying rather heavily on Resident Evil Archives
- Ref 32: pages?
- Ref 35: check formatting
- There are a number of print sources missing page numbers, which are required for verifiability
- Why are some of the "(in Japanese)" notations in a different colour?
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? What are the author's qualifications? Same for this and this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source of ref 35 does not have page numbers. Worked off of scans for some other references – which did not specify the exact page numbers within the works (I guess some do not have page numbers either). Forgot catalog numbers for albums, added. Had no idea that added ellipses do not use square brackets on Wikipedia, changed. Usage of single sources might have seemed a little heavy because I had a habit of sourcing consecutive sentences with identical references – removed those now. Outside of a few design comments in the development section, Resident Evil Archives is used exclusively for plot-related information. Ref 35 formatting fixed. {{Cite video game}} used a different color for the language field, changed it. Sources of refs 73, 76, 113 and 137 are in the project's list of reliable sources. Thank you for your checks. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have spotchecks for close paraphrasing and correct representation of sources been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, someone wanted to check it, but I guess he hasn't gotten to it yet. I requested a review on the project talk page. Prime Blue (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing spotchecks - checked most of the most-used online references; no close paraphrasing found. --PresN 02:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The article looks to be well researched and maintained to be a Featured Article. GamerPro64 22:47, 8 July 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [58].
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SMS Friedrich der Grosse was the flagship of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I and saw heavy service, including the Battle of Jutland; she was ultimately scuttled in Scapa Flow at the end of the war and later raised for scrapping. I wrote this article back in December last year; it has since passed a GA review a MILHIST A-class review. I feel this article is very close to FA quality, and any issues that are identified can be addressed during the review. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DAB/EL check - There are no dead links but there are two dabs. GamerPro64 20:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both of you. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had reviewed the article at A-class review and have nothing to add here. But I still can't get over the fact that Grosse is spelled without the Eszett ß. Well done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The crewmen intentionally worked slow as a form of passive resistance" - source?
- Smolke or Schmolke?
- Be consistent in how page ranges are notated. For example, why "pp. 246–7" but "pp. 231–232"?
- Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations, and if so in what cases those are wikilinked. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does what is essentially a dictionary definition really require a citation? Would linking "go-slow" to Slowdown rather than using the footnote make everyone happy?
- Fixed the rest. Thanks for checking these, Nikkimaria. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose & citation review -- prose generally appears to be good, and all statements appear to be cited; some points:
- Friedrich der Grosse was assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet -- is it standard in the German Navy to say "the III Squadron" and not simply "III Squadron" (as we tend to in the Commonwealth)? If it was "3rd Squadron" the definite article would make sense but appears not.
- In early 1914, Friedrich der Grosse participated in additional ship and unit training. -- What is a "unit" in this instance?
- At 17:45, Scheer ordered a two-point turn to port to bring his ships closer to the British battlecruisers and the accompanying fast battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron; a minute later, the order to open fire was given. -- Was it Scheer who gave the order? Be nice to avoid the passive voice here and say that so-and-so did it.
- The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the order -- What exactly do you mean by "inverted" here?
- made clear to von Reuter -- Must admit I thought "von" was capitalised when not preceded by the first name but perhaps I'm wrong, pls clarify for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't actually know - I mainly have been doing that because it sounds right in my head (i.e., if one reads III aloud as Third)
- "Unit" here refers to the III Squadron
- Yes, Scheer gave the order - passive voice fixed.
- Substituted "reversed" for "inverted" - is that clearer now?
- I believe it should be capitalized just by itself if there is no name or rank. Thanks again, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re. "the III Squadron", I'm not going to make a fuss about it myself, main thing is that you're consistent
- Re. "unit", that's fine, just wanted to make sure it wasn't equivalent to "ship", which would've been redundant
- Re. change to active voice, tks
- Re. "inverted", sorry to be a dog worrying a bone but in what way was the order "reversed" -- do you mean it was cancelled by whoever gave it, overturned by someone else in authority, or simply ignored by the fleet? I'm keen not just to get the nuance right, but also to avoid "reversed" appearing in the same sentence as "reversals"... ;-)
- Re. "Von", tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just that the order of the ships was reversed (i.e., SMS König led the line initially but afterward was located close to the rear of the formation). Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, you didn't mean "order" as in "command", but "order" as in "sequence"...?! Heh, sorry but earlier you had "Scheer ordered the fleet..." and I gathered it was this order (command) that was "inverted" (or reversed or overturned, etc). Okay, let's start again but clarify: how about The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the sequence of the ships (or The series of alterations in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and reversed the sequence of the ships) if that's what you mean. Don't you love the English language? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, gotta love multiple meanings for the same word that aren't exactly clear from context :) I opted for the first wording. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, you didn't mean "order" as in "command", but "order" as in "sequence"...?! Heh, sorry but earlier you had "Scheer ordered the fleet..." and I gathered it was this order (command) that was "inverted" (or reversed or overturned, etc). Okay, let's start again but clarify: how about The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the sequence of the ships (or The series of alterations in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and reversed the sequence of the ships) if that's what you mean. Don't you love the English language? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just that the order of the ships was reversed (i.e., SMS König led the line initially but afterward was located close to the rear of the formation). Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(OD)Support on reviewed criteria: 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 2, and 4. Cool. In addition to the above, neutrality, stability, style, and detail criteria appear to be met. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: all images used in article are acceptably PD. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about using Template:sfn? TGilmour (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sfn}} appears to be solely Harvard referencing, which is not used by historians. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? TGilmour (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just not the style guide used by academic historians. Generally the CMS is used in history journals, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. TGilmour (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just not the style guide used by academic historians. Generally the CMS is used in history journals, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? TGilmour (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sfn}} appears to be solely Harvard referencing, which is not used by historians. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really meets the criteria. Brilliant article. TGilmour (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment on the article, but TGilmour is a blocked sockpuppet. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, could you please remind me whether you've had a close paraphrasing check in another FAC? I lose track, and we've seen many issues lately in MilHist articles ... not to pick on you :) Independent review is lacking, but it seems ships rarely get that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't had one - I took a bit of time off from FAC (and Wikipedia in general) for a couple of months, which seems to have coincided with the close paraphrasing issue coming out. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you ping Nikkimaria, she may do it, but the poor dear is terribly overworked :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I can - it's pretty much all print sources, most of which I don't have easy access to. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the actual issue/checking procedure, but here goes: Staff Battleships pg. 6 (not p. 14), Gardiner, Barrett and Halpern are mostly in Google books; I didn't see anything close with the Staff, Gardiner or Barrett refs, but with Halpern Citation 46 was ok, but 47 has close-paraphrasing.
- Article: On 18 September, the order was issued for a joint operation with the army to capture Ösel and Moon Islands;... vs. Halpern p.214 The doubts were overcome, and on 18 September the orders for the joint operation to capture Ösel and Moon Island were issued.
Parsecboy, citation 3 doesn't say anything about a replacement for the obsolete coastal defense ship Heimdall, you probably need to cite that separately.- I can try to review Tarrant since its over half of the citations; the 1995 version is my library. Kirk (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this change look re: Halpern?
- There's still a lot of words (order, joint operation, capture, issue) in common but I can see the argument those are all technical terms. I'd ping one of the admins because I don't know exactly what they want to address - it might have been fine as is. Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting a third opinion would be fine (perhaps Nikkimaria could take a look at this?) - I've always thought that paraphrasing had more to do with similar sentence structure than with word choice, but I could be wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's both, but in this particular case I'd say it's been sufficiently rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting a third opinion would be fine (perhaps Nikkimaria could take a look at this?) - I've always thought that paraphrasing had more to do with similar sentence structure than with word choice, but I could be wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still a lot of words (order, joint operation, capture, issue) in common but I can see the argument those are all technical terms. I'd ping one of the admins because I don't know exactly what they want to address - it might have been fine as is. Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ersatz" means "replacement", I was just spelling it out for non-German speakers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, sorry about that! Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, I can see why you thought that. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, sorry about that! Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this change look re: Halpern?
- I don't know that I can - it's pretty much all print sources, most of which I don't have easy access to. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you ping Nikkimaria, she may do it, but the poor dear is terribly overworked :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [59].
- Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first FAC nomination in over two years. The subject is a fairly unknown game by Looking Glass Studios—one whose poorly planned development and massive commercial failure helped put an early end to the company's self-publishing venture. This article is the third regarding this company that I've brought to FAC; I plan to make a habit of it in the coming months. It's passed GAN, it's been thoroughly worked over at peer review (special thanks go to User:Prime Blue for his help) and, in my opinion, it meets the FA criteria. However, as you're the ultimate judge of that, I'll just stop talking now and let the nomination commence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a minor nitpick, "With sales above 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure; it did not recoup its development costs." Above 100,000? This reads strangely to me, wouldn't a game that does badly be described as selling below a figure, and how would that figure compare to other more successful games? Other than that I think this a a perfectly good article and deserving of that little star in the top right corner. Coolug (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I have considered the strangeness of that wording; however, the source I'm using places sales "above 100,000", and no sources I've found have compared its performance to that of other games. I've tried rephrasing the sentence many times, and this version is, in my opinion, the least terrible. If you have an idea on how to fix the issue, though, I'd love to hear it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe just remove the sales figure altogether? Something like"Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and did not sell sufficiently to recoup its development costs", I think if the information in a source is rubbish then there's no obligation to include it and I don't think that the article will lose out too much from missing this, the source is there should any readers want to delve any further into figures. Coolug (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I'm not sure that's the best course of action. Removing fairly key information just to increase sentence flow isn't really my style. I try to get sales numbers whenever possible, and it's practically a miracle that they exist for this game. Looking again at the source material, it doesn't use the wording I thought it did; it's been months since I last looked at it. Here's a direct quote of the section: "Terra Nova, despite sales in excess of 100,000 units, never earned out." Perhaps I could change the wording to, "Although it sold over 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and it did not recoup its development costs"? Tell me what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds great, go for it. Coolug (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the support! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds great, go for it. Coolug (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I'm not sure that's the best course of action. Removing fairly key information just to increase sentence flow isn't really my style. I try to get sales numbers whenever possible, and it's practically a miracle that they exist for this game. Looking again at the source material, it doesn't use the wording I thought it did; it's been months since I last looked at it. Here's a direct quote of the section: "Terra Nova, despite sales in excess of 100,000 units, never earned out." Perhaps I could change the wording to, "Although it sold over 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and it did not recoup its development costs"? Tell me what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe just remove the sales figure altogether? Something like"Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and did not sell sufficiently to recoup its development costs", I think if the information in a source is rubbish then there's no obligation to include it and I don't think that the article will lose out too much from missing this, the source is there should any readers want to delve any further into figures. Coolug (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I have considered the strangeness of that wording; however, the source I'm using places sales "above 100,000", and no sources I've found have compared its performance to that of other games. I've tried rephrasing the sentence many times, and this version is, in my opinion, the least terrible. If you have an idea on how to fix the issue, though, I'd love to hear it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as peer reviewer. Found two small passages while rereading the development section, though: A release is given for System Shock – "(released in 1994)" – but not for Flight Unlimited. In the direct quote "there was a void to fill and I bubbled up to it", I think the "I" needs to be "[he]". Disregarding those minor qualms, you put a lot of work in the article and I support it as much as I can. Definitely deserves to be a featured article. Prime Blue (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And I fixed the second concern. As for the date problem, Flight Unlimited's release is mentioned at the beginning of the final sentence in the first paragraph, directly before the sentence in question. I've wondered in the past if this could be made less jarring, but no ideas have come to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) [Translations added 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]
- WP:MOS edits needed - I noticed issues with quotes (mostly ellipses), maybe other problems [While in the process of checking sources, I noticed some aspects of the article that did not comply with the Manual of Style. In particular I noticed that the ellipses (...) improperly had square brackets, but there may be other problems]
- Is the game manual paginated? It (and several other print references) need page numbers [Does the game manual have page numbers? If so, you should include those for references to it. Other print (non-web, non-game) references also need page numbers]
- Ref 7: page formatting [A single page should be notated with "pg." or "p." (pick one consistently), not "pp.", which is used for multiple pages]
- Ref 8: don't repeat publisher (applies to similar refs) ["Looking Glass Technologies. Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri. (Looking Glass Technologies)." - the repetition of "Looking Glass Technologies" is unnecessary, and should be removed both here and in other refs that repeat it]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- You seem to be using a relatively large number of primary sources - prefer third-party sources
- In general reference format needs a lot of cleanup for consistency. [In addition to including all required information (publisher, title, etc), the formatting of each reference should be consistent]. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I haven't nominated an article for FAC in two years. I'm not familiar with a lot of the shorthand you used ("issues with quotes", "paginated", "page formatting", "repeat publisher", for example), having been out of the loop for quite some time. If you or someone else could elaborate on the points you brought up, I'd be grateful. As for that source, it's an interview with the company's co-founder; as far as I know, there are special rules regarding reliability for those. Also, the primary sources are used mainly for the Plot section, which could not adequately be covered by anything else. You've got to understand that I've mined every possible third-party source here; there's not a lot to go on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to come off as snippy, but have to come to Jimmy's defense a bit here. If an editor takes the time to source a plot section with primary sources (which most other users are too lazy to do), I don't think it should be held against him for using too few third-party sources – that is, unless you skimmed through the references and did not notice they were used for the plot section. As for the RPGDot reference: interviews fall under primary sources and are considered reliable by WP:VG unless there is reasonable evidence to doubt the source (e.g. interview looks fake, site is known for spreading misinformation). Prime Blue (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did check. Taking into account that interviews and such are considered primary sources, you've got not only Plot but a sizeable portion of Gameplay, parts of Development, and a few sentences of Reception - it's considerable. I've tried to translate some of the points above, but I do still have a question about RPGDot: is it known who the interviewer was? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the translation above; I'll get right on those. As for primary sources, that's the case with most video games: quotes from the developers are your only source of Development-related information. Only the biggest games get the kind of formal analysis in which developer quotes are not used. But, even if I wanted to, I could not add any more third-party sources to Development; they don't exist. And removing the developer quote-based material from Development would essentially result in the deletion of the Development section, which is not the optimal turn of events. As for the interviewer, he is listed on the site's staff page; other than that, I don't know. I'll admit that RPGDot isn't exactly the most professional site, but they had a good reputation with the other major underground RPG sites before they went under. The interview obviously isn't fake, at least. And again, removing it would cut a lot of critical information that cannot be replaced; no other sources exist. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've addressed your concerns. The remaining print sources (PR Newsire and Computer Shopper, for instance) were not given author names and/or page numbers by the news directory search engines where I obtained them. If there's anything I missed or screwed up, feel free to point it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, though there are still some issues with MoS (ex. page ranges should use endashes, not hyphens). I haven't checked MoS issues extensively since my focus was sourcing, but that's something you might want to take a look at. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the translation above; I'll get right on those. As for primary sources, that's the case with most video games: quotes from the developers are your only source of Development-related information. Only the biggest games get the kind of formal analysis in which developer quotes are not used. But, even if I wanted to, I could not add any more third-party sources to Development; they don't exist. And removing the developer quote-based material from Development would essentially result in the deletion of the Development section, which is not the optimal turn of events. As for the interviewer, he is listed on the site's staff page; other than that, I don't know. I'll admit that RPGDot isn't exactly the most professional site, but they had a good reputation with the other major underground RPG sites before they went under. The interview obviously isn't fake, at least. And again, removing it would cut a lot of critical information that cannot be replaced; no other sources exist. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did check. Taking into account that interviews and such are considered primary sources, you've got not only Plot but a sizeable portion of Gameplay, parts of Development, and a few sentences of Reception - it's considerable. I've tried to translate some of the points above, but I do still have a question about RPGDot: is it known who the interviewer was? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as peer reviewer- A couple of points I've found in this go-round:
- Do you really need to break apart The Age's review score into 4 parts? Given that none of the other ones are like that, if they didn't use a summary score I'd just drop them from the table; their scores aren't far off of the others.
- It doesn't have a summary score, so I just dropped it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The game's characters are procedurally animated via physics and..." animated via physics? Maybe animated via a physic model. Same goes for "Physics are also used to simulate weapon recoil" - it just sounds weird to me to refer to a science discipline as if it was a thing.
- It's fairly typical for developers and game journalists to refer to a game's use of simulated physical models as merely "physics". I don't actually know enough about the concept to tell if that's strange or not, so I'll take your word for it. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- --PresN 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't understand why this Gamespot link is in the "External Links" section. As well, I have trouble looking at it. I don't know if its a url trouble or something. GamerPro64 21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was there before I started working on the article. I never bothered to remove it, and it didn't have enough information to use as a reference, so it's just stayed put. I see that it's completely broken now, though; I've replaced it with an archive link. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I believe that the article is worthy of being a Featured Article. GamerPro64 21:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No image review, no source check for adherence to sources and close paraphrasing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image specialist needed to look at the resolution/FUR on the screenshot image (the infobox image is fine). Also, the caption of the screenshot image is rather confusing, especially given that at least one of the acronyms is not defined until a couple of paragraphs later. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale on the image states, "To illustrate the gameplay concepts and interface elements described in the prose, which would likely confuse readers without a visual aid," yet after reading through the section on the gameplay, I find myself understanding the basic elements entirely fine (The article says "the HUD contains three "Multi-Function Displays" (MFDs); these may be configured to display tactical information, such as squad command menus, maps and weapon statistics" which is a pretty good description of the image already), so I actually don't think the screenshot is really necessary. It's beneficial yes, but not required. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty loath to drop the article's sole image of gameplay. Is there some way I could make the image relevant again by strengthening the rationale? I've always been fairly bad at writing them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: readers entirely unfamiliar with video games would probably find the text impenetrable without the screenshot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found theft to be a useful skill in this regard; the fair-use rationale for Resident Evil 2 was praised in the nom above, so I copied the language there and modified it to apply to this case. I think it's better now, and I would fully agree that had I not played a game with a HUD like that before I would not really be able to visualize what it looked like without an image. --PresN 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help; I appreciate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale does read better now, so it meets my satisfaction. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Also, Nikkimaria: I tweaked the caption for clarity. Take a look. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the actual text for the FURs is fine, although I think that you could shrink down File:TerraNovaLandscape.gif a bit more to maybe 480-540 pixels without making the text illegible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. One question, though: what would the second numbers of those resolutions be? I'm not particularly image-savvy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A 520px image would have a vertical pixel count of 325; a 480px image would have a pixel count of 300. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Reuploaded the screenshot at 480px. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the actual text for the FURs is fine, although I think that you could shrink down File:TerraNovaLandscape.gif a bit more to maybe 480-540 pixels without making the text illegible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Also, Nikkimaria: I tweaked the caption for clarity. Take a look. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale does read better now, so it meets my satisfaction. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help; I appreciate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found theft to be a useful skill in this regard; the fair-use rationale for Resident Evil 2 was praised in the nom above, so I copied the language there and modified it to apply to this case. I think it's better now, and I would fully agree that had I not played a game with a HUD like that before I would not really be able to visualize what it looked like without an image. --PresN 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: readers entirely unfamiliar with video games would probably find the text impenetrable without the screenshot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty loath to drop the article's sole image of gameplay. Is there some way I could make the image relevant again by strengthening the rationale? I've always been fairly bad at writing them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and close paraphrasing missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asking on WT:VG for someone to do this, but no bites yet. Sorry it's taking so long. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing check - alright, I don't know where that plagiarism script is so I had to do it all manually, and I now have even more respect for the reviewers that do it a lot than I already did. Spotchecked most of the available sources; no close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of sources found. --PresN 20:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huge thanks for the review! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Oh, noes! Nothing more to pick on :) Oh well, support, great job! — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 06:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Anyway, thanks for the support and thorough review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have about 20 citations to a 76-page range of a manual-- how are readers to find the individual pages cited in a range that large?
- Hart, Dorian; Yaus, Jeff (1996). Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri manual. Looking Glass Technologies. pp. 1–76.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general rule, I avoid breaking down print sources into individual page citations. I tried that once, but found it both unhelpful for research and unintuitive for article writing. And, as far as I know, there's no rule that says I have to do it—only one that says citations must be consistent, which is the case here. Anyway, I don't think that most people will feel the need to examine the manual; it contains nothing of interest to the average reader. I used it almost exclusively to cite gameplay information, the credits, and basic plot elements. All of these things are completely uncontroversial, and do not incite readers to "dig deeper", so to speak. I did not originally list a page range on the reference, since it's used from cover to cover, but Nikkimaria asked me to add one. As a result, I cited the manual's full length: 76 pages. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was sure print sources were to be cited with appropriate page numbers/locations. After all, how would one find where the supporting material is, even in short sources. On the other hand, I am fine with game manual being cited without page numbers, if it supports non-controversial material, such as plot/gameplay. I would have cited the pages myself, but that's my preference, which I think shouldn't be enforced. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was specifically referring to this style of referencing. It's how I would have to cite the various pages of the manual, and a ridiculous amount of them would be required (unless I added some 30+ individual page numbers to the current ref, which isn't much better). I always include page numbers/ranges for non-game manual print sources, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and added page numbers to the current ref. They take up an absurd amount of space, even after eliminating those that fall in a direct range. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was specifically referring to this style of referencing. It's how I would have to cite the various pages of the manual, and a ridiculous amount of them would be required (unless I added some 30+ individual page numbers to the current ref, which isn't much better). I always include page numbers/ranges for non-game manual print sources, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was sure print sources were to be cited with appropriate page numbers/locations. After all, how would one find where the supporting material is, even in short sources. On the other hand, I am fine with game manual being cited without page numbers, if it supports non-controversial material, such as plot/gameplay. I would have cited the pages myself, but that's my preference, which I think shouldn't be enforced. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.