Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2012

June 2012

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 Ian Rose 23:34, 21 June 2012 [1].

---

Squeeze (The X-Files)

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally considered the watershed moment in The X-Files, when the series moved from being The Invaders in the 90s to develop its own unique identity, "Squeeze" is probably the best way to introduce yourself to the show—and the best start to WP:TXF's long term goal of bringing you many more articles from the project's scope. "Squeeze" has undergone a Good Article review in July/August last year, a Peer Review in September, and a GOCE copy-edit just this month. I'm satisfied that comprehensiveness has been demonstrated as a range of production, thematic and reception sources have all been collated; further reviews for the episode do exist but are essentially redundant to those already used and would simply add to the largely-positive reception which has, in the PR, been seen as something to perhaps avoid. If anyone performing spot-checks on sources would like copies of the print sources used I'll be happy to email over some scans. Image use is admittedly spartan but I've simply not seen any free files which would seem relevant (File:Doug Hutchison.jpg does exist but frankly at that size it's next to impossible to fit any real caption under it). Thanks in advance to anyone giving this one a looking over. GRAPPLE X 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Any reason why the en dash is used in one quote box description and em dash in the other?
• Independent ref was published in 1994, not 1993
• Published date for the Vancouver Sun article was July 25, 2008, not September 12, 2009.
• Why is Fox Broadcasting Company stylized as 'FOX' in Ref 23, yet 'Fox' in Ref 14? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for spotting those, I've sorted them out now. GRAPPLE X 23:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• In Ref 14, I assume it should be 1993–94 going by WP:YEAR? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Do you mean ref 19? It's the one with the year range present, though I could add years to ref 14 and the other video cites, based on the DVD's release if you think that would be of benefit. I've fixed the range in ref 19 to read 1993–94 instead of 1993–1994 though. GRAPPLE X 14:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Support My mistake, was Ref 19 indeed. Nice work and would serve as a great introduction to readers who have not seen the series. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Supported below Ok, started a read through. Hopefully I don't take too long.
• "the overarching mythology, or fictional history, of the series." Might want to shorten this link a bit.
• "However, "Squeeze" earned a Nielsen household rating of 7.2, was watched by 6.8 million households in its initial broadcast; and has received positive reviews from critics, mostly focusing on Hutchison's guest performance and the resonance of his character." I'd suggest breaking this sentence in two. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  For the first point, I've just shortened that to "mythology" as that's the term used most often by sources (primary and secondary). Previous reviews of other articles had suggested to clarify that term though, so if you think something else would be better then I'm open to suggestion. For the second, I've broken the sentence at the semi colon. GRAPPLE X 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, I tweaked it a little, hope this works.

• "The investigation into Usher's murder—the latest of three—is assigned" The latest of three investigations? Or murders?
• "At the crime scene, Mulder finds an elongated fingerprint on the air vent, which he also finds are similar to some documented in the X-Files." Is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "finds" here?
• "Briggs shows them some old photographs of Tooms—showing Tooms has not aged—and gives" ditto for "shows... showing"
• "takes Scully's necklace from around her neck" Is there a good way to avoid the "necklace from around her neck" repetition here here? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  Diff of how I've addressed these, let me know if you think these need further tweaking. GRAPPLE X 15:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Good job, fixes look fine. I'm a pretty slow reviewer, hope you can bear with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Although actor Doug Hutchison was 33 years old when he auditioned for the part of Tooms, the producers initially considered him too young for the role;" I'm not sure "Although" works well here.

  Have removed "although" and instead used a "however" between "Tooms" and "the producers". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oddly enough, I've getting very used to hearing "Doug Hutchison" and "too young" in the same sentence :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

    • It's definitely made combing through his interviews a bit of a minefield. Though there is no way she is a day under 30. GRAPPLE X 02:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• "fter tasting foie gras during a trip to France, Carter came up with the idea to have the villain consume human livers.[5][6] The idea to have Tooms use a nest for hibernation came from Morgan and Wong, who liked the hibernation idea, since if the agents were not able to catch Tooms, he could return after weeks of hibernation." Maybe try for a little more variation, "came" and "the idea" are used in each sentence.

  Have changed the first sentence to "After tasting foie gras during a trip to France, Carter suggested that the villain should consume human livers". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• "David Duchovny was asked to play his role as being more emotionally involved in the case, although Duchovny decided that his character should seem more detached." Repetition of "Duchovny" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  Changed the second instance to "the actor". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• The only issue that I can see in "Filming" is that the sentence in the second paragraph follow a similar structure, using ", and" to break the sentence in two. It's a minor issue, but maybe try for some variation.
• Might want to break "Post-production" into two paragraphs.
• "Themes" looks good, I trimmed a little out though--I think people realize when and where the September 11 attacks were. No problem if you want to reinsert though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've made a few changes based on your comments, let me know if you think they work. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, just a couple small comments on the last section:
• I'm not sure you need the ellipsis at the end of the quote here: ""remains one of the scariest things ever seen on television ... "" ditto for a couple quotes later on.
• " Christine Seghers listed Hutchison as the fourth-best guest star of the series in a top ten countdown" Should "top ten countdown" be hyphenated?
• "and called it "simply brilliant!".[33]" Is the double punctuation needed here? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Missed these earlier. Have removed the ellipses; they were added in a copyedit and I wasn't sure whether to keep them or not. Have also removed the exclamation mark after "brilliant" as I prefer to keep terminal punctuation after a quote. As for hyphenation, would you prefer "top-ten countdown" or how would you put it? GRAPPLE X 01:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I probably would put "top-ten countdown", hope that's right.

  I've hyphenated "top ten" as "top-ten". GRAPPLE X 02:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support pending spotchecks etc. I think this is the first time I've reviewed an FAC about a tv show episode, though I've read quite a few of them. This looks to me like an example of our best work for television coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Single image, FUR seems strong enough to me.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Conditional support assuming Den of Geek is considered reliable enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Plot: "At the crime scene, Mulder notices an elongated fingerprint on the air vent, which he also finds are similar to some documented in the X-Files." Not sure where "are" is coming from, since the fingerprint is a singular items.
• Pre-production: Is it "Monster-of-the-Week" or "monster-of-the-week"? This section and the lead differ in the capitalization.
• In the first side quote, Duchovny's name is misspelled as "Duchonvy".
• Background and production: "Glen Morgan was very pleased with Hutchison's performance in this episode, calling him their 'ace in the hole'...". Who's "their"? The producers?
• There's an issue with the formatting of a reference to Shearman and Pearson in the third paragraph of this section.
• Missing word, "of", in "listed Tooms as one his favorite monsters".
• I think the sentence starting with "Writing for Den of Geek" is a run-on in terms of its length; it goes on and on and on. I'd split the Matt Haigh quote into its own sentence.
• Reference 7 is to a Wordpress page, which is not usually considered a reliable source. I'd have concerns about whether the site has the right to republish this magazine article. Perhaps an offline reference to the publication would avoid the issue of using a questionable website. Also, the magazine's title should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for having a look at this. Have addressed these points; I had kept the link to a copy of the magazine article for the purposes of verification but have removed it since you mention the issue of copyright, which hadn't occurred to me. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010

• A little context on the episode's ratings might be helpful due to the way you phrase this: "However, "Squeeze" earned a Nielsen household rating of 7.2 and was watched by 6.8 million households in its initial broadcast". It implies that regardless of difficulties, the episode was watched by a lot of viewers. I think readers might like to know how it compared with other television shows for that week (to help gauge what a large audience looks like).
• Eugene Victor Tooms has red link in plot section
• "The idea to have Tooms use a nest for hibernation came from Morgan and Wong, who liked the hibernation idea, since if the agents were not able to catch Tooms, he could return after weeks of hibernation" - your repeated use of "hibernation" looks a little sloppy
• "Actor Doug Hutchison was 33 years old when he auditioned for the part of Tooms, however the producers initially considered him too young for the role" - however -> but
• No need to link United Kingdom (common word)
• Make sure to italicize any mentions of The X-Files in the reception section
• The 3rd paragraph of the reception section can probably be turned into two.

I'll return to give it another look-over. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was unable to find any context for viewing figures beyond the raw numbers so I tweaked that section to place an emphasis on its critical reception rather than its viewership. I've corrected everything else mentioned; including italicising a mention of "The X-Files" not italicised in the source, if that kind of correction is too much I can reverse it. GRAPPLE X 13:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The third para of lead could use some links: post-production, Nielsen ratings.
• The lead doesn't capture at all the importance of this episode, something you've managed to do quite succinctly in the first sentence of this FAC. :) Maybe you should move the "monster of the week" sentence to the third para, and add a quote from somebody (Carter?) about the significance of this.
• Add free pics to the article to break up the text?
• "Tooms" seems to be excessively used in the last two paragraphs of the Plot. Cut down to increase readability?—indopug (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Have wikilinked post-production, and replaced the ratings information in the lead with some quotes about the episode's legacy to help emphasise that. I managed to copy-edit a few Toomses out of the plot section too; and created User:Grapple X/Squeeze pics to test out a few possible pictures. I could also feasibly add any of the free images from Jack the Ripper based on Morgan and Wong's admission that he was an inspiration for the episode; the "From Hell" letter seems most appropriate as it was sent along with a human kidney. Let me know what you think works. GRAPPLE X 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Maybe you could add a picture of Foie gras to break up the text, since free images of other aspects of the page aren't available.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• As mentioned above I have just created User:Grapple X/Squeeze pics to test a few pics; let me know what you like best. GRAPPLE X 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, for the Gaiman picture, perhaps have it at the top of the section? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  Try it now, moved to the top of the "Broadcast and reception" section. GRAPPLE X 06:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  I think this looks good now.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  Have added those images to the article now. I also trawled through Flickr for any relevant images released under CC licenses but any that I could find of Morgan, Wong or Hutchison are all non-free. GRAPPLE X 12:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment In the second paragraph of the lead, maybe it would be worth it to explain that Mulder is a believer and Scully is a skeptic intended to debunk his work, especially since that plays a role in the episode. Also, I don't see that the themes section is represented in the lead. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Have added this to the lead; how does that look? GRAPPLE X 23:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks fine. Something from this could probably be added to the themes section (providing it is considered reliable; I think it is, as it is a division of Tor Books) as there is some discussion about Scully having to choose sides, teamwork, etc. Also some reception on Tooms there. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

    Have incorporated that as best I could here; though it serves mostly as a recap of the events of the episode without much depth of commentary so I could only really squeeze a few lines out of it. GRAPPLE X 00:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - All the issues have been cleaned up nicely and the free pics are great.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - ditto. There is really nothing more to add. Would make a good TFA candidate for its 20th anniversary.Glimmer721 ^talk 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi Grapple, I'm guessing you haven't had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing at FAC yet -- if that's the case we'd better organise one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not had a thorough spotcheck before but Graham Colm performed a Copyscape search for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhunter (film)/archive3. If anyone wishing to perform a spotcheck on some of those print sources used I should be able to provide scans but it might not be very prompt as I'm currently working from limited computer access. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help with this as I have all of the books, sans the The X-Files Declassified.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

I did a copy-edit of the post-Plot sections of the article, mainly to prune out extraneous and redundant wording. I found some more issues:

• Lead

• Direct quotes always need to attributed to sources.
• "the series' quest for political, rather than epistemological, truths": too vague without elaboration. Replace with the "balancing act of truth vs convictions" thing (from Themes)?

  Removed one quote, attributed the other; have rephrased the final sentence to use the focus you suggest. GRAPPLE X 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Plot

• Don't have time now to copy-edit this, but I think it can be trimmed a little by removing some excessive detail and redundant wording.
• "takes the necklace Scully is wearing" - how, after a confrontation or sneakily without Scully noticing?

  I've clarified this latter point by adding "stealthily" to the sentence to explain that it's done without her noticing; I'll try to trim the section down some more soon. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  Have trimmed the plot down some more but I'm not sure what else to take out from here. GRAPPLE X 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Production

• Maybe succinctly describe foie gras in the caption? Any idea why it inspired Carter? Just the appearance or anything more?

  Have added a brief description to the caption ("the liver of a fattened goose"), but as for reasoning I believe it's just a case of eating liver and then imagining it was human liver instead. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think two big blue quote-boxes in quick succession is overkill. Remove the Duchovny one, and add the relevant bit to pad the Pre-production sentence about playing his role detached?

  Have added it to "Filming" as it made sense to follow it on from the other information about Longstreet and the disagreements others had with his approach. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Who is "Beck"?

  Could have sworn this was in there at some point before, but I added it in now; he's Mat Beck, visual effects supervisor for the series. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Themes: I think this needs the most work. There are too many quotes. They disrupt the flow and often aren't easy to understand. Also the sentences appear very long-winded and should be broken up.

• "Air Force" quote is completely unclear to me.
• The last sentence is also extremely confusing, and that it features three quotes doesn't help.
• Break into two paragraphs?

  Clarified things, rewrote things to convey the meaning of the quoted material rather than simply quoting it, and split into two paragraphs. GRAPPLE X 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reception

• Could possibly lose a paragraph-worth of info as so much is repetitive. Tooms was scary, creep and skin-crawling; the episode was first stand-alone one. This is repeated too many times IMO.
• For the above, consider cutting out less-known publications, like The Star, which already features in the lead.
• The Neil Gaiman photographs puts undo emphasis on the fact that it was just "one of his favorite monsters". I know I had asked for more pictures; but aren't there more suitable free ones—of Mulder, Scully, Tooms or any of the producers or creators?

  There's a terribly small picture of Hutchison that would be difficult to use well; aside from that I'll see what could be relevantly slotted in from amongst the pictures available of Anderson and Duchovny perhaps. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  Killed two birds with one stone and cut this section down by removing the Den of Geek material whose notability had been questioned. I've replaced the Gaiman picture with a multiple image of Hutchison and Anthony Hopkins, alluding to Hutchison's inspiration while mentioning his reception; the new pictures don't look as good but are much more relevant to the article I guess. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree with anything I've suggested or edited. I will be watching "Squeeze" over the next few days and will pipe in again.—indopug (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything you've raised here, though you might want to look at the plot section again in case your uninvested eyes see something as extraneous that I haven't. GRAPPLE X 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

I finally saw the episode, and think that the article is pretty much good to go. Just have a few stylistic/preferential suggestions:

• I meant that, even in the lead, quoted material needs to have citations. Also, on second thought, it appears a bit weird that you quote a Malaysian source right away in the lead.

  Added a citation; the quote was used because it seemed the best context-free summation of the episode's reception, didn't matter to me what its origin was. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Infobox: can the two "list of episodes" article links be removed to cut down on the infobox's length? The season 1 article can be piped above at Season 1 Episode 3, and IMO the overall episodes list is unnecessary.

  Removed the whole "episode list" parameter and piped a link to season 1 in the earlier "season" field.

• Plot: a few technicalities,

• "she and Mulder wait" - doesn't only she wait while Mulder just comes to visit her (because he believes the whole exercise is futile)?

  Scully does go there before Mulder, but I wasn't sure whether it was worth the extra wordage to explain this given how minor it seems. I could add it in if you feel it's important enough though. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Mulder questions him" - wasn't him that did the questioning. You might want to clarify the whole part of the polygraph a bit more I think. How Tooms aced the test, how the others decided Mulder was mental...

  Clarified things there a little more. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fingerprints - clarify as "by digitally elongating and narrowing Tooms' fingerprints, Mulder finds that they match the prints at the crime scene"?

  Added. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• is there a better term for Scully's chain than necklace, which brings to mind a larger, more-gaudy image?

  Added a link to cross necklace, one of the prominent images there is a more elegant type of necklace similar to Scully's gold cross. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mulder and Scully stake out the apartment - don't they assign that for somebody to do?

  Changed to mention that they have it put under surveillance to remove the inference that they do it personally themselves. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Scully tries to call Mulder - actually she does reach his voicemail. When he finds the locket and tries to call her, it's been cut... (I suggest to re-watch these bits if possible)

  Reworded the first few sentences here to reflect this. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• The new pictures look fine. I recommend you crop the Hopkins pic (similar to the Tooms pic).

  I'll look into cropping this now. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  Have uploaded a cropped version of similar dimension ratio to the Hutchison one, images look a bit better side by side now. GRAPPLE X 14:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Themes: still a couple of confusions.

• How can colleagues represent models of reality? Do you mean that they believe in an inst. model of reality?

  Clarified that it's their mindset which follows this model; could change to "beliefs" or "attitudes" instead if preferred. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• "prior to the September 11 attacks" indicates to me that there will be some comparison with the post-9/11 FBI. But there isn't, so maybe you should consider "during the nineties" or "upto/until/at the time of the show"? Also clarify "previously seen itself"; previous to what?

  "Previously" had been pre-September 11 attacks, but I've removed that for "during the series' tenure" instead. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Last sentence confusion: do the public believe that the FBI is the investigator of the truth, or that the courtroom is?—indopug (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  Tried to clarify this a little but I wasn't sure where the sentence was vague (too close to it, I guess). It's that the public perceive the FBI as investigators of truth, and the courtroom as a place where this truth is revealed as a result. If the sentence as is doesn't reflect that, I could change it if you have a suggested wording to reflect the intention. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on this one. This is a diff of the changes based on your last set of comments if you want to review them more easily. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Yay, nitpicks all done. Great work on this, and other Season 1 articles as well. I hope one day soon (while you still have the enthusiasm :P) you tackle the big daddy article itself. :)—indopug (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. TBrandley 14:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I did a factcheck using the books I have. I only made a few minor changes here. I don't have access to X-Files Confidential or The X-Files Declassified, so someone else might need to do that.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Quon, a spotcheck by nature doesn't require that all refs be checked, just a sampling, and reviewing your changes does not ring alarms bells regarding the overall quality of the sourcing -- tks for that.
• I notice we've finished with more images in the article than we started with but all licensing looks acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:39, 21 June 2012 [2].

---

William Burges

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it provides a comprehensive overview of the life and work of William Burges, an important Victorian architect. I am grateful to all those who contributed to the article, in particular User:Tim riley for his absolutely excellent Good Article review and User:Dr Blofeld for first suggesting that it might be possible. I look forward to improving the article further by addressing the comments made at FAR. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Support as co-writer. Article is comprehensive and provides an excellent insight into his works and legacy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support; I like this article lots. It has all the needed content in it, provides great insight and it's comprehsneive. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have only looked in any detail at the lead. A quick glance at the rest suggests a very comprehensive study of Burges and impressive use of the available sources. I doubt I will have time to venture much further, but here are a few points for consideration:-

Re infobox

• I personally dislike infoboxes, but when they are used they should be briefly informative about the main aspects of the subject. This one doesn't even include the information that Burges was an architect.

Agree completely, infobox added no value either. Removed. If there is no further objection..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Loud cheering! A most excellent decision. Tim riley (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The removal of info boxes is good. Very happy with that! -- Cassianto (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmm an TFD for infobox person...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Re lead

• Citations: I don't think it is necessary to cite in the lead the statements that Burges was considered one of the greatest of the Victorian art-architects and that his career was illustrious. These points will surely be made, and should be cited, in the article. More seriously, the last lead paragraph includes: Burges's position as "a wide-ranging scholar, an intrepid traveller, a coruscating lecturer, a brilliant decorative designer and an architect of genius"[4] is again appreciated. This exact wording, and citation, is repeated in the Legacy section. You should replace the wording in the lead with a brief paraphrase.

Removed all citations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed quote, as repeated later, and re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• You should avoid long lists in the lead, e.g. the nine or ten buildings given in the second paragraph. Such lists are tedious to read - give two or three examples at most.

I've trimmed the number listed but I would have to say given that a substantial amount of the article discusses his works that it is reasonable to highlight a few of them in the lead to effectively summarize the article. His most notable by far were Cardiff Castle and Castel Coch but I think it would be wrong not to mention a few of his others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Many of his designs were never executed or were subsequently eradicated." It's an odd choice of word, "eradicated" (dictionary: "to obliterate, stamp out, to pull or tear up by the roots"). And it's not clear who did the eradicating.

Changed to demolished. Hope this clears it up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• "For most of the century following his death, Victorian architecture was universally despised..." Surely, that's an overstatement? It may not have been fashionable during parts of the 20th century, but universally despised?

Agreed, reworded and toned down. Although it is appears to be true that the majority who would have been likely to be passionate about architecture hated Victorian architecture, especially in the first half of the 20th century, I suppose much like many of us look back on the 80s and its Fashion faux pas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Other point

• According to MOS:HEAD, section headings "should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings". Thus the forms "Burges and Bute" and "Study of Burges" are in breach of MOS. The earlier could be "Work with Bute" or some such, the latter "Scholarly studies", perhaps.

Have re-worded the above, and others, but am not sure I've made them any less redundant. Nor really sure I understand the MOS point here. The sub-headings summarise the content of the section and I can't really see how to do that without summarising the content. Would appreciate advice. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Really grateful for your very helpful suggestions and will be pleased to further revise the sub-headings if I can better understand what is wanted. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, having read MOS, which I should have done earlier, I see the point being made. It is the mentioning of the subject of the article, i.e. Burges, which is redundant. Shall now go and change. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, now. KJP1 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope these points are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Yes, this nomination was put back several weeks primarily because I wanted to google book research each of his works and ensure it was as widely read and researched as possible. I wouldn't have felt comfortable with it being at FAC otherwise. Thankfully the most prolific article writer KJP did a wonderful job so only gaps need to be filled in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto: This article is an extremely well researched and comprehensive account of its subject. It is a credit to both the nominator KJP1 and Dr.Blofeld. However, I do have some comments:

• "Among the greatest of the Victorian art-architects..." - I have no doubt he was, although this does sound as if it's a bit of a puffery sentence.

Mmm the thing is he was and this is backed by countless sources. To not mention his status as a Victorian architect I think would be censoring.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Could we not say "Among the countries better known art architects" like this in the lead and then say "greatest" in the body with an inline citation?

I have had a think and I don't have a big problem with this. I'm certainly not insistent on it and it won't sway my inevitable support. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Neo-Classical architecture" or "Neoclassical architecture" as the linked article suggests.

Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think his death is mentioned too early on. I think the lede would be better in chronological order, with the death being mentioned at the end.

In principle yes but its in the right context as it says about his career being short but illustrious and it makes sense to write it there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

* There are date ranges for the list of building's. What are these? Are they how long the building took to build, to design, or both?

Construction I think. Thanks for your comments. KJP will affirm that.

They are indeed dates of construction. We could remove them but I think they're helpful. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think personally that they are not necessary as you go onto talk about them later in the article and the dates are listed there. They are also wiki-linked so those wishing to find out the dates can go there. The lede is only an overview of the article itself and as such should only touch upon all the area's of that subjects life; which it does do perfectly but im finding the date ranges are crowding the text. As a bartering tool, you could talk about the first building and explain a little about when it was built and for how long and then do as you have done and keep the other dates in brackets. This will then tell the reader what the other dates mean. However, if it was upto me the dates would go. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope the use of your suggestion meets your concern. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot better. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Early life and travels

• "Special Architect" - why is this quoted? If it is a quote, source?

Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Early works

• "His early architectural career produced little although he won prestigious commissions for Lille Cathedral" - It feels like there is a word missing after "little". Little what? Little work? Little praise?

Changed to "His early architectural career produced nothing of major note"♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork

• "on gloomy days .. takes on a luminous quality, (and) in sunshine sparkles like salt" - "and" would be better in square brackets as per WP:MOSQUOTE.

Cassianto (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Skilbeck's Warehouse

• again here "...much of the drysalter's materials are brought, and over a circular window in the gable (a) ship bringing in its precious freight."

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's

• Overlink to "Early English".
• "full-blown scheme of early Renaissance decoration" - Renaissance has been linked which really shouldn't be within a quote.

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Trinity College Hertford

• "thoroughly frightened the (College) Trustees." - square brackets needed.

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tower House

• "Of red brick, and in an "L" plan, the exterior is plain" - who said "L"?

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• "it is (Burges's) answer to the dilemma of style." - guess what!

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is it metal-work or metalwork?

Without I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. -- Cassianto (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Metalwork and jewellery

• Link to Pugin in opening quote needs to go.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "This item, carved in ivory and depicting St George slaying the dragon, was made for the first Bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand." - missing "in" before New Zealand.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "He also undertook the creation of works as gifts for or commissions from patrons such as the Sneyd dessert service or the Bute claret jug." -- This doesn't read well. Is there a word missing from "...creation of works as gifts for or commissions from.. ."?

Re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep caps consistent. It's "Gothic" sometimes and "gothic" at other times.

Done here, but will need to check for others. KJP1 (talk)

• whilst on the same text, "G" is quoted again. Why?

Changed. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Furniture

• Overlink to Edward Burne-Jones

Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The re-developed Gallery & Museum will re-open in Spring 2013." -- This will obviously become out of date and will require changing. I would delete.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

• "Eccentric, unpredictable, over-indulgent and flamboyant," opens this section. It would look and read better if it had "Burges was known to be eccentric, unpredictable, over-indulgent and flamboyant"

Changed - hopefully for the better? KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

agreed. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Short, fat, and so near-sighted that he once mistook a peacock for a man, he never married." -- The marriage bit at the end looks poorly placed.

Moved to the end of the section, following the style of Daily Telegraph obituaries. But I warn you, the Dr and I have argued over this placement before! KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. The sentence is suggesting that it was as a result of his appearance, that he never married. This may not be true. He may have chosen not to marry, never met the right person, been a confirmed bachelor, a whole number of things. The sentence is misleading. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a fan of short sentences, that was why.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. But it still looks strange seeing it tacked on at the end of a completely unrelated sentence. I'm pretty sure it can be added somewhere else, which won't make it look so out of place. We may have to ask about on this one if it's not resolved. I have replaced this on the article and have added, what I think, could make the line a little longer. Revert if your not kean. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I hope the compromise meets your concerns and the Doctor's. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly meets mine. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Another overlink for Burne-Jones

Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "His vocation is Art... (a) matter of Uncommon Sense..." -- wrong brackets.

Changed - hopefully to the right ones? KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• link to "Freemason" may be possible?

Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• does "first tasted opium" need to be quoted?

Removed. KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Death

• overlink to The Tower House.

Removed. KJP1 (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• another link to Burne-Jones.

Removed. KJP1 (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Cassianto (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

• "At Burges's death in 1881, his contemporary, the architect Edward William Godwin, said of Burges that" - I think this needs jiggling about a bit. I would say something like "When Burges died in 1881 it prompted his contemporary, Edward William Godwin to say..."

Oops. Edit conflict. So - from memory. Tweaked slightly. I was trying to emphasise the decline of his reputation, from near-reverence at his death, to loathing shortly thereafter. Does it work now? KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine! -- Cassianto (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "From the 1890s to the later twentieth century Victorian art was under constant assault..." - is there a comma missing somewhere?

Done. KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• The following quote is not introduced and gives no explanation at the end as to who said it - "He founded no school,..had few adherents outside the circle of his practice..and trained no further generation of designers."

Done - by attribution to Aldrich. KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "own strange genius turn(ing) the Middle Ages into magic." - it's our old friend again!

Done. KJP1

Study of Burges

• "The current (2012) curator of Cardiff Castle, Matthew Williams",...- again this will become out of date if he leaves. I would say something like "The 2012 curator of Cardiff Castle, Matthew Williams" it's 'current' which should be omitted here.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's it from me. I really like this article, but I do think there are possibly too many quotes. Having said that, I'm not listing this as a comment and it will not sway my opinion. I think it's good that Tim has highlighted this below and I hope some can be trimmed back. This is certainly well on it's to becoming a FA, something which Burges and it's main editors deserve. -- Cassianto (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Really appreciate your comments and delighted that you like the article. It's much improved for your involvement. Re. the in-line quotes, as I add up the current consensus, it's you, Dr. Blofeld and Tim riley for cutting them back or attributing them, and me for retaining them. So I reckon I'll be editing soon! KJP1 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And now edited and attributed in line with your comments and those of the Dr and Tim Riley. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Support -- Cassianto (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

As mentioned at the top of the page, I reviewed the article at GAC stage. I made a few suggestions at the time about further improvements that would be needed if the article were to qualify for promotion to FA. Some have been addressed, but one that hasn't and strikes me as important concerns quotations: there are dozens throughout the article that in my view ought to be attributed in the text. For a few quotations there are inline attributions, such as "Pevsner describes St Mary's as 'a dream of Early English glory' and Crook writes, 'although Cork Cathedral may stand as Burges's greatest Gothic work, Studley Royal is his "ecclesiastical" masterpiece.'" This is, in my view, just right, but is lacking with other quotations in the article, such as:

• "a wide-ranging scholar, an intrepid traveller, a coruscating lecturer, a brilliant decorative designer and an architect of genius"
• "once established, after twenty years' preparation, his 'design language' had merely to be applied, and he applied and re-applied the same vocabulary with increasing subtlety and gusto."
• "not so much muscular (gothic) as muscle-bound."
• "a re-creation of a thirteenth century dream world…"
• "on gloomy days .. takes on…"
• "redeem the evils of industrialism by re-living the art of the Middle Ages"
• "fervent Celt, an enthusiastic builder, and an inveterate antiquarian"
• "Bute's most memorable overall achievement."
• "a prime example of the partnership of aristocratic patron and talented architect produc(ing) the marvels of Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch"
• "amongst the most magnificent the Gothic Revival ever achieved."
• "most successful of all the fantasy castles of the nineteenth century."
• "a superb example of Burges's genius in the construction of roofs."
• "was required to cover areas rather greater than his talents deserved."
• "rarely been equalled."
• "he executed few buildings as his rich fantastic gothic required equally rich patrons (..) his finished works are outstanding monuments to nineteenth century gothic," "the most magnificent that the gothic revival ever achieved,"
• "three dimensional passports to fairy kingdoms and realms of gold. In Cardiff Castle we enter a land of dreams."
• "that has become the skyline of the capital of Wales. The dream of one great patron and one great architect has almost become the symbol of a whole nation."

There are many more later, but I'll refrain from listing them. It may be that the absence of inline attribution won't bother other reviewers as it bothers me, and if there is a consensus that I'm making too much of this I'll pipe down.

Occasionally you put in quotation marks a phrase that, to my mind, doesn't gain by being a direct quotation. For instance, "the only private town house to be included." I don't think anyone could accuse you of plagiarism if you used the phrase without the quotation marks.

Agreed, and I think we could possibly cut back on some of the quotes and simply remove them. I said that from the beginning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Have gone through the article inserting inline attributions, removing redundant quotation marks and even - oh, the pain! - deleting some quotations altogether. I very much hope it addresses the concerns Tim, and everyone else but me, had. But I now need to re-read the whole thing as I fear I will have made the prose clunky. Also, although I've tried to "introduce" those I quote on first doing so, I'm not sure I've succeeded throughout. So, have I addressed this point satisfactorily or is there more I need do? KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading, I find I haven't got all the books quoted, and I can't seem to find them all in the References Section. I'll list them as I go and would much appreciate assistance.

The final sentence of the first para. of Early Works has a quote relating to the Cerberus Privy at Gayhurst. The footnote says Cooper but I'm not sure who? KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking you've now addressed the need to cite Cooper's text in the references? I've added an attribution to him in the text. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, now. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That point apart, here are some miscellaneous comments and suggestions:

• Lead
  • "mediaeval" or (as elsewhere in your text) "medieval"? (I vote for the former, but consistency is the real point.)

Agreed, changed all to mediaeval. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Name of the thoroughfare: "The Strand" or (as later in the text) "the Strand"? (I vote for the latter, but ... as above)
• Early life and travels
  • Hideous rash of overlinking in the third para: France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Germany etc do not need blue links.

Delinked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Early works
  • "he did obtain a commission" – he obtained?
  • "the Lefroy's tomb" – the Lefroys' tomb (i.e. the tomb of the Lefroys)?

Changed both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork
  • "first major commission for St Fin Barre's Cathedral" – there's a slight ambiguity here which you can eliminate by putting a comma after "commission"

Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Cardiff Castle
  • "re-building" – the OED doesn't allow the hyphen
  • "fulfill his civic duties" – the OED doesn't admit "fulfill", but only "fulfil"

Changed both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Castell Coch
  • This is one of my bonnet's bees, and I don't press the point, but what has "whilst" got that "while" hasn't?

An s and a t? Hehe, changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Blockquote – shouldn't be within quotation marks. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Block quotations

I believe the quote beat a little around the Mulberry bush and have removed it and reworded slightly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• • "It does contain" – it contains?

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• • "A superb fireplace" – does the source at ref 102 justify the adjective?

Changed to stone fireplace and changed ref to one I've verified in Rowan's Art in Wales: An Illustrated History, 1850-1980♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Knightshayes Court
  • "the building was still incomplete, due to ongoing difficulties" – either "owing to" or "because of" in UK English (I believe "due to" without a verb is acceptable in American usage)

Changed to "owing to"♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Park House
  • "Burges's signature Early French Gothic" – this is, I think, the fifth time we have had Burges's signature so-and-so, and the phrase is rather outstaying its welcome

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's
  • We have a confusion of marquesses. "George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, although not as rich as Bute, was the Marquess's equal ... Both churches were built as memorial churches for the Marquess's brother-in-law" I suggest something like "George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, although not as rich as Bute, was his equal ... Both churches were built as memorial churches for Ripon's brother-in-law"

Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Personal life
  • "The Graphic of 1871" – italics wanted, I think

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• • "the Athenaeum" – a small point, but I wouldn't include the definite article in the piping

Linked Athenaeum Club instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• • "Sir John Heathcoat-Amory" – I'm not sure you need to blue-link him again here, but if you do, you should include the 'Sir' in the piping as you do earlier, in the Knightshayes Court section

Removed link.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Death
  • "wrote, somewhat more prosaically" – some austere souls might regard this as editorialising, though in my view it's just on the right side of the line.

Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Legacy
  • "his jewellery and stained glass was lost" – were lost?

Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• • "it should be noted" – says who? See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• • "a relatively short career" – another of my minor pedantries: relative to what? I'd let the facts speak for themselves: "In a career of twenty years…"

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Study of Burges
  • "bequeathed to Crook following Handley-Read's suicide" – it is at least arguable that they were bequeathed before H-R's suicide. The OED: "To make a formal assignation of (property of which one is possessed) to any one, so as to pass to the recipient after one's death: To 'leave' by will."

Changed to just "bequeathed to Crook without making judgement of timing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

After that litany of carping and quibbling, let me add that I think this is a magnificent article, and will be FA material once the necessary adjustments are in place. – Tim riley (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your very constructive comments!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have struck all my ad hoc comments, but before adding my support I must in conscience wait to see what other reviewers think about the point I raised about attributing quotations within the text. I admit that the MoS says merely "the author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote", and there are few if any full sentences in quotes within the text. I rather hope other reviewers tell me I'm fussing about nothing, in which case it will be my privilege and pleasure to support this outstanding article. Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Morning Tim. I was going to come and talk about the quotes on your page, but it's probably better done here. Firstly, I really appreciate all of the further comments and observations you've made - they, and Dr. Blofeld's responses, have again improved the article greatly. Re. the in-line quotes, I have to say that I don't think I share your concern, although I quite accept I'm rather less experienced in the FA arena! But I think they add substantially to the article and not just in length. They give the opinions of authoritative writers as to Burges's importance etc. They are, or should be, referenced in the notes so that any reader wishing to verify, or source them, can do so. I've blocked out today to go through the article again so will certainly check that they are. And I have sought to "fold" them into the text so that the prose flows and is interesting for the reader. The alternatives would seem to be: remove them - which I think would seriously diminish the quality of the article; or source them all within the text. This would, I think, become as repetitive as my use of "Burges's signature ...", in that it would be "Crook says", again, and again, or clumsy variants where I would try to use other words for "says". But I fully accept others, with more experience than I, may share your view. Shall we see? If the consensus is that they should all be sourced in the text - I can certainly do this, as I have all the books from which they come. Again, very many thanks for your time, your constructive engagement, and your very kind words. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

See above. I hope the amendments address the concern. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - the above (together with its execution within the article) removes my one reservation about adding wholehearted support for this remarkably fine article. Tim riley (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And thankyou for an equally fine review and constructive criticism which have helped improve it considerably.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

First set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Lead

• Is "art-architects" a genuine expression? I haven't come across it before.

I think so. Certainly Crook, no mean scholar (!), uses it in his guide to the centenary Burges exhibition, "The Strange Genius of William Burges Art-Architect, 1827-1881". This [[3]] discusses the concept. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Mediaeval" Aargh! Please, please, revert to "medieval". "Mediaeval" is, IMNSHO, old-fashioned and pedantic. Have a look at WP's List of history journals - 7 journals have "medieval" in their title and none have "mediaeval".

I have no strong feelings but perhaps we shouldn't be old-fashioned. Is the consensus to revert back? If so, I'll happily do so. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the ae like in Encyclopaedia is wonderfully pedantic and represents its origins very well. In my opinion it makes it more authentically "mediaeval"! But the universal spelling like that was suggested by Tim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr B has kindly removed the "a" which caused you such pain! KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"In short, my mediaevalism's affectation, born of a morbid love of admiration." Oh, all right! (I know Guillaume knows where this comes from, so bah to you, ha-ha to you, and that's what I shall say.) – Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't resist having the last word. My 2nd edition of Fowler, published 44 years ago in the Swinging sixties, says on p.356: "medi(a)eval. The shorter spelling is recommended; see Æ, Œ ." --GuillaumeTell 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rapid and inglorious retreat by Riley: I have all three editions of Fowler, and the old boy himself recommended the shorter spelling in the 1926 original. I shall examine my conscience about my own practice and will meanwhile keep my lip zipped when commenting on other people's prose. Tim riley (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• "he designed churches, cathedrals..." Only one cathedral was actually built, so this is somewhat misleading

Done. Point taken and re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• (Ahem!) "Worcester College, Oxford (1864-79)" rather implies that Burges worked on the college for the whole of that period. In fact, work on the chapel took place in 1864-5 (I think) and work on the hall started in 1877.

Done. Point taken. Already removed in the lead, but I've changed the dates in the list of buildings to reflect those given by Crook in his appendix. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "entered King's College London in 1839 to study engineering" What, at the age of 12?!? Was there some sort of feeder school?

Odd indeed but exactly what Crook says on page 39 of WB&THVD. But the next sentence reads "In those days King's College School (my italics) occupied the basement stories of [a] building next to Somerset House in the Strand." So I think you're right and the college had some sort of preparatory school. Have re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia gives me the answer King's College School. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Blore was an established architect, being architect to both William IV and Queen Victoria" Inelegant - suggest "Blore was an established architect who worked for both W IV and Queen Vic" or similar.

Done, and re-done. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "medi[a]eval Court" - shouldn't this be either Medieval Court or medieval court (I suggest the former)?

Done with a capital M. Left the extra "a" until we decide otherwise. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Now withoutthe extra a. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Enabled by his private income" followed by list of miscellaneous countries. First, no dates for the eighteen months are given. Second, "Germany and Spain, Italy and Sicily" - why are Germany and Spain linked? Also, what is now Italy consisted then of a number of states of various sorts - I'd zap Sicily.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are very helpful and your continued interest in the article much appreciated. Look forward to more. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• More to come later today. --GuillaumeTell 10:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Second set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Early works

• "Rooms there contain some of his large, signature, fireplaces, with carving by Burges's long-time collaborator Thomas Nicholls" - superfluous commas after large and signature; also Nicholls needs a wikilink here

Done and Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• The privy link takes us to garderobe, not very appropriate for a building that isn't a castle. Outhouse might be better, or Male Servants' Lavatory as in the Gayhurst House article, or .....??

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1859 Burges began work on the Maison Dieu in Dover with Ambrose Poynter, which was completed in 1861" - suggest "In 1859 Burges began work with Ambrose Poynter on the Maison Dieu, Dover, which was completed in 1861"

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Burges later designed the Council Chamber at the end of the hall" - what hall? How many halls have Council Chambers at their end? Is this something to do with the Maison Dieu having become the Town Hall? NB: the Maison Dieu, Dover article ought to be aligned with this one, e.g. it seems to say that Poynter was out of the picture by the time Burges started work, plus it doesn't refer to Connaught Hall or include wikilinks apart from one for Burges.

Done. I shall head across to the main article later. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1859–60, Burges took over from Poynter in the restoration of Waltham Abbey" - suggest "took over the restoration of Waltham Abbey from Poynter"

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Charles Edward Lefroy, secretary to the Speaker of the House of Commons - suggest Speaker of the House of Commons

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork

• Early French redirects to French_Gothic_architecture#High_Gothic, but the article distinguishes Early Gothic from High Gothic, so shouldn't the link be to French_Gothic_architecture#Early_Gothic?

I'm sure you're right but I don't know how to link to a sub-section within an article. Can anyone else help? KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed this - will give you a how-to-do-it tutorial on your Talk page later today. --GuillaumeTell 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "For the exterior, Burges re-used earlier plans" - maybe something like "re-used some of his ?earlier unexecuted plans"?

Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "three-spired frontage" - to me, the frontage is at the West end, which only has two spires. Maybe "Three-spired exterior"?

Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "cartoons" - maybe link to cartoons?

Again, I could only link to the main page. Can anyone assist? KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also fixed this. --GuillaumeTell 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated and the article much improved thereby. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Burges's architectural team

• First sentence ends rather inelegantly with "perhaps was" - needs a bit of recasting?

Done. Heavens, it was clumsy. KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "It was Chapple who completed the restoration of Castell Coch after Burges's death and designed most of its furniture" - is that the right way round or did he design the furniture first?

Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yet more to come this evening and/or tomorrow - --GuillaumeTell 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Shall address them tomorrow.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Haven't quite addressed them all yet, and we may have a few queries, but I did want to thank you very much for your excellent review of the sources. Everything you picked up has been exceptionally helpful and much improved the article's accuracy. You do have an absolutely deadly eye for detail. I hope you don't mind, but I've struck through those comments which I think we've addressed - I was developing a major headache trying to work out what still needed to be done. I think I've accurately struck those we've done and left those we have yet to do, but do, of course, revert if I've made an error. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think we've addressed most of them but would appreciate clarification on the following:

FN143 when you reviewed it, now FN147. You indicate a problem with page formatting but we can't see what it is.

Now 151, uses hyphen instead of endash. 158 is also missing a period. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

FN259 when you reviewed it, now FN266. You indicate a formatting problem but we can't see what it is.

Now 271, you're using a comma format where other refs use periods, and are missing a retrieval date for the URL. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

FN179 when you reviewed it, now FN186. This is a sales catalogue from Vost's Auctioneers. It's not on the web, as far as I can see, it's not a Google book and it has no ISBN. Advice on what's wrong with the formatting would be appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems to correspond to an entry on the References list, but is not linked, and the italicization doesn't match. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now worked out what the problem is and resolved. KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, you ask "How are you ordering sources with the same author(s)?" Neither Dr. B nor I are sure what the issue is here. Could you clarify? KJP1 (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

When you have multiple sources by the same author (for example, Crook), you can order these in the References list either by date or by title. I wondered which you were doing, as it doesn't seem to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They are but Crook's books are both 1981 so we had to include the date and a/b to differentiate. Is this what you mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Despite the protestations of fellow competitors, it won, though the final cost was to be in excess of £100,000." - source?

Done. FN46. KJP1 (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Cooper

Done, I think. Dr. Blofeld, am I right in thinking you've already corrected this? KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks OK to me?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely done, now. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Pevsner and Wharton or Lloyd?

Done, I think? I'd messed up and included Wharton's surname in the list of authors of the 1967 Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, which was only authored by Pevsner and Lloyd. Can you let me know if I haven't addressed the right problem. KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN41, 209, 223, Karlin: doubled period

Done, I think. I realise I've made this somewhat more difficult by adding some footnotes in respect of the three instances you identified below, where referenced works weren't actually cited in the text. As a consequence, the footnotes in the article as it now stands don't match the numbering as it was when you did your review. But I think I can work it out by going from an earlier version of the article. I shall know better next time. KJP1 (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN120: citation incomplete, missing italicization

Done. Presuming that the incompleteness relates solely to the lack of italicization. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN127: formatting

NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, this relates to what is now FN129, Sherwood and Pevsner's Oxfordshire. But I don't know what's wrong with the formatting. Can you help. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now Done, I think I may have sorted this. When getting the references in alphabetic order, I found I'd put Pevsner first and Sherwood second as the authors, when it is, in fact, the other way round. So, assuming this is the issue referred to, it's sorted. KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN141: page?

Done. p=291. KJP1 (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN143: page formatting

NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, this relates to what is now FN145, Christopher Drew Armstrong's article. But I don't know what's wrong with the formatting. Can you help. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now Done. See above. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN148: pages?

Done. p=504. But done correctly? It's now FN149. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN151, 153, 200, 202: what kind of sources are these?

First, due to my adding extra footnotes, these are now, FN153, 156, 205 and 207.

FN153 is a source, Marks, within a source, Crook (1981a) I don't know how to quote a source within a source. What I will do is just quote the Crook page. Can somebody tell me if this is wrong. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

FN156 - same issue, and proposed resolution, as above. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

FN205 - This is from the Dictionary of Scottish Architects. Can't remember where I sourced it. Shall check and, hopefully, resolve. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done'ish. Have added a link to the right web page but it's a bare URL and my Reflinks tool doesn't work any more. Can someone assist. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done now. Dr B has fixed the bare URL. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

FN207 - same issue, and proposed resolution, as FN153 and FN156. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN222: pages, formatting

Done. It's now FN226. I've added the page numbers. Also corrected the text as I found a third mention of "Burgess". But have I formatted it correctly? KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN259, 179, 191: formatting

As above, these are now FN263, 184 and 196

FN263 - Don't know what's wrong with this as it seems to link perfectly to the Chicago Institute's website. Advice please. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now done. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

FN184 - This is a sales catalogue from Vost's Auctioneers. It's not on the web, as far as I can see, it's not a Google book and it has no ISBN. Advice on what's wrong with the formatting would be appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now done - see above. KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

FN196 - I think this relates to a superfluous "&". Shall try to correct. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, can't. The FN reads "Crook & 1981a Explanation. I can't see where the "&" is coming from, however. KJP1 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr B has somehow sorted it. KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• No citations to Burges 2009, Cherry & Pevsner 2002, Sargent 1977

Done for Burges. Text and FN181. KJP1 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done for Cherry and Pevsner (2002). Text and FN153. KJP1 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done for Sargent. Text and FN169. KJP1 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Buckingham: Don't need to say "The book does not have an ISBN Number." for books of that age, but does it have an OCLC?

Removed. Looked in google books, no isbn or OCLC unless I'm mistaken?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books

Removed two mentions of location, should be OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• How are you ordering sources with the same author(s)?

NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, I'll need to pass on this as well. Can you help. Again, I'll do it, if you tell me what needs doing. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now done, we think. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of sources

Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Retrieval dates aren't required for Google Books, but if you're going to include them you should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll need some assistance on this, can't see anything wrong with citation 128 or 144, How are you ordering sources with the same author? etc. Can somebody help out with the sources here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now done, we think. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Third set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Partnership with the Marquess of Bute

• "This may have resulted from his father's own connection with the 2nd Marquess, Alfred Burges's engineering firm, Walker, Burges and Cooper, having undertaken work on the East Bute Docks at Cardiff in 1855. The 3rd Marquess of Bute...": a bit convoluted - suggest "This may have resulted from Alfred Burges's engineering firm (Walker, Burges and Cooper) having worked for the 2nd Marquess on the East Bute Docks at Cardiff in 1855. The 3rd Marquess [no need for "of Bute" again], who was..." or similar.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "landed aristocrat, industrial magnate, antiquarian, scholar, philanthropist, High Tory, and Roman Catholic convert": some of this is repeated later in the para - "But, as a scholar, antiquarian, compulsive builder and enthusiastic medievalist ..." - suggest amalgamating these strings by adding "compulsive builder and enthusiastic medievalist" to the first and replacing the second with the sentence beginning "Bute brought more than money [etc.]"

Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "re-building" should be "rebuilding"

Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle

• "In the early nineteenth century, the original Norman castle had been enlarged and refashioned by Henry Holland for the 2nd Marquess, Bute's father." I don't think that this is accurate. As I understand it (from Newman's Glamorgan), all that was left of the Norman castle was the Keep, the (rebuilt) perimeter walls, the Black Tower and a few bits of wall that were later incorporated in the Western Apartments, built in the 15th and 16th century. Holland's work started around 1776 and the 2nd Marquess was born in 1793!

Done. Heavens, you saved us from a major error there! I should have checked the pre-Burges period more thoroughly.

• "Bute" is mentioned twice in the first para - it ought to be made clearer that this is the 3rd Marquess.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "a building which John Newman describes in The Buildings of Wales" - actually Glamorgan in the B of W series.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Forest of Dean ashlar" - no mention of ashlar in the F of D article. Newman (p.36) reveals that this is sandstone.

Checked. I haven't changed this as I think we're ok. It is sandstone but Girouard says ashlar and Wikipedia describes ashlar as "prepared stone work (i.e., dressed, cut) of any type of stone" (my italics). That said, I could make it sandstone if you think it would be clearer but we do have the link. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "gildings" - shouldn't this be gilding?

Done. It certainly should. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The Marquess's name, John, in Greek" - Newman says "John, in Greek letters". It would be nice to reproduce the Greek letters here (I'm sure that WP does Greek letters).

NOT DONE - yet. That would indeed be very nice. I shall try it but both my Greek, and my dexterity with Wiki fonts are poor. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've now found a picture of Bute's bedroom in Williams's "The essential Cardiff Castle" (pp 26-7) and the name is in capitals, and looks like this: ΙΩΑИΣ (forwards, but also backwards as in a mirror). That's approximately IOANS, i.e. something like Johannes. --GuillaumeTell 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Excellent! KJP1 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "extensive reconstructions on the outlines of the walls of the original Roman fort" - what does this mean? Reconstructions of what? Outlines?? Newman's p.209 mentions the reconstruction of the Roman walls and that's it.

Done, I hope. You're right, a poor sentence which I've tried to make clearer. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "nine sculptures by Thomas Nicholls, with a further six being sculpted in the 1930s" - I don't think we need "being". And it might be worth mentioning that the six were by Alexander Carrick and that it was William Frame who continued Burges's work after his death.

Done, done and done. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Onwards to Castell Coch, etc. --GuillaumeTell 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fourth set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Castell Coch

• I'm dubious about the abbreviation "Le Duc" for Viollet-le-Duc.

Corrected. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Castell Coch was built on the site of a thirteenth-century castle"in the 2nd para more or less duplicates the description in the first para, except that one says fort and the other says castle. Suggest starting para with "Severely damaged..."

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Girouard states it is King David while McLees suggests it depicts St Lucius." Suggest inserting "that" after "states" and after "suggests". Is King David the David-and-Goliath (David) in the Bible or another King David? And which Saint Lucius is the correct one? (Newman votes for St Lucius over King David, btw.)

Done and done. Although I'm not sure I can answer the questions. I would say King David is the biblical King David and is there really more than one St Lucius?. Actually, I know the St Lucius is the legendary King of Britain who introduced Christianity. But I can't remember where I read that and will check my books. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest that the Three Fates image move down a few lines so that it appears closer to the Three Fates text at the end of the para.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Next para - I think "murder holes" needs a link to murder-holes.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Worcester College, Oxford

• Masonic redirects to Freemasonry in the same sentence - one blue-link is fine, two look like carelessness, as Lady Bracknell might have said.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "significant; Gillingham suggesting that..." - if using semi-colon, then "significant; Gillingham suggests that...", otherwise use comma instead of semi-colon ("significant, Gillingham suggesting that...")

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Still on the chapel, it might be worth mentioning that the stained glass and the ceiling paintings are by Henry Holiday and perhaps also that the statues, lectern and candlesticks are by William Grinsell Nicholl (1796-1871), who also made the reredos for Waltham Abbey (abbey) in 1862 (and carved decorations for the exteriors of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, the Oxford and Cambridge Club in London, the Taylor Institution in Oxford and St George's Hall, Liverpool - maybe I could knock up a stub for him). Interestingly, the carved animals on the bench-ends are by a Mr Fisher, rather than Nicholls - so none of Burges's usual team seem to have been involved. I wonder why?

Done. But I think a couple of sources are therefore needed. Sherwood and Pevsner doesn't help. Help! KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - Chapel, not Hall(!), and extra S&P ref does provide the details. --GuillaumeTell 10:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hall - not exactly a sequel, as it was done somewhat after the Chapel - dates needed.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "the East Window, above the high table, was resorted circa 2009" - resorted??? Maybe restored?

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifth set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Knightshayes Court

• I've made a couple of minor alterations which I hope are uncontroversial. Also, in the blue Lonely Planet quote box, who is Mallory? Is this a brainstorm version of Heathcoat-Amery? And did he really have a boudoir (I associate them with ladies rather than gentlemen, but perhaps he was a transvestite)?

I don't know Mallory either. Can the Dr. assist? As to the boudoir, the NT guide, the only single volume I have on the house, describes it as "an essentially feminine retreat." So I think it unlikely it was Sir John's, but one never knows. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think its a printing error. I've added a note in the ref as I believe the quote is informative and useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now done, with Dr. B's note. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Park House

• "This can be seen evidenced in many of Cardiff's inner suburbs, where traces of Burges's influence can be seen." Well, if Park House really was widely imitated, then "traces" can't be right - something stronger is needed. Also, "seen" twice in the same sentence doesn't look right. And I think this sentence needs a ref, e.g. Newman's para, p.219, starting "Further N" (or maybe move the ref from the previous sentence to this one).

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's

• Heading: Suggest "Christ the Consoler, St Mary's, and St Paul's Cathedral" instead of just St Paul's, otherwise it looks like three churches rather than the two mentioned immediately in the text (and St Paul's doesn't reappear until the last para).

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• "the Church of Christ the Consoler and St Mary's, Studley Royal" - suggest "the Church of Christ the Consoler, Skelton-on-Ure and St Mary's, Studley Royal", otherwise the reference to Skelton at the end of the para might puzzle the readers. You could then perhaps knock off the Skelton-on-Ure after Newby Hall.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Important note: Pevsner & Radcliffe have been superseded by Leach, Peter (2009). Yorkshire West Riding: Leeds, Bradford and the North. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12665-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and the Pevsner quote has disappeared. If you don't have access to this I can update the description. Same applies to St Mary, Studley Royal (where I see that there is an 1873 house by Burges in the grounds). There's also more detail on Oakwood Hall and probably other Burges works in the northern W Riding (15 references in the index).

Noted with thanks. Dear Lord, you're determined to increase the size of this article even more! Fortunately, I do have Leach and Pevsner and have added it to the References, and also added a couple of comments from it re. Skelton and Studley Royal. I shall also add some extra details to the main articles, including the reference to the estate house at Studley Royal. But not here, I think, and not until this is done and dusted. Unless of course, your nudging me in the direction of those 15 index references throws up something that can't be ignored. In which case, it'll be a repeat of Worcester College and I'll need to add a whole new section. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Still more to come! --GuillaumeTell 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comments have improved the article greatly and are much appreciated. Even if it does sometimes seem like a second GAR! KJP1 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Luckily for me, on checking the 15 Leach references, I don't find anything that really demands inclusion. Apart from Oakwood, Skelton and Studley Royal, they refer either to competitions for civic buildings that he didn't win or to his influence upon others. Except for some gate piers at Newby Hall, of which I wasn't aware. Whilst I don't think they need mentioning, they do need visiting. P.S. You shall certainly enjoy the Gillingham. And no, I didn't know she was the wife of the last Provost. Looking forward to the remaining comments. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sixth and final (!) set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Metalwork and jewellery

• The Elephant Inkstand appears twice in this section and also in the Tower House section - looks rather like overkill. The Cat Cup also figures in both sections.

Done. In all three instances. Overkill indeed. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Furniture

• "Burges's furniture is characterised by its historical style, its mythical iconography ..." - shouldn't that be mythological?

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Others were created as commissions, such as the Yatman Cabinet" - suggest "Others, such as the Yatman Cabinet, were created as commissions."

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• No need for comma after Crocker Dressing Table

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• E.R.B. Graham > Col. E.R.B.Graham (http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/7198.aspx). I see that the Zodiac Settle seems to have been sold by the Waugh family. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/artsales/8325206/Ai-Weiweis-sunflower-seeds-go-on-sale.html#)

Indeed. Evelyn Waugh was given at least three pieces by Betjeman. Given current prices, Waugh's descendants should be very grateful. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

• "the medieval Society" - should be the Medieval Society?

Done. Yes, it should. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Legacy and influence

• Missing quotation marks at the end of the Goodwin quote

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• "...Crook contends Burges's place at the centre of that world" - needs "that" after "contends"

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Architectural scholarship

• "In the same year, the only full study of Burges was published, Crook's William Burges and the High Victorian Dream." - suggest "In the same year, the only full study of Burges, Crook's William Burges and the High Victorian Dream, was published."

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

List of works

• right at the end, "Philosophy cabinet, 1878–79 – designed for the guest bedroom at Tower House" - OK, but where is it? If not known, then it needs "present location unknown" as in some other pieces above.

Done. It's owned by Andrew Lloyd-Weber, and sits in Sydmonton Court amongst his rather splendid collection of Pre-Raphaelite pictures but I can't find a reliable source to confirm this. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

See also

• I'm a but dubious about these:
• Victorian architecture - no mention of Burges (nor any picture of any of his works) in this rather short article.
• Gothic Revival architecture - one glancing reference to Burges in the context of West Norwood Cemetery!

Removed. I agree they add little to the study of Burges and if one doesn't know, by the end of the article, that Burges was a Victorian architect working in the Gothic Revival tradition, one hasn't read it very carefully. I've also removed the only external link. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• • That seems to be it!
• Support Long, but very informative and readable - a labour of love, in fact. --GuillaumeTell 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a labour of quite long-standing love. But, for all my affection for Burges, I could never have made the article what it now is, without contributions such as your own. I appreciate it hugely. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Image/spot checks? Don't think I can see either of these above, we'll need people to perform them before we wrap up this review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Images should all be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As the Dr. says, I think all the images will be fine. But I'm not really eligible to say this, so if someone else was able to do so, I shall try to respond as promptly as possible, in the event that any issues are raised. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Am I eligible to do a spot check? I reviewed the article at GAN, and have contributed extensively above, though my contribution to the article itself has been de minimis. If I qualify as a disinterested party I shall be happy to nip down to the British Library and spot-check a sample of the citations for accuracy and for innocence of excessively close paraphrase. – Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't think I can comment on your eligiblity, but if you are able to do so, I would appreciate it enormously. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I think you can be more than trusted to ensure the spot check is done correctly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have ordered Girouard, Crook and Lawrence at the British Library and will check against them tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't anticipate any difficulties but it is, of course, quite possible that I've made a mistake. I have them all here so should be able to respond very promptly to any queries. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, Tim, I must confess that when I asked for the spotcheck, I had you in mind -- it hadn't escaped my notice that you'd already been involved in the review and I was hoping to see you do more... ;-) Seriously, your involvement in the article itself would be the key thing COI-wise, and as you say that's relatively minor -- so pls go for it, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review from Crisco 1492

• File:William Burges portrait.jpg - Needs the lifetime of the artist. (Henry Van der Weyde should have that.) Also needs a US PD tag.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Missed the US PD tag. Got it.

• File:The Arab Room Ceiling, Cardiff Castle.jpg looks fine
• File:All Saints' Church, Fleet - geograph.org.uk - 1719303.jpg looks fine
• File:CorkCathedralsunlight.jpg looks fine.
• File:Dover 11.JPG - should be renamed to a more descriptive filename. Have already requested it.

Done. Thank you. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:Cardiff Castle - Palast außen.jpg looks fine
• File:Burges as Burges.jpg - Needs date of death and a US PD tag.

Done and done, I think. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Meant the date of death of the author. Don't worry, I've added it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:John Crichton-Stuart.jpg - If the creator is unknown, PD-70 cannot apply. This needs {{PD-UK-unknown}}. I think it may need a US PD tag, for which proof of publication would be necessary.

Done-ish. Have added PD-unknown. Can we assume, as you're unsure, that it doesn't need US PD, and thus proof of publication, as I don't think we can provide this. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. I added PD-US just to be safe (work created before 1892, so certainly free in the US)

• File:Animal Wall Cardiff.jpg - Where was this first published? If outside the US, it needs a PD tag for the country of origin.

Done. I've added PD OLD as it is inconceivable, ??, that it wasn't first published in the UK. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. First published in the US, so PD-1923 added. Fine now.

• File:Cardiff Castle clock tower.jpg looks fine.
• File:Design for the Summer Smoking Room at Cardiff Castle.jpg - Lifetime? US PD tag?

Done the tag. Hope the lifetime's not critical. KJP1 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. If you are to use PD-Old or the like, you need at least a death date for persons from the 19th century or later. A person aged 20 in 1872 may have died as late as 1945, or later.

• File:Castell Coch frontside January midday.jpg - image is awfully dark. Also, should probably have an information box.

It is, a bit, but I can't find an image that better shows the castle's frontage. Not sure what the required info. box should contain but will try. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC) If the information box is not absolutely essential, can I ask that someone with more understanding of these matters than I, add it. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Similar to File:Maison Dieu House, Dover.jpg is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:Three Fates chimneypiece, drawing room of Castell Coch.jpg - Looks fine.
• File:Knightshayes Court - geograph.org.uk - 773493.jpg - Looks fine
• File:Park House Cardiff.jpg - Looks fine.
• File:Resurrection Angel St Fin Barre's Cathedral .jpg - needs categories. Also, this looks it was upsampled from a smaller image (can't find which), so I doubt that this is the author's own work.

Have replaced as I cannot address the issues. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. What image did you replace it with?

• File:St Marys Church, Studley Royal - geograph.org.uk - 7683.jpg - Looks fine.
• File:Burgesplan.jpg - Is the original this brown? Needs a US PD tag

Afraid so. Added US PD tag. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

*PD-70 is not enough for the US, as many works are still protected. This falls under PD-100, which works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And now a much lighter image with the appropriate tag. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:The Tower House.jpg - This looks like it was scanned from a book, and there is no exif data here. Is this truly free? File:The Tower House 2008 07 07.JPG seems to be more clear.

A little faint maybe but I'm of the opinion its a better image that the one you suggest. It looks dull not to mention the cars being an eyesore... This is better and can be uploaded if desired? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• That would do wonderfully. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

All superseded by the above, but it is an original photo, which I took a long time ago.

• Okay, just confused by the grain on the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite understand why, if my memory serves, it's pre-digital and then scanned. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:BLW Decanter.jpg - Looks fine, although I'd prefer another free image of the decanter (the light under it is really distracting)

I agree but don't think we can find a better one. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:St Mary's, Studley Royal.jpg - a little dark at the lion, but license-wise fine

Agreed but, again, we shalln't find better, I think. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• File:Painted bookcase 1 - Manchester City Art Gallery.jpg - Looks fine.
• File:Burges as jester.jpg - Needs {{PD-UK-unknown}} and a US PD tag.

Done, and done. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• To be safe, we shouldn't include PD-100 with persons from the 19th century. PD-US covers unpublished works. All that were taken before 1892 are free.

• File:William Burges Vault at West Norwood Cemetery.jpg - Looks fine
• File:Animal Wall 7 Cardiff.jpg - Looks fine
• File:Burges as architect.jpg - Needs a link to the source, showing proof of who made it and when. It will need a US PD tag as well.

The latter done but shall need to think about the former. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Still needs a link. "Internet" is not a valid source statement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Side note: Current FNs 36, 111, 119, 140, 149, and 163 are showing up as errors with Ucucha's script. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Still many formatting errors in the footnotes (missing years, commas, and the use of the wrong code for italics). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Spot check of sources

Crook 1981a

• 1 – fine
• 4 – The source doesn't actually say this, but the inference is entirely justified
• 6 – fine

*9 – I can't find this in in the source

I see what you mean. I've re-worded as "Burges's work with Wyatt, particularly on the Medieval Court for this exhibition, was influential on the subsequent course of his career." I think this is supported by Crook's ""Wyatt's influence set Burges on a path which shaped much of his career." I'd be loathe to lose all reference to the Medieval Court as it was B's work with W on this that had a greater influence on him than any other aspect of his apprenticeship to Wyatt. KJP1 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 11a and b – fine
• 12 – All the places are mentioned in Crook, but on pp. 44–48, not 53

Corrected. I've put 45-50 but I agree you could say 44-48, the earlier covering his first French visit and the latter covering his arrival in Turkey, not his departure. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 14a and b – fine
• 15 – The source confirms the Japanese element but makes no mention on the cited page of Moorish influences or the Arab Room

You're right. I've added both Near and Far, and changed the first reference to p.51. I was trying to say two things in one sentence. The new referencing is supported by Crook "the art of Islamic Cairo became a key ingredient" p.51, and his reference to the Japanese Court on p.52. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 26a, b, and c – fine
• 27 – fine
• 37 – fine
• 45a and b – fine
• 45c – I can't find this in the source

Quite right. It's p.200. ""Cork would never be able to afford a really large cathedral." Changed. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 48a – ditto

Corrected. 199, not 190. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 48b – fine
• 49 – fine
• 50 – fine
• 51 – fine
• 54 – fine
• 55 – fine
• 57 – fine
• 59 – There's no mention that I could find in the cited source of "best glass" or of St FB's Cathedral.

Again, I see what you mean. P.188 gives his starting work with B and I've added 204 which gives details of Saunders working at St FB. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 61 – fine
• 62 – I can't find this in the cited source

Corrected. 305, ".. employed by Messrs. Burges and Walker on Cardiff's Bute East Dock."

• 63a – I can't find this in the cited source

Corrected 259, "Bute's potential as a patron was vast: Burges released the spring." Apologies. No idea what happened to these two. KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 63b – fine
• 69 – fine
• 75a and b – fine
• 85 – fine
• 90 – fine
• 100 – fine
• 105 – fine
• 110 – fine
• 113 – fine
• 121a and b – fine
• 121c – correct page is 239, not 238, and these aren't Crook's words but those of the obituarist in The Echo

Corrected to p.239 and re-attributed. KJP1 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 123 – fine
• 125 – fine (We won't fall out over the omitted 11 shilliings)
• 126 – fine
• 129 – fine
• 130 – I can't find this in the cited source

Nor can I. Changed to Cherry and Pevsner "were toned down and altered." KJP1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 136 – fine
• 137 – I can't find this in the cited source

Unfortunately, neither can I. Removed cite. KJP1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 138 – The source doesn't say this in so many words, but the interpretation here is justified, IMO.
• 142 – fine
• 153a–c – fine
• 154a and b – fine
• 156 – fine
• 157 – fine
• 158 – fine
• 161 – fine
• 165 – fine
• 179 – fine
• 185 – fine
• 192 – fine
• 201a and b – fine
• 202a and b – fine
• 204 – fine
• 210 – fine
• 211 – fine
• 212 – fine
• 213 – fine
• 214 – fine
• 215 – fine
• 216 – fine
• 217 – fine
• 218 – fine
• 221a and b – fine
• 222a and b – fine
• 226 – fine – fine
• 236 – fine
• 237 – fine
• 238 – fine
• 239 – fine
• 253 – fine
• 266 – fine
• 267 – fine
• 268 – fine
• 269 – fine
• 270 – fine
• 271 – fine
• 272 – fine
• 273 – fine
• 277 – fine
• 279 – fine
• 281 – fine
• 284 – fine
• 285 – fine

Lawrence and Wilson

• 40a – I couldn't find in the text anything relating to the "Early French" reference or to the quote.

Me neither. Removed. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 40b – fine
• 43a and b – fine
• 44 – fine
• 46 – fine
• 52a and b – fine
• 69a and b – fine
• 182 – fine except that Lawrence (like all right-thinking people) spells "mediaeval" thus

"All right thinking people", except Fowler, of course. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Devoted as I am to Fowler, he had his off-moments, e.g. urging us to eschew "chiropodist" in favour of "corn-cutter". Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 183 – fine
• 184 – fine
• 223 – fine

Girouard

• 76a – fine, except for the ashlar, of which Girouard makes no mention

Done by moving citation. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 76b – fine
• 78 – fine
• 80a – three words in brackets in the source are omitted in your quotation with no indication that you have edited it; three dots wanted here, I think

Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 80b – fine
• 81 – fine
• 84a – Girouard is not as definite as you represent him as being: he says that the room "appears" to be B's last work, and Bute "probably" had the initials put there as a memorial

Caveated, appropriately, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• 84b – fine
• 97 – This was the only bit of paraphrasing that struck me as in any way dubious. Your text reads, "Burges defended their use by reference to a body of doubtful historical evidence, but, in truth, he incorporated them for their architectural effect". The original reads, "Burges supported his roofs with a considerable body of examples of doubtful validity; the truth was that he wanted them for their architectural effect." I'd say that's much too similar for comfort.

That's my fault. In removing the long quote that was there I reworded it slightly and didn't have the Crook source at my fingertips to be aware of that... I've changed it to a quote.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked the four JSTOR references, 152, 193, 227 and 241, which are all fine, as regards both accuracy and freedom from close paraphrase.

Where I have said, above, that I couldn't find something in the source I mean just that; Crook, in particular, is in fairly dense prose, and I shall be quite happy to be told that I have overlooked something I was seeking. – Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the responses above and consequent changes to the text. Tim riley (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- while we're on the subject of sources/citations, there are a few spots where I'd expect to see citations as a matter of course, mainly at the end of paragraphs:

• Cardiff Castle -- 4th para

Done. Crook a p.84. KJP1 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Castle Coch -- 4th para

Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

*Knightshayes Court -- 2nd para

Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's Cathedral -- 1st para

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• The Tower House -- 1st para

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Furniture -- last para

Done by removing text. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Personal life -- "Contemporaries referred to Burges's child-like nature; Dante Gabriel Rossetti composed a limerick about him (see box)." (either this sentence or the quote box referred to should be cited).
  • I ran across this in Girouaud (I think - or if not Lawrence) this morning, if that helps KJP1 track it down. Tim riley (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Architectural scholarship

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I HAVE TO SAY I COULD HAVE DONE WITHOUT WIKIPEDIA HAVING A SERVER PROBLEM ON THE VERY NIGHT I TRY TO FINISH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is really becoming very, very trying. 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A question about the References section

I'm not well up on the minutiae of this section, but I've noticed that only one author in the References list has an authorlink to his/her Wikipedia article - and that is the only one supplied by me (Falconer Madan)! I had a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see whether there's any guidance on this but there doesn't seem to be anything (or else I'm looking in the wrong place). Personally, I would link all authors who have WP articles when they first appear in the Refs section (e.g. Christopher Hibbert, Elizabeth Eastlake, maybe others) unless they're already linked in the text of the article (which a lot of them are, e.g. Pevsner, Crook, Betjeman - but it might be helpful if they were also linked in the Refs section as well). Anyway, I'd be happier if people who know more about this than I do could point to some guidance somewhere that sayeth yea or nay. --GuillaumeTell 09:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see exactly what you mean and having a single linked author in the references certainly looks odd. I have no idea what the "right" answer is but I hope you will forgive my solution, with which I fear you won't be entirely happy. I've de-linked Madan. I've neither the heart, nor the energy nor the skill, nor even, this evening, the enthusiasm for the article, to try and link all the others and I fear I would just make a mess. If there is a MOS ruling which says they should all be linked, please could someone with more wiki editing skill than I undertake the task. KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't link any of them, that's easiest...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think there is only one issue remaining from the above. This is:

• File:Burges as architect.jpg - Needs a link to the source, showing proof of who made it and when. It will need a US PD tag as well.

The latter done but shall need to think about the former. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The picture is hugely valuable to the article and I should be loathe to lose it. Can somebody address Crisco 1492 (talk)'s concerns, to whom I repeat my thanks for a wonderfully thorough image review. Alternatively, I could delete it because the article can survive its loss.

Subject to the resolution of the above, I believe all issues raised at FAC have been addressed. KJP1 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

While (not whilst) being in the happy position of not having any FAC comments to address, I did want to record my enormous thanks to all of the editors who have improved this article; with no apology, I make specific mention of Cassianto for his unflagging interest and insightful comments, Crisco 1492 for his invaluable image review, User:GuillaumeTell for his second GAR, and for his humour and User:Tim riley for his orginal GAR which drove the article forward, for his source review and for his unfailing support. Lastly, User:Dr Blofeld - the first to see the article's potential, the first to see that I could be made to learn some rudiments of wikipedia editing, the first to provide encouragement when I most needed it, and this article's co-author. KJP1 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's note - Please address Crisco's remaining comments on the reference formatting and the image source, this can be done post FAC. My thanks to the reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 18:11, 20 June 2012 [4].

---

William T. Anderson

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

William T. Anderson was one of the deadliest Confederate guerrillas in the American Civil War, though he died by the age of 25. Anderson was a run of the mill horse thief in Kansas until his father and sister were killed by Union forces; he subsequently devoted his life to revenge. Historians have debated whether he was a consummate sadist, or merely forced to resort to violence by the times in which he lived. This article has been peer reviewed and passed as a GA and a MilHist A-class article. Thanks to all the people who helped review and copyedit this, I think it now meets the FA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Looks interesting, don't know if I'll be able to do a full review. On skimming I noticed this - "In the late 1850s, Ellis Anderson fled to Iowa" - Who is Ellis? I saw mention of a brother Elias but didn't see mention of Ellis beforehand. BlueBonnet 17:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note, this is a pretty long article, so it's understandable if you don't have time for the whole thing. Ellis is the right name, the other was a typo on my part, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments: This looks very good so far; interesting and well written. I've read down to the end of "Horse trading and outlawry" so far. Just a few minor comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Historians formed disparate appraisals of Anderson": Not sure you can form an appraisal. Either made an appraisal or formed disparate views possibly?
• "In 1856, William C. Anderson transported freight to New Mexico on a wagon train, and upon his return, built a cabin in Kansas.": Suggests he did this just once. Seems a little odd to include a one-off job of his father, if this is actually a one-off.
• "after the man allegedly tried to rob him as he traveled outside of Council Grove": Not a fan of "allegedly". Who is alleging? If it was Anderson's claim, I think it should be made clear.
• "purportedly because his horses had disappeared with the cargo": Similar problem: purported by who?

Hopefully more to follow later. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments, changed the first and clarified the last two. I had originally included the information about his dad's trip to New Mexico because it gave Anderson the idea to do the same, but I guess it's not necessary so I removed it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

More comments: Up to the end of "Texas". Looking extremely good. Nitpicks only: Sarastro1 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• "the state suffered up to 25,000 deaths from guerrilla warfare, more than any other state.": I suspect this may be an issue with the source, but it may be better, if possible, to give a minimum number. Saying "up to" leaves too much wiggle room to state that it was more than any other state. It may be better to rephrase if possible, but not an issue if nothing can be done.
• "…Quantrill's Raiders on a raid near Council Grove": Raiders…raid. Possibly rephrase?
• "Castel and Goodrich speculated that this raid may have given Quantrill the idea of a launching an attack deep in Kansas": Not a big issue, but why would a raid in which some of his men were captured and killed give him this idea. Does not quite follow.
• "Anderson apparently believed this": Apparently sounds a little weak. It may be better to say "may have". I think uncertainty is better than "apparently", but if it can be firmed up, even better.
• It is not clear in this section how much Anderson was acting independently and how much he was under the "control" of Quantrill. Could this be clarified, or is it not known?
• "Anderson did not noticeably change after his marriage": This seems to be a bit of a random comment in the middle of the narrative. Is there any particular reason that he would have done? More interesting is why did he marry so quickly?
• "Wood,[63] Castel and Goodrich,[64] and Daniel Sutherland of the University of Arkansas[65] record that this incident angered Anderson": Unless there is significant opposition to this idea, why do we need to record this as the opinion of four historians? Even if it is controversial, maybe just say something like "it is likely" would be enough? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, good comments. I've tried to clarify the issues you pointed out. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: This is a great read. The prose is excellent and everything is clearly explained and set in context. Although I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness or sourcing, knowing nothing about this period of history or the people involved, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it! Just three more minor points which do not affect my support in any way. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• "In June 1864, Todd usurped Quantrill's leadership of their group, forcing him to leave the area": Not clear who "him" is.
• "On August 27, Union soldiers killed at least three of Anderson's men, and the next day, the 4th Missouri Volunteer Cavalry pursued them, but Anderson launched an ambush that killed seven Union soldiers": Where did all this take place?
• "Anderson visited Confederate sympathizers as he traveled, some of whom viewed him as a hero for fighting the Union. Many of Anderson's men had a deep hatred of the Union, and he was adept at tapping into this emotion." I can't quite see the connection between these sentences. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and support, glad that you liked it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Image review:

• File:Bloody-bill-anderson.jpg is fine.
• File:Quantrill.png - "because first published prior to 1923." should be changed to "because this anonymous work was created more than 120 years ago". You have no proof of publishing yet. Template should be {{PD-US-unpublished}}
• File:Battle of Lawrence.png is fine.
• File:General Order No 11.jpg is fine.
• File:William T. Anderson in sherman.jpg the image is certainly PD, but not for the reason listed. As the US law is 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is less, I think the safer way would be to indicate that more than 120 years have passed since the image was created. Template should be {{PD-US-unpublished}}
• File:Jesse and Frank James.gif - None of the links are working for me. Probably PD as an anonymous work.
• File:William T Anderson death.jpg - As we don't know Kice's date of death and have no indication of the original publication date, I think (per the Hirtle chart it should be marked as PD since it is 120 years since creation and the date of death is unknown. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Have reviewed the changes since I reviewed at A-class. No further comments on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for the review. I tried to tweak the permissions on those files to indicate that they were definitely created more than 120 years ago. The template you link to is a redlink, I just have {{PD-US}} on the files with the more than 120 years part in the permission. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not a redlink on Commons (several of images above are on Commons) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, Ok, I added it to the commons images. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose and images. Double check to see if any of the files hosted on Wikipedia are already on Commons; I'll delete any of the redundant files for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't self-defense be hyphenated under 'claim of self defense'? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Yeah, guess so, added. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist A-Class Review.
• Reviewing changes since then, while I don't think all have been necessary from a prose perspective, I don't think they've done any harm; just found one slightly 'off' phrase this time round, and corrected.
• I spotchecked a few sources in Mark's last FAC and found only a couple of relatively minor things that needed tweaking so don't feel the necessity to see one here; I am of course speaking purely as a reviewer here, and not on behalf of other delegates... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and your comments at the A-class review! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I was enjoyed the U.S. Civil War topic (obviously, not the war itself, I don't like bloodshed) and it's quite good to see lesser known figures having their own spotlight here. I wonder how hard it must have been to do the research. This article is very well written to the point that a non-American like myself, with basic knowledge (I wouldn't dare to call myself an experienced reader) of U.S. history is quite able to enjoy and understand with no problem at all the context given. I give my full support to this one. --Lecen (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support and praise, I'm glad that you liked it. I wasn't too familiar with this part of the Civil War, I hadn't heard of Anderson until I reverted some vandalism while patrolling recent changes. Perhaps my own lack of Civil War expertise made me more inclined to add context. The research took a lot of reading, I had to take a break from it halfway through and work on other projects for a while. I'm glad I came back to it though! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So far so good, down to where I stopped, William_T._Anderson#Texas. I did some minor copyediting. Good job. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the copyediting. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. I participated in this article's peer review and thought it was very, very close to FA standard at that time. Just took the time to re-read it, and found nothing even worth quibbling about. A deserving FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:56, 20 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 17:39, 20 June 2012 [5].

---

Reg Saunders

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert and Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

AustralianRupert and I would like to present our collaboration on the first Aboriginal Australian to be commissioned an officer in the Australian Army. For Rupert, Saunders epitomises the characteristics of a generation of Australians who, forged by the hardships of the Depression and the bush, proved their mettle in the crucible of war. What struck me about his story was how he thrived in the heat of battle, when he was judged purely by his considerable talents as a soldier, but had to deal with entrenched discrimination as soon as he took off his uniform -- and rose above that too. The article recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews, and we believe it's ready for the bronze star. Thanks to Nick-D for various contributions along the way and to our other reviewers at ACR and GAN, Anotherclown, Zawed and Thurgate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by Ling
  • "After sitting a selection board on the Atherton Tablelands". I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. A draft board? Why is the location significant? – Ling.Nut (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I've added some more to clarify. No, it wasn't a draft board. Saunders was a volunteer. It was/is (we still use them) an interview/recruitment process used to determine a person's suitability to be appointed as an officer (as opposed to a soldier in the ranks). The location is not especially significant, it is really only included as context. For example, if it wasn't mentioned that it was on the Atherton Tablelands, a reader might ask if the board sat in New Guinea. Anyway, I've tried to clarify in the article. Does that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Forged by War: Australians in Combat and Back Home by Gina Lennox (Mar 1, 2006)
    • "continued to serve with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs..." One of only three aboriginals to do so (1969)? p. 174
      • Nick-D recently amended this to "one of its first", but I guess we could finetune to "one of its first three". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • reading through this chapter of the book, it seems s though his gov't work does not rec'v the coverage it deserves... – Ling.Nut (talk)
      • I was a little dubious about relying too much on Forbes as it is primarily family reminiscences, but happy to look around for more material on his govt work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
        • As a general comment, for whatever reason little gets written about the experiences of public servants in Australia. Even the heads of major departments rarely receive much coverage. If there isn't a history of the department (which is often a PhD thesis rather than a published book) then you're probably out of luck. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I just did a bit of digging, and all I found were photos of Saunders wearing a suit in 1975 [6] and 1985 [7]. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Tks Nick, yep, I saw those while searching through Picture Australia. On the other hand, per below, Ling did find a useful nugget (pun completely unintended, of course!) in Coombs' story, Obliged to be Difficult, on Saunders' main OAA duties at the beginning. Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • wikipedia: "Due to the discriminatory laws in force at the time, Saunders had fewer rights as a citizen" are you sure he was a citizen? Not 'til 1967, right? same page as above, iirc.... oh wait, Fighters from the Fringe: Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Recall the Second World War by Robert A. Hall (Jan 1, 1995) p. 65-66 says Aborigines were full citizens in Victoria. So they were citizens in some states but not others? – Ling.Nut (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Correct -- Ramsland also states that Aborigines had the rights of citizens in Victoria but not elsewhere. On the other hand "as a citizen" could be confusing so perhaps we should drop that clause and leave as "had fewer rights"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • ashes scattered at lake condah, p. 166 & again several pages later – Ling.Nut (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Funny, I thought we had that already... Done, and tks for pointing out -- it seemed that the location must be of special significance, which based on a quick search turned to out to be the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Timothy Ashplant, Graham Dawson, Michael Roper Commemorating War: The Politics of Memory
    • what's an rsl and why was saunders so interested in it? anyhow see pp. 139 & 143 for political activities. – Ling.Nut (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Did you follow the wikilink for what's the RSL? Anyhow will check on that source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I was asking what's an rsl because it was discussed in source, not article. Article mentions rsl once at bottom, with no wikilink. – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Um, Returned and Services League (RSL) in second-last para? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I think when I do CTRL-F, either I unknowingly tap the space bar first, or else something else (?) happens, and I get a space before the search term... so missed (RSL) twice because no space before it... but no matter, it is less than a trivial point... it actually wasn't even a point at all. :-) The quote seems to suggest he struggled against the RSL re aborigine policies, IIRC. – Ling.Nut (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
              • I've added a small clause to clarify what the RSL was/is (it still exists, and COI dec, I am a member). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Obliged to be Difficult Nugget Coombs' Legacy in Indigenous Affairs Tim Rowse, University of Sydney
    • more details of 1 of 3 aborigine representatives t OAA, including useful descr. of duties, p. 72 – Ling.Nut (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep, should be worth adding. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Melbourne historical journal: Volumes 27-30; Volumes 27-30
    • I dunno if this is legit: "As Djumbi (Reg Saunders) said in 1978; The Aboriginal speaks in many languages and like all people will disagree on many things material. Today when we speak of Land Rights we do so with one voice, because Land Rights is both spiritual..." a lot of talk of land rights in all these volumes, though in the first one one of his relatives says saunders said land rights weren't enough, need skills. – Ling.Nut (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, forgot to respond directly to this one -- did you have a link, Ling? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Tks for review and suggestions. Will come back with more when I get the chance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Happy to Support – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, Ling. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• The placement of the Chris image creates a large white block on my screen - any way to avoid this?
  • Heh,I thought the "stack" parameter was supposed to avoid that, as well as place it immediately below the section heading. I mean it's probably not a big deal if it's placed on the left, it's just odd that no-one else has reported the issue.
• File:Australian_Army_Emblem.JPG: I believe we would need the copyright info for the original emblem as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to confirm, you mean add copyright info for the original Army emblem to this file? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have been looking into this and to be honest, I haven't been able to find anything definitive on the copyright status of that emblem in general. That particular version was adopted in 1991, when the Australian Army had it redesigned (although it was tweaked slightly again in 1995 when the metal was changed). I don't know if that affects anything, though. I'd be happy to lose the image from the article as I don't believe it is vital to the topic, although in the absence of anything definitive against the image, I'd be happy to AGF its copyright status. Of course, if it needs to go, I can live with that. Thanks for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – Second World War: Minor, but I don't think the last two words of "Australian Rules Football" need the capitalization. That's about it from me. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you're right -- altered accordingly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Support – Wonderful little article that meets all of the FA criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• I would talk about my edits, except that of course I haven't found any to make so far.
• "During this time he largely educated himself and in 1937 he went into business with his father and brother, operating their own sawmill in Portland, Victoria, until it was destroyed in a bushfire in 1939.": It's hard to know when to insist on a comma between independent clauses. MOS is silent (I think). Most style guides, including the ones I'm most likely to use, insist on them. The trend is to drop some of these commas ... but I think you need a PhD in commaology to know when it's okay. What I've been doing so far at FAC is to let them slide if the writers seem to have "good taste" and don't overdo it, but to insist on using them consistently otherwise. That's a little inconsistent, and makes me feel guilty. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Heh, funny you pick that sentence because it's not my favourite either, though not necessarily due lack of commas. I've never liked the expression "during this time", though I admit I can't think of anything better. Also "their own" sawmill is probably redundant because we've just said they're in business together. As to commas, I'd probably use them "parenthetically" around "in 1937". All that would make it: "During this time he largely educated himself and, in 1937, went into business with his father and brother, operating a sawmill in Portland, Victoria, until it was destroyed in a bushfire in 1939." Another option might be to simply make "During this time he largely educated himself" a sentence on its own, since it doesn't relate that closely to going into business. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • How about "He worked and furthered his own education until 1937, when he ..."? Do you have an opinion on whether I should ask for commas between independent clauses? Garner's, Chicago, and some FAC reviewers require them ... some BritEng style guides do too, but now I'm out of my depth. - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Dan, although I went to a "grammar school", I learnt precious little theory on speaking and writing and picked up practically all I know from my parents, who were taught the theory... ;-) I'm fine with your suggestion, but want to avoid two "until"s in one sentence. How about "He worked and furthered his own education until 1937, when he went into business with his father and brother operating a sawmill in Portland, Victoria; it was destroyed in a bushfire in 1939." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay, consider it done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I appreciate you taking a look at this, Dan. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • My pleasure, I especially enjoy stories of triumph over adversity. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure this is an important point (probably not), but the grammar might be different depending on who legally owned the sawmill: "After three years of working and educating himself in his free time, in 1937 he went into business with his father and brother in a sawmill they jointly owned and operated in Portland, Victoria. Saunders worked with them until the mill was destroyed in a bushfire in 1939." – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • G'day, that's certainly a fair point, IMO. To be honest, though, I haven't found anything that indicates who owned the mill, at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • I reviewed this at ACR so I'm comfortable that it is very close to meeting the FA criteria. Some fairly minor points:
  • 1(a) well-written:
    • maybe a word missing here: "was the first Aboriginal Australian to be commissioned an officer...", perhaps "was the first Aboriginal Australian to be commissioned as an officer..."
      • I think what was there was acceptable English but no doubt your version is fine too, so altered accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This sentence seems to only make half that point: "Due to the discriminatory laws in force at the time, Saunders had fewer rights as a citizen than the white Australians he led...", perhaps consider something like: "Ironically, Saunders had fewer rights as a citizen than the white Australians he led due to the discriminatory laws in force at the time." (suggestion only - the reader should understand the inference I admit).
      • Yeah, I'd prefer to think the reader would grasp it, without risking the appearance of editorialising... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Incorrect terminology here: "In February 1951, he took charge of A Company when its commanding officer was wounded...", in the Australian Army a rifle company is commanded by an Officer Commanding (OC), not a CO (they command battalions).
      • Well that's Army for you -- I'm used to Air Force, where OCs command larger formations than COs... ;-) Altered to more generic "commander" because I think "officer commanding" may puzzle the uninitiated and even it we were to link it, I see the old OC article now redirects to commanding officer, which doesn't help... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This seems awkward to me: "He was also involved in a veterans organisation, the Returned and Services League (RSL), though he fell out with leaders Alf Garland and Bruce Ruxton over Garland's...", perhaps consider: "He was also involved in the Returned and Services League (RSL), a a veterans organisation, though he fell out with leaders Alf Garland and Bruce Ruxton over Garland's..." (suggestion only - I know this has been the product of other reviewers comments so if you want to keep it that way I'm happy)
      • I'm happy with your version if no-one else complains... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Lake Condah, Victoria should be wikilinked at first instance (it is currently linked in the "Later life" section, but mentioned in "Early life").
      • Oops, tks for spotting that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 1(b) comprehensive:
    • "Saunders' mother died in 1924 from complications caused by pneumonia while giving birth to her third child, a girl, who also died...", do we know his mother's name?
      • I think someone asked at ACR and we didn't have the info, but it's possible that was before the last source or two came our way -- will see. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 1(c) well-researched: no issues here - I've spot checked the fol refs:
    • 1: "Captain Reginald Walter (Reg) Saunders, MBE". Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 21 July 2009" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
    • 4: ""Walter Christopher George Saunders". The AIF Project. Australian Defence Force Academy. Retrieved 12 May 2012." - citation checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
    • 10:"Captain Reginald Saunders". Australian Broadcasting Corporation, South West Victoria. Retrieved 21 July 2009." - citations check out, no issues with close paraphrase
    • 22: "Battle of 42nd Street". Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 13 April 2012." - citation checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
    • 35: "Reginald Walter Saunders, MBE (1920–1990)". Fifty Australians. Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 18 May 2012." - citations check out, no issues with close paraphrase
    • 60: "Flanagan, Martin (25 April 1989). "We can make peace, says an old warrior". The Age: p. 9. Retrieved 28 May 2012." - citation checks out, no issues with close paraphase
  • 1(d) neutral: no issues here - article seems to present subject in a balanced manner.
  • 1(e) stable: no issues here - all recent changes appear to be constructive
  • 2(a) a lead: no issues here - lead is a little short but summarises all key points
  • 2(b) appropriate structure: yes
  • 2(c) consistent citations: yes
  • 3.Media - images look fine to me but I'm not an expert so I'll leave this up to others
  • 4.Length - article is succint and covers all key points. Anotherclown (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Many tks, AC -- the spotcheck is especially welcome, it seems like a while since an article I was involved in had one... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Too easy, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:38, 20 June 2012 [8].

---

Typhoon Gay (1989)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Typhoon Gay was one of the worst tropical cyclones to strike Thailand on record. Its unusual origin an unprecedented intensification within the Gulf of Thailand caught hundreds of vessels off-guard, leading to tragic loss of life. Its unprecedented intensity in the region led to immense damage onshore as well, with tens of thousands of buildings damaged or destroyed and nearly 600 lives lost. The storm's trail of damage continued into India where a further 69 people were killed. All told, the typhoon was responsible for nearly 1,000 fatalities and ranks as one of the worst natural disasters in Thailand's history.

Over the past several months, I've rebuilt this article from the meager piece it was into what I believe is the most complete account of the storm available. Relative scarcity of information made writing this a bit of a challenge and for the scale of damage caused by this storm, the article's size may seem a bit short. I've read through every journal mentioning the storm I could find and I fully believe there is nothing left to add. With that, it's time for this to enter the spotlight. I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Quick question. How come you put a clear after the table of contents? That creates a bit of unnecessary space. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To keep the format. If the clear isn't there, the infobox will be pushed into the next section and make it a bit messy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • OK. I tested it and thought it looked fine, but I'll trust you. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cyclonebiskit. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Expect a review of the article soon. hf24 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Lede

Shouldn't "Kavali Cyclone of 1989" be bolded per MOS:BOLDTITLE?

It's not an official name for the storm, it's just a common name for it in India. Cyclonebiskit (talk)

"800 fatalities" needs an  

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk)

Same with "November 1989"

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk)

"more than"? What does track file say? If it says 120, then do 120, not "more than"...?

It's another way of saying that it attained typhoon status to avoid using "typhoon" too many times. It also works well with the track since it attained 120 km/h winds early on Nov. 3 and continued to intensify throughout the day. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"first typhoon since 1891" – linky?

Reference #8 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"after temporarily weakening over land and gradually reorganized" doesn't flow too well

Removed "after temporarily weakening over land" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"by surprise" seems a bit informal. I don't have a problem with it, but the tone seems a bit too casual.

I'd prefer to leave it as is for now unless another editor has similar concerns. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"275 offshore fatalities" needs an  

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"amid" seems a bit like "during"..."under" or something might be a better word IMO

During and under don't work as well in this context. Would amidst work better? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

How can a ship be "under" swells? "Amid" is the perfect choice of words here (btw, "amidst" = "amid", just a much more archaic BrE version of it) Auree ^★★ 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"588 people" needs an  

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"1989 United States dollars" ^

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Striking India as a powerful cyclone" isn't too relevant at this point; it was mentioned earlier in the lede and readers should understand that...

It notifies the reader that the focus is shifting from effects in Thailand to effects in India. It's just there for transitory purposes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"20,000 homes" – nbsp...

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"100,000 people" ^

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

hf24 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

hf24, for future reference, instead of cluttering the FAC page by listing every single instance where   are required, could you leave a more general and much more helpful comment like "add   for numbers throughout"? Auree ^★★ 01:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You say in the lede that Gay was the first typhoon since 1891 to make landfall in Thailand, but the MH clarifies by saying that it was the first typhoon to form in the Gulf of Thailand and cross into the Bay of Bengal, which is slightly different. Are both facts true?
    • Yes, both are true. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarification. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Sixty-nine deaths and 410 million ($25.27 million) worth of damage were attributed to Gay in India." - can you find a way to reword so it says "69 deaths" and avoid passive voice?
    • Tony took care of this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The 2nd and 3rd sentences both say "soon", which struck me as odd, a bit.
    • Changed the first use to quickly. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "As the newly christened Tropical Storm Gay strengthened, "it presented a paradox to forecasters."" - Who said that quote?
    • Lt. Dianne K. Crittenden in the JTWC ATCR. I'm going to take a guess that this means I'm supposed to mention who said it in the article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yea, the quote should be attributed :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Additionally, its central pressure was estimated to have decreased to 930 mbar (hPa; 27.46 inHg)." - which agency?
    • Estimated by the IMD. Wouldn't the sentence refer to the IMD anyways since it's in the preceding one? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Not automatically, since the article does mention several warning centers. I'd stick in "Additionally, the agency estimated..." or something. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Added 11:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Shortly before all crew members were going to abandon ship, the eye of Typhoon Gay passed over and winds fluctuated violently and changed direction, preventing the ship from remaining stabilized despite being within safe operating limits." - can you split that in two?
    • Split it at the eye passing over. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Consequently, the vessel abruptly capsized with all 97 crew members during the overnight hours of November 3 before any life boat could be deployed." - I think "on board" is missing after "all 97 crew members". Correct me if I'm wrong.
    • Added it in Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Numerous trees and power poles were uprooted and wooden houses built on stilts were blown over near where the storm made landfall." - I know it isn't essential to avoid passive voice, but I think this sentence can be made clearer by using active voice.
    • Reworded, does it work better now? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yea, I think it works better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Several towns and villages across Chumphon province were devastated" - "devastated" here sounds a bit... emotional and non-encyclopediac. How do you mean?
    • I think in this instance "devastated" properly indicates what took place. As stated later in that paragraph, entire villages were wiped out by the storm and hundreds were killed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, fair enough. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Schools across Chumphon and Surat Thani provinces were severely impacted by the typhoon. Many of these were constructed from wood and many were destroyed." - you can probably combine these sentences to something like "The typhoon destroyed many schools across Chumphon and Surat Thani provinces, many of which constructed from wood." Or something. Make it shorter and cleaner.
    • Used suggested sentence Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Multi-story buildings lost their upper floors and all had their windows and doors blown out. " - is this still referring to schools? And is that referring to those two provinces? The all is tripping me up.
    • Reworded but I'm not sure if the new sentence is somewhat out of place. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Does that mean multi-story churches? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Where did churches come from? Now I'm confused. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
          • The previous sentence, and that you mention churches in a subsequent sentence. I don't think you necessarily had to split that sentence in two, btw, since this - "Multi-story buildings lost their upper floors" - just seems small. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Combined the sentence with the previous one so it's not so small. I'm still confused where you're getting churches from. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry, I meant schools. Now, the multi-story buildings... does that mean the schools? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ref 27 isn't working for me.
    • Works fine for me [9] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Weird, same. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Generators were brought in to keep hospitals and government offices running as much of Chumphon province remained without electricity for more than two weeks." - pick another word other than "as", as it's ambiguous at first glance whether it means "because", "while", or something else.
    • Changed to since Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • " In the four years following Typhoon Gay, land use for orchard, rubber and oil palm plantations decreased from 33.32 percent to 30.53 percent." - percent of what? The overall area of Thailand?
    • Previous sentence states it's for Surat Thani Province. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• All in all, a good read. It's pretty close to FA status, IMO. Keep it up! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Some titles use hyphens when they should use endashes
  • Replaced them Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• FN 11, 12: volume/issue?
  • Not available for #11, added it in for #12. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers and journals, and if so how these are notated
  • I provide them whenever possible but they're not always there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Fn 17: typo?
  • Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Don't italicize news agencies or publishers; do italicize publication names
  • I think I fixed them. Might have made it worse though... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• FN 24: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure what's wrong here. Can you explain? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Prose at top

• Mmmm, who's doing this writing? I can barely fault the lead. I've just made a few trivial edits based on personal pref. Please revert if you don't like. Since you're using US spelling, you might consider the US dash for Category 5–equivalent, which avoids the need for double hyphenation. Range dashes are more readable when there are conversions to range as well, I think (done). The weird symbols won't be internationally recognised (remember the topic is both India- and Thailand-related, and the readers are everywhere); it's up to you, but my pref would be to put them in parentheses and make the US$ the main currency. My, there are an awful lot of nbsp syntaxes in the edit box. I don't mind, but it is daunting for newbies. Let's hope we can organise an easy shortcut for this, soon. Nice work, but I haven't looked further. Tony (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Prose in top sections—if this is a contender for the Cup, I wonder why closer audits of the prose haven't been done.

• Integrated theme and paragraphing. The storm is awkwardly personified: "Despite the narrowness of the gulf, the storm was able to take advantage of warm waters and good outflow, owing to its small size."—please consider "the storm took advantage of". But I still feel it's awkward every with this change. Unsure ... "gulf, the small size of the storm [something or other] ...". I don't have the technical knowledge of the field to fix this, but something tells me this should be more clearly a lead-in to the subsequent statements (is it the ultimate causal factor in what then happened, this small size combined with the warm waters and good outflow?). Then the fact that the strengthening was faster (and perhaps stronger? ... unsaid) than anticipated is separated by a paragraph break. Isn't this part of the same integrated idea? I don't mind if the next para starts with "Gay attained typhoon status early on November 3", or even "Later on November 3, ...". The access to warm waters is an interesting issue that reappears at the end of the section ... I'm starting to get it, but in reverse.
• Repetitions et al.. "the typhoon attained winds of 185 km/h (115 mph)"—second "attained" in five seconds; here it's less suitable, don't you think? And in another five seconds there's a third "attained", again of wind. (I sense here, too, there's a slight feel in the writing process of personifying a storm; perhaps this should be reserved for the human managers and victims.)
• "... Gay resumed strengthening as the ridge to its north intensified and ..."—the "resumed strengthening" is a little clunky. Could it be just "strengthened", given the strong temporal context in the adjacent clauses? There's another "strengthening" in the next sentence, too. Do watch the repetitions. Then there's another "attained" (its peak intensity), but here entirely appropriate (it wouldn't pall if one or two previous usages of the word, and the immediately following one, were changed).
• "Winds fluctuated violently and changed direction, preventing the ship from remaining stabilized despite being within safe operating limits."—I guess the limits are to tonnage? Sorry to be dumb.
• "with gale-force winds located within 95 km (60 mi) of the center."—you could remove "located".
• "Two days after the sinking, four rescue ships and two helicopters in the region were searching for survivors;[13] four people were rescued from the vessel by November 6."—Three issues: (1) by November 6 ... not on? I guess the sources allow no greater precision ... (2) This is the first date in the section; was Nov. 6 two days after the sinking? (3) Were the four people rescued from the vessel underwater? (4) Are these four included in the six crew who survived? I'm confused.
• "collectively" could be removed. Tony (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; I've tried to deal with all of these, except for the tonnage limit and the vessel part (I'll leave those to Cyclonebiskit). Auree ^★★ 17:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Auree, it's much appreciated. As for the tonnage, the article didn't specify what it meant by "safe operating limits," so we can only guess that it was tonnage. I'll get to the second comment about the sinking later when I have more time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no information from what I read on where the four people were rescued (if they were in the ship or floating in the sea around it). The four survivors mentioned are part of the six overall that survived the sinking. I'm not sure where that becomes vague so could you clarify what causes the confusion? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Very accessible, well written article--great work guys. A few minor comments that don't affect my support:
• "classifying Gay as a modern-day Super Cyclonic Storm" Why is "modern-day" included here?
  • I would assume its because the Super Cyclonic Storm cat was only introduced in 1998/99 Source.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, yes, that makes sense now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• "before passing over the Seacrest, an oil drilling ship." Should "oil drilling" be hyphenated here?
• Some repeated wikilinks: Andhra Pradesh, Thailand, Gulf of Thailand, Andaman Islands, and Kavali.
• Some overlinking, India, Thailand, and the United States probably shouldn't be linked.
• "Throughout Andhra Pradesh, 69 fatalities and 410 million Rupees ($25.27 million USD) worth of damage was attributed to Typhoon Gay." Is "was" correct here, or should it be "were"? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:09, 20 June 2012 [10].

---

Yogo sapphire

Nominator(s): PumpkinSky (talk) and Montanabw (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's ready and many have helped; a hearty thank you to Montanabw as co-nom extensive help since the very beginning, Vsmith for professional geological input, Jesse V. for a great GA review, and two formal Peer Reviews; extensive pre-FAC input from Wehwalt and Nikkimaria; and too many others I can't thank enough. This is a unique article on a gemstone found only in one location in the world. PumpkinSky talk 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "This is a unique article on a precious gemstone

Support and Image check I had a part in the peer review, and my concerns were answered at that time.

Regarding images: Most are uploads by the photographers, especially the gemstones (pretty). However,

• This one needs evidence of pre-1923 publication

• So does this

• this too

• this as well

On this, I don't think fair use works, but the brooch, as a item of adornment, may not be under copyright. I think the uploader can probably change it to a CC license of his choice, but someone else should probably doublecheck this one.

Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. According to commons:Licensing#United States, an anon work over 95 years old is PD. This would clearly make the Ringold and Hoover photos PD, AFAIK and possibly the other two. As for the FU photo, I've notified the uploader so he can respond here. PumpkinSky talk 15:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I just went by the tags, which claim pre-1923 publication. We'll work it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Anonymous photos published before 1923 are always in the public domain. Anonymous unpublished photos are only in the public domain if they were taken before 1892, as later unpublished photos are copyrighted. Unpublished here means that the photo hasn't been published anywhere before 2003 as any later publications do not affect anything. Anonymous photos first published between 1923 and the end of February 1989 are sometimes in the public domain (requires more information about the publication). Anonymous photos first published between 1 March 1989 and the end of 2002 are never in the public domain unless the photo was published without permission from the copyright holder (in which case it doesn't count as "publication"). All photos appear to have been taken after 1891, so they are only in the public domain if they have been published somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt's assessment, and I personally do not feel that a non-free use rationale is required for the image in question. However, it is currently tagged as both public domain and non-free, which is something of a nightmare- there can't really be any middle ground. Every image is, for our purposes, only one of "free" and "non-free". The old images, if they are public domain because they have been published, require evidence of publication- if they are public domain for some other reason, they require a change of copyright tags. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Tim1965#Conchita_image where Nikkimaria and Tim1965 say an image can have two licenses and I said I didn't get it then either. People smarter than me on images need to resolve this. Are you saying it's PD?PumpkinSky talk 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning for the double licensing on Conchita was that as a 3D work, the copyright on both the photo and the work itself needed to be accounted for - the PD tag is from the photographer, while the FUR is for the work. If the work is not actually under copyright (I'm not sure), so much the better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: One file has been proposed for deletion, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:JakeHoover1894.png. It would really be necessary to find an early publication of the other files discussed above. If they haven't been published until recently, they are still copyrighted. I can't tell if they are private photos (which are unlikely to be published soon after taking them) or press photos (which are likely to be published soon after taking them) or some other kind of photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo update--I've deleted the four old photos that may or may not have been published prior to 1923 and replaced them with some photos published by the US Geological Survey in 1900 (currently they are all in ref 5), definitely PD1923 and probably PD-USGov-USGS. This leaves the Conchita butterly photo license tag, which I need help with. Uploader was notified yesterday. PumpkinSky talk 23:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at the Talk page for the Conchita Butterfly image? There was discussion there about what copyright license to use on this image. Jewelry is copyrightable, and it is not clear to me that the idea "butterfly" is inseparable from the particular butterfly created by Crevoshay and Kane. I think we have to presume copyright of the Conchita Butterfly until proven otherwise (e.g., a denial of copyright from the two authors of the work). This would then require a fair use license by Wikipedia's part, which has been asserted by me in the image licensure documentation. Perhaps I am wrong, but an expert opinion would be useful here. (As they used to say, "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.") - Tim1965 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that an expert opinion would be helpful. While I accept that there can be multiple copyrights acting upon an image, I'm saying that, for our purposes, an image must either be completely free, or treated as completely non-free. Tagging it as free and non-free is something of a nightmare, and a practice I really think needs to be done away with. I certainly accept that a piece of jewellery can be copyrighted, but I'm not sure that a cut gemstone could be, and that seems to be what this picture is showing. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• We have had previous FA articles pass with a couple of fair use images; I don't think FA requires "completely" one way or the other, so long as justifiable; here we have a known wikipedian who shot a detail of the piece showing the second most famous cut Yogo in the world (the most famous is probably the Tiffany Iris Brooch, and though the creator is deceased, we have no way to get a free image of it unless someone can find it in the museum in Baltimore...). So somehow this image has to be "kosher," however we get there. Nikki, any thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Photos_of_a_part_of_a_piece_of_jewelry for help.PumpkinSky talk 19:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• As the author of the photograph, I'm completely willing to apply whatever license is appropriate (insofar as my photograph is concerned). I myself have no desire to retain any copyright interest in the image itself, so if my license needs to change to bring it in line with the jewelry's copyright status--by all means, I will change it. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Per Wehwalt and J.Milburn it may well be that the FU can be removed and the photo is in fact PD. Also note no one has responded to my post at the media copyright page. PumpkinSky talk 14:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Conchita Butterfly update, see User_talk:Tim1965#Yogo_FAC_image_challenge and Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Jewelry_copyright, in which the Conchita Butterfly image was determined to be free by a very knowledgeable expert at Commons. Tim1965 made a slightly cropped version and I put it in the article as well as a free sketch of the Tiffany Iris Brooch MTBW found. PumpkinSky talk

• Comments by MONGO:

Check MOS here for image placement. I sorted a few out, but the History section is pretty crowded and all the images seem to be relevent to the section.--MONGO 02:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I was watching that while you were doing it. I understand. I just moved two in history for now. We may need to relook after licensing is sorted out. PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver peer review says the article is missing a few non-breaking stops   but I only saw one as an embedded note (1 mm)--MONGO 03:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that one. I also fixed some whitespace with a script.PumpkinSky talk 10:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Will endorse for FA if and when image issues are cleaned up.--MONGO 17:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support...image issues have been addressed. It was a pity to lose some images, but they have been replaced with some others that are suitable. I read through the article over this past weekend and though it is written in different stylistic manner than I might have followed, the prose is tight and well referenced. I see no MOS issues, reflinks checks out and this article now meets FA criteria. Nice job!--MONGO 00:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review

• FN31: how does this source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

• It supplements a source showing the different colors of gemstones with a photo, May not be needed but is a good visual. Further comment?

• FN57: painting title should be italicized
• Why provide province for Vancouver and not Toronto? Those are of about equivalent recognizability IMO, so either include it for both or neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN31-Vsmith, who has an MS in geology, told me it was "quite good" and usable, so I've asked him to elaborate; Gemstones-Guide is a CIRCA site and CIRCA is a worldwide dealer in gemstones, they are very knowledgeable in the gem field; FN57 fixed; ON added to Toronto. FYI, what I'm trying to back up is a known scientific fact--that chromium cause corundum w/o other traces to be red or pink and with blue sapphires they result in purple (blue+red=purple), there's no outlandish claim being supported here, just plain basic science. The Royal Society of Chemistry clearly states Cr makes corundum red (ruby), others clearly state Fe+Ti makes blue sapphire, and the two sources listed are the best ones that state Cr in Yogos makes them purple. Shall I add the RSC ref? PumpkinSky talk 23:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The Gauthier thesis is the result of a detailed study of the deposit. The chemistry/color connection it is used for seems non-controversial. As a scientific study it would seem more reliable than a gemstone website. I haven't found references to it, so I guess it fails one criterion in WP:scholarship. It is used only for linking purple to chromium and the existence of rubies in the area. Neither of the two facts seem critical to the article, although interesting. Vsmith (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not critical, but useful, the point is there are few Yogos that are anything but blue, something not true of other Montana sapphire deposits, where boring and yellow are common. Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Note on spotchecking - I performed an in-depth spotcheck of this article just over a month ago, and all issues found at that time were addressed. However, I did not (and do not) have access to two significant sources (Voynick 1985 and Kane 2003), and there have of course been changes since then, so it's to delegate discretion whether a spotcheck is needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Both VSmith and PSKY own copies of Voynick and can triple check. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments - as someone interested in Rocky Mountain minerals and who likes sapphires a lot, I've always thought this was an interesting article since first editing it last January. I've only read about half-way through and will leave comments as I go - most are nitpicks. Also, I've made a few copyedits but feel free to revert.

Lead

• I think the lead is a bit long and maybe could be tightened up a bit, example here: "This became the highly profitable "English Mine" which flourished from 1899 until the late 1920s and, under a series of changing owners and names, periodically operated into the early 21st century." > can be tightened a bit
  • Leads in FA generally have 3-4 paragraphs, so this is witin the norm. Changed the dates mentioned to circa 1900-1920s and cut some text. PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• "ultimately bought out by the syndicate" > rem "ultimately"
  • Done. PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Although Intergem ultimately went out of business," > rem "ultimately"
  • Done. PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• organization > suggest keeping the mining companies together in one paragraph & trim back a bit re Intergem
  • Have to respectfully disagree on Intergem here. They are a key player in Yogo history. On the pargraphing, can you be more specific? PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Para two ends w/ the Vortex mine in the 1980s, para 3 switches topics Montana sapphires, and para 4 switches back to the mining operations, introducing, again in the 1980s, Intergem. For better flow, I'd suggest switching the paragraphs around so that the mining operations aren't separated by a different topic. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • Ah, the problem here is that others, prior to FAC, have asked for it in chronlogical sequence. If it is put in company sequence, the time would be out of sync. IMHO it's better in time sequence and so far more have asked for it in chronological sequence (talk page, GAC, etc). Is it okay to leave this way? PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

      Ditto what PSKY said. We need to keep it as is. (Room to tweak the Montana state gem bit, though. I moved it elsewhere) I tried doing it chronologically; I tried it mine-by-mine. But by the mine is even more confusing. Consensus of editors was to stick to the chronology as much as possible, and NOT go mine-by-mine except where completely unavoidable. Open to ideas for making it flow better within that structure, though. Montanabw^(talk) 16:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Location

• "The westernmost end of the Yogo dike occurs just west of Yogo Creek, about 3 miles (4.8 km) north of Yogo Creek's confluence with the Middle Fork of the Judith River; from that point it runs east-northeast (ENE) and ends about 0.5 miles (0.80 km) before reaching the Judith River.[9]" Hard to follow sentence > can this be simplified?
  • Good question. I have not thought of something here. Maybe I will later or someone else can.PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll tweak. See if that helps. Montanabw^(talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mineralogy

• "Corundum is one of the hardest minerals, rating 9 on the Mohs scale.[15][16]" > why two citations? (just curious ...)
  • Doesn't hurt ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:OVERCITE to cut down on the blue in the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • Done. PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Yogos present an advantage to gemcutters:[21] since they are found as primary constituent minerals within an igneous bedrock rather than in sedimentary alluvial deposits where most other sapphires are located,[5][19] they retain a perfect or near perfect crystalline shape, making cutting much easier, as does their lack of inclusions, color zoning, or cloudiness.[21]" > Have you considered bundling the citations at the end of the sentence instead of breaking up the sentence w/ cites?
  • Had it that way at one point and someone complained the refs weren't near what they supported. IMHO better to leave as is PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The United States Geological Survey and many gem experts have stated that Yogos are "among the world's finest sapphires."[26][27][28] > Which of the three sources has the direct quote?
  • 26 does. 27 is one word different, 28 is slightly different.PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• If it's in quotation marks, it should be exact according to a single source. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • Done. PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Because of the rarity of large rough Yogo sapphires, gem prices begin rising sharply when they are over 0.5 carats (0.10 g), and skyrocket when they are over 1 carat (0.20 g).[22][25][29] > clarify? gem prices in general or the price of a gem quality Yogo?
  • Done. PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• "A very small number of rubies have been found at Yogo Gulch.[31]" > this seems off-topic. Is a ruby simply a sapphire of another color?
  • Strictly due to historical development, ruby and sapphires are all corundum. But when corundum is red, it's called a ruby, all other colors are called sapphires, so in a way a ruby is a sapphire of another color.PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Clarify that Kashimir is in the Himalayas, probably in parenthesis, only because it's a big jump (literally) from Montana
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    Not to be fussy, but I undid that one, with the other clarifications, it isn't needed, and the wikilink makes clear where Kashmir is. Parentheticals aren't ideal form and best to avoid when possible. I'll tweak the text to prep the reader. PSKY, the source doesn't clarify the precise location (India or Pakistan), does it? Montanabw^(talk) 16:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    • It just says Kashmir.PumpkinSky talk 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, so link is to region, that is what we need. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Alluvial sapphires are found in the Orient" > Asia?
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The host rock for the sapphires, the Yogo dike, is a dark gray to green porphyritic lamprophyre consisting of clinopyroxene and phlogopite phenocrysts set in a matrix of clinopyroxene, titanian magnetite, apatite, chlorite, serpentine and calcite. The phlogopite composition suggests a 900 °C (1,650 °F) crystallization temperature. Xenoliths of limestone, clastic sedimentary rocks, and gneiss are present. In some locations, due to the abundance of xenoliths, the dike has the appearance of a limestone breccia in an igneous matrix.[33]" > Difficult to read here because of the jargon. Can it be simplified or some of it go to a note?
  • I ask Vsmith, who has a MS in Geology, to work this.He's done most of this section and it's too technical for me.PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Reworded a bit, rather difficult to retain the meaning w/out technical terms (which are linked for those interested). Vsmith (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, I understand it better now. Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Recent erosion in the area removed the overlying shales and again exposed the limestone to groundwater action which again produced collapse breccias which include fragments of the dike rock. He determined that the erosion of the dike in the current erosion cycle was minimal. > repetition of again, again
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Misc

• "Corundum was also found at Dry Cottonwood Creek near Butte in 1889, Rock Creek near Philipsburg in 1892, and Quartz Gulch near Bozeman in 1894.[34][19][44]"> minor point, but citations should be in numerical order; I've noticed a number of these.
  • They've been in sync many times, copy editing jiggles this. This one fixed, looking for others. PumpkinSky talk 01:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll get back to this. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help so far, hopefully VSmith and Tim1965 can take a peek at the stuff only they know how to fix. PSKY did you drop each of them a heads up on this? The tightening up that has occurred has been quite helpful. I'm bummed to lost Millie Ringwold, but maybe we can fix that license and get it back in. Montanabw^(talk) 16:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Support Looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Gerda Arendt

• I had some small concerns that were fixed or I fixed myself. I wonder if the state gem fact could be repeated as a concluding paragraph, possibly with details how it happened? It seems a bit lost in the chronological sequence, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not in chronology, it's in Montana sapphires. All sapphires from Montana are the state gem, not just Yogo and not just the ones from elsewhere. There's essentially nothing on how sapphire and agate became the state gem, just why, which is already in the article.PumpkinSky talk 11:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • And it occurred in 1969, so quite a while back. Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, minor concerns all addressed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Supported below Starting a read through, look like it's in pretty good shape thus far.
• "The cornflower blue color" Should this be hyphenated?

• No. Hyphens discouraged in this context. --MTBW

• "Montana sapphires in general come in a variety of colors, but Yogos are almost always blue. About two percent of Yogos are purple, rather than blue." I'm not sure "rather than blue" is needed here, since we were told they're almost always blue in the previous sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed and done Montanabw^(talk) 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Could the first section of "History" be tightened up at all? The middle two paragraphs seem to wander a bit.

• Will peek at it --MTBW Follow up: Tightened, moved last sentence to start, consolidated paragraphs and chopped a little (after consulting sources) --MTBW

• "One story credits a local school teacher for recognizing the blue pebbles as sapphires.[59] A variation is that the schoolteacher lived in Maine" Is this a typo? "school teacher" vs "schoolteacher".
  • According to Webster's dictionary, it's one word. Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Except Google has 103 million hits for "school teacher" vs 4 million hits for "schoolteacher," and I was one, so let's keep it two words (grin) --MTBW
    • Except that you need to put the phrase in quotes if you want the two words together. Searching for ""school teacher"" and "school teacher" are quite different. But you're right, since in quotes "school teacher" returns 33.3 million results, and "schoolteacher" is 4 million. Jesse V. (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Consider adding modern equivalents to historical dollar figures, it's not required (I don't think it is, anyway), but might be interesting.
  • If there's a template for this, I don't know how to use it.PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Here it is for $86,151 dollars in 1957. (approximately $934,600 as of 2024) Where all should we plop it in? --MTBW Follow up: I put it into the earliest figures, figured after 1929, it would be overkill, but now that y'all have the template, do as you see fit. --MTBW

Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some inconsistency in "Early mining": " The vein turned out to be five miles long" vs "This site was 5 miles (8.0 km) from Yogo City"

Fixed, used convert template for both.PumpkinSky talk 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The sale was finally completed for $65,000 cash and some stock considerations, because the company's capital was exhausted" Is the comma needed here?

  No. Done. Jesse V. (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of "1940s–1970s" you use actually or actual a couple times, is there a better way of saying this?

• Done--MTBW

• "By 1980, only four American owners had been successful at Yogo Gulch, all early in its mining history.[77] The English syndicate had been the most successful of any venture, and even its success was short-lived." You have "success" three times in two sentences here, might want to try for some more variation.

• Fixed --MTBW

• "At least thirteen American-owned Yogo mining efforts" should this be 13? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  According to WP:NUMERAL, they can be written out, so it's fine. Jesse V. (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• "This issue appeared as a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal on August 29, 1984." I'd consider removing this sentence.
  • Done, left refs. PumpkinSky talk 18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Simultaneously, their collateral with Citibank, which was their gem inventory, declined because the value of their collateral was declining;" This reads a little awkwardly to me.
  • Tweaked.PumpkinSky talk 18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Citibank also had obtained a large stock of Yogos, reputedly worth $3.5 million" 3.5 million in which year's dollars?
  • Intergem collapsed in 1985, so I used that year as they talk about time of collapse in the ref, added new ref page too PumpkinSky talk 19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "had a mining lease with Roncor in 2000 and 2001 but ran out of funds and their option expired." I take it the funds ran out in 2001?
  • From the way the ref is worded, 2001 or shortly thereafter. PumpkinSky talk 19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Robert Kane of Fine Gems International in Helena, which today has the largest selection of Montana sapphires in the world" I'd remove "today" here.
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "There is no doubt many Yogos were also sold in Europe" I'd remove "there is no doubt"
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk
• Alright, sorry for the delay, but I've finished the article. Looks like it is in good shape. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Alright, I'm satisfied with the fixes and am now ready to support. The article is well written/organized, compliant with the MOS, so support on 1a, 2a, and 2b. (I don't know much about gemology or mining, so there's little I can comment on there). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a fully-fledged encyclopedic article to me. Well done! Jesse V. (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 11:47, 16 June 2012 [11].

---

Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) , Novice7, Adabow 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I continue to believe that this article compares favorably to its peers that are current FAs of songs within 10 years of the original version of this ("Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road", "What'd I Say", "Like a Rolling Stone", "Layla"). I have included my co-nominators from the prior nominations. I have been in contact with the two reviewers with outstanding issues on the prior nomination: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) (I have had extensive communications on her talk page where I have sort of been directed on how to satisfy her concerns) and Kitchen roll (talk · contribs) who has been unresponsive to my attempts to determine if removing one of the two catalog number references was sufficient. I feel these were the only two outstanding issues on the prior nomination.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Coment ISBNs 0-909201-66-7 and 0-89829-180-2 (twice) appear to have errors. (fixed) Mr Stephen (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe I have resolved these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, looks fine now, striking comment. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Brief comment, there is one dablink. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support as I did in the previous nomination.--GoP_T^C_N 08:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - with comments

• I would eliminate the small lists and incorporate the names into the text somewhere as I don't think they offer much in their current format.

• I believe the track listings are standard format for songs, so I guess the remaining lists are the musician credit lists. I will have to look around and see what is standard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Three of the five songs ("Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road" and "Layla") listed at the beginning of this nomination have personnel lists. Therefore, I am going to leave them like they are.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Additionally, the lists are in prose in the Other versions section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thats fine. Like I say, there is no insistence and I'm sure this is the norm. It's merely a personal preference to eliminate lists from prose articles. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also there is some slight squeezing of text as a result of the image and infobox and the images opposite halfway down. Location of text would have a lot to do with this I know. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I believe you are talking about the Norah Jones images. Where would they be better placed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, yes the Norah Jones image. Could the sound recording be moved down to the left side of the last para of that section? I know that it is difficult to accommodate the info box, Jones image and the sound recording in such a small section, so some squeezing is going to be inevitable. The moving down of the sound recording could lessen this somewhat. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I moved the sound file.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• "They also commended Sinatra's vocal performance, writing it was 'fine'." This to me doesn't sound right. Maybe something like "They also commended Sinatra's singing, calling it a "fine" performance. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Original version

• ABC Records may need a wiki link as per it's first mention in the body. -- Cassianto (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is linked in the second sentence of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, in the Orignal version section, ABC Records is mentioned. It maybe good to link this to prevent the reader having to stop and go back to the lede to enquire about this prominent record company as per WP:REPEATLINK. No worries if you disagree. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• In this case we are talking about the first sentence after the LEAD. I choose not to repeat the link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Fine. Your choice. Still a good article though.

Comments by Pyrrhus16 - Didn't spot any big issues. Just a few minor things.

• "Charles' tour began with a benefit concert on the USS Constellation" - "Constellation" should be in italics.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• The song is written in the key of B♭ major,[19] It's primarily a country song,[20] but it contains gospel influences.[21]" - Period after "major" and perhaps remove the "it" before "contains".
  • Fixed the period, but left the it because I am not sure how to change the punctuation if I remove it and feel it is O.K. with it unless you can elaborate on further reservations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• "...song was described by The Orlando Sentinel's Jim Abbott as a recreation of..." - Lower case "T" before the newspaper title.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Few of the reviews at Metacritic had substantive comments on the collaboration when included among her group of collaborations." - Perhaps change the first "collaboration" to "duet"?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are the only issues that I have noticed. Pyrrhus16 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support My issues have been resolved. Great article. Pyrrhus16 20:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The entire article seems to be essentially a compilation of stats and quotes. Nowhere does it actually describe what the song is about. What does the title mean? What are the lyrics about? "It's primarily a country song,[20] but it contains gospel influences.[21]" Please elaborate (as an aside, should avoid using contractions in formal writing).
  • I am going to have to get back to you on this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • In the LEAD, I note that this is a song from the 1960s and that expectations should be calibrated against its peers rather than against 21st century music articles. This article for example does not have a music tour with a confirmed playlist including this song or a list of promotional appearances. I am pretty sure it did not appear on American Bandstand or The Ed Sullivan Show. Musical guest appearances on late night TV and morning news shows were not common in that era. Thus, the article compensates by talking about the album tour and major appearances before the next album was produced under the assumption that most performances made after Ray Charles Invites You To Listen was released and before the next album was released probably included the top-charting song from the album. That is an example of expectation calibration for 1960s music. In terms of "What does the title mean? What are the lyrics about?" We are limited on what he was thinking about. From what I gather it was a song Steagall wrote while recovering from polio or soon thereafter. I can not tell what relationship in his life inspired the song. I'll add what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I have found a source regarding the origins of the song but the Chicago Public Library does not seem to have it. see page 209. I will try some hacking tricks and failing that try interlibrary loan.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I have posted an interlibrary loan request at the Chicago Public Library for the above book as well as The Fence That Me and Shorty Built.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• This source says that Charles used a completely different voice when singing this song. Also from this source, who are the Raelettes, and why aren't they mentioned in the article?
  • I haven't seen this type of critical review for this version of the song before.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• has the song been part of the soundtrack for any notable films? (Fassbinder's Gods of the Plague is one example; surely there must be more). Sasata (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a common source regarding soundtrack credits (by song).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Query I just discovered that Roy Clark charted this song (#65 on the Hot Country Songs) chart in 1982. Does this version deserve/require its own section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt.

I have a few issues, though I'm leaning to support.

Lede

• " the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and Best Pop Collaboration " There needs to be either a plural for "Awards" or something like "for" in there.

• Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

*"ll had duet vocal arrangements." perhaps, "has been sung as a duet" or similar? I would fold the next sentence into this one, too, perhaps with something like "most recently (as of 2012) by ..."

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

*" It was released " I would say "The song" for "It". I don't think there's great confusion it just "sounds better"."

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Covers have also appeared on some artists' compilation albums who never released "Here We Go Again" as a single." Maybe "Cover versions have appeared on albums by a number of artists, even some who did not release it as a single."

• Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Original version

• You may want to make clearer what the connection of the contract expiration is to Charles' desire to appeal across genre lines. The fact that the labels (I assume) specialized in certain kinds of music may be lost on the reader.

• I am not sure I even understand your point. He signed a 3-year contract with ABC in 1959. He wanted to wait until he built up a track record with them before experimenting with country. He resigned with ABC several times thereafter. He did not change albums to do country.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps I misunderstood the passage.

• "a lot of" possibly a bit informal.

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• While Ray Charles Invites You to Listen is introduced in the lede, it should (in my view) be introduced in the body as well.

• Done (without a second link).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• It might be convenient to mention the year the song came out before you mention the year that it was reused in.

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you really want to start the "composition" subsection with so much biographical detail about Steagall? It had me scratching my head, a bit.

• The origins of the song are now at issue based on a currently unresolved set of concerns. I am not sure where to put the Steagall content. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a significant concern, as you have thought about it, I will withdraw it.

• "Nevada Casino performances," query capitalization of Casino.

• Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "a writer for Billboard magazine said that" I would say "wrote", myself. Consider reversing the order of the two sentences.

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "his background singers" consider putting these in parenthesis or a footnote, it is awkward as it is.

• Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Sinatra

• "which was later remastered and reissued in 1996." I don't think this is important enough to put in the introductory sentence to this topic. Suggest moving or deleting that info and combining the first two sentences.

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• was a "smooth" An odd phrasing.

• Thanks for catching that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• calling it a "fine" performance. This seems a bit unremarkable. I would either lose this bit of faint praise or put in something more interesting.

• Expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

*"The following week it debuted on the Hot 100 chart at number 98.[55] The song then spent two weeks on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart,[56] with a high of 98" The two bits of information about 98 can be combined, surely. Also, it seems a bit odd that you are calling it the "Hot 100" chart and THEN the more full "US Billboard Hot 100 chart". Usually the more thorough one would come first.

• Thanks. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I played with it a bit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "According to Allmusic databases, 1969 was the final year in her career that Sinatra reached the Hot 100 chart." If it was with this song, say so. If it was not, say what song.

• Beefed up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "According to Allmusic the original track was 3:09, but when it appeared on the 2006 compilation album Essential Nancy Sinatra, it was 3:11." Perhaps better for a footnote.

Norah Jones, etc.

• I am not a musical expert, but I think this has something to do with the way a song is faded out and how much space is put between songs. I believe the same recording has been used. I am not a musical person capable of explaining the actual details that cause these differences.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough,--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why were the Sinatra and Jones versions selected for discussion? You say it's been recorded lots of times. What's going on with these two (and the original) in particular?

• These are the versions that I have been able to find WP:RSed content. Having recently become aware of a fourth charting version, I would not be surprised to have sufficient content for a Section for the Roy Clark version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "On the record, the two singers' vocals are in harmony" I would move later in the paragraph, and avoid "harmony" due to the other use (or change the other). This sentence might make a good conclusion to the paragraph.

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• i would suggest dividing the paragraph with all the reviews at least once.

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "the song was nominated in two categories" I would suggest making it clearer we are talking about the new version.

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• The material about U2, and the distinction between song and record of the year should probably be consigned to footnotes.

• I sort of feel that in an article with no other footnotes like that this content would be lost. Although, it is not tremendously important to this article, it would be buried as the only factual content footnote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Opening week sales earned Charles his highest charting album in over 40 years." Suggest merging into prior sentence with ", Charles' highest-charting album in over 40 years".

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Digital singles sales saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album make the US Billboard Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. "Here We Go Again" was the download sales leader among the albums tracks, but the other 12 tracks totaled 52,000 digital downloads.[92][93]" the number of digital single sales for this song might be helpful. Also, "albums tracks"??

• Fixed (I misinterpreted something before).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• How does the 2004 release of the song, as part of an album download, but obviously available individually, with the January 2005 release?

• When an album is released, you can buy any individual songs by digital download immediately regardless of the singles release schedule for the album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The song charted for a week" This sentence has "chart" or "charted" in it five times. Suggest two would be better.

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Other versions

• I think the discussions of the track time can be omitted, or dropped to a footnote. The reader is probably not going to care very much whether the song is 3:05 or 3:08

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The album included a track entitled "Here We Go Again". The album was released on March 29, 2011." combine

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• " but it is not clear what he felt of the album version." I would omit. It doesn't help the reader.

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Good effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am guessing that File:Nancy Sinatra.JPG is from c. 1961, when she signed with Reprise Records. Do we want to use it to replace the 1969 FU content. It is not such a perfect replacement, but it is available.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think at this distance, no one is going to care, besides, entertainment figures don't seem to age like normal folks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the file and will remove the FU image if a reviewer requests it. I would rather remove the 1961 photo since she was a brunette and wearing her hair differently, in addition to the fact that the photo is 8 years before the album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support seems to meet the criteria comfortably. Interesting read. I didn't do any checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Are the unstruck items resolved?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all issues are resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 02:00, 13 June 2012 [12].

---

Myriostoma

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Myriostoma coliforme, aka the "salt-shaker earthstar", is a widely distributed fungus, and one of 33 species proposed for protection under the Bern Convention. The article has been a good article for about two years, and with the help of Circeus, I've recently updated the literature and smoothed out some rough edges. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Images are fine; all properly sourced and clearly free. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking good; a few quick thoughts-

• "As they mature, the exoperidium (the outer tissue layer of the peridium) splits open into rays and curves backward, which pushes the fruit body above the substrate." Singular/plural switch
• "Fully opened individuals" Fully-opened? Also, is "individuals" the best wording?
• "tip to tip" tip-to-tip?
• "The rays number 8–14, of unequal size and with tips that often roll back inward." Doesn't quite read right
• "There are columellae (sterile tissue usually in the base of the gleba, and extending up through the gleba)" columellae is countable; tissue is not. Areas of sterile tissue? I'm not sure what columellae are.
• "by Woodward (1797):" Who? He's not been introduced yet.
• The "Similar species" section would really benefit from something like "and so can readily be distinguished from other species", but, without a source, I think this would be a tiny bit OR-y. It's OK as is if there is no source, though.

• Circeus has already changed this, but at least a couple of my sources explicitly state that this species is hard to confuse with other earthstars. I could cite this, but I don't think it's likely to be challenged. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why have you chosen the Sowerby illustration over the lectotype illustration? Surely the latter would have more value? I admit that Sowerby's is easier on the eye... Is there a chance both could fit into the article?

Short, but it seems everything which needs to be covered is covered. As ever, I'm impressed by your very detailed account of the taxonomy. I made a few small changes. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: the first point, there is no switch. "Which" is referring to the entie sentence, the action described being what pushes the fruit body, but I agree the sentence can be confusing.

I'm fairly sure there is- "As they mature, the exoperidium". J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is moot, since I replaced the pronoun with a different one which makes the construction clearer, but I insist, in this case, "which" was not a relative pronoun, but a summative one, which (oh look, it's another summative "which" to boot!) the replacement with "this" makes clear. Circéus (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

the full sentence is "from ray tip to tip", and I'm fairly confident that never takes hyphens.

Agree, because it's not being used as an attributive adjective, per here. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: the lectotype image, have you _looked_ at it? I did and I immediately concluded putting it in the article wasn't that good. Linking to it, though, might be a good idea (the way we link to the spore pics).

I agree it's hardly easy on the eye. I'm happy to defer to what you two think, I just thought I'd throw it out there. J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about adding it, but it's simply a poor black & white scan of something that was originally color, and it doesn't fit with the FAC ideal of using the best images available. At any rate, the link is prominently displayed, and it's only a single click away. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Tried to improve the other bits. Circéus (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. Everything's looking great. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "so named because outer wall of the spore-bearing body splits open into the shape of a star." Just me perhaps, but I think it could use another "the" before "outer wall".
• Habitat and distribution: Minor, but I don't think the first word of "The Netherlands" needs the capitalization.
• Not sure about the external link in note 2. We tend to discourage them in-text, and the image is avaliable in the cited material anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The article things are definitely not just you! They're fixed now. As for the link, well, that's why it's in a footnote! It's a highly informative image to make it obvious what is being described. There's a reason we have {{external media}}, but this is far less invasive. Circéus (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support – I'll go with your judgement on the external link, although I wouldn't use one myself. My couple of other comments have been resolved, and the article rises to the level of the other mushroom FAs by this editor. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Supported below looks good thus far, a few small comments:
• I'm not sure if Middle East should be linked.
• A few repeated wikilinks: check spore, Geastrum, peridium, mycelial, and gleba.
• "while it prefers similar habitat on north-facing slopes in Australia" should this be "a similar habitat"?
• "The species occurs in both deciduous and mixed forests, gardens, along hedges and grassy road banks as well as grazed grasslands." I'm not sure, but this reads a little awkwardly to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Mark. I fixed the overlinking and tweaked the prose. Sasata (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Alright, I've finished my review and found very little not complain about. I don't know much about mushrooms, so I can't evaluate accuracy, but as best as I can tell, the article seems to be up to FA quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Mark! Sasata (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment According to the (unreferenced) German article, it was seen in the Iberian countries, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Belgium. --GoP_T^C_N 14:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Gotta go soon, but here's some stuff: Iberian peninsula and Baearic Islands, Bulgaria, Ukraine (a report which seems to hint that there were previous reports). Couldn't find anything for belgium except an email mentioning that the two specimen at the Belgian national bot. garden are from outside the country. Circéus (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've used most of these sources, and added a few more locations from my own searches. Sasata (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding this. As this was my only nitpicky comment, I now Support its promotion to featured status. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 07:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN28: how does this source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

• I've replaced this with another source. Sasata (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• FN52: why not provide original title here, as you did for other foreign-language sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Added 地星科的中国新记录属种. Sasata (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear reviewers After a conversation with Circeus, I decided to overhaul the presentation of distribution. It's about the same length, but about twenty references were removed as they were no longer necessary. I hope this change meets with everyone's approval, but let me know if you disagree with the new format. Sasata (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In my mind, we'd keep a couple selected references to carry over the "all over" distribution (since otherwise the statement that it's "found on all five continents in its natural habitat" is unsourced), so I'll restore a couple refs along some rewriting, but otherwise the paragraph sits okay with me. Circéus (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 01:46, 13 June 2012 [13].

---

Francis Walsingham

Nominator(s): DrKay (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The spy master of Queen Elizabeth I; he constructed the means to entrap and eventually execute Mary, Queen of Scots. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. Comprehensive, well balanced, good prose, impressively referenced. Not all that many images, but perhaps no relevant ones are available. A few minor comments on the prose, none of which affect my support:

• General
  • Piping of titles: Sir Anthony Denny but King Henry VIII etc. For consistency, should perhaps be Sir Anthony Denny and King Henry VIII or Sir Anthony Denny and King Henry VIII and so on.
  • WP:OVERLINK – "England" doesn't need a link, and I don't think "Scotland" does either. You haven't linked Ireland, France or Spain, rightly so, IMO.
• Rise to power
  • "she was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth I" – having called Mary " Edward's Catholic half-sister" in the previous para, it might be balanced to mention here that Elizabeth was a Protestant.
• Secretary of State
  • "by embarrassing and weakening the Spanish, as well as to seize Spanish treasure." – ought this to read "seizing" instead of "to seize"?
  • "to both sound out a potential peace deal and gather military intelligence" – some people (not me) still cling to the superstition that splitting an infinitive is a sin.
  • "despite the Queen initially objecting" – gerund wanted here: "despite the Queen's initially objecting"
  • "was in Spanish pay" – unfamiliar idiom; perhaps "in the pay of the Spanish"?
• Espionage
  • "was ever mindful" – a touch poetic?
• Entrapment of Mary, Queen of Scots
  • "Paulet replied in disgust" – editorialising a bit, I think. His reply speaks for itself.
• Spanish Armada
  • "Walsingham's near kinsman" – perhaps "Walsingham's close kinsman", thus avoiding the suggestion that Thomas was nearly a kinsman. (And is first cousin once removed really a close (or near) kinsman?)
• Death and legacy
  • I can imagine some readers not much liking the phrase "Catholic apologists".

That's my lot. I enjoyed this article a good deal. – Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support and review. Changes on all points bar two. "to seize" is meant to mirror "to promote" rather than "by embarrassing". Cooper, Fraser and Hutchinson do characterise Paulet's reply with an appropriate adjective: "horrified", "most trenchant", "indignant [and] anguished"; and so I prefer to retain one as I think it helps set up the quote for the reader, particularly since the idiom of the quote is unfamiliar and may be difficult for younger readers or non-native english speakers. DrKay (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: My recent peer review comments are here; my view is still that the "In fiction" section is a distraction that adds nothing to a distinguished historical article and risks taking something away (by encouraging drive-by additions the next time Walsingham is portrayed on screen). I don't intend to press the point, however. In all other respects this is high quality work. Brianboulton (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I do agree that generally "in fiction" sections are unwelcome, but there was some concern at my last FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary, Queen of Scots/archive1) that fictional portrayals were not covered within the nominated article. I also agree that drive-by additions that simply list portrayals should be discouraged, and reverted. DrKay (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Images are fine; a long way out of copyright in most cases, and all properly sourced. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources: (Spotchecks not done).

• It may be worth separating your notes providing extra information from your notes providing references.

• Done. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Check formatting on notes 37 ("Wilson, pp. 98 99, 127"), 93 ("Adams et al.; Cooper, pp. 209–211; Fraser, pp. 482–483; Hutchinson, p. 121: Wilson, p. 210") and 135 ("Thomas Watson quoted in Hutchinson, p. 261", comma after "Watson"?)

• Thanks. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• "(an exhaustive three-volume biography that is still valuable despite its age)" Very POV

• I had to hide the footnote supporting this as it does not format properly. I don't know how to format footnotes that come after the reflist template. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why are some of those on the further reading not cited in the article?

• The three main biographies used for the footnotes (Cooper, Hutchinson and Wilson) are the three most recent biographies; Read, Haynes and Budiansky are all older. I've included Bossy because his work is mentioned in the text (and in the text of Adams et al., Hutchinson and Cooper). The point made in the text though is that Bossy identifies Giordano Bruno as a spy, not that Bruno was a spy, so for the footnotes I'm using the sources that say "Bossy identifies Bruno as a spy", not Bossy directly. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sources seem completely appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with comments, by Ling
  • "identified as Giordano Bruno by author John Bossy". Identified conclusively, or speculatively? In a novel, or in a serious analysis? Was Bossy a contemporary of Walsingham, or more modern (oh, I see 1991), or... oh wait, I see text about this above. If others have asked, then I too am confused about this little verb phrase. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Bossy's analysis is taken seriously. The spy in the French embassy signed his letters "Henry Fagot", which is generally presumed to be a pseudonym. Bossy thinks Fagot is Bruno, but not everyone agrees with Bossy's view. However, the criticisms of Bossy's work are not of the directly challenging "Bossy is wrong" type; they are more of the sort "Bossy builds a circumstantial case; but there is no direct proof and problems of identifying Fagot remain." There are also those who are convinced by Bossy's analysis. So, to bring all this together into a simple phrase, I've chosen to say "Bossy identifies Bruno as the spy" (a fact on which everyone is agreed) rather than attempt to balance different viewpoints on whether Bossy is correct. If this is going to be problematic, I prefer to just ditch the clause entirely in favor of "Walsingham had a spy in the French embassy" and forget about trying to decipher who the spy might have been. DrKay (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Would you be averse to leaving the body text as is, and adding a footnote that essentially repeats what you just said? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I'll try putting something together by the end of the day on this and the other points. DrKay (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Added something. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is trivial and quite possibly regional, but to my AmerEng ears "Walsingham was mindful".. was a bit incongruous. "Mindful" is, in my exp., used for things that are less serious etc. But feel free to ignore this. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you prefer "could never forget"? DrKay (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, very much so. Thank you. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Done. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm reading from bottom to top, and so you may have said this previously, but in my opinion the "Secretary of State" section could use an organizing sentence or two at the top. Putting things in chronological order is of course quite acceptable, but without some text to indicate a plan of development, it reads a little too much like a timeline rather than prose. hard to put it together into a whole. This is admittedly minor, but not quite trivial. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I've just put in one extra sentence at the top to explain the duties of the secretary, which does help set up the section. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Added a two sentence summary of the section. DrKay (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • trivial: Privy Seal or privy seal? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Either. DrKay (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "and he is credited with" and who is credited with? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Rephrased. DrKay (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I see a few references/wikilinks to "mercantile communities" etc., but no mention of Mercantilism. According to my philosophy on the function/purpose/value of wikilinks (which others disagree with in general), this is a case where the article would profit from an extra phrase somewhere relatively prominent that wls that topic. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Walsingham acquired a Surrey county seat in Parliament from 1572 that he retained until his death, but he was not a major parliamentarian.[41]" Why is this in the SOS section?
    • Moved. DrKay (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Elizabeth... moor" Why is this also in the SOS section?– Ling.Nut3 (talk)
    • I've integrated that better by shifting the quote to a relevant paragraph, thanks. DrKay (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2012 (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 Ian Rose 16:39, 4 June 2012 [14].

---

Pi

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured article because π is a well-known number, famed among geeks and non-geeks alike. The article is the 483rd most-visited WP article, and it is a vital article. The article reached GA status in November 2007. It recently went through two peer reviews, one here, and another on the article's Talk page – the latter review was by user Jakob scholbach who successfully pushed the math article logarithm to FA status last year. My prior featured articles are W. E. B. Du Bois and Birth control movement in the United States. I believe the π article meets all FA criteria, and I am ready and willing to make any improvements suggested by the reviewers. Noleander (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I helped push this article to GA status, and while I haven't been as involved lately, I'm excited that you've opened up the FAC. If I have a couple spare minutes during the process, I'll try to help. :) Disavian (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to lend my hand at reviewing the article for CE, and a few other things. L1ght5h0w (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Drive by comments from Jim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• π ≃ 355/1133 ≃ 141592920. — neither of these equalities make sense.

Done - That was a typo introduced about an hour ago by an overzealous editor. I've corrected it. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I doubt the assertion that Pi day is celebrated around the world, since 3/14 is US style. Elsewhere, like the UK, the 14th day of March would be 14/3

Done - You are correct, the sources seem to give only US celebrations in their examples. Changed to US. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response, I may do a proper review, but a bit tied up at present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not make sense to celebrate Pi on other days in the rest of the world. The day was introduced in the US, and it has of course been adopted in other countries, though the extent of celebrations is probably not the same. Nageh (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support – Thank you for addressing my concerns. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Comments – I've been through this article a few times already and it has undergone significant improvement. There are a few emotive statements that may or may not be encyclopedic; I'll leave that for others to argue. Here's a few points that caught my eye:

• "For this reason, most mathematicians prefer definitions of π based on calculus or trigonometry that do not rely on the circle": I'm sure it's probably true, but it's such a broad assertion that it would seem difficult to verify. Is this opinion covered by the citations on the subsequent sentence?

Done - The sources do mention this alternative definition, but the "most mathematicians" is not exactly in the sources. I changed it to "some mathematicians". --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The Greek letter π represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter": This sentence stands out because it appears redundant with the first sentence of the previous section, apart from the words "Greek letter".

Done - Changed to: "The symbol used by mathematicians to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is the Greek letter π. " --Noleander (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the sentence below needs work. For one, it has two contrary sub-components that begin with 'but'. For another, "estimated to be larger than the irrationality measure of other transcendental numbers" is vague. Is it saying all transcendental numbers, or is it just saying that some well-known transendental numbers are larger than others? The latter doesn't seem particularly significant.

"The degree to which π can be approximated by rational numbers (called the irrationality measure) is not precisely known, but it is estimated to be larger than the irrationality measure of other transcendental numbers such as e or ln(2), but smaller than the measure of Liouville numbers."

Done - Changed to " The degree to which π can be approximated by rational numbers (called the irrationality measure) is not precisely known; estimates have established that the irrationality measure is larger than the measure of e or ln(2), but smaller than the measure of Liouville numbers." - Let me know if that does not address your concerns. --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "An infinite series for π that converges more rapidly than the Gregory–Leibniz series is": do we know the origin of this series?

No, I have not been able to find a name or origin for that series. A PR reviewer asked that 2 series be compared to illustrate convergence rates; I picked this series because it is understandable to the layman, and because it is attractive. It is a valid series, and is documented in reliable sources. Other series for pi that have names (or well documented origins) are much more complex and would defeat the purpose of illustrating convergence rates. So, it is a balancing act: fame vs clarity. If anyone can find a series that has a name/origin and is simple, I'd be happy to utilize it. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This source attributes it to Nilakantha. I haven't been able to find a better source, perhaps in part because Google limits book access. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that web site: at least it gives a hint about the origin, even if it is not truly a reliable source. I've posted a query on the Talk page of the Math project: with luck, someone there may have more information. I don't think it is a show-stopper if a description of the origin is absent. --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha! It's the same formula as 16.10 from here. (n - 1)n(n + 1) = n(n² - 1) = n³ - n. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for finding that. I'll update the citations accordingly. --Noleander (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "that the values of [what?] within a closed boundary": is lacking some sort of clarification. A bound, continuous function perhaps? It's been a few decades since I saw that stuff, so I'm a little rusty.

Done - Thanks for catching that. Fixed to: " including the remarkable fact that the values of a complex function within a closed boundary are entirely determined by the values on the boundary" --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• First use of "divisible" should be linked, just for clarity.

Done --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Recent decades have seen a surge..." is a dated statement.

Done - changed this picture caption to the simpler "The record for number of memorized digits of π.". --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Regards, RJH (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Yoshida Kōyū calculated 3.16 on the soroban, while Imamura 3.162. Is this worth a mention? [15][16]. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 15:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. None of the sources which describe the history of pi mention these mathematicians; and the source you've provided doesn't give any details (what algorithm did they use?). That, coupled with the fact that their precision was only 1 digit (way behind other countries in the 17th century) may make this not suitable for inclusion. But, if others want it included, I have no objection. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't do a full review, but including the information "square root of 10 had long been a common value for pi in India, China and Arabia" would be a good idea. Non-western approaches to the problem are relevant, I think. Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I see that this information is included under the "Antiquity" section. Nevermind! Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question What does "The digits in the decimal representation of π appear to be random" mean? The digits of pi are not random. They can be predicted, by many of the formulae presented later on. This needs clarification.

The Properties section explains that in detail. It says "The digits of π appear to be random, with no observable pattern. A mathematical test for randomness is normality, meaning that all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely." Is that sufficient? or do you think more detail is needed? We could remove the term "random" and use "normal" exclusively, but that would be confusing to lay readers ... the word "random" has a few meanings, and one of them is that the digits normal. --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, good. I would nevertheless prefer precision here. Simply "The digits of pi have no observable pattern" seems the best to me.

Now that I think of it I'm a bit concerned as well. Randomness is used in a pretty informal way here, and especially combining the words "mathematical" and "randomness" doesn't seem right. Neither does normality imply randomness, nor is normality a test to measure (statistical) randomness. Nageh (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

See comment below under random/normal. --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Prior to the nomination of this article, I have done a FA-like review (see Talk:Pi#Review), which did bring up a number of issues, but all of these are now fixed. So, I'm happy to support this Fa nomination. As far as I can tell, the article is factually correct and covers everything that is relevant. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "π is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers (such as 22/7)" IMO, it needs to be clarified here that "however" pi is generally approximated as 22/7 since 22/7 is one of the most famous approximations.

Done - I changed it to the following: "π is an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be written as the ratio of two integers, such as 22/7 (where 22/7 was a commonly used approximation to π)." but that doesn't seem optimal to me. Can you suggest a better wording? --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"...such as 22/7 and other fractions that were commonly used to approximate π." Maybe not perfect, but probably better. Nageh (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Done - In lead and body. --Noleander (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• " In the past century," dated statement. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Done - Changed to ". Several people have endeavored to memorize ..." --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "mathematicians have worked strenuously to compute π to thousands and millions of digits" -> Many of the people involved in those computations are not mathematicians.

Done - Good catch. I tried "scientists" but a couple of them were just amateurs, so I ended up with "Despite this, people have worked strenuously to compute ...". --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• "providing raw data to evaluate the randomness or normality of the digits of π" -> This suggests that "randomness" and "normality" are two different concepts, contradicting your remarks above.

Done - Changed to "to evaluate the randomness of the digits... ". - "Normality" is the official term of the primary math test for randomness. A random number generator's output can be tested for normality. Can the digits of π be used as a random number generator? Yes, because they appear to be normal. Let me know if it is satisfactory now. --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? You obviously have a different definition for what constitutes a random number generator. In any definition that I'm aware of unpredictability is a key requirement. Uniformity/normality is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. Nageh (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion on the matter: I'm just trying to capture what the major secondary sources that discuss pi for the layman say. Those sources do use the word "random" for pi very explicitly: as in "the digits of pi appear to be random" or " ... meet statistical tests for randomness". And the sources do say that normality is a major (the major?) test for randomness. And the sources say normality is generally considered to be a key attribute of randomness, but that there are some normal sequences that are not random (so n. is necessary but not sufficient for r.). And they say that "random" sometimes means unpredictable, but also means "predictable, but digits are scattered in a hapazard way" (my paraphrase). All that said, I'm happy to reword the sentence in question provided that the new wording (1) is consistent with the sources; and (2) is understandable to lay readers. Can someone suggest a better wording? --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How about introducing the notion of Pseudorandomness? The sources on pi don't really get into that much, but if it helps resolve this concern, it may be a good path to take. The text could be something like: "Pi's digits pass have no apparent pattern and pass tests for randomness such as normality. The digits of pi can be used as a Pseudorandom number generator since they generate a sequence of digits which meet tests for randomness, but the digits are not truly random because they are predictable." Is that better? --Noleander (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Referring to pseudo-randomness seems no less hairy, and the sentence could be quite misleading. There are basically two definition for pseudo-randomness: one (more informal) is that it satisfies certain statistical randomness tests; the other formal one from complexity theory states that it must be computationally (polynomially) indistinguishable from random data, which includes normality and unpredictability. I would rather go only with the first sentence, and replace "randomness" by "statistical randomness". Nageh (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the text in the Properties section to read "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality; normal means that all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely.". That takes the above-discussed sentence, and merges it with a pre-existing sentence which gives a brief idea what "normal" means. Let me know if you think more needs to be done. --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the wording could be improved. How about this: "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality; a number is called normal when all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely." Nageh (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Done --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Nageh (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Computing a large number of digits of π does have some practical benefits" -> Simplify wording, "does have some" can simply be "has"

Done -- Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• PSLQ needs to be explained or linked

Done - The link for PSLQ is already there, in integer relation algorithm. But I did add a footnote giving the origin of PSLQ as follows: "... using the PSLQ integer relation algorithm[9] found several ..." where footnote #9 says: "PSLQ means Partial Sum of Least Squares." Normally, acronyms should be spelled out on first occurrence, but PSLQ is more of a proper name than an acronym (that is, sources that use PSLQ do not spell it out). --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• are certain rational numbers that Plouffe computed -> Why is "rational numbers" suddenly linked here?

Done - Removed that link and linked 1st occurrence. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• the concept of a "pi hunter" is used at least 4 times. Needs explanation.

Done - Yes, that is too colloquial, may be hard on non-English readers. I replaced that term in all four places with plainer words. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• the "History" section has a misleading title. It's rather more "History of the computation of pi".

I was trying to follow the guidance of MOS:HEADINGS which says "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.". Plus, the History section includes subsection on "Irrationality and transcendence", so I'm not certain the proposed alternative is better. If other editors endorse the longer title, I have no objection to changing it. --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• " algebraic operations (powers, roots, sums, etc.)" -> I would link "algebraic operation" and clarify the "etc." There aren't that many algebraic operations.

Done - Eliminated the etc & included "Product" so it now reads " (powers, sums, and products)" based on the interpretation that sums includes subtraction & products includes division. Re the "operation": Link was done. --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

[preceding unsigned comments were from user Randomblue]

• "The transcendence of π means that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle" -> Are the two statements "transcendence of pi" and "cannot square the circle" equivalent? Certainly "The transcendence of pi implies that..." is true.

Done - Changed as suggested. --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the list of formulae involving pi, I think the volume of an n-sphere would be very appropriate. (And would subsume many of the already given examples.)
  • I've suggested that before, but in retrospect it's likely one of those things that are primarily of interest to mathematicians because of the abstract nature of higher dimensional spheres. It's probably better just see the two and three dimensional cases covered, as they are now. The topic is covered well on the n-sphere article, so it would make sense to add that to the "See also" list. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall any secondary source on pi mentioning n-spheres. A better place for that info might be the sub-article List of formulae involving π. --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Since my comments above, I've had another read through and I have no further concerns. I'm not a mathematician, and I felt this was pitched at just the right level for any reasonably numerate reader (and the innumerate would run off into the bushes when they saw the title — unless they were illiterate too and thought it was about food). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Leonhard_Euler.jpg is tagged as lacking source information, and the licensing tags given are incorrect

Thanks for doing an image review. I fixed the license tag (changed it to Public Domain based on life-of-author +100 years). The source is more problematic: I was able to add information about the location of the actual painting itself, but I am unable to find out who/how it was digitized. But, since the painter died in 1781, it is clear that any digitization should be acceptable for use in WP. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.gif: source link returns error
  • Sorry, but a dead link cannot be an argument for the license information being invalid. We also do not delete text within articles when their sources become dead. In any case, there is always the web archive. Nageh (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As Nageh points out, the image is no longer located in its original location in the Los Alamos web site (I also checked and could not find a new location within that site: so it may no longer be available there at all). However, the WayBack machine does show that that was, indeed, the original source of the image. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The picture in the article, File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.gif, is exceptional. It is an uncropped version of File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.jpg (names are the same; extensions are different). However, the JPEG version has a specific requirement for attribution of Los Alamos National Laboratories information:

Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the University of California, operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor the University makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.

The GIF version does not have attribution.

Glrx (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Another image from the same session at the Smithsonian: http://airandspace.si.edu/imagedetail.cfm?imageID=2689 stating "No known copyright restrictions on this image". Glrx (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Glrx: thanks for that information. The GIF image is superior to the JPG image, so Ive left the GIF image in the article, and updated its Commons licensing info to incude the "los alamos PD" blurbs (copied from the JPG image). --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• File:Ramanujan.jpg: no source provided; based on information given, licensing tag may or may not be correct.

I was not able to justify a copyright exemption for that image, so I changed the article to use another image File:Srinivasa Ramanujan - OPC - 1.jpg which has a clearly permitted usage in WP. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Similar images

http://www.math.rochester.edu/u/faculty/doug/UGpages/ramanujan.html (image on postage stamp)

http://www.myspace.com/sramanujan/photos/859081 (stamp apparently from 1962)

http://www.white-rabbit.jp/Column/essay29.html (same image, different stamp)

http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/ramanujan.html (same/simliar to stamp image)

http://www.nndb.com/people/578/000240855/ (folded collar / collar tag) (possibly the source for reworked stamp image)

http://www.visualphotos.com/image/1x6063087/indian_mathematician_srinivasa_ramanujan (folded collar / collar tag / managed rights)

Glrx (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems that the original image was scanned from an 1962 Indian postal stamp. If this is the case, the copyright on the stamp image should expire no later than by the end of this year according to commons:Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#India. Nageh (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1962 stamp commemorates his 75th birthday, so the issue date was probably 22 December 1962. Glrx (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.indianpostagestamps.com/gallery/1962.html says issued Dec 22, 1962. Glrx (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't count anyway. It's gonna expire by 2022, not 2012. :P Nageh (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Nominated for deletion on Commons. Glrx (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To closing delegate: The article no longer uses this suspect image being discussed here. The article was changed to use another image which has no problems. --Noleander (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Upon further research it appears that the photography used in the stamp is taken from Ramanujan's passport. Now the question is how could we get ahold of a digital copy of that? Nageh (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See [17]. Nageh (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW: I think the stamp/passport pic is superior, so if we can obtain a WP-safe version of it, that would be wonderful. --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.imsc.res.in/~rao/ramanujan/newnow/garnlund.htm shows poor quality passport image. Image from R's Notebook (1985) may be derivative work, so it may not be free. Glrx (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This book seems like the most comprehensive source on images. It appears that the wife of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is the current owner of the passport photo. Nageh (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is some good news. We cannot use any image that was enhanced after 1927 (e.g., head slant removed, collar altered, image effects added). Your source states that the passport photo was taken in 1919 (see page 4). The passport picture was photographically copied in India around October 1936 (page 4, 17 years after the passport was issued), but it would be a straight reproduction of a 2D image and not a derivative work. The copy of the passport picture was then printed in Hardy's Ramanujan: Twelve Lectures, 1940. Google books only gives a snippet view of Hardy. However, your source states the image on page xix is the passport photo (meaning the copy of the passport photo, and it shows the passport embossing). Ordinarily, that picture would not be a derivative work, but there may be a small argument about the shadows cast by the embossing (it is not truly a 2D image), but if the embossing is cropped out, then the image date of 1919 should apply. Well, save for the vertical striations, that I'm not sure how to interpret. At least that is how my feeble understanding of copyright goes. Therefore, I think we can copy the image out of source, crop the embossing, remove the striations, and have a free image (that we can then improve on our own). I'd like to hear comments from those more up on copyright law than I. Glrx (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is even more complicated; clock starts after the death of the author -- not the subject (or after it was made). If the author lived to, say, 1950, then the passport photo may not be in the public domain. We need an exception for government documents/passports. Glrx (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Leonxlin's concerns

• "The continued fraction can be used to generate the best possible rational approximation (that is, no other approximation with a smaller denominator will be closer to π)." Well, the parenthetical note is good, but the sentence should be true if the parenthetical comment were removed, which it is not, since there is no "best possible rational approximation".

Done - Changed sentence so the comment is now an integral part of the sentence. --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be so nitpicky, but the revised sentence still contains the independent clause "The continued fraction can be used to generate the best possible rational approximation", which is a mathematically inaccurate statement, since there is no such thing as "the best possible rational approximation". It would be like saying, "Jupiter is the closest planet to the sun; no other gas giant is as close to the sun as Jupiter." Now the situation is slightly complicated by the fact that, as I have just learned from here that best rational approximation is an accepted way of talking about rational approximations that are the best among all rational numbers with equal or less denominators. But the article the still seems quite off. The fractions 22/7, 355/113 etc. are each a best rational approximation to π. Furthermore, it seems to me that the phrase "best rational approximation" should not be used without somehow indicating that it is a technical term that is more than the sum of its parts. May I suggest the following phrasing?

Truncating the continued fraction at any point generates a fraction that provides an approximation for π; two such fractions (22/7 and 355/113) have been used historically to approximate the constant. Each approximation generated in this way is a best rational approximation; that is, each is closer to π than any other fraction with the same or a smaller denominator.

Leonxlin (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Done - Used the suggested wording. Nitpicky is good ... this is FAC after all :-) --Noleander (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• There seem to be some missing equals signs in the "Antiquity" subsection.

I cannot see anything missing. Could you be more specific so I can fix the problem? --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Could it be the approximately-equal signs:? Can you see the following symbol ≃ ? If not, your platfor's font is not showing that particular character, and I can use math markup instead. --Noleander (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the symbol ≃ (which is not visible on this pedestrian system) with ≈ when inexact and = when exact. Glrx (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Thirty-nine digits are sufficient to support most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the observable universe with a precision of one atom." This sentence has a cite. I do not have access to it, but I am suspicious that only the part of the sentence after "because" is confirmed in the cite, and the "sufficient to support most cosmological calculations" is someone's interpretation. The sentence may be true, but it's not clear at all that just because 39 digits suffice to calculate the diameter of the observable universe, they suffice for all other calculations. Also, I find the use of the word "support" a little strange.

Done - Added an attribution to the source, to make it clear there is some interpretation happening. There are two sentences that use that source (Arndt, p 17): "According to Jörg Arndt, thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the observable universe with a precision of one atom. Accounting for additional digits needed to compensate for computational round-off errors, Arndt concludes that a few hundred digits would suffice for any scientific application." - That is a direct paraphrase (but not too close :-) of what Arndt says. Also, I changed "support" to "perform". --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I hate to be difficult. But I would be much happier if we got rid of the second sentence. I don't think Arndt's speculation merits a whole sentence here. (A quick Google search, and I have found nothing to lend him any repute in math or physics. Then again, he is published and I am not.) Also, what about Haenel? Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Done - Removed that second sentence from the article body; (kept it in a footnote so curious readers can still enrich themselves). Also: added Haenel so it now reads: "According to Jörg Arndt and Christoph Haenel, thirty-nine digits are sufficient ..." --Noleander (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first two paragraphs of the section on spigot algorithms are a bit awkward. The definition of a spigot algorithm is repeated at least twice, and the way "characterized" is used is strange.

Done - Removed one of the defnitions. Changed "characterized" to "The algorithms are called ...". --Noleander (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am concerned about the science sections, and feel that an expert should look over it to make sure that it's coherent. I'm no physicist, but I would have expected Coulomb to be mentioned before Heisenberg, since that's the order a student would probably see them. (Or is there some other reason why the formulae there are ordered the way they are?) And why doesn't, say, Biot-Savart show up? Is there a good reason the Fourier transform appears under "Engineering and geology" rather than "Physics"? I'm not qualified to judge whether this list is not just a bunch of random formulae, but I have some suspicions.

The π article is a top-level article which summarizes about ten child sub-articles. The Usage section you are referring to is summarizing the List of formulae involving π sub-article which is, indeed, a list of formulae. This list was pretty well reviewed during the Peer Review process, and some items were removed since (1) the formulae are not directly relevant to the importance or history of pi; and (2) it is impossible to come up with a good litmus test for which should be included or excluded. There are two extremes: omitting the list entirely; or including all of List of formulae involving π . Niether extreme is proper, and the article is striving for a good middle ground. Regarding Biot Savart: that used to be in the article, but a Peer Reviewer explicitly asked that it be removed from the article, so I'm a bit reluctant to restore it, but I can if you really think it is important. As for the sequence: the sources are very skimpy in this area, and any choherent ordering is feasible. Regarding Fourier transform: there are several items that could appear in either of two subsections, in those cases, I chose the subsection that seemed most appropriate. If you think Fourier transform should be moved to Physics, that can be easily done. --Noleander (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly object moving FT to the physics section. ;) FT is fundamental to signal processing, which is of primary importance to communication technologies and computer science applications. Nageh (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• "π is a transcendental number, which means that it is not the solution of any non-constant polynomial with rational coefficients, such as: ${\frac {x^{5}}{120}}-{\frac {x^{3}}{6}}+x=0.$" This polynomial, which is an example of something π is not a solution to (the only root is 0), and which does not appear to be special in any way, really should not be given so much space. (In the article, it gets its own line.)

Done - I made the formula smaller and put it in-line. Can you check and see if it is okay, or is too small? WP has a limitation that there are only two sizes available for formulae: in my opinion, one is too large, and the other too small :-) So this is a recurring problem that is not specific to this article. That particular formula was specifically added during the Peer Review process at the request of the reviewer, so I am reluctant to remove it entirely. --Noleander (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• The "ε" used in the paragraph about the Mandelbrot set should be "e", I think.

The source (Aaron Klebanoff) uses "ε" so I followed that in the article. If you can provide some rationale for "e", we can consider going that route. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well my concern is just that I have no idea what "ε" is supposed to mean. If it is the base of the natural logarithm, then I would recommend "e" or "e". Leonxlin (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

ε is a small number that tends to zero. I've rewritten it to clarify this and added a link for the source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Some dates (e.g., "100 BC") need non-breaking spaces.

Done - put nbsp before all "BC"s. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Leonxlin (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• "This formula was a breakthrough for people who calculated π because ..." An odd phrase.

Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Done – I changed it to "a breakthrough in calculating π". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

The following footnote numbers refer to those in this version of the article.

Leonxlin has started checking multiples of 5. The ones he skipped are the ones he doesn't have access to. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• #5 Arndt & Haenel 2006, p. 165.: The paragraph citing this footnote (as well as #6 and #7) says that "The first mathematician to use the Greek letter π to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter was William Jones", later mentioning "speculation that Machin may have employed the Greek letter before Jones". Arndt and Haenel, however, seem to give more weight to this speculation: they say that "The person who invented the symbol π is assumed to have been the Englishman William Jones", but then later, "The symbol π must therefore be attributed to the same man who had already earned his place in history with his arctan formula [Machin]" (link to Google Books in the article). Wolfram doesn't mention Machin at all on this issue, though. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Only one source (Arndt) mentions the possibility that Machin used the letter before Jones, and they suggest it rather strongly. But no other sources echo that. So I tried to capture that by characterizing Arndt's thesis using the wording "Jones writes that his equations for π are from the "ready pen of the truly ingenious Mr. John Machin", leading to speculation that Machin may have employed the Greek letter before Jones." Is this adequate? Or can you suggest a better wording? Do you think Arndt should be mentioned in the article here? --Noleander (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• #10 Mayer. Check. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• #15 Arndt & Haenel 2006, p. 21 BAD BAD BAD: The article reads "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality". Arndt and Haenel say this: "No one has succeeded in proving either than π is normal or that it is not". Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There are three footnotes that apply: #15, #16, and #17. It looks like a sentence got split and the correct footnote (#17) was separated from the accompanying text. I'll fix that. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you are confusing statistical tests with the actual normality of a number. The sentence can easily be referenced to page 23 of the book. However, I would suggest saying "...measuring normality" rather than "...such as normality"; normality is not a randomness test but a property. Nageh (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Done - Aligned the footnotes with the sentences (and included page 23 in addition to 21 and 22). Also improved wording per Nageh suggestion to "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness including tests measuring normality" (because some of the statistical tests were not related to normality). --Noleander (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I now understand where my confusion comes from. The definition of normality does not imply that all sequences are equally "likely", meaning, that their probabilities are equal and independent, as the article claimed. Instead, the definition only states that the frequency of all sequences appear equally often asymptotically. This is also wrong in the normal number article. I have reworded it in the pi article to: "a number of infinite length is called normal when all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) appear equally often." Nageh (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I was thinking too complicated. Though, do you think the new wording is more clear than the previous one? If not, please revert my edit in the article. Nageh (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The new wording is fine. --Noleander (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(Please forgive the tone of the subsequent sentences and correct any misunderstandings I have; I'm just trying to get as much done as possible quickly. I am not an expert on this subject.) It seems weird to me to say that π "passes ... tests measuring normality". If normality is a property of a number, a yes or no, than what does it mean to "measure" normality? And where on page 23 of Arndt and Haenel does it say that any tests have been done on π regarding normality? The word "normal(ity)" does not even appear on that page. To say a number is normal seems like a very strong statement about all of its digits, so that if statistical tests are done on the first X digits of π, no matter how large X is, that will say exactly nothing about the normality of π. Why not simply get rid of the "including normality" part of that sentence? Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a yes-or-no property, so maybe "measuring" is the wrong word and we should simply say "tests for normality". However, note that the answer is not known, so these statistical tests only provide indication to a particular answer. I don't understand your issue with the references: Did you read the last paragraph of page 22 of Arndt's book? That provides the connection to the statistical tests discussed at page 23. Nageh (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed wording to: "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness including tests for normality". --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• #30 Arndt & Haenel 2006, pp. 168–169: Check. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• #50 Roy 1990, pp. 101–102 and Arndt & Haenel 2006, pp. 185–186. Check. (Though I'm not sure about the Roy page numbers; I don't have the same version of the article.) Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• #90 NumberWorld.org. Check. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• #100 Bellard, Fabrice. Wikipedia currently says "Between 1998 and 2000, the distributed computing project PiHex used Bellard's formula (a modification of the BBP algorithm) to compute the quadrillionth (1015th) bit of π, which turned out to be 0." In the cited article, Bellard says nothing about PiHex or the quadrillionth bit of π. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for finding that ... there were two sources, and one of them (Arndt, p 20) got dropped from the footnote. I've added the missing source. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• #105, #110. Don't have the sources, but I can personally verify that the claims are true. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the above concerns, unfortunately I will have to Oppose. Leonxlin (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. It looks like all the issues you found are resolvable. I'll start working on them promptly. --Noleander (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Leonxlin: I've addressed most of the issues you raised, and posed a couple of questions to get clarification. --Noleander (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposed rescinded, due to concerns being largely addressed. Leonxlin (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead is saucy, spunky, and wonderful. It makes me quiver with nerd joy. Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lead should include pronunciation

Done - Although I only put the IPA in the lead; the body has both IPA and respelling.

• "The number π is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter." Shouldn't "a circle" be "any circle"?

"a circle" sounds better to my ear. Comparing to other articles: the 1st sentence in perimeter is "A perimeter is a path that surrounds an area." If you can cite a few well-written articles that use "any" I could perhaps be persuaded. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thought, "a circle" doesn't seem that bad. I'm not sure what bugged me about it the first time. Take note, however, that comparing an issue to one in another article, even another FA, is not sufficient justification for allowing the issue to persist. All it does is highlight a way in which the other article can be improved. This diff gives more details, if you're curious. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you point; I was just trying to say that the MOS was silent on that particular issue, and I could not find any examples that were consistent your proposal (didn't mean to suggest that examples would be determinative). --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Inconsistency:
  • Lead: "Scientific applications require no more than a few hundred digits of π"
  • Body: "For most numerical calculations involving π, a handful of digits provide sufficient precision. According to Jörg Arndt and Christoph Haenel, thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most cosmological calculations"

Done - Changed lead too " about 40 digits". Let me know if you can think of a better wording. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to "Scientific applications generally require no more than 40 digits". You dig? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is even better. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The peculiar properties of π" Does this refer to the properties described in the first paragraph? I don't see how any of these are peculiar. There are, after all, infinitely many transcendental numbers.

Done - That is a good point, changed to "The widespread use of π in science and engineering has ..." --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that the lead suffers from WP:recentism. It places too much emphasis on modern pop-culture shenaniganry and not enough emphasis on the early history. The only information presented about the early history is a shopping list of mathematicians who were interested in the number, whereas world records are mentioned twice.

Done - Added some more historical detail to the lead. I kept the names of important mathematicians in the lead, but interspersed in the historical sentences. --Noleander (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks a bundle for doing this. And, more generally, thanks for taking the time to built this article. I imagine it was not easy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• Generally a paragraph in the body of the article should end with a citation, unless summarising cited info to follow -- you seem to maintain that standard everywhere except in the first para of Name.

The sentence you are referring to is "The lower-case letter π (or π in sans-serif font) is not to be confused with the capital letter Π, which denotes a product of a sequence." I don't have a source for that. It is comparable to a disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article: an aside to the reader which sheds some light on other topics with similar names. I can certainly remove that sentence, but I wonder if this is one of those situations where an exception can be made? --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• On the other hand, I don't see the need to repeat the same citation after each sentence, as you do in the last para of Name for instance (an exception might be where a quote has to be clearly attributed) -- although if it's your preferred style and doesn't annoy the reviewers I shan't make a fuss about it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is my style. I do that for a couple of reasons: (1) in case the sentences get rearranged in the future, the cites will go with them (see WP:INTEGRITY); and (2) it is a common practice in articles covering controversial topics, so I've developed that habit. But I would not object to an editor removing those footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I'm probably more immune to the rearranging issue as "my" articles are pretty specialised and don't tend to attract a lot of edits. One like this on the other hand could well benefit from the insurance of having more consecutive duplicate citations that might otherwise be warranted. So, again, fair enough. Anyway, as things have been quiet here for a few days and we have the requisite checks and support, I think we can wrap this up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 15:02, 4 June 2012 [18].

---

Lynching of Jesse Washington

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk)

The lynching of Jesse Washington was part of a sad chapter in American history, during which hatred and mob violence reigned supreme. This lynching is unusual in that it was captured in detail by a local photographer who was on hand as the events unfolded. I believe the article is up to the featured criteria; it has received a good article review from Grapple X and a peer review from Wehwalt and Crisco 1492. Note: contains graphic content, discretion advised. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I checked out the images during the article's GA review; all of them checked out fine then and no new files have been added in the meantime. I'm about to check the article again to review the subsequent prose changes but I figured I'd note this early to save it being done twice. GRAPPLE X 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  Support. Both my own GA review and the fixes below have addressed any concerns I've had. Happy to support this one now. GRAPPLE X 11:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - My comments were all addressed at the peer review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander - Provided final items in my comments below are addressed.

• Wording: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas ..." - The word "attrition" may confuse some readers. If you mean decrease, use a plainer word. Is there a better wording?
  • Ok, I switched to "suppressed". Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Non sequitur: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas, local historians often avoided discussing the practice." - it is not clear to me why the latter follows from the former.
  • Rephrased a bit, hope it's clearer now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Clarify: "Waco developed a reputation for racism—seen in American history textbooks—to the vexation ..." - What was seen in the textbooks? that there was racism, or merely that Waco had a reputation (unfounded?). Clarify.
  • I tried to clarify, hope it works now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Need info on modern guesses about guilt. Footnote (a) says " In 2011, Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, ...". That seems like critical material that should be in the body of the article (in the Analysis section) not in a footnote.
  • Moved out of footnotes for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Paragraph on theories of murder: The article says "George Fryer also sued the college for libel; his vehemence caused some Robinson residents to suspect that he played a part in his wife's death ...". Do any modern 2ndary sources support that theory? If so, it may be good to include a paragr in the article listing the possible scenarios of what happened to the victim.
  • I haven't seen any contemporary sources that speculate that George was guilty, I included a quote from Bernstein on the issue.
• Specify years: "The practice of lynching gradually declined, ..." - needs more specificity on the year, because the prior sentence says "The number of lynchings in the U.S. increased in the three years ..."
  • I rephrased and brought it a bit closer to the text, hope it works now.
• Need external link: The Crisis is available online, and this article should contain a link, perhaps in References section, or in External Links section, pointing the reader to the issue that contained the Waco Horror article.
  • Found a good link to the issue at Modernist Journals Project, added it as further reading. That was a great suggestion, thanks.
• Mentally handicapped? - The article says "James M. SoRelle of Baylor University notes that may have been mentally handicapped ..." - is it true that only one historian came to that conclusion? If it is the consensus of multiple historians, that fact should be in the lead; if not, leave it alone.
  • This is tricky, the source for his possibly retardation is a schoolteacher who was interviewed by Freeman. The teacher said he was unable to learn to read, most writers have assumed that he was retarded on the basis of her comments. It's not known for sure though, so now I just have an account of Freeman's interview of the teacher and her comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wording: "... have contained dubious low crowd estimates..." - I know that dubious is modifying "estimates" but maybe "dubiously low" would be better? or re-word entirely to make it plainer.
  • Yeah, I went back and forth on that a couple times, reworded the sentence in the end. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Capitalization of book titles: In Ref section: some book titles cap all leading letters; some only the first letter. Should be consistent.
  • Good catch, they all should be in title case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Citation needed: " ... some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." - Im guessing that the cite from the following sentence applies; but may as well include it for this sentence as well. See WP:INTEGRITY.
  • Alright, I tweaked the sentence and added a ref.
• Crisis article name: "After receiving Freeman's report, he placed an image of Washington's body on the cover of an issue of The Crisis, the NAACP's newsletter, which discussed the event.[78] In 1916, The Crisis had a circulation of about 30,000, three times the size of the NAACP's membership.[79] Du Bois popularized "Waco Horror" as a name ..." - You should include the name of the article ... was it "Waco Horror"? if so, include it and re-word this sentence.
  • Added another sentence with title.
• Crisis article date/month - include the month of publication.
  • Added.
• Ambiguity: "Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I.[89] Bernstein describes this effort as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years"" - What was the battle? Fund raising? or against lynching?
  • Ok, tried to clarify. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• More background: "After it became associated with violence in the 19th century, community leaders sought to change its reputation,..." - What was that 19th c reputation? For lynchings? for wild-west shoot outs? Never mind: the prior paragraph covers that.
• Grammar? - "There was a small number of anti-lynching activists ..." - Was or were? I'm not sure.
  • Sadly, I couldn't figure it out either--I rephrased to avoid the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wording - "Apologists of lynching justified the practice as a way to assert dominance over African Americans ..." - "Apologists" seems wrong here: isn't that normally used in political/religious contexts? Maybe another word like proponents or defenders or supporters would be better.
  • Ok, changed to "Supporters". Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Non sequitur: "She spoke with Fleming and the judge who presided over the trial; both argued that they did not deserve blame for the lynching. Local African Americans gave her a better reception." - Not clear how "better" relates to prior sentence.
  • Ok, tweaked a bit to avoid the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Mind reading: "The individuals in the photographs made no attempts to hide their identities, indicating that they knew that no one would be prosecuted." - Perhaps reword to indicate that that is the interpretation or assessment of analysts/historians. The voice of WP shouldn't be making conclusive statements about persons intentions/thoughts.
  • Credited the analysis to a historian. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sic link? - ""That's what I done [sic]" - Sic is linked here. Is that (the link) consistent with WP manual of style?
  • I'm going to have to check on that one, I hadn't linked it originally but it was suggested that I use the {{sic}} template at the GA review. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Date needed: "On the morning of the trial, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity:" - that 1st sentence of the Trial section needs to include the date.
  • Ok, date added. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wording: "However, descendants of Fryer have spoken out against the idea." - Probably should reword because (1) avoid beginning sentences with But or However; (2) generally should use plain past tense. Perhaps "Some descendants of Fryer objected to the proposed memorial".
  • Ok, I do tend to overuse However, I took your suggested wording. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ambiguity: "White leaders of Waco took a non-violent approach to demonstrations ..." - Were the leaders organizing the demonstrations? or responding to them?
  • Tried to clarify. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ambiguity: " Washington was accused of raping and murdering his employer's wife after she was found dead." - Could be read that he raped her (and murdered her) after she was dead. Perhaps simplify to "Washington was accused of raping and murdering his employer's wife." and later make it clear there were no eye witnesses.
  • Good catch, rephrased a bit and added a sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Conjunction: "His lawyers prepared no defense, but noted that he appeared placid in the days before the trial." - Should change "but" to "and" since the latter does not contradict the former.
  • Ok, switched to "and". Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning towards support, once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks again for the thorough review, I'll mark the ones that I've done for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think I have taken care of the above comments now. The sic template is the only one I'm not sure how to proceed on. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, the only remaining issue is prose quality. I'll make one more pass through the article soon and see what I can find ... in the meantime, you may want to go through the article yourself, reading each sentence out loud, and see if you can find some incremental improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wording - "and many children used their lunch hour to attend." - better as "and many children attended during their lunch hour."
• "Chronological order" - Flip 2 sentences: "Fleming traveled to Robinson on May 13 to ask residents to remain calm; his address was well received. The Times-Herald of Waco published a notice on May 12 requesting that residents let the justice system determine Washington's fate."
• Attribute thought: "the executioners attempted to keep him alive to increase his suffering" - The intentions of people generally should not be stated in WP voice: attribute that to a specific source/historian or reword as "Historians concluded that ..." or similar.
• Job title: " mayor and the chief of police, although lynching was illegal in Texas. Fleming told his deputies ..." - I've forgotten who Fleming is. I suppose he is the chief of police? Probably best to restate that connection at this point in the article.
• Ambiguity: " the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American criticized the lynch mob, but spoke highly of their city. " - What city? Houston or Waco?

End additional Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks again for the thorough review (and your comments on my talk page), I think I've squared away your remaining issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Washington_hanging_side_view.jpg and similar: can you be more specific about when and where this was first published?
• File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_front_and_back.jpg: publisher/author and date for source?
• File:Freeman200.jpg: need more information. When/where was this first published? Who took the photo? What is the source?
• File:AmericaAfrica.png is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've specified the details in the images your refer to in your first point, so they should be all set: [19][20][21][22]. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the publishers and authors of the latter three points, and removed them from the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark: It looks like you removed some pictures. I think they were very important to the article, especially Freeman's. Is it possible to spend some time looking for either (a) justification/sources for those images; or (b) alternative images? Just because an image is missing a sources does not automatically mean it must be removed from the article to meet FAC: sometimes an image may be okay even if the source cannot be found. Even copyright images can be occasionally used if a fair-use rationale is available (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). I encourage you to spend some time hunting down background info on the images and seeing if you can restore them to the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark: A couple more thoughts: If you cannot find a photo of Freeman, consider a pic of Du Bois instead. Also: the postcard is public domain, and another version of it which has a Public Domain tag is File:Lynching-of-jesse-washington.jpg ... use the latter at least. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark: here is an image of Freeman that is in the public domain: I dont think it is in WP yet, so you'd need to upload it and crop it): http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.12470/. PS: The reason I'm pushing for this is that the FA criteria require an ample amount of illustrations, and I think the article is a bit deficient at this point. Images are available. --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the link, I uploaded that and will try to get it cropped soon. What's tripping me up with the postcard is that I can't find evidence of when it was first published. Will check some more though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Freeman image is fine. If you could find a date for first publication for the postcard (or a date for the NAACP publication), that would be great. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the postcards with that image went on sale the day after the lynching (May 16, 1916) at latest [23]. The surviving copy has a note that refers to the lynching as happening "last night". I removed the other one because I couldn't figure out when the picture of the back of the postcard was published. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "quickly sentenced to receive capital punishment" -> quickly sentenced to death
• "In Robinson, Texas, Lucy Fryer, was murdered while alone at her house " - don't need comma after Fryer
• "one of them stated that had seen" -> that he had seen
• "On the morning of May 15, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity in anticipation of the trial: the crowd nearly prevented some jurors from entering." semi-colon instead of colon, I think
• "Jury selection proceeded quickly: the defense did not challenge any selections of the prosecution." semi-colon instead of colon
• link kangaroo court
• "the jury's foreman announced a guilty verdict and a sentence of capital punishment" -> sentence of death
• "biting one man, but soon beaten into submission by the mob" -> but he was soon beaten
• "Some people from nearby rural communities, possibly including George Fryer, traveled to the city before the trial to witness the events." - The mention of George Fryer here seems out of place because the paragraph is about people coming to watch the lynching but it would be reasonable for George Fryer to be there for the trial about his wife's murder, not especally for the lynching.
• "His photographs provide rare depictions of a lynching in process" - in progress?
• "The Morning News reported the story" -> clarify that this is a Dallas paper
• "Although many Waco residents did not condemn the lynching, some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." -> Some Waco residents condemned the lynching, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University. (already clear that many did not condemn it)
• "There were no negative repercussions for Dollins or Police Chief John McNamara: although they made no attempt to stop the mob, they remained well respected in Waco" -> Mayor Dollins; colon should be semi-colon
• "By the end of the investigation, Freeman had concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband." -> Freeman concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband.
• "The NAACP had struggled financially around that time. Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I. NAACP president Joel Elias Spingarn later stated that the group's campaign placed "lynching into the public mind as something like a national problem". Bernstein describes this anti-lynching campaign as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years". - The paragraph is about the lynching, it veers off topic here as this language is just about the NAACP. Move to another paragraph or delete.
• "In 2011, Berg concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, but doubted that he raped her. The same year, Julie Armstrong of the University of South Florida argued that Washington was likely innocent of both charges. Bernstein notes that Washington's motives have never been established. She also states that his confession could have been coerced, and that the murder weapon—perhaps the strongest evidence against him—could have been planted by authorities." - It's clear that we can't really know what happened. I think the facts automatically raise these kinds of doubts/possibilities in the reader's mind. I don't think this commentary is necessary. If you decide to keep it, I think there should some mention of what their conclusions are based on. (Again, seems pretty obvious to me but if the conclusions are worth mentioning then the bases for the conclusions should be worth mentioning too.)
• "as they saw as the presence of evil in the community" -> saw him as the presence?
• "The ideas received discussion, but proved unfruitful." -> The ideas were discussed
• Several times as you're going through the facts you insert commentary. Here are some of them:

  1. "In her 2006 study of lynching, journalist Patricia Bernstein describes the city as then having a "thin veneer" of peace and respectability."

  2. "Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University posits that the executioners attempted to keep him alive to increase his suffering."

  3. "Berg believes that their willingness to be photographed indicates that they knew that no one would be prosecuted for Washington's death."

  4. "Bernstein states that it is "highly unlikely" that George Fryer played a role in Lucy's murder, but notes that there is the "shadow of a possibility" that he bore some guilt."

1,2,3 are pretty obvious, I don't think we need the commentary, and I found it distracting. #4 - "shadow of possibility" - pretty vague and I assume the writer means he bore some guilt because he mistreated Washington. That is mentioned elsewhere, so I don't think that is helpful either. If you decide to keep the information, I think it would work better in the "Analysis and legacy" section rather than interspersed with the facts because it would be less distracting and it would keep the commentator's introduction and what they said all in one section. By the time I was to that last section, I found myself thinking "who is Berg", "who is Hale".

While a WP article should not make editorial comments in the encyclopedia's voice, it is entirely appropriate for the article to reflect the opinions of notable commentators and analysts. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers this issue, and requires that the commentator/analyst be identified whenever the article contains speculation or interpretation that is not entirely objective. The way the article names the source (Hale, Berg) could perhaps be improved. --Noleander (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the "Murder and arrest" section, a lot of the information is qualified by the word "may". It ends up sounding like speculation and doesn't really tell the reader anything. If there's no basis for really making a statement - Onlookers estimated the crowd numbered 15,000; There were reports a child initially lit the fire - then I think it should not be included. The motivations of Fleming and Dollins especially sound like speculation. Is there some verifiable basis for these statements? If not, they should be removed.

Ditto. "May" speculation is okay as long as Reliable Sources are responsible (and identified). --Noleander (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

BlueBonnet 02:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've made the changes you've suggested, with the exception of linking Kangaroo court (see the MOS instructions on linking.) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If I can butt in ... BlueBonnet has asked for my feedback. I think your comments are outstanding ... I'm excited we've got a new reviewer with such good taste! On both the "commentary" points and the "may" point, you see these calls going both ways at FAC ... which may not be helpful, but ... you asked :) - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the useful & informative material from Bernstien & Berg sources. Those are outstanding sources: reliable, secondary, and scholarly. Historical articles are supposed to contain interpretive assessments, provided they are clearly identified as interpretations or speculations. Some of this material is in a section titled 'Analysis and legacy", and that section title indicates the analytical nature of the material; other instances of the material clearly identify the historian in the sentence (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). The only reason to remove such analytical material would be if the sources were biased or unreliable, which is not the case here. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the reinsertion, I was too hasty in removing those. I might put a couple remarks into footnotes for flow, but, yeah, that should be in there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note to delegates: BlueBonnet does not plan on offering a support or oppose for this nomination: [24]. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• request for info
  • "Freeman concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband". Any idea what kind of harsh treatment? Any verification? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The source I cited simply says "According to an NAACP report by white suffragist Elizabeth Freeman, the attack was an example of an enraged employee striking out in anger at an overbearing boss". There might be some more detail in another source, though, I'll see what I can turn up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, in the original NAACP publication it states that Lucy Fryer "scolded him for beating the mules" immediately before he attacked her, I assume that's what Apel was referring to in what I quoted above. I've tweaked the sentence a little. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support had my say at the peer review and my concerns were satisfactorily addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stepping up to peer review, I know it wasn't pleasant, but you helped a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Mark, has this article had a spotcheck of sources during its various reviews? If not I'll look at what I can do myself later today, unless someone else volunteers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, it has not been spotchecked, thanks for offering to do so, that would be great. Also, I can email you the three journal articles if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, found a bit in GoogleBooks -- just a couple of relatively minor inconsistencies:
    • Bernstein: FNs 12, 18, 98, 111 -- all okay.
    • DuRocher:
      • FNs 30, 41 -- both okay.
      • FN 35 -- You mention "the crowd numbered over 10,000 at its peak", source says 15,000.
      • FN 47 -- You mention "images of adolescents, some as young as fourteen", source says twelve to fourteen.
    • BTW, I notice that the page number(s) for FN 28 are missing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the spotcheck, I brought the 35 and 47 closer to the sources and fixed the template for 28. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That's fine. While waiting I also checked FNs 76 and 114 -- both accurate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 22:38, 2 June 2012 [25].

---

Courageous class aircraft carrier

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

These "large light cruisers" were the brainchild of Sir Jackie Fisher, First Lord of the Admiralty, during World War I, but were too lightly armored to have be of much use after World War I. All three were converted to aircraft carriers during the 1920s as a result of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that severely limited the tonnage of capital ships that each nation could muster. Courageous was the first ship sunk by the Germans in World War II, Glorious was the first aircraft carrier sunk in a surface action, and only Furious survived the war before being scrapped. The article received a MilHist ACR about a year and a half ago and I've tweaked it since then to better meet the FAC criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• It's looking very good so far. "charthouse" could use a link. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Done by somebody.
• "untenable": unbearable? uninhabitable? uncomfortable?
• "which allowed the ship to ... or to speedily fly off ...": so that the ship could ... or could speedily fly off ... ("which" dangles.)
• "46-by-48-foot (14.0 × 14.6 m)": by, ×
  • Fixed
• After I substituted an "also", we have: "Furious's long exhaust ducting had also proved to be a bad idea as it restricted the size of the hangars, and thus the number of aircraft that could be carried, and it hampered landing operations. By 1939 both ships could carry 34,500 imperial gallons (157,000 L; 41,400 US gal) of petrol." That's kind of a non-sequitur.
• "an increase of over 3,000 long tons (3,000 t).": I changed that to "increases", assuming both figures were increases of over 3K long tons; correct that if it's wrong please.
• ".75 inches": You know this, but in case anyone wants to look it up: see WP:MOSNUM#Decimal points. (Search throughout this article for .75)
• "equally divided between three boiler rooms": The argument for "among" is stronger here.
• Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier#Propulsion: Several missing periods/full stops and a missing space.
• Different subsections shouldn't have the same name.
• "were removed in 1926–27": Some of the work in 1926 and some in 1927? ("1926 and 1927") In one of the years, but you don't know which? ("1926 or 1927") During a one-year span beginning some time in 1926? ("fiscal year" works sometimes, other times "and" or "or" suffice, if the special time period is not worth explaining). Moral: avoid dashes when they're ambiguous.
  • clarified.
• "HE": define at first occurrence
• "to explode the torpedo": "explode" isn't wrong, but "detonate" sounds a little better.
• "vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship": Better is "deflect the underwater explosion to the surface, away from the ship"
• So far so good otherwise down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier#Pre-war service. Very readable, given the subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I made the edits I was asking for; please check to make sure I got it right. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done.

• FN 12: don't include "p"
  • Fixed.
• Check consistency in use of "pp." vs "p." Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I tweaked a few things in the article.
  • Hi Kirk, a few replies while Sturm's busy. Tweaks look good. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think the range is cited correctly for the ships - for furious the infobox has 4300nmi instead of the prose's 5300nmi this might be just a typo, for the other two ships the article says there's no endurance figures, but the infobox has figures. There's also no citations for the nmi at x speed for any of the ships. And the battlecruiser class article doesn't have these figures in the infobox so maybe you can just delete it.
  • Fixed for all ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• During the Second World War, Furious, the only surviving ship, was fitted with.. the only surviving ship seemed weird in that sentence. Also, I wasn't clear in the rest of that sentence if a bunch more AA guns were added or they replaced all the old guns. Might be worth adding to the infobox?
  • I added [only surviving ship] "of the three".
    • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• There's one World War II in the lead vs. the rest as Second World War; stay consistent (and I would double check that its not supposed to be World War II everywhere).
  • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Further down, ...Furious sailed unescorted for Halifax carrying £18,000,000 in gold bullion. I wondered why the gold was moved (was it one of the occupied countries gold reserves, for instance)?Kirk (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No specific information on the gold shipment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to these comments this weekend. Life's been kinda hectic these last two weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• No problem Sturm; overall it looks good. Kirk (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - I tried in vain to find out what was going on with the gold shipment, otherwise assuming the citation for that fact was Jenkins, p. 283 that's ok and the rest looks good. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Read the article through Fire control and radar...

• Conversions: "An island with the bridge, flying control station, and funnel were added...". Since "were" refers to the island, shouldn't it be "was" for proper tense? Also, "an island" repeats in this sentence, which is a prose redundancy that should be looked at.
  • Hi Giants, thanks for the comments. I'm starting a collaboration with Sturm on a few articles, I might as well get started. Looking at the image there, I think you're right, all 3 of those seem to be on the island, so I went with: "An island was added on the starboard side with the bridge, flying control station, and funnel, as an island ..." - Dank (push to talk)
• Description: Don't think multiple draught links are needed here.
  • Done.
• There's 3000 and 3,000 here; these should be made consistent.
  • Done.
• Propulsion: "The turbines were arranged in two engine rooms and each of the turbines...". Usage of "the turbines" is redundant. I don't think the second usage is needed at all, as it seems obvious what "each" means.
  • I went with: "Arranged in two engine rooms, each of the turbines drove ..."
• Armament: "and the effective range was 4,800 yards although the effective range was under 1,000 yards." Quite confusing. How could it have been almost 5,000 yards and under 1,000? Or is one of the terms incorrect?
  • That's got to be wrong. Sturm?
    • Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• I see "yards" and "yd" here, which I imagine should also be made consistent throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a lot of both, Sturm, so I'm not sure which way you want to go. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Too many abbr=on in the conversion templates. Removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Furious: Five of the seven paragraphs here start with the ship's name. It would be nice if a little more variation was present.
    • Don't think the comma after Captain Troubridge is helpful.
    • Refs 32 and 48 need to have pp. in the cite, not p., since they cover multiple pages. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
      • All done, thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Provisional support – Overall, this was a good read and I'm satisfied that this meets the FA criteria after the comments above were addressed. After an image review is completed, this can be considered a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Support fully now that an image review has been completed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Query Nice read, interesting topic

• "Four single QF 2-pounder pom-poms were installed after in 1927". after what in 1927?
  • after -> aft
    • Rephrased as all I know is that they were added by that date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• "lacked an island to minimise any turbulence over the flight deck" I'd have thought the opposite was the case - in order to minimise turbulence it was built without an island.
  • Used your word order
• I'm curious as to why 36 planes needed a much larger Air group than 48. Would you mind checking that?
  • I see it ... 468 in the air group for the 36 planes as against 403 for the 48. Sturm? - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Different dates, meaning different aircraft types. Also the carriers rarely had a full load of aircraft until about '41. Forex, Courageous only had 24 aircraft aboard when she was sunk in 1939.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Some of the linkage could be improved. Egypt for example could be piped to the Desert Air Force or its precursor
  • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise as far as prose and completeness its about there, (though I haven't checked MOS or sources). Nice work. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Questions/comments from Ling
  • I read a few paragraphs, and saw a relatively large number of compound sentences without a comma between the independent clauses. As far as I know, comma placement there is fairly firm rule. I changed one instance, but refrained from altering others for fear of offending. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You never offend, Ling. Garner's and Chicago support a comma between independent clauses except when the clauses are short and connected in meaning. MOS is silent. I don't generally insist because it's a battle I'll never win ... and maybe I shouldn't win it, since many of these commas are disappearing in even well-copyedited prose. Having said that: your request is perfectly reasonable, and has solid support in style guides. If you want to insert more commas, please feel free, and if any truly offend me, I'll pluck them out. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Tks. I didn't mention the short clause thing because it's relatively rare: "Eat more fruit and live longer" etc. I think the boundary is usually three or maybe maybe maybe four words. I'll salt 'n pepper the article with commas some day soonish. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "were ordered withdrawn" – I'm assuming this is OK in BritEng? AmerEng = "were ordered to withdraw". – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "263 Squadron was flown off and their own aircraft attacked targets" ambiguous on two counts. I'm assuming "their own aircraft" = the aircraft officially associated with the vessels.. Is there a specific military term for this sort of unit? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, organic. Changed to use that term, but I'm still not sure that it's entirely clear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Transverse arresting gear was fitted sometime during the mid-1930s" but then two paragraphs down "In the early 1930s, transverse arresting gear was installed".. why are we jumping around in time? Actually, there seems to be more than one instance of it: "She was given a more extensive refit from January to May 1939" but next paragraph "'Courageous was recommissioned on 21 February 1928" – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not sure about these. Sturm? Also, great edits Ling, but I'm not sure about "Hunter-killer Groups". - Dank (push to talk) 11:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Um, they're discussing two different ships. Hunter-killer groups is fine because it's a compound adjective although I've seen it used with and without the hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
        • You had that term, Ling capitalized it ... not sure if it should be capitalized, and if so, "K" should be uppercase. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Oh, no, it shouldn't be capitalized as it's a generic name. I'm not sure that it was ever a formal designation, more like a role.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, the time warp... I missed that it was discussing different ships. Hey... is there a way to make that a bit more salient? Just very generally, several sentence start with the name of the ship in italics, and the names are similar (well, semantically, though not morphologically).. so they tend to blur together... It's not recommended to have such repetitive sentence beginnings anyhow... is there any way to help readers keep track.. like "The difference between Courageous and Furious" or "While Courageous was doing this, Furious was doing that.." or.. something better than those, with the same function.. a bit like Shakespeare did to remind the audience where the play was set: "Something is rotten in Denmark".... I think separate sub- sub- sections for each ship would probably be overkill, though... – Ling.Nut3 (talk)
      • I see your point. I don't have a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The whole article is laid out on a ship-by-ship basis (or the two later conversions vs the first). I suppose that I could distinguish between them by using subheadings in the operational history section if you think that that would help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Do whatever you think best (or do nothing at all). I did notice that it takes a while before the reader knows which three ships we're discussing. Would you be averse to somehow listing the names of the ships in the first para of the lede? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Not at all. Somebody's already added their names to the second sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support images all free and check ok, with tweaks already made, I support. PumpkinSky talk 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Great to get support from an expert, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 28 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 15:47, 2 June 2012 [26].

---

Andromeda (constellation)

Nominator(s): Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's been thoroughly worked up by Hurricanehink (GA) and Malleus Fatuorum (PR) and I think it's the most comprehensive treatment of the subject on the Internet. Thanks for your consideration and reviews. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Support with minor modifications. I am reviewing on 1a-e; though without paraphrasing/verification check. Iridia (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Andromeda is most prominent during autumn evenings in the Northern Hemisphere" - clarify that it is too far north to be visible in most of the Southern Hemisphere, per WP:SYSTEMATIC - I notice this was brought up in the GA review. "Due to its northern declination, it can only be viewed as far south as 37 deg latitude, southward of which it is below the horizon." Or some such.

• Added a similar sentence, how does it look now?

• That's fine. Technically it can't be viewed southward of 53 deg, not 40: the equation is phi - 90; but that allows for the ten degrees or so of stuff like trees that tends to obscure the horizon, so it seems reasonable. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, all the amateur astronomy books I have say 40 degrees; that's probably their assumption. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "founded Mycenae, originating the Persideae dynasty" - 'originating' is a little awkward.

• Reworded as "founded Mycenae and its Persideae dynasty".

• "although it is now defined as a specific region of the sky including both Ptolemy's pattern and the surrounding stars" - probably worth clarifying that being defined as a specific region of the sky is how all modern constellations are defined, eg. "although like all modern constellations, it is"

• I like that wording, so I went with it.

• The para on Hubble's use of M31 is oddly placed; it should be together with its subject further down.

• I'm concerned here about cluttering up the deep-sky objects section; do you think that would be a problem?

• Not in the slightest. It is an important galaxy. Suggest after the collision para. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I moved it there. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• "An Arab constellation called "al-Hut" (the fish)" - better suited to the other cultures section.

• I moved it to before the Hindus. Is that an ok placement?

• "Andromeda does not contain any globular clusters or bright nebulae because of its location above the plane of the Milky Way. However, because it lies in a direction away from our home galaxy, Andromeda is home to many galaxies and planetary nebulae." Several issues here. Clarify that the constellation doesn't contain any of the Milky Way's globular clusters or nebulae. Clarify that the plane of the Milky Way is dense with stars and obscuring gas. Clarify that the area of sky is not near the plane. Clarify which objects are within and without the Milky Way. There is that big gorgeous image of M31 over on the right which is then immediately discussed, and that's also 'Andromeda'. I think within this section, it should only be referred to as M31, never Andromeda Galaxy or even Great Galaxy, to prevent reader confusion.

• OK, I've reworded that part to reflect this. I've also tried to clarify when I'm talking about the constellation and when I'm talking about the galaxy, but I'm a little wary of becoming redundant. Would you mind taking another look at this section?

• I tweaked a little. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• wikilink Messier 31

• Done.

• "However, it was centuries before the first observations of M31 were made with a telescope" - so as soon as telescopes were invented, it was observed. That's not really surprising....

• Obvious sentence is obvious. I rewrote it as "M31 was first observed telescopically shortly after its invention by Simon Marius, who observed it in 1612."

• "The Andromeda Galaxy's two main companions" - This paragraph offers a nice opportunity to lead into some missing information: M31 and its neighbours show extensive interaction and there are many more dwarf galaxies there than the ones that are mentioned. A plot like this to illustrate would be great (consider asking the authors if the copyright isn't immediately clear).

• There's no obvious copyright or lack thereof for that image. I've searched through Commons and found nothing like that. I did dig up some information on M31's satellites and added a couple sentences.

• In that case, drop the contact author on that paper a nice email asking if a version of the figure could be made available, as it's for outreach (astro jargon for 'telling the public what we do'). The interaction covers such a large area of the sky (which was the main finding of that PANDaS survey) that it counts as significant in the constellation. Nice work adding the info on the satellites. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've sent Jenny Richardson an email. We shall see! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not overly comfortable about the use of Universe Today, Space.com and Meteor Showers Online when peer-reviewed papers on the meteor shower are likely to exist. Was an ADS search done for that?

• I've replaced the Universe Today citation and the Meteor Showers Online citation. However, the Space.com article is by Peter Jenniskens, who wrote one of the other sources I replaced it with. Nevertheless, I can find another citation for that information if you want.

• I see from other citations (including in that paragraph) that you have access to his major book; can that be used to cite all the information instead? If it can't, in that case it can stand. Thank you for adding the AJ paper. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I actually only have access through Google Books right now, though I know the book is in the local community college's library. I'll see what I can do in the next few days - I'm a bit busy until Tuesday. Since the FAC will likely still be running then, is it OK if we let it stand now and I run off and get the book in a few days? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• "representing astrologically something honorable" - something?

• Yeah, that's as specific as the source got. I reworded it as "representing honor in astrology and a great general in mythology".

• - much better

• The External links could probably be pruned more tightly.

• I cut it down to two.

Nice tight summary of what could be quite an overwhelming topic. Iridia (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Reference: Ridpath 2001 does not exist in Bibliography

• I see it there; it's the second entry for Ridpath. Am I missing something?

  The year was given as 2007 in the Bibliography, so I fixed it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Oops, thanks Malleus. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reference: Bakich is formatted differently, not harv

• I think Malleus fixed that recently. Is it resolved now?

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• A Complete Manual of Amateur Astronomy: Tools and Techniques for Astronomical Observations is mentioned twice in Bibliography. I realized this while fixing a ref
• Rey, H. A. (1997) is not used.
• Organization: "In non-Western astronomy" can be merged in "History and mythology" as its History and mythology is discussed there too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed Rey and one of the Manuals; I also made "In non-Western astronomy" a subsection for "History and mythology". Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

fix "Koed & Sherrod 2003". No Koed now??? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm. That's weird. I added Koed back, should be fixed. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed the ref sequence. Now harv link is fixed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support - Would it be possible to create paragraphs in the lead? Readability is difficult. The star list would also be much clearer with a line break between each entry, in edit mode it's quite difficult to navigate (a sea of unbroken text). The meteor shower should be briefly mentioned in the lead. Content and referencing look very good. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I put breaks in the lead and the list. I hope that helps. I also added a sentence about the Andromedids to the lead. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the break in the lead, having introduced the paragraphs. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Would be nice if a way could be found to avoid repetition of the word 'shower' so close together, perhaps pipe Andromedids or think of another word for the second instance (...annual event..?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I reworded that sentence as " Andromeda is the location of the radiant for the Andromedids, a weak meteor shower that occurs in November." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Commnent - Footnotes #27, 57, 59 contain links to refs, but the links do not work. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrm, they work for me. Not sure what's going on here. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed them. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be why. Thank you so much! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment First impressions are very good. Do we know roughly when Andromeda was first described as a constellation, yearwise? I think the earliest year mentioned in the article is 1787; it is mentioned that it is included in the work of Ptolemy, but a rough year would be good. Were there any earlier mentions? Simon Burchell (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of hard for us to pin down. I'm pretty sure the first writing we can find is Ptolemy, but a similar figure was mentioned in Babylonian works, as is mentioned in the "Non-Western astronomy" section. As of right now, the only date mentioned is in reference to the Almagest as "2nd century", and this is as specific as my sources get. What do you think? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that's all there is - but it would be good to mention the 2nd century in the "History" section as well as the lead. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• Lead: 1st sentence: I'd recommend that the first two sentences be flipped, so the 1st sentence says "A is a constellation in the N hemisphere representing a princess ...; and the 2nd sentence says "It is one of the 48 ...".

• I'm a bit wary of doing that as it was that way before the GA review and I was asked to change it then. Maybe a 3rd opinion would be nice? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• China/Hindu confusion: "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance, and were also part of a similar constellation in Hindu mythology. " - Needs to be clarified. as it stands, it implies that Hindu Mythology is a subset of Chinese astronomy.

• Reworded as "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance; a constellation related to Andromeda also exists in Hindu mythology." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reword: " ... a weak November shower." - I know what you mean here, but that may throw some readers for a loop. Maybe "a weak meteor shower which occurs in November".

• Rewrote as "Andromeda is the location of the radiant for the Andromedids, a weak meteor shower that occurs in November." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reword: "in the Greek tradition, a female figure in Andromeda's place .." - What does "place" mean here? in that location in the sky? or in that position in the tradition?

• Location; this female figure was a fertility goddess. I subbed in "location" for "place". Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Confusing: "American astronomer Edwin Hubble included what was then known as the Andromeda Nebula in his groundbreaking 1923 research on galaxies." - (1) this could be read as the Nebula is the constellation; (2) I think the narrative here is shifting from the constellation to its most important component: the galaxy, correct? If so, that shift needs to be explicit.

• Yes, it is switching temporarily. I added "now known as the Andromeda Galaxy" as a parenthetical phrase. Does that help some? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Consider a disambig hatnote at the top of the article: especially for contrast to Andromeda galaxy.

• Good idea, I've implemented that. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Deep-sky objects - Flip first 2 sentences: order should be: (1) A is not in the plane of our MW galaxy, but instead is "above" the plane: (2) thus the stuff from MW is not within A's borders; (3) thus A contains mostly things far away.

• Makes sense to me! Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify: "It is an enormous – 192.4 by 62.2 arcminutes ..." - I presume the "enormous" is referring to the apparent size in the sky, not the absolute size?

• Yes, apparent size. I rewrote as "192.4 by 62.2 arcminutes in apparent size". Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wording: "Despite being visible to the naked eye, the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E." - Not sure what "despite" does here. Perhaps reword to "..was not recorded until .." if that is the intention?

• I wrote "despite" to indicate that the ancient astronomers could definitely see it, they just did not record it in any surviving atlases. Should that still be changed? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wording: ", but that connection is somewhat disputed." - I think "somewhat" should be removed.

• Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Star list: The list of stars probably cannot be improved upon, although lists are a bit off-putting. Consider moving it to the bottom of the article?

• I could potentially prosify it, but I feel like it would end up being the same thing, just without bullet points. Not to be argumentative (I feel like I'm being so!) but I did want to group all of the objects - stars and deep-sky. I'm also not sure what moving the stars would do to the flow of the article. Perhaps moving the "Non-Western astronomy" section to after "History and mythology" would help with this. Thoughts? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree a bullet approach is acceptable. I was thinking of moving the "Objects" section to the bottom; and the "stars" subsection to the bottom within Objects. But it is not a show-stopper for FA. --Noleander (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, or perhaps just moving it to after "Deep-sky objects". What do you think is the most useful? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Either way seems okay. Aesthetically, in my opinion, all bullet lists should be pushed as far towards the bottom of the article as practical. --Noleander (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ambiguity: "M32, visible with a far smaller size of 8.7 by 6.4 arcminutes,.." - Not clear what other object is being compared for "smaller". The prior sentence names several objects.

• Clarified that it's being compared to M110. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Standard layout of stars? - Based on the illustrations in the article, it appears that there is not a standard (uniform, universal) layout of how the lady's body aligns with the stars. That should probably be mentioned somewhere. Or say something like "A's body is typically represented as ... or sometimes as ..." or similar.

• I mentioned after the bit about the Almagest that we get our typical depiction there but it's fairly varied. I cited that to Staal because he offers a comparison of several different depictions. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Link: for "88 modern constellation" - add link to List of constellations.

• Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Obsolete? - "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four .." - Does that imply that those consts are no longer used in China? If so, reword to "In traditional Chinese astronomy ... " or something to distinguish from modern.

• Yes, they're obsolete, everyone's on board with the IAU's definitions now. I clarified that in the article. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unqualify: " The most famous deep-sky object in Andromeda is the spiral galaxy named ..." - Probably should remove "deep-sky".

• Done; I figure the section heading should be enough. I left the link to Deep-sky object and just piped with "object". Is that OK? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Images -> commons: Image File:Andromedaurania.jpg is in WP, not in the commons. Not sure if FA requires that images be in commons (except for images requiring fair-use notes). In any case, it should be moved to commons.

• I moved it and left a {{Now Commons}} tag. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, FAC doesn't require that all non-fair-use images be in Commons, but of course it's preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Changed to "Support" based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support – Thank you for addressing my concerns. Comments – It looks good but I have a few concerns:

• "Since then, it has remained a constellation...": contains two consecutive uses of "now". Also, you might compare to the third paragraph of Taurus (constellation)#Characteristics.

• I've removed one of the instances. Do you think a paragraph like that would be beneficial? I'm quite willing to write one. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's your call really. I just thought the article may benefit from some more information about the IAU conventions and when they came to be. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "She was chained to a rock ... who used the head of Medusa to turn the monster into stone and subsequently married Andromeda...": subject change. Please move the "subsequently married Andromeda" into the "The myth recounts that the couple..." sentence.

• Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• "...but has since become obsolete": I think a better statement would be that it was not widely adopted.

• Reworded. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think A0p class should probably be linked to Ap and Bp stars.

• Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• L_☉ is jargon that should be linked to solar luminosity.

• Linked. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• It calls "δ And" a "K3 class[10] orange giant"; orange is redundant here. Also, why is this one identified as a giant but not the earlier giant and bright giant stars?

• Removed "orange"; I was going on what my sources gave me. Only one (Ridpath, I think) classified them as "giant" or not. I'm not sure what database, if any, would have that data. I'll keep searching. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Usually you can get the spectral classification from SIMBAD. Most of the star articles have a link to that database, or you can go there and do a lookup.

• "μ And is a white star"; "π And is a blue-white binary star"; "56 And is ... a G-type (yellow) giant ... secondary is a K-type (orange) giant". Can the star classifications be presented in a consistent manner?

• What did you have in mind? I see several options for this. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The concern I have with listing the colors is that they are very subjective. The color can vary depending on the size of the scope, nearby comparison stars, and the observer. By comparison, stellar classification is more objective because it's based on the spectrum/temperature. I'd suggest listing at least the general stellar class (A-type, K-type, ...) and the name of the luminosity class (main sequence, giant, bright giant, ...). I don't think "orange giant" is standard usage and may even be confusing to some; to me it seems better to say something like "orange-hued giant star of type K0", for example.

• • OK, I've implemented this. What do you think? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Good enough. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The constellation of Andromeda lies well away from the galactic plane, so it does not contain any of the globular clusters or bright nebulae of the Milky Way": being located away from the galactic plane has little to do with whether it has any globular clusters. It does have to do with whether it has any open clusters.

• Fixed, not sure what happened there... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• "Because of its distance in the sky from the band of obscuring dust, gas, and abundant stars of our home galaxy, Andromeda's borders contain many distant galaxies": the lack of attenuation is why they're visible; it's not the reason they exist.

• That's kind of important. Clarified. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The Andromeda Galaxy is the most distant object visible to the naked eye": well not quite; see the second sentence in Triangulum Galaxy#Visibility and nomenclature, along with the footnotes.

• Can I qualify it as "one of the most distant objects"? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That works for me. Thanks. RJH (talk)

• "Despite being visible to the naked eye, the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E. by the Arab astronomer al-Sufi...": He saw it even though it is visible to the naked eye? The wording might need a tweak.

• Hmm, I think I was trying to say that it wasn't mapped until 964. I've reworded as "was not recorded until 964 C.E. when the Arab astronomer al-Sufi wrote his book...". Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'm done. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Can someone go outside, take a photo of the constellation, and annotate it. Dutydata (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a pic at File:Andr.png that could potentially be adopted for this purpose, much like File:TaurusCC.jpg. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'll annotate it (probably in Paint or something) within a few days. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've annotated that image and uploaded it. I inserted it into the article in the "Stars" section, as that seemed to make the most sense. You can view the image at File:Andromeda annotated.png. Is this good now? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments, a few brief comments for now, maybe more later if time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with RJH that something on 'the IAU conventions and when they came to be' would be useful. It should be possible to find out the year or approximate year that the IAU began publishing the modern definitions of constellations (and specifically the definition of Andromeda). This is something I've tried to look up on Wikipedia before, and it is something that does seem to be lacking generally from Wikipedia articles. Whether this is because the IAU stuff is mostly not online or is just too obscure, I'm not sure.

• I did add the stuff about the boundaries and symbols from the IAU website, as suggested by RJH. It's in the last paragraph of "History and mythology". Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  That looks good, thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The 'Urania's Mirror' picture is not (as far as I can tell) an example of non-Western astronomy, so shouldn't be used in that section. There is a fair amount of information available about Urania's Mirror, so you could double-check the year as more recent research might have clarified that.

• I've moved the image to the "History and Mythology" section and made both Hevelius and Urania's Mirror smaller. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  And now I'm wondering if it is possible to have an image for the non-Western astronomy section... Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I can't find anything on Commons, but I could definitely annotate that same file with the diagrams for the non-Western constellations per my sources. Would that work? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• The image caption for the Johannes Hevelius depiction should include the year of publication, or some other indication of when it dates from.

• Done. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem to have been done? The image file says 1690, but it is the article image caption that I'm looking to see that date in. Also best to check whether the image scanned here is from the original (first) edition, or a later edition and/or state. Some of these celestial atlases went through a large number of editions and/or states, with errors corrected and/or added over the years. Though that sort of detail is mainly of interest to those who collect such publications, some of which fetch quite a lot of money! Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  I could have sworn I did that...Damn wiki eating my edits. It should have gone through now! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Neither the Urania's Mirror depiction nor the Hevelius depiction are mentioned in the main text of the article. It is unclear whether these are random depictions picked out to illustrate the article because they were available, or whether they were chosen for a reason. In general, it is the history of the constellation that seems to be lacking in this article. Between the time of Ptolemy and the IAU there is a vast span of history for this and other constellations. It would be possible to write a paragraph or two about some of the more famous celestial atlases that were published (such as Bode's 'Uranographia and Bayer's Uranometria and Flamsteed's Atlas Coelestis), and how the depiction of Andromeda varied between them. There is some published literature on this, though again rather obscure. I'll try and dig out some references if I have time. There is also the Poeticon astronomicon of Hyginus.

• I would really appreciate that as I don't have anything in that detail. If you don't have time to find those references, could you perhaps point me in the right direction? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• You might also want to check the orientation of the Hevelius and Urania's Mirror images. The orientation between them isn't consistent (as can be seen from the position of the head and feet and the Triangulum constellation). I'm not sure what the convention is on Wikipedia articles, but if the image orientation (direction of celestial north) is different to that of the constellation diagram in the infobox, the image caption should mention this to avoid confusion.

• I'm pretty sure there's a sentence in there about how different stars were used to represent different parts of our chained lady here. I'm actually really concerned about the Urania's Mirror images now, as I did some research and found where I believe they were taken from [27]. The author (Ian Ridpath) states that the images there - identical to the set uploaded by User:Urania's Muse - is under copyright, even though the cards were created in 1825. I'm not an expert on copyright, as all I know is that close paraphrasing and copying is bad, but this smells fishy. I'm not entirely sure what to do here. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  It is unlikely that they are still under copyright if they were published circa 1825. He may be referring to the scans he made being copyrighted, which is not true for 2D material (it is true for 3D material, or angled shots of 2D material), but it is more courteous to scan from originals than to take someone else's scans of public domain material without permission (if the scans are from from someone else's website, rather than scanned from originals that someone owns, that absolutely has to be stated and acknowledged on the image page - even if copyright can't be asserted over the scans, the source has to be credited to establish provenance (the image equivalent of WP:SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT FROM). If you are concerned, do get someone to check that. About the orientation, I'm not talking about different stars being placed in different parts of the Andromeda figure (or even in adjacent constellations), but the east-west orientation. The Hevelius image is the constellation as seen when looking at the celestial sphere from the outside (west at left, east at right). All the other images show Andromeda as seen from the inside of the celestial sphere, i.e. as seen from looking up into the sky from the surface of the Earth (west at right, east at left). Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, that makes sense. And explains why I never work at CCI! I've specified in the captions where the constellation is being viewed from now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• You may have room for another picture. Maybe of the meteor shower, or an example of a deep-sky object not visible to the naked eye (I'm sure there is a gorgeous Hubble image around somewhere of one of those objects)?

• I put in a lovely image of the Blue Snowball Nebula. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• One more thought: are there any published figures on the number of stars and deep-sky objects in this constellation as recorded in various modern catalogues?

• Not in the sources I have right now. Maybe Burnham's Celestial Handbook? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  The reason I asked is that something should be said (briefly) on how the perception of the universe changed over time, from stars thought to be contained on a crystal sphere in unchanging skies, to the modern view that space is immense with the stars varying distances from Earth, and the telescope revealing steadily more and more stars (the numbers increasing as you go from the first telescopes up to the modern era), with today's telescopes revealing the deep-sky objects. The trouble is, I think most catalogue statistics on this tend to cover the whole sky (numbers of stars of each magnitude and so on), not individual constellations. But I thought something should be said on how perceptions and numbers changed over time (from x stars identified by Ptolemy, to the numbers in a modern catalogue). The same can be said of each constellation, and the overall history is covered at celestial cartography, but there may be some way to touch on this without overdoing it.

  The other thoughts were: identifying the nearest object to Earth in this constellation (presumably one of the foreground stars), and the direction of this view relative to the solar system and the Milky Way. i.e. Do planets pass through this constellation or not (i.e. zodiacal or non-zodiacal constellation), have supernovae, or novae, or gamma-ray bursts been observed in this constellation. What I'm imagining is those zoom-out images you have of the Sun and solar system seen from a distance relative to the rest of the galaxy and universe, with the view of Andromeda shown as a 3D 'light' cone reaching out into the universe. What areas does that cone pass through?

  And looking at the infobox, I see the nearest star is identified there, and also the brightest star. Some infoboxes have so much information, it can't all be communicated in the text of the article, but in this case I think some of the infobox information needs to appear in the main text as well. Material that I'd include in both infobox and main article text include the area (722 square degrees) and that it is 19th among the constellations by area (and since freeform text is less restrictive than an infobox, you can compare the size to that of the Full Moon, one of the traditional comparisons, and to the smallest and largest constellations), the brightest and nearest stars (you already mention the brightest star in both infobox and article text, but the nearest star is only in the infobox), stars with planets (the infobox says ten, which begs the question which stars are these?), the three Messier objects, the three stars within 10 parsecs (some of the infobox stuff needs sources, though). One thing that confused me, the infobox says 'Main stars 4, 18' - what does that mean? Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I hope I get everything in response here. I can count all of the stars in Ptolemy's figure, then count the Bayer stars, then the Flamsteed stars, and then try to find something catalogued and put a sentence at the beginning of the Stars section. Would that work? I'd really like to put this, one of the oldest constellations, in a historical context as you've suggested, and that may be the only way to frame it. I added a sentence in the lead saying that it's not a zodiacal constellation. I haven't found anything about supernovae/novae/gamma ray bursts specifically in my sources. I can dig some information about recurrent novae up from the AAVSO, but I'm not sure that's what you're looking for. This database also lists a couple of novae in Andromeda, but I'm also not sure that they're noteworthy enough to merit a mention. What do you think about that? Furthermore, I think the "cone" issue is addressed in the discussion of its position in the sky; I don't know what else to write on that. I've added some discussion of some of the infobox material to the lead, where I feel it'll be most helpful. Is that an improvement? I also added a paragraph about Ross 248 to the Stars section. As for the exoplanets, I have written about the most notable ones in the Stars section, Upsilon Andromedae and 14 Andromedae. I honestly have no idea what the "main stars" parameter means either. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay in responding here. What you describes sounds OK (Ptolemy-Bayer-Flamsteed), as this would expand on the infobox designation 'Bayer/Flamsteed stars = 65' (that confuses me as well, is it an aggregate, or was the number the same for Andromeda in both surveys?). Bayer was 1,564 stars, Flamsteed was 2554 stars. I would suggest rather than counting the stars in Ptolemy, find a source that lists them for each of Ptolemy's constellation (or attempts to). This will all stand you in good stead for the other constellations you are planning on working on. Similarly, it would be good to find out what the 'main stars' parameter is all about, as it may be wrong and/or misleading, and that needs sorting out at the featured article level. The novae stuff I'm not too bothered about, as long as some effort has been made to look for stuff like that (you could also check 'what links here' to see if any notable objects listed in Andromeda have been linked from here, or look at the list of objects in Andromeda). Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall, some care needs to be taken to get the balance right between the article being a history of the concept and nature of the constellation, and a whistle-stop tour of objects contained in the constellation. With a bit more of the history, I think the balance could be improved. The most critical bit, in my view, is pinning down the year the modern definition of the constellation was defined by the IAU, and then fleshing out a bit more of the history that preceded that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments am happy with balance etc. reading through now. Will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd rejig the second para of the lead - at the moment you mention binaries, then M31, then a binary, then some galaxies. The objects flow better according to type.

I reordered it; better now? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Err, I rejigged again - "Several binaries..." is really vague. So I stuck in Mirach and Almach (I recall this colourful binary as a popular target for binocs or small telescopes). Was tempted to add a line about Ross 248 too but am ok either way on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank you! That looks excellent. I'll leave Ross 248 for the body; I don't think it'd add anything particularly special to the lead anyways. I did switch it to American spelling for consistency though. My English family are rolling over in their graves... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

....is the 9th closest star to Earth..... - easier on the eyes as "ninth"

Fixed. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In the Deep-sky objects section you have Almach linking to alpha And (mixup?)

Fixed. Oops. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

M31 is often referred to as a twin sister to the Milky Way,... - I'd drop the "sister" unless part of the source... ok, not hugely fussed either way.

Language like that is pretty common in amateur astronomy texts, and though I don't have the source in front of me, I'm fairly sure Wilkins and Dunn referred to the two as twin sisters. If you still feel it's unencyclopedic, I can remove it; it's not a big deal. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering if there is a tad too much detail on M31 here....but not a big issue.

What can I say, I'm an astronomy fangirl! :) What would you suggest removing? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the History and mythology section needs a one liner about how several neighbouring constellation are part of the Perseus myth.

I stuck a sentence after the retelling of the myth so the reader's aware of who all the characters are. Is that good? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, looking good on prose and comprehensiveness Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• FN17: formatting, vs 18
• FN20: use dashes for ranges
• No citations to Koed or Rey. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed Rey but there was one incorrectly formatted citation to Koed.
• I fixed source 17 and checked the others for similar problems. Everything should be in order now.
• I also fixed the dash thing. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi Keilana, I don't think we've 'met'... ;-) Can you point me to a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing on one of your previous FAC noms? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, nice to meet you! [shakes hands] My previous FAC noms were Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannon and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices. Cannon got a source review from GrahamColm and the clocks got a source review from Nishkid64. I remember them going through every source and pointing out problems with verifiability and accuracy, which I'm assuming is what you're asking for. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, those go back a ways, don't they...?! We'd better have one here -- I'll list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been a long while for sure! Given that most of my sources are dead trees, I can provide stuff for anyone who needs to verify them. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Can do, but not till Thursday. Happy to make way for anyone quicker off the mark. Tim riley (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Source spot check

There are a few queries below, with regard to which I add this disclaimer: I am to astronomy what whales are to hang-gliding, and my queries probably come under the heading of "ask a silly question".

• Hoskin & Dewhirst
  • 35a – fine
  • 35b - fine
• Bakich
  • 3a – text says 0h 47m; source says 0h 46m
  • 3b – fine
  • 6a – fine
  • 6b – fine
  • 7 – fine
  • 17a – fine
  • 17b – fine
  • 18 – fine
  • 50 – the figure 3.5 is there on p. 51, but not the statement that it is one of the brightest deep-sky objects in the northern sky (but see my disclaimer, above)
  • 60 – fine
• Ridpath
  • 26a – text says "magnitude of 2.06"; source says "2.1"
  • 26b – fine
  • 26c – fine
  • 26d – fine
  • 26e – fine
  • 26f – fine
  • 26g – source doesn't say apparent magnitude, but (see disclaimer) this may go without saying to anyone who knows anything about astronomy. I see the source here contradicts the source at ref 42, but, again perhaps that is within the usual range of precision in such matters.
  • 26h – fine
  • 26i – fine
  • 26j – fine
  • 26k - fine
• Thompson and Thompson
  • 11a – fine
  • 11b – fine
  • 11c – fine
  • 11d – fine
  • 11e – fine
  • 11f – fine
  • 11g – fine
  • 11h – fine
  • 11i – fine
  • 11j – fine
  • 11k – fine
  • 11l – fine
  • 11m – fine
  • 11n – fine
  • 11o – fine
• Moore
  • 14a – fine
  • 14b – fine
  • 14c – fine
  • 14d – fine
  • 14e – fine
  • 14f – fine
  • 14g – I couldn't track the "6 other Mira variables" in the source, but see disclaimer
  • 14h – fine
  • 14i – fine
  • 14j – fine
  • 14k – the source is correctly quoted as to the figures, but doesn't say that this is Andromeda's "most celebrated" open cluster
  • 14l – figures are correctly quoted, but (disclaimer again) the source doesn't say that the figures "mak[e] it a tighter cluster than NGC 752". That's probably obvious, but I just mention it.
  • 14m – fine
  • 14n – fine.

Most of the information in the above sources consists of figures, and except where mentioned in my review is correctly quoted. References to prose text are accurate but without any close paraphrasing. – Tim riley (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought. I forgot to add this while I still had the books before me, but I noticed that there were spelling differences between the various sources. For instance, Almach was (from memory) rendered Almaak by, I think, Ridpath. I wonder if these orthographical discrepancies might be mentioned in the relevant parts of the article, or would that be needless clutter? Merely a thought. And I ought to have added, and now do, that I am as hugely impressed by the article in toto as a layman has any right to be. Loud applause! Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! For 3a, I just looked it up on Google books and it says 0h46m. Not sure what's up with that. For 50, I think that explicit fact was in another source and got lost in the shuffle, but it can easily be implied from the table in Bakich which lists the Messier objects and their brightness; the Andromeda Galaxy is clearly very very bright in comparison. For 26a, I'm pretty sure that number came from Moore, but Google books doesn't have the preview and I had to return it to the library. Should I change it to 2.1? For 26g, "apparent" magnitude is implied, it's in contrast to "absolute" magnitude. When an astronomy text gives a magnitude without specifying, it's assumed to be the "apparent magnitude", the brightness as visible from the Earth. For 14g, I just counted the other major Mira variables in the source; Moore specifically stated in the introduction that he lists all the major variable stars in each constellation. For 14k, I believe that came from Thompson, but that went back to the library with Moore. Should I remove it? And for 14l, that comes from its listed classification; I just compared the two. As for the spelling issues, I considered putting them in but since they sound phonetically the same, I didn't want to clutter the article with a million different (sometimes terrible) transcriptions/corruptions of Arabic phrases.Thanks again for the excellent, thorough review! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• 3a - yes, the source does indeed say 0h46, but your text in the infobox says 0h47.
• 26a - I had the source before me this morning and, yes, I think you ought to change to 2.1.
• If you are happy with 14k I shouldn't presume to quibble.

As for your other replies, above, I'd say no change to your text is called for. Compliments and regards. Tim riley (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, typing fail, I even had it right in the coordinates. I've changed to 2.1 and fixed the infobox. Thanks again! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on ENGVAR This article has used American English from its inception, and, as written contained for several years a sentence which mentioned that the constellation was named for the goddess. In 2008 the article was changed to say the constellation was named after the goddess. While both forms exist in American English, 'for' is more common in that dialect whereas 'after' predominates enormously in British English. For me, "named after" currently reads a little awkwardly. --John (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed this. Thanks for the comment! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I tightened the lead and made a couple of other minor changes. It's a lovely article and I think I now support. --John (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Following on from John's comment, we have "neighbor" and "neighbour" and "color" and "colour" -- perhaps there are other Engvar conflicts... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I Americanised one "neighbouring" and am cross with myself for missing another. The "colour" is in a quote. I didn't spot any other Anglicisms in the text, and I have fed the text through a spell-checker using American spelling and nothing untoward came up. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, well I overlooked that "colour" was in a quote, so don't be too hard on yourself... ;-) Tks for dealing with that, Tim, and for the spotcheck. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Glad to be of use. What's the etiquette with your request at WT:FAC? Do I delete it or do you? Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Tim. I am happy for you to delete the request. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Tks for reminding me -- there's no ceremony to it, whoever gets there first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's note - Have I missed an image review? I don't foresee any problems except, possibly, the chart used as the Lead image. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Graham, images appear to have been checked by various reviewers, if not in one hit. I double-checked myself and all appear okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Graham Colm (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 15:35, 2 June 2012 [28].

---

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album)

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I created the article back in 2009, brought it to GA status, and now feel that it meets the FA criteria. The article is relatively short but I believe that it is a comprehensive account of an interesting storybook album. Pyrrhus16 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 3: page(s)? Volume/issue number?
• FN 6: is this the online or print version? Missing some details here
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books or not
• Is there not a better source for release date than Box Office Mojo? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Added
• It was an online ref that went dead. I've now changed the ref to a book source.
• Removed the one location to make all book refs consistent.
• Changed ref to an article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Thanks for your comments, Pyrrhus16 18:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 comments

Resolved comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Support - Short but sweet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Opening sentence is a mouthful—trying to fit too much into it?

"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is an audiobook and soundtrack album narrated by American recording artist Michael Jackson for the 1982 Steven Spielberg-directed blockbuster film of the same name. The album was produced by music composer Quincy Jones and distributed under MCA Records. The production of the audiobook brought Jackson together with several former collaborators and acquaintances, such as Rod Temperton, Freddy DeMann and Bruce Swedien."

What I first saw was "Steven Spielberg-directed", which American style guides suggest might be "Steven Spielberg–directed", to avoid the other proper typography, which is two hyphens (try to avoid, I think). OR reword it and solve the long-sentence problem:

"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is an audiobook and soundtrack album for the 1982 blockbuster film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Narrated by American recording artist Michael Jackson, the album was produced by music composer Quincy Jones and distributed under MCA Records. The production of the audiobook brought Jackson together with several former collaborators and acquaintances, such as Rod Temperton, Freddy DeMann and Bruce Swedien."

Just a suggestion, and you may want Jackson's name to be more thematic (i.e. in the opening sentence), which is fair enough.

• "The book also contains"—is "also" necessary?
• "which Jackson's sings on the audiobook"—typo?
• I'm unsure (any grammar nerds around?): can "had" be removed since "prior to" is announced? "Prior to the recording of the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial album, Jackson had released four solo studio albums with ..."
• "selling over 20 million copies"—well, you know me; I'd prefer "more than". But over to you (that's just a personal opinion of mine).
• "over 1 million copies"; consider "more than a million copies" ... does it flow better that way? Unsure.
• I think MoS says to regularise the typography in quotes to that pertaining in the article text (Allowable typographical changes). So could the "He's in a strange ..." have an unspaced em dash? After all, you haven't duplicated the font and font-size and justification of the original, have you! :-)
• "Both of the conditions were breached"—remove two words? then "they" is slightly wobbly, so why not, "... by MCA Records, which released, ..."?

Well, I wouldn't rave about this article in terms of prose, but I can't see that it fails cr. 1a either. Tony (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've implemented those helpful suggestions. Pyrrhus16 18:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from WWB Too: Overall I think this article is in good shape, although I do have some questions and small changes to suggest. I'm new to the FA review process, so please let me know if any of these are not things that need to be addressed here.

• Some of the material in the "Background" section seems to not be directly related to the album. Specifically, I'm thinking of the following information about Michael Jackson's previous albums:

"Following a move to Epic Records, Jackson released Off the Wall (1979). The album was a critical and commercial success, receiving favorable reviews and eventually selling more than 20 million copies worldwide."

I wonder if it would make sense to simplify the information on Jackson's previous albums a little? Here's my suggestion:

"Prior to recording the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial album, Jackson released four solo studio albums with Motown Records, as well as several with his brothers as part of The Jackson 5. In 1975, he moved to Epic Records and in 1979 released Off the Wall, to critical and commercial success."

• There are a few grammatical issues here or areas of awkward phrasing that I think need to be resolved:

• "The film tells the story of Elliott, a boy who befriends a good-natured extraterrestrial called E.T., who is stranded on Earth." --comma is not needed after E.T.

• "It was, wrote a journalist for Billboard, one of the "most ambitious" projects that MCA Records had taken on." --sounds awkward, perhaps the following wording would work better:

"In 1982, a journalist for Billboard wrote that it was one of the "most ambitious" projects that MCA Records had taken on to date."

• "Jackson later revealed in the December 1982 issue of Ebony magazine—on which both he and E.T. appear on the cover—" --should be "in which both he and E.T."

• "The promo copies of "Someone In the Dark" have since become one of the singer's rarest and most sought after singles" --should it be "sought-after"?

Based on my understanding of the FA criteria, I would say that this article passes. Great work, Pyrrhus. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've implemented them into the article. Pyrrhus16 20:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by User:TonyTheTiger

Content

• Do you know what the dimensions of the poster were?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Added. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please include metric conversion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Added the metric conversion. Pyrrhus16 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Background

• What studio made ET and did that studio have a relationship with Epic?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've added the production studio and distributor of ET. I don't believe that they had any type of relationship with Epic, and no sources that I have checked note a relationship. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't find a claim to be the greatest scifi film of all-time credible if AFI did not claim it to be one of the best scifi. Did AFI include it in their list?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• AFI rank ET as the 3rd greatest scifi film. I've added this information to the article. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Production

• I don't understand the contractual agreements that Jones and Jackson were under. Were they both free to work with any studio at the time?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• None of the Jackson books or other sources that I have seen describe the exact contractual agreements that he or Jones were under in terms of being able to work with other studios. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can you say anything about their contracts at the time. E.g. did Jackson have an X-record or Y-year contract with Epic. Was Jones working under any known contract?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid there is nothing detailing the type or length of either of their contracts at that time. Pyrrhus16 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can you name the production studio and location.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• It was likely Westlake Recording Studios, but no sources confirm or refute this unfortunately. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. That is odd.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Release and legal issues

• This section needs to begin with details of Jackson's contract with Epic that gave them the right to make a list of conditions that this album was limited to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• No sources describe the exact contractual agreements that Jackson was under that would allow Epic to make the demands and conditions that they did. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The promo copies of "Someone In the Dark" have since become one of the singer's rarest..." This should be preceded by a statement that following the violation of terms Epic demanded xyz (all copies be returned to the studio, all copies be destroyed, all copies be turned over to epic) or some such that would make the remaining copies rare.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• It might be good to state whether the promotional copies where 7" or 12" vinyls and link the appropriate articles since we are talking about some kind of collectible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is a release date possible?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are no sources that give an exact release date for this album. They only give the month and year. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Been there with "Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception

• I think this is suppose to be linked to the 26th Grammy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• This linkage is confusing. One would expect the general article in the current link and if the specific show were linked it would be expected under the 1984 as written. It would be better to move the link under 1984 or use it unpiped in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Added a link under the 1984. Pyrrhus16 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can you track down the eligibility period and explain why it was not eligible for the 25th Grammy Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Added a note detailing the eligibility period. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Were any of the other nominations for this album?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nope. There were no other nominations for this album. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please name the last two critics in this section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• The two critics are not named in the source. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I saw on your talk page that you have a Highbeam account. When I do highbeam search on the term "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" soundtrack the second thing to come up is the 20th anniversary re-release of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial with a digitally remixed soundtrack. Since you did not mention that, I am wondering how thoroughly you have researched this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The article on the 20th anniversary re-release is in regard to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (soundtrack), which is a different record. I'll look into resolving and addressing your other queries in the morning. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 22:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support I am a bit disappointed at how hard it is to find some of the details. For a album that was only briefly in circulation, this is quite a detailed article, I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support — Given the latest updates, including those following suggestions by Tony the Tiger, I think this is ready. I also know how difficult it can be to track down every possible source on a subject where sources are limited, and I'm satisfied that this represents the best kind of that effort. Impressively detailed, well-written, a great article. WWB Too (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's note - Spotchecks are still required – any volunteers? Graham Colm (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments: the rest needs scrutinising for flab.

• "while one of the extraterrestrial's fingers illuminates"—I'm pretty sure the verb is transitive only (illuminates what?).
• "This picture is further included within the album package as a ..."
• "The recording itself is contained on a 12-inch vinyl and features"
• Second "as well as" in five seconds. What about just "and" ... "Michael), as well as several with his brothers as part of The Jackson 5."
• "a then-subsidary of MCA Inc." -> "then a subsidiary of ..."
• "and it was ranked as the best science fiction film ever made in a Rotten Tomatoes survey"—ambiguous. Shift part of it to before or after "it was ranked".
• "around the same time that he began recording his sixth"
• "had previously worked with Jackson on his solo projects in the past"—can you spot the redundancy?
• "As a result of the legal restrictions which prohibited "Someone In the Dark" from being released as a single to the public"—isn't there a neater way? "As a result of the legal restrictions that prohibited the public release of "Someone In the Dark" as a single".

Tony (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Changed "illuminates" to "glows"
• Done
• Done
• Done
• Done
• Done
• Done
• Removed redundancy
• Done

Thanks for those comments. Pyrrhus16 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Source spotchecks. Well, a small sample. I don't have access to any of the books. Reference numbers based on this version. Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 1: all material covered, no plagiarism
• Refs 12, 13, 14: material covered, no plagiarism
• Refs 24, 25: material covered, no plagiarism
• Ref 37: material covered, no plagiarism

References

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