Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions
- Afrikaans
- Alemannisch
- አማርኛ
- Ænglisc
- العربية
- অসমীয়া
- Azərbaycanca
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Boarisch
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Cymraeg
- Dansk
- Deutsch
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- فارسی
- Français
- Frysk
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Ido
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Íslenska
- Italiano
- עברית
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Latviešu
- Лезги
- Lietuvių
- Magyar
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- Bahasa Melayu
- Minangkabau
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Napulitano
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Norsk nynorsk
- Олык марий
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- Pälzisch
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Română
- Русский
- Саха тыла
- Shqip
- සිංහල
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Suomi
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ไทย
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Xitsonga
- 粵語
- Zeêuws
- 中文
archived one |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Nominations== |
==Nominations== |
||
<!--Add new nominations at the top of the list below this comment. Before nominating, please make sure the article meets the FA criteria.--> |
<!--Add new nominations at the top of the list below this comment. Before nominating, please make sure the article meets the FA criteria.--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Betelgeuse/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive3}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Debora Green/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Debora Green/archive1}} |
Revision as of 14:39, 3 September 2012
- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominating
Commenting, etc
|
Nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:03, 16 October 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) & Sadalsuud (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]
This has been a massive project done in spurts over the past few years - several folks have buffed it at various times and Sadalsuud has done an amazing job incorporating large segments of fascinating material and new understanding of this star. It's had input from a number of observers and reviewers - and significant discussion on how much context to place in the article, particularly in the Angular size and Circumstellar dynamics sections but we feel to trim any more detracts from the understanding of the article. Also, we've preserved some narrative flow in storyline style in places which I think makes for easier reading. This is one article I feel most proud of being involved in, even though I felt more like a passenger at times next to Sadalsuud driving this, but anyway, read on and offer improvements. I hope folks find it enjoyable and fascinating..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NB - is a wikicup entry yes....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose for now, but hopefully issues can be addressed. Very much enjoying the article.
"Betelgeuse was measured in the mid-infrared using the Infrared Spatial Interferometer (ISI) producing a limb darkened estimate of 55.2 ± 0.5 milliarcseconds (mas)—a figure entirely consistent with Michelson's findings eighty years earlier". I think what is meant is an estimate of the star's diameter of...etc. Reader needs to be told what this is a measurement of. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"red giants dominate mass return to the galaxy creating opaque outer shells..." Speaking of "opaque"...I think readers are going to need a slightly less concise phrase than "mass return to the galaxy". There is a whole paradigmatic concept embedded in that phrase, about the life cycle of stars and the 'recycling' of mass within galactic-scale bodies, and while I'm pretty sure I knew what it meant, this summary of it leads to there being too much assumed knowledge. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reworded - is that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's plainer English, but it still doesn't seem there to me. What about something like: "The mass that makes up galaxies is recycled as stars are formed and destroyed. For decades astronomers have understood that the outer shells of red giants are central to this process, yet the actual mechanics of stellar mass loss have remained a mystery."hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I'll pay that - it's often tricky in these situations to figure out just how much to spell out vs assuming how much a reader knows. I've changed it as per above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's plainer English, but it still doesn't seem there to me. What about something like: "The mass that makes up galaxies is recycled as stars are formed and destroyed. For decades astronomers have understood that the outer shells of red giants are central to this process, yet the actual mechanics of stellar mass loss have remained a mystery."hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reworded - is that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The photosphere has an extended atmosphere which displays strong lines of emission rather than absorption, a phenomenon which occurs when a star is surrounded by a thick gaseous envelope. This extended gaseous atmosphere has been observed moving both away from and towards Betelgeuse, depending on radial velocity fluctuations in the photosphere." This text is in the "visbility" section, and I wonder if it should be in a later section on atmosphere? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes this is tricky. I was musing on the properties section, but this seems quite far down the page. As a reader, do you have an idea on where best it might go to help a new reader understand? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Need to research Perhaps this section can be reworked so it's more "visibility specific". My understanding is that thick gaseous envelopes affect our "perception" of the star (hence its visibility) through extinction, making it redder. How much, I'm not sure. I'll have to do a little research to clarify this point. Casliber, do you know?--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how I understand it - but where should it go.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what? Having re-read it, I'm not convinced there's a better place for it than where it is, and I'm striking this issue.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how I understand it - but where should it go.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Need to research Perhaps this section can be reworked so it's more "visibility specific". My understanding is that thick gaseous envelopes affect our "perception" of the star (hence its visibility) through extinction, making it redder. How much, I'm not sure. I'll have to do a little research to clarify this point. Casliber, do you know?--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes this is tricky. I was musing on the properties section, but this seems quite far down the page. As a reader, do you have an idea on where best it might go to help a new reader understand? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"As a pulsating variable star with sub-classification "SRC", researchers have offered different hypotheses to explain Betelgeuse's volatile choreography..." Either tell the reader the significance of SRC / what that means, or omit it as irrelevant (ie. "As a pulsating variable star, researchers have offered different hypotheses to explain Betelgeuse's volatile choreography...") hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The specific subclass of semiregular variable is not directly pertinent to the discussion that follows.
I will rephrase shortlyI've split the sentences to remove the direct sense of causation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The specific subclass of semiregular variable is not directly pertinent to the discussion that follows.
In the section on Angular size, para beginning "Across the Atlantic,...", there are problems. There is a long quote reportedly from Perrin. I think it should be a blockquote, not run into the para, given how long it is. Second, there is no citation for the quote. Third, if it is a quote of the 2004 paper, it is not Perrin, it is Perrin and a bunch of other co-authors. It is unethical and inaccurate to reduce these teams to a single person. Fourth, the quote contains a sentence which does not make grammatical sense: "The upper atmosphere being almost transparent in K and L—the diameter is minimum at these wavelengths where the classical photosphere can be directly seen." Fifth, "transparent in K and L". Huh? A wiklink is not enough - can we turn this term into slightly plainer english? Sixth, I cannot reconcile the final sentence of the para with the text I read in the cited source. Seventh, that source is just a uni media release, and isn't high enough quality, in my view, to support a claim about the acceptance of a theory amongst the astronomy community, even if those words were in the release. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that, given the technical "shorthand" that is used in this quote, the best solution will be to paraphrase most of it. I'll work on that right now and report back for additional comments--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Massively improved, addresing all my points. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Thanks for the feedback! While thinking about your comments, it occurred to me that I could bring additional clarity to the infrared distinctions occurring in the paragraph by redesigning the K and L band table to include a new column that will distinguish between 1) Near-Infrared, 2) Mid-Infrared and 3) Far-Infrared. It will only take a few minutes, I'll do that now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Massively improved, addresing all my points. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that, given the technical "shorthand" that is used in this quote, the best solution will be to paraphrase most of it. I'll work on that right now and report back for additional comments--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still in the Angular size section: "with minimal error factors less than 0.04 mas". There's something wrong with this phrase, and I can't work out quite what is meant. I'm not sure if the problem is the apparently redundant "minimal", the use of the plural "factors", a missing word, or all of these, but can editors have another look at this? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I avoided the term "error factor" altogether, since the concern here may be that it sounds "too technical". Now it reads "...with a comparatively insignificant margin of error (< 0.04 mas)." The subtle point here is that other measurements have an error factor of 0.3 mas, so these recent calculations are impressive! Hope this works!--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again: "encompassed a 15-year horizon at one specific wavelength". If what is meant is that they studied the star's angular size over a 15 year period, then say so. "encompassed a 15-year horizon" is ambiguous, could it could alternatively mean that some sort of averaging of 15 years of observations was being undertaken. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point! It now reads "period" instead of "horizon".--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same para: there's reference to "diminution in angular separation". When did we start talking about angular "separation"? Separation from what? Does this mean "diameter"? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! That was actually a serious error since angular separation and angular diameter, though related, are distinct concepts astronomically. To avoid redundancy, I chose the phrase apparent size which blue links to the angular diameter article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The properties section makes reference to Betelgeuse being less luminous than Deneb, and refers to the recent reassessment of Deneb's luminosity. This seems to be getting too detailed (the reader doesn't really care that Deneb's luminosity was recently reassessed), but the glaring omission is that the article hasn't told us what Betelgeuse's luminosity is. It is odd to have these figures not being discussed until the next para. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the Deneb stuff as I think it interrupts the flow more than adds to understanding.
I am just musing on whether we flip paras 1 and 2 in this section in their entirety..I've rejigged the order. Take a look now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the Deneb stuff as I think it interrupts the flow more than adds to understanding.
Same para: "Since 1943, the spectrum of this star has served ..." Read literally, "this" here refers to Deneb I think, not Betelgeuse. Was that the intention? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Betelgeuse. The Deneb mention derails things a bit and I think the section flows better with it removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why the comparison on rotational velocity with Pleione? Just because it's fast? I don't think that is a useful contrast. Either contrast it with our own star, or with another red giant (ie. another similar star), not some random star that happens to spin really fast. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chuckle! The real reason I included it was because it was the first GA I ever worked on. The two closest stars in size are Antares and Mu Cephei, but the latter has nothing listed in SIMBAD. The rotational data for Antares is from 1970. Bright Star Catalog 1991 shows it at 20km/s. I will upgrade and change to Antares.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now shows Antares along with the most recent ref.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but I'm not sure about "extremely" slow in comparison. The comparison with Pleione showed a truly massive difference, but Antares has 'only' four times the rotational velocity. I think if you just delete "extremely", then we're done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "slow" looked a little funny when left by itself, so I reworded to "much slower than Antares", though tossed up whether we needed some other words such as "compared with" to clarify the two stars' similarity...or should we take that as understood by this point in the article... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but I'm not sure about "extremely" slow in comparison. The comparison with Pleione showed a truly massive difference, but Antares has 'only' four times the rotational velocity. I think if you just delete "extremely", then we're done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"bolometric" luminosity - no wikilink, no explanation? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "bolometric" is actually redundant as the luminosity of a star is measured across all electromagnetic wavelengths (this contrasts with bolometric magnitude which is measured across all wavelengths vs apparent and absolute magnitudes which are visual spectrum only - see luminosity#Astronomy and Bolometric correction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"most investigators showing a preference for a relatively large mass ranging from 10 to 20M☉. One model reports a mass at the lower end of the scale at 14M☉, although a mass ranging from 18 to 20 is more commonplace". Which is the commoner range? 10 to 20, or 18 to 20? These appear inconsistent. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Need to research This section was originally drafted in 2010. But Mohamed 2012 may have the answer. I'll research this and update accordingly--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Research done
- Need to research This section was originally drafted in 2010. But Mohamed 2012 may have the answer. I'll research this and update accordingly--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, Mohamed2012 doesn't provide any additional clarity. So we are faced with a judgment call as editors. On page 2 of Mohamed 2012, the authors put forth a handy table of basic stellar parameters. The first on the list is Mass. But instead of resolving the debate, Mohamed quotes two distinct papers with vastly different parameters, one from Neilson 2011 showing a Mass = 11.6+5.0−3.9M⊙, the second from Smith 2009 showing Mass = 15—20M⊙, which if you were to combine the two would yield a range where Mass ≈ 7.7—20M⊙—clearly not a very good solution for our purposes.
- When you study the two underlying papers, however, you notice something interesting. The Neilson2011 document has Haubois as a co-author. Haubois is one of the astronomers who has been working with Perrin and Kervella using the VLT in Chile and arguing that a near-infrared diameter is the more accurate photosperic measurement. So the 11.6M⊙is based on the smaller photospheric measurement of 4.3AU or 955R⊙. Similarly, the 17.5±2.5M⊙is based on the research being done by the Berkeley team and is based on a photospheric measurement of 5.6AU or 1,200R⊙.
- Seeing this, I have gone ahead and edited the section on Mass, carrying forward the same theme found at the conclusion of the Angular size discussion. Since 5.5AU is still the de facto standard, I have chosen 17.5±2.5M as the standard Mass, while hinting at the Mass being considerably smaller, should consensus move in the direction of a smaller photospheric measurement. Instead of using a range as Mohamed and Smith did of 15—20M⊙, I have chosen the midpoint of 17.5M⊙, that way achieving the simplicity we're looking for.
- My initial thinking on this is that for the lay reader, "15-20M⊙" is probably more understandable than "17.5±2.5M⊙". I need to see what we've done in other articles though...good to sort out the numbers though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I read that table in Mohamed2012 too and reached a similar conclusion. I agree with Casliber that a range is probably the better way of expressing it - another option may be to directly rely on the Smith et al article, if either of you have access to it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Smith article is online here. Interestingly, it states, "At a distance of 152–197 pc, the star’s luminosity is roughly 0.9–1.5×105 L�, implying an initial mass of 15–20 M�" - note the word, "initial". Hence this might explain the discrepancy Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the material relating to mass is in better shape. In particular, the paragraph on "properties" is now clear about there being an unresolved debate, and different methodologies. What I'm not happy with is how that is currently summarised in the star infobox at the start of the article. The infobox should signal to the reader the significant uncertainty around Betelgeuse, not hide it. I think a range should be put there. Suggest it be done as 7.7—20M⊙, with Mohamed2012 as the ref, since that source has clear links back to the two major (competing) schools of thought.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That solution makes a lot of sense to me as it is the clearest expression of NPOV. So I changed it and then made a few changes to the text. The sentence in the text that starts with "Smith and colleagues calculated it..." still needs some work though. I'm not sure what the intent was behind the edit so I'll leave it as is for now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the range? It was wierd as it calculated the upper limit as possibly 5 solar masses more but lower as only 3.9 solar masses less...this was the easiest way I thought of saying it. I'm open to suggestions though... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The assymetrical range isn't wierd if the underlying formulae involve logarithmic / power scales. An equal error range in, say, percentage terms (plus/minus 20percent for example) will produce unequal quantities of solar masses. The 7.7 to 20 solution for the infobox seems like a good one to me.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the range? It was wierd as it calculated the upper limit as possibly 5 solar masses more but lower as only 3.9 solar masses less...this was the easiest way I thought of saying it. I'm open to suggestions though... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That solution makes a lot of sense to me as it is the clearest expression of NPOV. So I changed it and then made a few changes to the text. The sentence in the text that starts with "Smith and colleagues calculated it..." still needs some work though. I'm not sure what the intent was behind the edit so I'll leave it as is for now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the material relating to mass is in better shape. In particular, the paragraph on "properties" is now clear about there being an unresolved debate, and different methodologies. What I'm not happy with is how that is currently summarised in the star infobox at the start of the article. The infobox should signal to the reader the significant uncertainty around Betelgeuse, not hide it. I think a range should be put there. Suggest it be done as 7.7—20M⊙, with Mohamed2012 as the ref, since that source has clear links back to the two major (competing) schools of thought.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Smith article is online here. Interestingly, it states, "At a distance of 152–197 pc, the star’s luminosity is roughly 0.9–1.5×105 L�, implying an initial mass of 15–20 M�" - note the word, "initial". Hence this might explain the discrepancy Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I read that table in Mohamed2012 too and reached a similar conclusion. I agree with Casliber that a range is probably the better way of expressing it - another option may be to directly rely on the Smith et al article, if either of you have access to it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the size of an Australian mango"?? An Indian mango is a different size?? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has always been a tricky issue. In 2010, the Betelgeuse article used a beach ball as a metaphor, but did not provide any references. Nevertheless, the idea was intriguing, but needed some rigor... hence the subsequent calculations in the Notes section. But once you run the numbers and come up with solid ratios, you're stuck with what metaphors to use. Unfortunately no sports analogy works (cricket, baseball, etc)... hence mangos and pearls were chosen. Originally the mango article only had the photo of the Australian mango with its round shape, yellow color, and correct ratio - so not a bad analogy. But then other mango pictures started to appear all over the place... Yuk! Yuk! For simplicity sake, I suppose we can delete the word "Australian" and just say mango, leaving it up the imagination of the reader. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I just changed it to "mango". :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has always been a tricky issue. In 2010, the Betelgeuse article used a beach ball as a metaphor, but did not provide any references. Nevertheless, the idea was intriguing, but needed some rigor... hence the subsequent calculations in the Notes section. But once you run the numbers and come up with solid ratios, you're stuck with what metaphors to use. Unfortunately no sports analogy works (cricket, baseball, etc)... hence mangos and pearls were chosen. Originally the mango article only had the photo of the Australian mango with its round shape, yellow color, and correct ratio - so not a bad analogy. But then other mango pictures started to appear all over the place... Yuk! Yuk! For simplicity sake, I suppose we can delete the word "Australian" and just say mango, leaving it up the imagination of the reader. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Yet the actual mass of the star is believed to be no more than 18 to 19 Suns (M☉), with certain mass loss estimates projected at one to two Suns since birth". Two things: is the mass range really that precise according to sources? That is very narrow. Also, re "certain" - does the article mean "some" or "definite"? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once I've done the research on Mohamed 2012, I will rework this sentence as well. To a first time reader, all these Mass estimates are confusing, I'm sure. So it makes sense to clarify the issue and present an cohesive concept, even if all the refs provide different estimates. I will report back when this is done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it now reads <=20M⊙, which is consistent with the starbox and Smith ref that is used.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once I've done the research on Mohamed 2012, I will rework this sentence as well. To a first time reader, all these Mass estimates are confusing, I'm sure. So it makes sense to clarify the issue and present an cohesive concept, even if all the refs provide different estimates. I will report back when this is done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
VLT is linked three times in the text, twice more in image captions, and twice more in the table at the bottom. Is this overdoing it? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- yes. delinked some Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure water-vapour needs to be hyphenated. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- water-vapor dehyphenated Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The VLA images also showed this lower-temperature gas progressively decreasing in temperature as it extends outward—the existence of which, although unexpected, turns out to be the most abundant constituent of Betelgeuse's atmosphere". This sentence, if it can be called that, doesn't make sense, and there's a tense change part way through.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- split and converted to present tense Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"With the heliopause estimated at about 100 AU, the size of this outer shell is almost fourteen times the size of the Solar System." Can I just check - does the term "heliopause" by definition refer only to our solar system because, if not, the construction of this para would suggest the heliopause of Betelgeuse, which of course would not make sense. Alternative: "With our sun's heliopause estimated at..." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The cometary structure is estimated to be at least 1 parsec,..." Should this say "The cometary structure is estimated to be at least 1 parsec long,..."? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- not quite sure that is the case but I think so, the source isn't entirely clear on the shape....now where is Sadalsuud.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point! Given the shape of a bow shock, however, "wide" is the better adjective. It now reads "...1 parsec wide". In fact, I've noticed that other articles will often use the analogy of a boat wake to help readers visualize a bow shock. Would that be useful here? I tried finding a photo. There is a good one on Betelgeuse from ESA, but none in the public domain. The only ones in Commons are for other stars; This one might work! Thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- not quite sure that is the case but I think so, the source isn't entirely clear on the shape....now where is Sadalsuud.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just generally, i sometimes get a bit lost by the science in the later subsections of "properties", but I do think they are generally well-written, and it is mostly just a matter of concentrating. Couple of things in the supernova section. "Since the oldest subgroup in the association has an approximate age of 12 million years, the more massive stars likely had sufficient time to evolve to this stage." Which stage? I didn't get this.
- blowing up...rewritten to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...all originated with such an explosion in Ori OB1 2.2, 2.7 and 4.9 million years ago" Unless I misunderstood the meaning, this should read "...such explosions..." as there were at least three.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- pluralised Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The magnitude differences with respect to the primary, measured at 656.3 (Hα) and 656.8 nm (red continuum), were 3.4 and 3.0 for the close component and 4.6 and 4.3 for the distant component". This is one of those sentences where I feel like I needed about two or three other sentences beforehand to tell me first, what this sentence means and second, why I should care. Also, why are we talking about "components" rather than "companions"? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]And then there is reference to something called "periastron", and really, I feel the whole "star system" section could be reworked. If I read this correctly, It can be summarised thus: "Since 1985, the existence of one or more close stellar companions to Betelgeuse has been hypothesised. Although evidence exists of periodic variation in physical attributes that might be consistent with the existence of other bodies in the Betelgeuse system, they remain unconfirmed, and astronomers continue to debate their presence". That, together with the rather elegant existing final para of the section, may be all that's needed. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it! Let me rethink this section and I'll get back to you. My original intent at the time of writing was to clarify what I thought was a lot of speculation/confusion on different websites as to whether Betelgeuse had companions or not. People could not understand why the finding was announced with a lot of fanfare and then nothing for years, with everyone left in the dark. In conclusion, I probably went overboard. I'll rework it.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I agree with Hamiltonstone, really it is one study which offered some intriguing results on the possibility of a companion but has not been duplicated, so we might be giving it prominence it doesn't deserve.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now chopped in half, and the image deleted. To address your points above, I don't disagree with what each of you are saying. So if you'd like to make this section even more concise, that's fine with me. My only point is that this issue, like every other issue we've had to deal with regarding Betelgeuse has (at least) 2 schools of thought. So NPOV to me suggests we do our best to present both sides of the argument. As Haubois points out in 2009: We think we're seeing bright spots due to convection, but the possibility of stellar companions can't be ruled out. The way I've got it now, you can see the evolution in thought with references. So if anyone wants to research it further, they've got a starting point.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is much clearer and more concise now. Hamiltonstone should be along soon.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now chopped in half, and the image deleted. To address your points above, I don't disagree with what each of you are saying. So if you'd like to make this section even more concise, that's fine with me. My only point is that this issue, like every other issue we've had to deal with regarding Betelgeuse has (at least) 2 schools of thought. So NPOV to me suggests we do our best to present both sides of the argument. As Haubois points out in 2009: We think we're seeing bright spots due to convection, but the possibility of stellar companions can't be ruled out. The way I've got it now, you can see the evolution in thought with references. So if anyone wants to research it further, they've got a starting point.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I agree with Hamiltonstone, really it is one study which offered some intriguing results on the possibility of a companion but has not been duplicated, so we might be giving it prominence it doesn't deserve.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it! Let me rethink this section and I'll get back to you. My original intent at the time of writing was to clarify what I thought was a lot of speculation/confusion on different websites as to whether Betelgeuse had companions or not. People could not understand why the finding was announced with a lot of fanfare and then nothing for years, with everyone left in the dark. In conclusion, I probably went overboard. I'll rework it.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And on the same subject, I have carefully re-read the section, and can see no meaningful link between the text and the image caption: "Images from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope show that asymmetrical envelopes can trigger the formation of tightly knit binary star systems". It confirmed for that the section should be radically simplified, and my feel is that that particular image and caption can go. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]In "spelling and pronunciation", there is a spelt-out source for the first four pronunciations for the first four options, but just a footnote for the fifth. I'm not sure why that is. I'm a bit concerned that the fifth option relies on a source for pronunciation, that is almost immediately contradicted a couple of sentences later regarding the translation (source 120: "the etymon of Betelgeuse is the Arabic phrase Ibt al Jauzah, which means "Armpit of the Central One."" WP article shortly thereafter: "Betelgeuse is often mistranslated as "armpit of the central one"". But then, the source for the latter is also a 'popular science' source, as was the source for the former... Does this need more careful work? Anyway, consider dropping the fifth pronunciation optin, unless there's a better source? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- removed fifth pronunciation, as it is only a minor variant and agree a better source would be good Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now. Those notes. They are unsourced, arcane, looooong, look to this untrained eye to be original research and my initial view is that they should not be there. I am open to arguments as to why I am wrong :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya, they're a little much, I have to agree. Let me start with the short answer, then we can look at each note separately. Point #1: I don't think the notes constitute original research since they are all routine calculations–high-school math, and a few formulas from Wikipedia. Point #2: Betelgeuse, when you start to research it, is a confusing star. There is a ton of information out there, much of it does not agree, a lot of it is dated, and research is proceeding so rapidly that even the experts don't agree. So the intent from the beginning was not to give the reader a "fait-accompli" and thus add to the confusion, but rather a rich mosaic of the important points, so they could make sense of it all. In a few instances, notes were needed. Point #3: I, as a non-scientist, wanted to understand this stuff–hence the use of analogies like Wembley Stadium, the mango and noctilucent clouds. If you tell me that a star has a density of 1.576 × 10−5 kg/m3, I have no idea what that means - hence the use of analogy. Unfortunately, scientists seldom if ever use such analogies, so there are no references. The best you can do is high-school math; that way the reader can follow your logic, if they want to. Now for each note:
- Note 1. Apparent Size Table. In trying to understand all the conflicting information on the star's diameter, I created a spreadsheet. Once done, I thought "Hmmm! Maybe readers will find this useful." If you think it's overkill, we can just delete it.
- Note 2. Betelgeuse Radius. This is a really valuable note. Right now, there are many articles on the web saying that Betelgeuse has a radius equal to the Jovian orbit of 5.5 AU. See APOD 2010. If Perrin's hypothesis is right however, we might see 4.3 AU real soon. So at least with this note, the reader can understand why such a vast difference.
- Note 3. Speed of contraction. I just used some routine math to get a sense of how fast a photosphere could contract, given what was observed. We can omit this information altogether. It's not that critical.
- Note 4. Luminosity. Every article you read on Betelgeuse "out there" quotes a different luminosity figure. To me, that's confusing. So that's why I provide the standard luminosity formula so readers can make sense of the vast divergences in the articles they read.
- Note 5. The mango analogy. This is my favorite one. I just love visualizing myself inside of Wembley Stadium and imagining the Earth as a one-millimeter Pearl. It's experiential, and here's the math to back it up.
- Note 6. Betelgeuse Volume reduction. Once again, I just wanted to understand what it meant if Betelgeuse's radius contracted, what that would mean in terms of volume. Wow! 680 million suns in 15 years. That's mind boggling!
- Note 7. Noctilucent cloud analogy. Finally, just another attempt to take something esoteric like atmospheric density and relate it to something on Earth.
- Ya, they're a little much, I have to agree. Let me start with the short answer, then we can look at each note separately. Point #1: I don't think the notes constitute original research since they are all routine calculations–high-school math, and a few formulas from Wikipedia. Point #2: Betelgeuse, when you start to research it, is a confusing star. There is a ton of information out there, much of it does not agree, a lot of it is dated, and research is proceeding so rapidly that even the experts don't agree. So the intent from the beginning was not to give the reader a "fait-accompli" and thus add to the confusion, but rather a rich mosaic of the important points, so they could make sense of it all. In a few instances, notes were needed. Point #3: I, as a non-scientist, wanted to understand this stuff–hence the use of analogies like Wembley Stadium, the mango and noctilucent clouds. If you tell me that a star has a density of 1.576 × 10−5 kg/m3, I have no idea what that means - hence the use of analogy. Unfortunately, scientists seldom if ever use such analogies, so there are no references. The best you can do is high-school math; that way the reader can follow your logic, if they want to. Now for each note:
- I have created a thread for this particular item here: Talk:Betelgeuse#Topic_raised_at_FAC:_the_notes_with_calculations, to avoid tying up the FAC page with threads. Suggest editors resolve it there, and then 'report back' the outcome. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck my concern on this issue. This article stretches what we might usually expect in terms of notes and calculations. Although the calculations look fairly technical, however, they are confined to multiplication and division, do not rely on models or more complex formulas, and are consistent with what is written in popular science articles about the star, as well as with the peer reviewed literature. They are needed because the peer reviewed literature does not convert angular diameter to absolute diameter, even though the popular science reporting of that literature regularly does so. The approach taken by editors here simply lays out the calculations that those popular science writers must have made, but did not explicitly state. The calculations here are superior because they make explicit the range of values involved, rather than just choosing one number arbitrarily (which is what some of the popular science pieces do (such as this).hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Stephen R. Wilk has proposed the constellation of Orion could have represented the Greek mythological figure Pelops..." There is no citation at all for this sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]There appears to be a blurring of the line between etymology and mythology section content. Also, strictly speaking, doesn't "etymology" refer to the derivation of a particular word? Accordingly, "etymology" should discuss only the origin / interpretations of "Betelgeuse" and its direct variants. However the last para of etymology, as well as some sentences under mythology, appear to be about the names given to the star in other languages and cultures. Perhaps create a new subsection titled "other names", into which you can aggragate Persian, Coptic, Hawaiian, Lacandon etc (all alt names for which there is no substantive discussion of mythology), and then the (slightly shorter) mythology section? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- split off alternate names as sep subsection, and also fixed ref, which got seprated in para separation... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked it further, and think it's OK now, but you might want to check my edits. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- looks fine Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked it further, and think it's OK now, but you might want to check my edits. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- split off alternate names as sep subsection, and also fixed ref, which got seprated in para separation... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: in the "details" section of the star infobox, the footnote tag sometimes appears after the symbol or expression for the unit of measurement, and sometimes before. Not sure if there is a good reason for that: if not, render them consistent.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it is in the formatting of the starbox template. We'll need to raise this with the wikiproject as a whole (and someone who is good at fiddling with templates!) and see how it can be tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Casliber, I remember raising that exact issue with you a few years ago at Starbox dysfunction. I remember you posting something at WikiProject Astronomy the same day, to which there was some meaningful response. It was pretty complicated, if I remember. Anyway, I tried to find the archive but could not. I guess it's a "detail" that fell through the cracks. (Sorry for the bad pun.)--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it is in the formatting of the starbox template. We'll need to raise this with the wikiproject as a whole (and someone who is good at fiddling with templates!) and see how it can be tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- periods from non-sentence captions removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Position_Alpha_Ori.png: what source(s) form the basis of this image?
- File:Dunhuang_Star_Atlas_-_Orion.jpg is missing a primary license. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- if it is 1300 years old isn't that just public domain due to age? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, but afaik it has to be specifically tagged. Done with PD-old-100. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- if it is 1300 years old isn't that just public domain due to age? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ive been watching the work on this article over the summer, and to me the editors have done a great job in making it accessable. I've been reading it, slowly, and for the most part I dont think a thicko like me is excluded from the audience its aimed at. For that well done, this is a very good thing. Ignoring technalities being dealt with by Hamiltonstone above (because I have to, because its beyond me), the article is very clearly written. The nominators are lucky to have such a detailed and hands on review as they are gettig from Hamiltonstone, Im looking forward to supporting when they are done. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. 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, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First look Credit for the massive amount of work, and for some genuinely good writing. Unfortunately, there are lots of MoS errors, and I think these need sorting before I go through the text again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is massive overlinking in the main text (i.e excluding the lead and captions). The duplicate link detector found so many, even ignoring piped links, that I decided life was too short to list them all. Units in particular are sometimes linked more than once in the same sentence!
- I've delinked almost all (yes there were alot!), but left a couple where words are different or the links are far apart and I thought the link was a particularly pertinent or useful one Casliber (talk ·contribs) 07:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed the discussion of Overlinking in Lead section and so made an effort to minimize the amount of links in the lead, leaving the more technical terms as blue links. It's a bit of a judgment call. Almost all blue links that were deleted reoccur later in the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check BE/AE, I assume it's the latter, but colour/color both appear, there may be others
- Yikes! forgot about that. I think we'll go with Americanizing the article - 1 x colour converted, no -ise verbs found. Not sure of any other BE words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I wouldn't give imperial conversions, but if you feel that it's necessary, you must convert all the metric units, including long distances and temperatures.
- agree - think I removed all imperial units now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Astronomy Magazine — I think you mean Astronomy magazine (with italics, magazine isn't part of the title)
- done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are near-infrared and the red star italicised?
- no idea - stray italics removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wembley image looks like an excuse to get a nice picture in, especially since you have another size comparison image. Of course, if you can persuade me there's a mango in the middle of the pitch...
- The image actually relates to representations made in the Density section of the article, and specifically Note2, which substantiates the ratios for this comparison. In the beginning, the analogy was made to a beach ball in a stadium, not a mango. Unfortunately, there were no refs. But the idea was intriguing. So the intent here was multidimensional: 1) give readers at all levels an "experience" of the sheer size of this star, 2) make it rigorous - hence the use of simple multiplication and division in Note2, and 3) take a hotly debated issue like size and translate it into an experience people can relate to. The problem is that when you make mathematical rigor your #1 reference point, finding the right analogies becomes the challenge. No sports analogy worked (i.e. baseball, softball, soccer ball) - hence the choice of mangoes and pearls. If we compare this image to the one next to it, my sense is that it does a remarkable job of conveying to the reader the "experience" of size. Visualizing yourself sitting in that stadium with the Earth the size of a 1mm pearl really conveys that, and to me makes the article fun as well as rigorous.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say that I'm totally convinced, but it's not a big deal, so I'll let it go unless any other reviewer picks it up. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For consistency, your non-template notes/refs (aren't notes usually separated anyway?) should end in full stops like the templated refs
- I only found the two, and added a stop to the one which lacked it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "See also" should not include items wikilinked in the text
- I removed some for which Betelgeuse was only included for comparison, and have reintegrated others into article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
second round I was hoping to support this time round, but I don't think we are quite there yet. Sorry to be such a pain, but here we go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I made these minor edits, please check
- looks fine Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reddish-tinted — to me, the -ish and tinted serve the same purpose, I'd prefer one or the other, but not a big deal, leave as is if you want
- removed tint Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 10 M☉ and 10 solar (sic) — consistency please.
- fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference dating is all over the place, largely because the usual practice of just giving the year has been abandoned. We have a mixture of d/m/y, m/y and just year, and different orders eg 2000, December and 18 May 2009
- accessdates should all be d/m/y, others year (or d/m/y) only. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference style seems a random mixture of sentence and title cases
- All title case now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 7 and ref 48 are notes, and should be with the other notes in the Notes section. they are not references
- Moved 'em. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm happy that all my issues have been resolved; it's easy to miss things even in a short article, let alone one like this, so all credit for what you've done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead looks good. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"between 0.2 and 1.2, the widest range of any first-magnitude star" Two questions: first, what does "first-magnitude star" mean?
- Good question! I think what we need here is a blue link to an article on magnitude. Unfortunately, none of the articles on magnitude provide a sub-heading that would address this question quickly for the reader. Give me a day or two to rework another article. Upon completion, I'll blue link "first-magnitude" and report back here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I upgraded the Magnitude section of the Luminosity article with a brief explanation of magnitude since the days of Hipparchus and created a table with the whole focus on simplicity. First-magnitude star is now blue linked.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question! I think what we need here is a blue link to an article on magnitude. Unfortunately, none of the articles on magnitude provide a sub-heading that would address this question quickly for the reader. Give me a day or two to rework another article. Upon completion, I'll blue link "first-magnitude" and report back here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second, with the apparent magnitude varying so widely, how has it earned the title of "the eighth brightest star in the night sky"? Does this ranking system place Betelgeuse based on its brightest, dimmest, or average magnitude?
- On average, this is detailed in the body of the text - do you think we should work in the word "average" somehow? Also, having some trouble figuring out what to link "first magnitude" to.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave a lot of thought to this issue, tried reworking it, only to realize my rework made the lead paragraph more cumbersome. The ranking of stellar brightness is actually a complex issue, as it relates to 4 concepts: 1) the inclusion/exclusion of the Sun as a star, 2) which band is used to measure brightness, 3) whether the star is part of a star system or not and 4) brightness variations. The most elegant solution to this problem, I think, is to direct the reader to List of brightest stars, which we've done, to which I have now added the word "average" in the first sentence, so there's no confusion. Hope this works!--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On average, this is detailed in the body of the text - do you think we should work in the word "average" somehow? Also, having some trouble figuring out what to link "first magnitude" to.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The star ... is one of the largest and most luminous known stars." Does "luminous" mean the same thing as "brightest"? If not, a link, definition, or rephrasing here would be helpful. If so, why does this sentence mention something that was already covered in detail in the previous paragraph?
- A star can be bright because it is close by (like Sirius) luminosity is amount of light (well, acutally all electromagnetic radiation) a star radiates) - a link to Luminosity#Astronomy is prudent...and done Casliber (talk · contribs)
"Its distance in 2008 was estimated at 640 light-years" Distance from where? Presumably from Earth or from the Sun, but this would benefit from clarification.
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"—which also includes the late type O and B stars in Orion's belt, Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka—" I don't think it is necessary to include this factoid in the lead. It doesn't really enrich the reader's overall understanding, which is the purpose of the lead. At the very least, I would trim it down to "—which also includes the stars in Orion's belt—", though I would prefer to delete it altogether.
- oooh, hard choice. I do like associating the OB association with some familiar objects but can see your point. Have deleted the minimum for the moment and considering the other Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticing that this item has yet to be crossed out. Just re-read this sentence and I would tend to agree with the above. An OB association is an abstruse concept for most. I kinda like the familiarity of Orion's belt as well, as it helps the average reader get oriented quickly.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I activated man mode and vanquished the offending detail. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticing that this item has yet to be crossed out. Just re-read this sentence and I would tend to agree with the above. An OB association is an abstruse concept for most. I kinda like the familiarity of Orion's belt as well, as it helps the average reader get oriented quickly.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- oooh, hard choice. I do like associating the OB association with some familiar objects but can see your point. Have deleted the minimum for the moment and considering the other Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the supergiant is expected to proceed through its expected life cycle" I never would have expected to see "expected" twice in this sentence; it was unexpected.
- Whoops, removed (like "Paris in the the spring" really....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the star remains a perplexing mystery." Poetic, but not particularly encyclopedic. Perhaps "the star is difficult to study accurately" or "many characteristics of the star are not yet known with certainty." would be better?
- rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"magnifying the star's eccentric behavior." "eccentric" meaning deviating from circular? Or meaning it wears a floppy hat?
- the former - but I changed to "irregular shape" Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. I had liked the slightly eccentric original text :-( hamiltonstone (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears the problem here is one of ambiguity, which I can see would be problematic. The phrase "eccentric behavior" was originally chosen to summarize a number of irregularities: 1) the star's random flux 2) the irregular protrusion of gigantic convection cells, some as big as the star itself, unusual bright spots of undetermined life span, mass loss that is "episodic" and so difficult to predict or measure, as well as potential "eccentricities" in the star's shape, especially when viewed in the visible or mid-infrared. If we want to limit this sentence to one irregularity, I would propose its flux. Hence "...orbiting within this circumstellar nebula contributing to the star's overall flux."--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok sounds good, I mean "eccentric behavior" was ok, but I couldn't find anywhere to link it to..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a little time to think about this. Two concluding thoughts: 1) the original problem was the ambiguity associated with the word "eccentric", so that's been changed to "enigmatic" and 2) "behavior" speaks to many potential consequences of stellar companions, and so I think it's the better word here. Also, the star itself has been an enigma for over a century, so it my opinion this concluding statement does a good job of wrapping up the lead. Hope that works for everyone.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok sounds good, I mean "eccentric behavior" was ok, but I couldn't find anywhere to link it to..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears the problem here is one of ambiguity, which I can see would be problematic. The phrase "eccentric behavior" was originally chosen to summarize a number of irregularities: 1) the star's random flux 2) the irregular protrusion of gigantic convection cells, some as big as the star itself, unusual bright spots of undetermined life span, mass loss that is "episodic" and so difficult to predict or measure, as well as potential "eccentricities" in the star's shape, especially when viewed in the visible or mid-infrared. If we want to limit this sentence to one irregularity, I would propose its flux. Hence "...orbiting within this circumstellar nebula contributing to the star's overall flux."--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. I had liked the slightly eccentric original text :-( hamiltonstone (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the former - but I changed to "irregular shape" Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the only major section that is not represented in the lead is Ethnological attributes. I would suggest inserting a snippet either in the first paragraph of the lead (which is the smallest of the three) or the beginning of the third paragraph (which is already focused on timeline stuff).
- Added most generally accepted etymology now to para 1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments.
- The main problem of this article is its style, which is not encyclopedic. Sentences like "Across the Atlantic, another team of astronomers working in the near-infrared and led by Guy Perrin of the Observatoire de Paris" are not formal as required by MOS. This is style is more appropriate for a blog then for an encyclopedia article. In addition this sentence is inaccurate. From Perrin being the first author of the paper or the communicating author, does not follow that he led this study. And not all coauthors of this study work work in Europe, so "Across the Atlantic" is inappropriate. There are plenty of such statements in the article (see, for instance, "In 2011, Keiichi Ohnaka from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy produced a third estimate in the near-infrared corroborating Perrin's numbers"—Ohnaka is just the first author of the paper). You should decide what style of citations you want to use. It can be either footnotes but without mentioning the authors. Or you can mention the first author like "Ohnaka et al., 2007". However, the style currently in use is both unencyclopedic and and inaccurate.
- Good point now I think about it, one assumes the first author is the lead author but yes I recall publications where this is more complicated and not strictly as it seems, hence rewriting is in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, as far as tone goes, we might not be a blog, but neither are we a scientific journal, and much astronomical material is extremely dry and can be heavy going to read as well as difficult to understand. This is about writing in a way to make it as accessible as possible to the lay reader while not sacrificing accuracy. Writing "Ohnaka et al., 2007" is somewhat jarring to the flow of reading. I do concede about accuracy and we will double check references to ensure this is so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I don't think the MOS requires "formal" language. It requires plain English. FAC requires prose that is engaging, even brilliant. Overly formal language doesn't necessarily achieve that goal. However, the reference to "led by Guy Perrin" (and other instances like this) are a problem, and should be fixed. I caught one, but obviously missed others. Agree with Ruslik that solution needs to be implemented throughout as required, and add that other solutions are also possible such as "Ohnaka and others [don't need to mention year]". hamiltonstone (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this press release identifies Kervella and Ohnaka as the leaders of their respective teams, and I've tried aligning the second para of Circumstellar dynamics section to reflect that. I tossed up whether to place "and colleagues" or "et al." in the "Kervella noted," segment, or whether that bit implied this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I don't think the MOS requires "formal" language. It requires plain English. FAC requires prose that is engaging, even brilliant. Overly formal language doesn't necessarily achieve that goal. However, the reference to "led by Guy Perrin" (and other instances like this) are a problem, and should be fixed. I caught one, but obviously missed others. Agree with Ruslik that solution needs to be implemented throughout as required, and add that other solutions are also possible such as "Ohnaka and others [don't need to mention year]". hamiltonstone (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this press release confirms Lobel as the leader of a team - mentioned in para 3 of Variability section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this press release has Townes doing just about all the theorising and discussing, doesn't describe him as the leader but pretty well implies as much. Will change one instance of "led by Townes" if need be (?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed "Across the Atlantic..." and am looking for sources describing Perrin's role so we can accurately portray his role. I have to sleep now. More in the morning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think every study is written in a plain English prose which corresponds to its scientific reporting elsewhere - e.g. "X et al." is "X and colleagues" (i.e. one main author kept, or two in some cases as per original sources and mentions elsewhere), and multiauthor articles are noted at first mention accordingly Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The second problem is too much unnecessary details. Take, for instance, "Diameter" section. Now it purports to review all available original research (primary sources) in this area and makes some conclusions that, in my opinion, are unwarranted (like "In conclusion, the current debate between measurements in the mid-infrared, which suggest a possible expansion and contraction of the star, and the near-infrared, which advocates a relatively constant photospheric diameter, is yet to be resolved"). The article should be based on secondary sources (reviews), including reviews of the previous research provided in the introductory sections of original research papers. This section (Diameter) can, in fact, be considerably shortened. It only needs to report basic facts: the diameters of Betelgeuse is difficult to establish because the star does not have a sharp boundary and the measured diameter varies with wavelength and time.
- Ruslik_Zero 09:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is a guideline and I agree the article should not contain any original research. Unfortunately relying exclusively on secondary sources in more esoteric articles leads to comprehensiveness issues. For instance, I don't think "diameters of Betelgeuse is difficult to establish because the star does not have a sharp boundary and the measured diameter varies with wavelength and time." is sufficient or insightful when the topic of its diameter has been researched extensively (albeit concluding with uncertainty) so why not enlighten the reader as to some of the results people have come up with? I admit we have to take great care if we do do this to avoid synthesis and the latter needs to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing that makes Betelgeuse so interesting, and the article quite long, is the star's complex and elusive nature, while at the same time being one of the most obvious and well-known stars in the night sky. I would be disappointed to see the article simplified in a way that reduces the sense of this star's mystery and complexity, within the confines of sticking, per Casliber, to WP:OR. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is a guideline and I agree the article should not contain any original research. Unfortunately relying exclusively on secondary sources in more esoteric articles leads to comprehensiveness issues. For instance, I don't think "diameters of Betelgeuse is difficult to establish because the star does not have a sharp boundary and the measured diameter varies with wavelength and time." is sufficient or insightful when the topic of its diameter has been researched extensively (albeit concluding with uncertainty) so why not enlighten the reader as to some of the results people have come up with? I admit we have to take great care if we do do this to avoid synthesis and the latter needs to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for being so late on this and thanks a lot for all the work on this article, but I oppose promotion at the moment on style grounds. I printed this out to get a sense how the article stands on its own and I will mention some of the issues (big and minor) I have come across so far going through the article (I have not checked sources in detail, the referencing looks very good):
- That's fine. I was taken aback with the tag but your comments make sense so we are tackling them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- uncommon words like "vertex" and "asterism" should not be used without explanation when they are first mentioned - if this disturbs the lead one should reword and leave the explanation in the article body instead. I believe readers shouldn't have to leave the article merely to understand the lead. The same is true for "limb darkening".
- substituted 'corner' for 'vertex' as for the purposes of looking in the sky, no greater distinction is needed. Will look into the other issue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Its distance in 2008 was estimated ..." - I'm certain this sentence doesn't want to specify the distance in this year but only give the year the measurement was made, so I think "Its distance was estimated in 2008 ..." is a better choice
- done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Having been ejected from ..." - the wording of the sentence seems embellishing, saying "racing" instead of "moving" and using "supersonic", which is not that meaningful in space. Letting the facts speak for themselves is a much better style.
- good point/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reintroduced the word "supersonic" as it is used throughout the primary literature. See: Mohamed 2012, Introduction to Stellar Winds and Bow shock. I'm no astrophysicist, so I will defer to others on this issue. But it appears that this is an important distinction when describing stellar winds.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- good point/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Observational history
Nascent discoveries
- "... based on the then-current parallax value ..." - "then-current" is bad style, like "then-President Clinton", and can be removed because there is no need to explain that people in 1920, which is mentioned, used a parallax value from that time
- good point/removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "—a central theme which would be the focus of scientific inquiry for almost a century." that commentary is either original research or needs an attribution to make clear that we are not drawing conclusions on our own
- I removed it as I let the facts speak for themselves. Plenty of subsequent discussion clearly shows how long and involved measurements have been. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 1950s and '60s saw important ..." - decades are not abbreviated like that in other parts of the article, so I suggest writing the full 1960s here (it's not much of an abbreviation anyway)
- good point/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the name Stratoscope I believe is so uncommon that it needs a short explanation or be described outright
- Described in next sentence -is that close enough? Or shall we reorganise so both second explanations are subordinate to the first mentions of the stratoscope and the book? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would reorganise but at least an explanation exists now.
- Described in next sentence -is that close enough? Or shall we reorganise so both second explanations are subordinate to the first mentions of the stratoscope and the book? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "This book taught a generation of astrophysicists ..." - remove as editorializing or source in whose opinion the book was that important.
- The words are used in the source, but it is a but flowery so reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Both developments would prove to have a significant impact on our understanding ..." - says who? and "our understanding" is unobjective. unless this is sourced and stated more plainly I think this sentence adds nothing.
- Given that all discoveries help our understanding of stars, the sentence pretty much states the obvious and there is nothing special about these in that respect. Hence on thinking about it I've removed the sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aperture masking
- I can't see aperture masking explained, however briefly, in this section
- The whole section, I think, lacks cohesion. The theme encompasses various breakthroughs in imaging technology, with "aperture masking" being but one. I should have a rework done in the next day or two, with each of your points duly incorporated.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Renamed section and will be including some new material. This whole section was inherited from as far back as 5 years ago. So I decided to go back and re-read the primary literature from 1970-1990, highlighting major contributions. "Imaging breakthroughs" is more effective nomenclature, allowing for a better lead sentence to describe the section. Will post here when completed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now complete, I think, with each issue addressed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Renamed section and will be including some new material. This whole section was inherited from as far back as 5 years ago. So I decided to go back and re-read the primary literature from 1970-1990, highlighting major contributions. "Imaging breakthroughs" is more effective nomenclature, allowing for a better lead sentence to describe the section. Will post here when completed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole section, I think, lacks cohesion. The theme encompasses various breakthroughs in imaging technology, with "aperture masking" being but one. I should have a rework done in the next day or two, with each of your points duly incorporated.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- is "fringe-tracking" related to the subject of aperture masking? it's quite unclear as it is written now - that should be explained or omitted if it does not add to understanding
- Omitted.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... ultraviolet image of comparable resolution ..." - is the comparable resolution to the infrared images in the previous paragraph? is comparable the right word if the wavelength is different?
- Clarified and added ref.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The image was taken at ultraviolet wavelengths since ground-based instruments cannot produce images ..." - that Hubble has a higher resolution for UV does not explain why UV was chosen. if rewritten, the sentence could explain why Hubble was chosen over a ground-based telescope (better resolution in UV) but no explanation for using UV in of itself has been provided by the sentence as it stands now - that explanation would be in the physics of the object, not technical or in the atmosphere, no?
- Rewrote sentence. Added ref. Hope this works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recent studies
- "... witnessed major advances on multiple fronts, ..." - too vague/general, redundant since they are listed directly thereafter anyway, should be removed
- removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the dawn of the millennium ..." - why not give the date? this is flowery, unencyclopedic language
- done. funny how you sometimes don't see these after reading the article 30-40 times. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nevertheless, on June 9, 2009, ..." - using "nevertheless" implies a connection to the content of the previous sentence - did Townes mention the discrepancy named there? if he merely worked on the same issue and a new fact is introduced, "nevertheless" should be removed.
- 'Nevertheless' removed. Although the two are discussed, the size reduction is not contrastive to the material before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... abstruse dynamics of Betelgeuse's extended atmosphere." - is abstruse meant as complicated or "confusing"? "confusing" would have to be sourced to someone as it is an opinion. I suggest rewording for clarity.
- changed to the plainer "complex" Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... outer shells of red giants are central to this process, ..." - one should mention how they are central, otherwise this imparts no real information, I think
- changed to "...and red giants are major contributors." contemplating whether we need "of matter" or "of material" after "contributors" Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... showed a vast plume of gas being ejected into the surrounding atmosphere ..." - I think we should mention the plume is ejected by Betelgeuse, or maybe it's just me who paused and considered this ;) the more clarity the easier it is to follow the text
- added "from the star" to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the last sentence of the paragraph is bad style, sensationalistic
Visibility
- describing Orion's Belt as "famous" is POV unless you use attribution - the facts that follow establish the ease of spotting Betelgeuse much better
- good point, 'famous' removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Once May arrives, ..." - why not "In May"? the plain language is more concise, too
- trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... glimpsed but briefly ..." - again, why not "seen only briefly"? the current form is so poetic, doesn't fit with the scientific subject
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Parallax
- why is parallax sorted under visibility? they go together, but not strictly, no?
- I could see swapping "parallax" and "Variability" sections - did you have a better idea for location? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I guess it's just as well if we keep it as it is. Hekerui (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see swapping "parallax" and "Variability" sections - did you have a better idea for location? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Solving this enigma holds the key to understanding other stellar parameters ..." - why not "knowing the distance helps improve the accuracy of other stellar parameters ..." - an enigma holding a key is unencyclopedic, imo
- rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the treatment of parallax measurements is great, but I think the second sentence in the paragraph about Gaia has too much detail not related to Betelgeuse.
- Agreed. I removed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The text implies that Gaia's ability to observe faint objects will help improve the parallax measurement for Betelgeuse, but the text already mentioned it as one of the brightest stars, so its not clear how this improvement would help with Betelgeuse
- The segment of text preceding is misleading. The clear benefit is much greater precision of parallax, but I removed the after bit anyway as Betelgeuse is not specifically discussed on that page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Variability
- why use the words "volatile choreography"? volatile does not seem the right choice when the star was just described as semiregular, and choreography is fancy way of saying pulsating? I don't mean to drain life out of the text but this seems over the top to me.
- I changed it to "Betelgeuse's pulsations and their rhythm" -was tempted to use "rhythmicity" or "periodicity" in there somewhere but later settled on plainer words. Let me know if too clunky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... which because of their number produce a relatively constant flux." - that's not obvious, how does the number influence the steadiness of the flux? also, "which because of their number" is weird prose imo
- maybe "monster granules" should be put in quotation marks, as it was coined by Schwarzschild and is colloquial?
- I changed it to the less colloquial "gigantic", I find quotation marks a tad jarring to prose and try to eliminate them if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the "gigantic" as well, the measurements that follow immediately afterwards make the proportion clear enough.
- I am ok with that as the first mention of the cells I changed "monster" to "huge", I think some emphatic adjectives are good here and there. You can see scientists write words like "tremendous" in the press releases too Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the "gigantic" as well, the measurements that follow immediately afterwards make the proportion clear enough.
- I changed it to the less colloquial "gigantic", I find quotation marks a tad jarring to prose and try to eliminate them if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the last two sentences of the paragraph are copied almost word per word from the press release, so they are copyright infringement and need to be rewritten
- Yikes! Rejigged now and distanced from source. It's such a great visual analogy that I felt it was good to keep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diameter
- the first sentence does not do much except reiterate that this is the third subsection of the chapter - I for one wondered for a bit what exactly was meant with challenges - I think the sentence is not useful
- Good point as we've mentioned it's hard to measure a few times, hence I removed the sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "each wavelength measures something different" that sounds vague without describing what they measure differently (or mentioning that this is explained in detail later)
- changed to "as the star's apparent size differs depending on the wavelength used." (was wondering if I could do away with the "apparent") Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder whether the radio image would not be better positioned near text that mentions radio measurements. how is the "(pre-Harper)" qualifier relevant for the image? I don't really get what the infrared image of Betelgeuse, Meissa and Bellatrix illustrates.
- "The current debate revolves around which wavelength—the visible, near-infrared (NIR) or mid-infrared (MIR)—..." - these are not wavelengths but ranges of wavelengths/parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and "current" should be avoided as it becomes outdated
- changed to "which part of the electromagnetic spectrum" and "current" removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... published in 2009 in Astronomy Magazine ..." - the sentence is not clear to which of the mentioned facts that refers - it's not Bester giving that estimate but the estimate itself, no? I see no evidence that the two sources used Bester, though, although it's plausible
- "The study also put forth an explanation as to why ... produce different diameters." - the explanation follows so I suggest using a colon at the end of the sentence to make that clear in the reading flow
- Interesting. I'd never thought of using a colon like this, but having just read Colon_(punctuation)#Syntactical-deductive I feel a new sense of grammatical mastery I didn't have a few minutes ago and have inserted a colon...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... problematic since each wavelength produces a different view of the star, ..." - "different view" is vague to me
- I removed the sentence as we have already mentioned this a few paras above (about different wavelengths) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Properties
- "last decade" is not a lasting description - I replaced one instancce but I'm not sure how best to rephrase the other
- changed to "since 2001", as "recent" is no good. :Latest" would have same problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... the photospheric temperature is somewhat uncertain." - "somewhat" is a vague word, does it mean "not very" or "quite a bit"? I think we can dispense with it
- I removed vague adverb Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... extended atmosphere, a factor where even moderately strong fields ..." - I think this "a factor where" is (at least to me) opaque. maybe that could be made into two sentences?
Space Motion
- why not call the section "Motion", because where else but space does a star move?
- good point/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The kinematics of Betelgeuse are not easily explained." - I think this is a bad start for an explanation, especially in an encyclopedia, I would suggest "complex" or something else
- good point/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... is roughly 10 million years". - is this projection in the next sentence that far into the past? if so, one could make that clearer
- I added the word "corresponding" to the next sentence...do you think that links them ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes.
- I added the word "corresponding" to the next sentence...do you think that links them ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the third sentence describes the projection as "an implausible hypothesis", but it's not a hypothesis, because it is a conclusion following a calculation, maybe "scenario" instead (or something else, can't think of a good word right now)?
- I went concrete and just used the word "location"...that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes.
- I went concrete and just used the word "location"...that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "..., but has evolved rapidly due to its unusually high mass." - I think "unusually" is not a good word to use, all the supergiants have a high mass and the source does not point out the mass as an anomaly, unless I overlooked that (it also discards a distance that would make B overluminous)
- 'unusually' removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "extreme luminosity" - that would apply to the supernova more than the star, it's not a good word choice imo
- reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Density
- "most ethereal" - why not "least dense" if that is meant?
- Hmmm, thinking about this - I like the idea of some adjective that shows how extremely thin it is. "Vacuous" would be ok if it didn't have other connotations WRT people.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't "one of the least dense stars known" imply that sufficiently?
- Hmmm, thinking about this - I like the idea of some adjective that shows how extremely thin it is. "Vacuous" would be ok if it didn't have other connotations WRT people.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "a sphere so imposing" - this sounds more like "awe-inspiring" than a synonym for "large", I suggest removing it, the facts showing this follow right after
- trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the image caption "the air in the stadium is far more dense than the star itself" seems to refer to the Sun mentioned in the previous sentence, but B is meant, no?
- yup, Betelgeuse it is Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... average density of this stellar mystery ..." - "stellar mystery" is not objective
- removed "of this stellar mystery" as is clear which star we're talking about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Circumstellar dynamics
- "... argued it was the likely cause in evolved supergiants ..." - I thought: the cause for what? perhaps reiterate "mass loss", because even though one can understand from context it seems the sentence is missing a part
- I moved the "mass loss" from the preceding sentence into this one (I couldn't just add it as I couldn't face four consecutive sentences with "mass loss" in them. I figured the "however" in sentence two was enough of a link for that one Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "mysteries" - that is again used, I suggests a more grounded wording because not understanding something well does not a mystery make. I suggest questions that remain to be answered or something similar; "mystery" appears again in the next paragraph
- made less mysterious Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "Wolf-Rayet star" should be explained briefly, because it doesn't help the flow to bring up something new unexplained
- This is tricky - I was going to add something like "extremely hot and luminous" before "Wolf-Rayet star", but realised it might be misleading as blue supergiants are hot and luminous. Similarly describing it as "blue" will sound weird and/or repetitive given I've just mentioned blue supergiants. I thought a blue-link was enough but am open to suggestions. I suppose I could put a subordinate clause in afterwards - "Wolf-Rayet star, a class of extremely hot and luminous stars"...but anything I can think of sounds unwieldy.....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asymmetric shells
- "Recent studies suggest that ..." - one can't really tell how recent they are without a citation, perhaps that "recent" can be replaced
- "Recent studies suggest that" removed - subsequent "may" allows us to ditch "suggest" Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... exists another cool region ..." - was the region with 1500 ± 500 K the first cool one? perhaps "cooler" is better, since 1500 K is not cool
- Yeah I'll pay that. "cooler" more succinct than "relatively cool", which was my other thought.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... Betelgeuse has a dense highly complex atmosphere." - the article previously used the "red-hot vacuum" quotation and now the atmosphere around that is described as dense - the source doesn't qualify against what "dense" is measured (space?) but this seems like a discrepancy and may make readers wonder
- From the context I'd say it was compared against the sun's atmosphere, however I agree it is hard to qualify as I suspect it is no denser than further in. I've dropped the adjective as the complexity is the key message in the source and we've spelled that out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supersonic bow shock
- "since the beginning of the millennium" - the sources in this paragraph are from 2008 and 1997, so the wording seems off
- I deleted it Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... by the star itself, but a powerful stellar wind ..." - that sentence is unclear (is it "by its stellar wind"?)
- yes indeed - changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Approaching supernova
- the word "concede" seems wrong to me (leads to the question against what opposition the number is conceded)
- concede --> posit (much nicer fitting verb - I always like using it) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... relatively soon compared to its age." - I find the comparison odd, the statement "already old" has made that point in the same sentence.
- I think pointing out that a supernova is due in a relatively short time in astronomical terms is a plus for the article (think lay readers), but question is how to phrase it - would either "relatively soon in astronomical terms" or "relatively soon with respect to its lifespan" be better? Any ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "..., because runaway stars are believed to be caused by supernovae, ..." - that is not the only cause but suggests it is believed to be
- "..., then reach the Solar System centuries later." - the separate treatment of the travelling duration of neutrinos seems to suggest that they arrive hundreds of years later than light, but they arrive at the same time (unless the source argues they move slower - does it?)
- No, the neutrinos are the first things to make it to us, beating light because they are not slowed along the way (unlike light). I have rejigged the section to make it more chronological. I hope it is clearer now (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Star system
- the Cavendish Astrophysics Group is in italics, which is not the style used in the rest of the article and does not appear to me to have a good reason
- Confused for a second. Did you mean the quote from them? If so I just unitalicised it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly. Thanks.
- Confused for a second. Did you mean the quote from them? If so I just unitalicised it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly dislike the second to last sentence, it is crystall balling/its claims are unsourced and the description "enigmatic" for the star's past is gratuitous
- I removed last two sentences as Gaia source does not mention Betelgeuse specifically and I think the section is engaging enough by leaving it with a mysterious ending.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think we can reiterate the meaning of CfA - that abbreviation was introduced long before this paragrah and not used in between - and possibly link the Gaia mission again
- I unabbreviated it. Yeah, 2nd links ok as waaay up the page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnological attributes
Spelling and pronunciation
- perhaps insert "in English" after Betelgeux, I thought for a while both names in the first sentence were German according to Bode (and that I merely didn't know the first) until I figured it out
Etymology
- well written, good read
Other names
- looks like the Japanese name referred to the Heike clan, not the war - the background is interesting but I think that needs clarification before the war story is told
- rejigged it now for more logical flow + cute star detail added :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "who had an artificial shoulder of ivory made for him" - in that instance I believe "himself" would be a better choice to make clear who the recipient is, no?
- In the legend, Pelops was young when it his shoulder was eaten, so it was his family who ordered the shoulder made, but I kept the subordinate bit passive to keep it concise. "himself" makes it sound like he did the ordering to have it made.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that again and I think it works.
- In the legend, Pelops was young when it his shoulder was eaten, so it was his family who ordered the shoulder made, but I kept the subordinate bit passive to keep it concise. "himself" makes it sound like he did the ordering to have it made.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... linked via Orion's association with stormy weather ..." - I don't understand this part but the sentence from the source discussing this I find hard to understand, too, perhaps this can be made clearer?
- Bleh, I realise Allen writes so obliquely I read it wrong. I have rejigged to more accurately align with book (d'oh!) and spell out that it was Allen's link (lots of Allen's stuff is suspect, but he is one of the only people who has collated material like this so is very widely quoted! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In popular culture
- where is the movie's connection to Carl Jung and synchronicity sourced from?
- It's a great line. I didn't add that and tried to find a source for it (sadly unsuccessfully) - removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General
- one could improve the layout by sorting successive citations by number ([74][70] to [70][74] for example)
- multiple refs now in ascending numerical order. I only found one offender... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops, thought I had seen a couple...
- multiple refs now in ascending numerical order. I only found one offender... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for not checking out all the comments by others above first but the crossed-out text and colors are hard to read. My comments are merely suggestions, I have no problem if anyone disagrees. Hekerui (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No that makes sense. You are looking at the article how it is now, so any issues are still outstanding. If something has been discussed previously we will let you know. I generally start with the easiest fixes first while I am musing on the others... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I would weigh in on the current round of edits. A great many of them are significant improvements, and thank you to both Hekerui and Casliber, but I think some of the prose edits are making this article duller. Here are examples where I think the prose has deteriorated:
- " this stellar giant" -> "the giant star"
- This is an intriguing one - do we think there'd be lay readers who wouldn't twig that "stellar" meant star? I figure that was why this was tweaked (?) Hekerui would you be ok with "stellar giant"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes.
- This is an intriguing one - do we think there'd be lay readers who wouldn't twig that "stellar" meant star? I figure that was why this was tweaked (?) Hekerui would you be ok with "stellar giant"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- deletion of "a central theme which would be the focus of scientific inquiry for almost a century" - an accurate line which built narrative interest for the reader
- "he noticed significant changes in magnitude with Betelgeuse outshining Rigel" -> "he noticed changes in the magnitude of Betelgeuse and that it outshone Rigel" - both accurate, one is just duller prose
- Agree the first sounds better and is no less wordy or grammatically ponderous Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- deletion of " Both developments would prove to have a significant impact on our understanding of the structure of red supergiants like Betelgeuse." If the sentence was inaccurate or does not accurately prefigure text that follows, then removal is warranted. However in a long text, prefiguring issues in order to spike reader interest is one of the things that makes prose "engaging, even brilliant".
- I'll replay this again, but my feeling was that the statement was so general I wasn't fussed about losing it. I think there are more succinct things which are worth keeping. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "For decades astronomers have understood that the outer shells of red giants are central to this process, yet the actual mechanics of stellar mass loss remain a mystery." -> "and red giants are major contributors, yet the mechanics of stellar mass loss are unclear". I don't see the problem that this edit was designed to solve. "Remain a mystery" for example is perfectly fine. Why not invoke that sense of mystery rather than use a dull word like "unclear"?
- The main objection was the vague first part of the clause. Hekerui objected to "mystery" elsewhere....but I think that was probably after seeing the word several times...I will keep the exacter first bit and more interesting second and hopefully strike a balance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "there has been ongoing work to measure the actual distance of Betelgeuse, with proposed distances as high as" -> "there has been ongoing work to measure the distance of Betelgeuse and proposed distances were as high as" - in this case, I don't see why the word "were" has been inserted.
- I inserted the "were" because the 2008 source mentioned this as a value used in 1985.
- Ah, in that case there is a different problem. If this is an entirely historical discussion, then we need to do something about the "there has been", earlier in the sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. We are a fair degree closer to a proper distance but it is not set in stone as yet, so I think "has been" is still valid, and some of the more variant claims are clearly in the past now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that the grammar of the sentence doesn't work, whatever the facts are that we want to communicate. We can't have a sentence begin "There has been" and later in the same sentence refer to "distances were". The two constructions have to agree: There were / distances were, or There has been / distances are. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, in which case I have changed it back to ",with..." - as the alternative would be to have subordinate clause " proposed distances have been as high as 400 pc or about 1,300 ly." which is needlessly wordy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the sentence works now.
- Alright, in which case I have changed it back to ",with..." - as the alternative would be to have subordinate clause " proposed distances have been as high as 400 pc or about 1,300 ly." which is needlessly wordy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that the grammar of the sentence doesn't work, whatever the facts are that we want to communicate. We can't have a sentence begin "There has been" and later in the same sentence refer to "distances were". The two constructions have to agree: There were / distances were, or There has been / distances are. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. We are a fair degree closer to a proper distance but it is not set in stone as yet, so I think "has been" is still valid, and some of the more variant claims are clearly in the past now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, in that case there is a different problem. If this is an entirely historical discussion, then we need to do something about the "there has been", earlier in the sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "extremely low density" -> "low density". How was the density not extremely low?
- I thought the word misleading, "extremely low density" suggested vacuum to me and considering how empty a vacuum in space is I thought it was a huge exaggeration and unlike "red-hot vacuum" not a good illustration. I admit I assumed the source doesn't use the wording. If it does, I have no objection to putting it back in.
- The source does use "extremely" and "very", and I think "extremely" helps visualise it for the reader (i.e. engaging prose). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Then in 2000" -> "In 2000" This reduces the signposting of chronological order for the reader, reducing readability.
- I thought the years given were enough of a chronology so I felt this was a fill word.
- Fair enough. I think the wiki markup was doing my eyes in. Now that I've read the 'clean' version, it looks OK without "then". hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, meaning that the diameter is changing with time" -> "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, its diameter changes with time", the latter text would be OK, except it is now incorrectly punctuated (the comma needs to be a colon if running with this formulation)
- I slotted in a "so", yielding "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, so its diameter changes with time". An "as" would work too, or even a "therefore" if we're trying to avoid present participles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I suggest a slightly less 'scorched earth' approach to the tone of the article, particularly in terms of drawing the reader on through the story with "engaging, even brilliant" prose? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right. A lot of "with" constructions in the text made it more complicated it read and it felt sensationalistic at times to me so maybe I went overboard in pointing out changes. As I stated above, these are all mere suggestions and I merely hoped to help improve this article so we can at least take that maintenance template off and consider the text going forward. Good style is not just cutting down though, that's right. Hekerui (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I am very happy with about 80% of Hekerui's suggestions, though there are a few I question. I use the "with + -ing" subordinate clause alot, but I am intrigued as alot of people find it problematic. I think it works well in the Rigel comparison and have switched it back. Some other ones come to mind. Will just read a couple of sources above. It is a question of where to strike the right balance really. fascinating exercise really.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right. A lot of "with" constructions in the text made it more complicated it read and it felt sensationalistic at times to me so maybe I went overboard in pointing out changes. As I stated above, these are all mere suggestions and I merely hoped to help improve this article so we can at least take that maintenance template off and consider the text going forward. Good style is not just cutting down though, that's right. Hekerui (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No that makes sense. You are looking at the article how it is now, so any issues are still outstanding. If something has been discussed previously we will let you know. I generally start with the easiest fixes first while I am musing on the others... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to sleep now. I do hope we are converging on a mutually acceptable point in prose (I do think we're getting there :)) - back in the morning. Sadalsuud should be along a little later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I lean towards supporting this nomination. An image check turned up no issues as far as I can see. I saw only one copyright problem in the text and that was dealt with, but I have only done a spotcheck. The issues that I brought up and were not addressed I hope can be dealt with one way or the other. It is not ideal for the review that I lack familiarity with the profusion of literature cited, but it appears to me that the article presents the article subject in an appropriate structure and standard of writing and sufficiently acknowledges and discusses the uncertainty of technical data. Hekerui (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pleased (and mightily relieved) that we can find common ground and prose that both you and Hamiltonstone feel is up to scratch. Sadalsuud is still looking at the last section above and I will give the astronomy wikiproject a hoy to get some attention from someone familiar with astronomy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm late into this discussion but didn't want to see this nom die through lack of support. I do have some knowledge of the area but at this point have only done a cursory read through of the article. However, one figure that immediately caught my eye was that luminosity figure. Estimates here vary wildy, many sources quote figures as low as the 10,000-30,000 mark, and the 130,000 figure quoted here is right at the top of the range of values given. As such you have to tread very carefully preserving that figure - you need top quality sourcing for sure. Ideally you also need to show why other sources that may be given are wrong. However, the source given is not top quality, indeed it doesn't actually make the assertion given here, instead using a figure from elsewhere as a starting point.
This isn't a minor point, since this is a fairly basic parameter and a lot of the discussion that follows depends either explicitly or implicitly depends on maintaining the integrity of that figure. All that is required at the moment is someone to find a source that quotes e.g. a figure of 20,000 more forcefully and we would have to defer to that. With that change major sections of the article are invalidated. Therefore this is a kind of referencing "pinch point" that is key to the integrity of the article as a whole, and at present it is not sufficiently robust. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, and the distance issues have given us decades' worth of discussion on the matter. Some webpages are updated in an odd manner, hence we have Solstation's page which has a bolded update, yet looks like the range of 40,000 to 100,000 L☉ has not been updated since the new further distance. I'll check this in web archive. The Mohamed 2012 paper uses the values from Smith 2009 - all values since 2008 incorporate new Hipparcos interpretation of B being further away than previously thought. Will just double check some others. I would have thought if there was more variance among experts currently there'd be more discussion about differing figures, which I don't recall seeing. But will check.......this also predates the update. This has 140k as a calculation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been a difficult issue from the beginning since there is no primary research that definitively resolves the issue and the debate around 1) distance, 2) angular diameter, and 3) photospheric temperature is ongoing. The best discussion, I think, can be found in the Luminosity article under Computational challenges. These calculations were taken out of the article, but have been referenced in a few places. The discussion here is from the latest primary sources and therefore reflects the most up to date discussion on the subject, establishing a range between 84,000 L☉ and 154,000 L☉. In conclusion, I think that 120,000 L☉ as a mean figure is a fair representation of primary sources. Secondary and tertiary sources are almost always out of date, hence the confusion that's out there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - I have decided that this candidate is ready for promotion. Any remaining issues can be resolved post-promotion, on the article's Talk Page. I would like to thank the nominators and all the reviewers for their contributions to this intelligent and thorough discussion. Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:36, 27 September 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my previous nomination: "I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it comprehensively covers the topic, and provides a neutral and well-written analysis." I have gone through all the comments from the previous nominations, particularly those from Nev1 in the last nomination. The most significant change to the article in the addition of an aftermath section, but a number of other tweaks and changes have be made in response to the previous feedback. As always, I look forward to all your comments and suggestions. Harrias talk 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I reviewed this article at the last FAC and there haven't been that many changes aside from the aftermath section addition, so I don't have much to add to my prior comments that were addressed. The one sticking point in the new section for me is the financial paragraph, which is quite stubby at one paragraph. Is there anything else that can be added, or a better location for it where its shortness doesn't stick out so much? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure where else it could viably move within the article. There is a little bit more information provided in the yearbook about the number of improvement the club were making which make breaking even a positive thing, I could add something about that to pad the paragraph out a little more if you think that could work. I'm trying to find more information on attendances for the year which would fit in there, but I haven't been able to find anything thus far. Harrias talk 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "financial paragraph" in its entirety reads "Financially, Somerset broke-even in 2009, generating a gross turnover of £4.5 million, and increased their investment into the team by roughly 50% from 2005." First, the verb is "to break even", not "to break-even", so the hyphen needs removing. Secondly, what does "increased their investment into the team by roughly 50% from 2005" actually mean? That they paid their players more? That they brought in expensive new players? Or something else? At present the wording is too vague to be useful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the paragraph a bit more, and removed the bit about investment into the team, given that the source did not expand on the topic sufficiently for me to be able to answer the question, and thus I agree it is a bit too vague. Removed the hyphen from "broke even": I wasn't sure whether it took it or not, and based it upon out article Break-even (economics). Harrias talk 11:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "financial paragraph" in its entirety reads "Financially, Somerset broke-even in 2009, generating a gross turnover of £4.5 million, and increased their investment into the team by roughly 50% from 2005." First, the verb is "to break even", not "to break-even", so the hyphen needs removing. Secondly, what does "increased their investment into the team by roughly 50% from 2005" actually mean? That they paid their players more? That they brought in expensive new players? Or something else? At present the wording is too vague to be useful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Not directly related to this FAC, but any reason why the cricket season infobox links "wicket-keeping" but not "runs" or "wickets"?
- Should be sorted now. Harrias talk 23:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Picky, but ref 1 doesn't actually say all of Kieswetter's catches were as wicket-keeper...
- No. Can't find anything that does. I *know* they were, but citing it... Harrias talk 23:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a major issue, I'll leave it open just in case... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"They were captained " -> "Somerset were captained..." (or "was captained" depending on how many US readers you expect to have to negotiate this old chestnut with...)
"topped the batting tables" context, i.e. for Somerset or overall in English cricket?
- Changed to "national batting tables" Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"had looked at times" bit speculative, even in hindsight, can we reword this more neutrally but give over the same message?
- Changed slightly, how is it now? Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on "Cricinfo" now calls it "ESPNcricinfo". In fact, you use the latter in your sources.
- Changed throughout. Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be really nice if you could get all your tables to meet WP:ACCESS per MOS:DTT for screen-readers.
- Done. Though I'd appreciate if you could cast your expert eye over them? Harrias talk 23:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Justin Langer (Captain)" no need for capital C in my mind.
- Not sure in the utility of linking both "medium-fast" and "medium pace" and "fast-medium" and "medium" all to "fast bowling" (I'm thinking non-experts here).
- I get what you are saying, but I think some sort of link is needed. The fast bowling page is in general unreferenced and very OR-y. There is a litle in the glossary about fast and medium, but nothing about fast-medium and medium-fast. The best we've got is Fast bowling#Categorisation of fast bowling, but I think that is a very OR section (hence the tag addition) so I'm not comfortable linking there. Any ideas? Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not perhaps the remit of this FAC but is there a way you could split the fast bowling page into subsections that you could link these terms to? Or improve the page to remove the tag? Not that big a deal for me, just wondered how we could help the non-experts understand these subtleties... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" total of 742/5 " does a non-expert know what this means?
- Added a note; how's that? Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"was only reached in " ->"was reached in only".
", as was " -> "along with" to avoid repeating "as".
"only managed to play five" no need for "managed to" unless you qualify it I think.
I would consider linking some of the more crickety terms to the glossary we have, e.g. "collapsed", "innings", "a slow pitch", "required rate" etc.
- Done on those occasions I have found them. Harrias talk 23:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't use bold in tables (or anywhere really) for emphasis per WP:BADEMPHASIS.
- Removed. Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the "Adjustments" referenced in the table key?
- To CricketArchive, the same place as the rest of the table. Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Table heading, why is Highest Score not just Highest score?
- No idea. Fixed. Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Batting average (and other similar "shared" phrases) would benefit from being hash-linked to the appropriate section in the article.
- Done batting average, not come across any others yet. Harrias talk 23:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any article (or section of article) for how points are awarded in a County Championship game?
- Yes, linked from the key. Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expand ECB before using the abbreviation.
"Team marked † were eliminated from the competition." Teams. (See all tables)
"England and Wales Cricket Board " you previously just referred to this as ECB (but see my earlier comment).
In Aftermath section, "England Lions" is a dab link.
- Weird, I swear I fixed that before.. no matter, done now. Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"for the 2010 season" suitable article to link to?
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments mostly of the nitpicking variety.
I noticed a few instances of "noun plus -ing" e.g. the imbalance in favour of the batsmen resulting in all but one match at the ground being drawn.
- I'm a repeat offender with these. I'm removed that one (I think: I barely changed it), I'll scour through for any more, but if they jump out, please mention them! Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite a season in which Marcus Trescothick was described by David Foot as "imperiously assured", Somerset failed to win enough matches to pose a real challenge in the 2009 County Championship. These two things don't seem that closely connected, one man does not win a cricket championship.
This placed the majority of the bowling burden upon Charl Willoughby Forgive my being over-literal, but by definition he could only take a maximum of 50% of the burden. "an increased burden" or "majority of the wicket-taking burden" perhaps?
- Good point. Changed to latter suggestion. Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could do with mentioning somewhere early on that County Championship matches are played over four days.
- Not sure about "aftermath" as a section title due to the connotations of ill-effects. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand your point, but I'm at something of a loss as to an alternative: the best I can come up with is the very unsnappy "After the season": any improvement? Harrias talk 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Post-season"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem there is that "Postseason" (generally without the hyphen) has a very specific meaning in North American sport, and I'm worried it might be confusing or misleading for those readers? Harrias talk 21:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reaction"? Though that's not brilliant either. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: It's always tricky to make this sort of article accessible to the general reader without dumbing down too much. I think the balance is just about right. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Their performance in the Twenty20 Cup saw them qualify for the Champions League Twenty20.": Maybe "Through their performance in the Twenty20 Cup, the team qualified for the Champions League Twenty20"
- Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "They enjoyed a successful season…": POV? By what standard were they successful? More precision here, I think.
- "but the batting-friendly pitch at their home ground": Maybe a little jargony for the lead?
- I'm not sure. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"saw the county finish with too many draws to claim their first Championship title": I never like "saw". Maybe "meant that"?
- Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Somerset qualified for the quarter-finals as one of the best third-placed teams": The 3rd place rule may be too much for the lead; possibly just say that they qualified.
- Removed the bit about qualifying for the quarter-finals altogether and simply put that the were losing finalists. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"accruing almost 3,000 runs in all competitions in 2009…": Anything wrong with "scoring"?
- I think I was avoiding repetition, but removed the other case! Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"which saw him named": A third "saw" in the lead.
- Removed, and got rid of all the other example through the article too. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some links for batting positions in the background section?
-
- But see below. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite a season in which Marcus Trescothick was described by David Foot as "imperiously assured",[3] Somerset failed to win enough matches to pose a real challenge in the 2009 County Championship.": Something not quite right with the structure here. Maybe "Although Marcus Trescothick had a season which David Foot described as…"
- Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"flat pitch": jargon here. You can just hear people asking "aren't all pitches flat?"
- Linked to the glossary. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and saw him named as both PCA Player of the Year and the PCA's Most Valuable Player of the Year for 2009": Saw…
- As above, changed all examples of "saw" in the article. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"all scored centuries to rescue a draw": Rescue seems a bit journalese.
- Changed to "secure". Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"a position they would not drop below for the remainder of the season": Maybe "and they did not drop below this position for the remainder of the season".
- Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, too much weight is given to the T20 semi-final and final, in the overall context of the season.
- Strategy and tactics are covered in T20, but not in the other competitions. Is there anything similar available?
- Not really. There are little bits and pieces, but really I'd have to stretch little quotes out to an OR-ish extent to get anything decent. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a tricky one. If the detail is not available in other forms of cricket, fair enough. But does that mean that we should include the T20 detail, just because it exists? I think the risk here is too much weight on T20 in the overall context of the season. Not too sure on this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see your point here. The T20 section is shorter than the Championship, but clearly longer than the FPT or the Pro40. But I think that possibly reflects the prominence that Twenty20 cricket is given now. It gets the largest crowds, and significant coverage in the press, more so than 40 and 50-over cricket typically. Also, the fact that Somerset were finalists and qualified for the Champions League Twenty20 as a result makes it important to the season. That said, I do agree that there is probably a little too much detail on the semi-final and final! Harrias talk 10:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Somerset bowled strongly in the competition": A bit POV, given the source."Wicket-keeper Carl Gazzard": Two links in succession make it look like one long pipe; any way to improve this?
- Delinked Wicket-keeper, it was already linked plenty of times in the article. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any official judgements on the season, such as a coach's report in the yearbook?
I quite like the idea of the last section being called "reaction" rather than "aftermath".
- Changed. Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second Brian's comments about the financial section being a little vague.
- I've expanded this a bit more now, how is it? Harrias talk 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support: Just about there I think. There are one or two things still to address which I have left unstruck. And it may be worth adding a few more links: for example, fast bowler, opening partnership. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I'm happy to support now; anything left unstruck is not a huge issue and does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: I reviewed (and supported) a previous nomination of this; I'll read through again (might take me to the end of the weekend) and hope to be able to support again. Meanwhile, I'll add comments here as I have time.
- "He was aided by seam bowlers Alfonso Thomas and David Stiff, who returned to the first-class game for the first time since 2006": this sentence structure doesn't make it clear whether it's just Stiff, or both Stiff and Thomas, who returned to the first-class game for the first time since 2006. Assuming it's just Stiff, I'd suggest reversing the order of names so that the descriptive clause directly follows his name but precedes Stiff: "... seam bowlers David Stiff, who ... , and Alfonso Thomas".
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to support above; couldn't find anything else to fix. Please do tweak the sentence I mention above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted. Had to reorder the subsequent sentence too to avoid close repitition. Harrias talk 19:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support: I don't have time to make a detailed prose check but in the main it seems OK; maybe Mike, above, will find a few glitches. What is truly excellent is the presentation of the statistical information. No stone left unturned, and beautifully done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also switched to support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – My only concern was related to the financial paragraph, which has been expanded and otherwise improved since I was first here. I went and cleaned up a couple of things there, and I'm satisfied that the rest of the article is up to FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time at FAC, so I apologize in advance for any small bobbles. Debora Green is an American woman convicted of murdering two of her children by setting fire to the family home. The article has had a GA review and a thorough copyediting, and I think it's ready for the next step. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Without reading through the whole article, I do feel the need to note that that lede is quite long. I would suggest trimming it down to no more than two or three paragraphs; I think you could do this easily without compromising on what has been summarised so far. The blow-by-blow account of the fire and its aftermath is not needed, and could really be reduced to a handful of sentences without a detrimental effect on the article. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ledes are one of my weak spots, as I tend to write them very short. I actually bulked this one up substantially a few weeks ago with the expectation that FAC would require a longer lede on an article 63k long. Here are a couple possible other, shorter versions: shorter biography/backstory, shorter section about the crime/aftermath, shorter everything. My preference would be the "shorter everything" version, but which do you feel summarises the article content best? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "shorter everything" looks to be the way to go. Other than that, great work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- New lede put in place. Thank you for your comments! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "shorter everything" looks to be the way to go. Other than that, great work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ledes are one of my weak spots, as I tend to write them very short. I actually bulked this one up substantially a few weeks ago with the expectation that FAC would require a longer lede on an article 63k long. Here are a couple possible other, shorter versions: shorter biography/backstory, shorter section about the crime/aftermath, shorter everything. My preference would be the "shorter everything" version, but which do you feel summarises the article content best? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN8: formatting
- Be consistent in whether newspaper citations include publishers
- FN45-48: italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cautious support
Commenton comprehensiveness and prose - assuming good faith on review of all possible sources. Am not familiar with topic so cannot exclude issues others bring up.looking promising.I read through this earlier on my android.One thing that struck me - is there any more detail anywhere on Green's psychological profile or discussion of it? Also the aftermath, is there any discussion of whether she has any relationship with her daughter? Are there any other analyses of the story not yet covered or included?much betterCasliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- See here for a diff of the changes I've made today. In addition to some minor cleanup tweaks that happened to get caught today, here's what I've done to address your comments:
- I've added a discussion of what various sources say about her psychology. I'm hoping to find one more source to add, but for the moment this is all that's available.
- I can find no reliable sources discussing Green's current relationship with her daughter, beyond a mention that Kate attended a 2005 hearing regarding Green's request for a new trial. I suspect this is by design and that Kate is not much enamored of the press these days, though I have a few feelers out just in case I've missed a mention.
- The only other notable analysis of the Green case I've been able to locate discussed it in the context of bioterrorism; I've added that to the "In media" section. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cas, if you (or anyone else) would like to spotcheck, I can provide PDFs of most of the sources (notable exception being the Rule book, which I don't have in a shareable digital format). Please just let me know :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See here for a diff of the changes I've made today. In addition to some minor cleanup tweaks that happened to get caught today, here's what I've done to address your comments:
- 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating The Hunger Games for FA status because, after a series of thorough revisions earlier this year, I believe it now exceeds the Good article criteria and more than meets the Featured article criteria. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by GabeMc.
- References
- I don't think IFC News should be italicized, ref [74].
- Scholastic is not italicized in refs [7], [8], [13] and [38] but is italicized in refs [3] and [25].
- Same with the School Library Journal, [6], [39] and [27].
- I believe Christianity Today should be italicized, [17] - [20].
Same with Independent Tribune, [16].~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks much, Gabe! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- General
- You need alt text for the infobox image.
Presumably, all the info cited in the lead is also cited in the body, per WP:CITELEAD, cites in the lead should be removed.~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also done. Thanks again! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pretty solid. TBrandley 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The article is well written, researched and it appears quite comprehensive (I havn't read the book). The lead accurately summarises a well structured article. Overall, its an excellent piece of writing that easily meets the FA criteria. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a brief suggestion on the talk page that could be considered. Glimmer721 talk 01:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; right here. It's pretty much resolved, I think, though others may disagree. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. Looking over this quickly, Ref #10 needs a filled-out template, and 47 and 48 at least need publishers. Glimmer721 talk 02:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Templified Ref 10 and added work parameters to 47 and 48. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. Looking over this quickly, Ref #10 needs a filled-out template, and 47 and 48 at least need publishers. Glimmer721 talk 02:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; right here. It's pretty much resolved, I think, though others may disagree. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Right at the top, I think the dab link is enough. It holds the other two links which feature in the lead anyway.
- No publisher name in the lead? And improve "novel by ... novelist"?
- "The Hunger Games has been released in paperback and also as an audiobook and ebook." Not hardback? This sentence confused me. I suggest moving "hardcover" from the second sentence to here.
- Inspiration and origins: rename to "Background/Inspiration/Origin and writing" since a lot of the info is about how she wrote it?
- I don't think any of the second-level subsections are necessary, they give the appearance of an overly-segmented and stubby-looking text. Can Cover be a paragraph in Publication history too?
- Film: I think you can (easily) expand the film adaption by copying stuff from The_Hunger_Games_(film)#Production. There's a lot of stuff relevant to the book there—how Lions Gate wooed Collins and how they managed to adapt the book to film will be of interest to anybody who has read the novel. Also, how the "script was extremely faithful" etc.
- Parodies and game: are any of these notable enough to mention here? The parodies are sourced to Amazon (anybody can put up their books for sale there) and the game isn't even directly related to the book.
Apart from the film-adaptation expansion, these are just nitpicks; you've done an excellent job and I look forward to supporting soon.—indopug (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've taken care of all these. Very helpful, so thank for your input! When you get a chance, I'd love to know what you think about the Film adaptation section. I'm pretty sure I picked a good selection of material to copy from the other article, but since you suggested it, I figured you may have some additional input now that it's been done. Thanks again! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for being so accommodating to my suggestions! I'm almost ready to support, but want to do a final copy-edit first (in a couple of days). In the mean time, a few more suggestions (feel free to disagree):
- The film stuff is great. I'd recommend cutting down the second para beginning: "20-year-old actress JL was selected to play KE. Although four years older than the character, Collins said..."
- "The Hunger Games are an annual event..." sentence is long and unpunctuated.
- "initial print of 200,000—twice doubled from the original 50,000" - confusing. What's the difference between "original" and "initial print"? Also, why not just "four times" for "twice doubled".
- Reception: TIME and NYT's opinions carry more critical weight than the others; I think they should begin the section, and that TIME's review can be expanded.
- The Battle Royale stuff becomes a little repetitive. I suggest removing Green and trimming Nishimura. And where is the question of "defend[ing] Battle Royale from plagiarism"? BR is the 'original', why should anyone have to defend it?
- Religious themes:
- Just curious, why do the references here feature quotes of the sources?
- Don't think the last two sentences contribute anything to the paragraph, especially the Fox News one.—indopug (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've dealt with all of this, except for the TIME bit, which I intend to get around to tonight. I'm not sure why there were so many quotes in the refs (I didn't have much to do with writing that section), but I'm fairly certain they were unnecessary, so I removed them. Thanks for all your suggestions! I think the article is looking even better now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just updated the Time section with another quote. If you think it could use some more, let me know. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for being so accommodating to my suggestions! I'm almost ready to support, but want to do a final copy-edit first (in a couple of days). In the mean time, a few more suggestions (feel free to disagree):
- I believe I've taken care of all these. Very helpful, so thank for your input! When you get a chance, I'd love to know what you think about the Film adaptation section. I'm pretty sure I picked a good selection of material to copy from the other article, but since you suggested it, I figured you may have some additional input now that it's been done. Thanks again! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rating chart -- it should have one of those rating charts that you see on film and tv article. Waveclaira (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain that that isn't standard procedure for novel articles. We don't have a template for it, anyway (I checked). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any such templates are optional--there's no "should" about it. Personally I think they're not very helpful when it comes to conveying critical consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I thought, and I agree completely. Thanks, Wesley! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any such templates are optional--there's no "should" about it. Personally I think they're not very helpful when it comes to conveying critical consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Final quibble
- Shouldn't there be a discussion of the allusions/allegory of Reality TV in Themes?—indopug (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed there should be; I think we probably got most of the basic idea across in the Background section, but there definitely should be something on it there, too. I've added a bit on it, along with a new source. (I hope Entertainment Weekly counts as "high quality secondary"; if not, I can rethink that part.) Thanks for all your help! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work.—indopug (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Pretty good read, minor nitpicks follow. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- link reality television
- "… and rights of production have been sold in 38 countries." Does a right of production mean filming rights?
- perhaps channel surfing should be linked (non-Native English speakers might not know what this is, and, bizarrely, we have an article on it)
- "… with Collins describing Katniss as a futuristic Theseus, and Roman gladiatorial games provided the framework." provided->providing(?)
- "… with Katniss having lost her father at age 11, five years before the story begins." awkward noun+ing construction
- "…an event in which the participants (or "tributes") must fight to the death in an outdoor arena controlled by the Capitol" is the event or the arena controlled by the Capitol? Perhaps the final four words aren't needed?
- "Katniss's stylist, Cinna, is the only person at the Capitol with whom she feels a degree of empathy." With whom or for whom? If the former, what is the object of their collective empathy?
- "In an interview with Collins, it was noted that the books …" Why the passive voice? How about "… she noted …"?
- "Laura Miller of The New Yorker finds that the author's stated premise of the Games – … – to be unconvincing." Needs a grammar fix
- perhaps link self-sacrifice
- "in the story Peeta shows up "bearing a warm loaf of bread," and Katniss slowly comes "back to life."" I think the quoted parts could be paraphrased
- "and rights to the novel had been sold in 38 territories." in the lead, this is 38 countries
- "the book was released on paperback." on -> in
- link allegorical
- 33rd best book -> needs hyphenation
- "20-year-old actress' shouldn't start a sentence with a number
- fix the double fullstop in ref #4
- Scholastic and Entertainment Weekely have duplicate links
- Thanks for taking the time to look through the article! I've dealt with most of the issues you raised, but before I move forward on the others, I want to discuss them a little bit.
- "… with Collins describing Katniss as a futuristic Theseus, and Roman gladiatorial games provided the framework." provided->providing(?)
- Not exactly, since that wording would tie in the gladiatorial games with the myth of Theseus alongside Collins' assessment of the character, rather than it being a separate clause. "This, which is backed up by this, and also this," if that explanation makes any sense at all.
- "… with Katniss having lost her father at age 11, five years before the story begins." awkward noun+ing construction
- This may be a dumb question, but to which noun are you referring? I think (at least, my experience thus far with the English language has led me to believe) that the sentence is fine. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, though. Regardless, I have tweaked the sentence a little so it flows better. If it still needs work, let me know.
- The noun is Katniss (see this for more details). It's not a big deal, I just notice this construction more often now that Tony's written a page about it :) Sasata (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be a dumb question, but to which noun are you referring? I think (at least, my experience thus far with the English language has led me to believe) that the sentence is fine. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, though. Regardless, I have tweaked the sentence a little so it flows better. If it still needs work, let me know.
- "…an event in which the participants (or "tributes") must fight to the death in an outdoor arena controlled by the Capitol" is the event or the arena controlled by the Capitol? Perhaps the final four words aren't needed?
- I have to disagree here, since the direct "control" which the Capitol exercises over the arena is a major component behind several plot points in the book. I think it's important to clarify in the summary that the obstacles and dangers aren't entirely natural, or just a result of the other tributes, and the present text seems to do that well enough.
- "In an interview with Collins, it was noted that the books …" Why the passive voice? How about "… she noted …"?
- Looking at the source, it seems to be the interviewer who made the observation. Inexplicably, the interviewer isn't named; I suppose I could rephrase it to "In an interview with Collins, the interviewer noted...", but perhaps that comes across as somewhat awkward? Any thoughts on that?
- Since the quote is not from Collins herself, and the interviewer isn't named, I'd just rephrase the quote in my own words. (But I'm not fussed about it either way). Sasata (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I definitely agree it could be worded more clearly. I'll see if I can fix it here in a little bit. Thanks for your help! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the source, it seems to be the interviewer who made the observation. Inexplicably, the interviewer isn't named; I suppose I could rephrase it to "In an interview with Collins, the interviewer noted...", but perhaps that comes across as somewhat awkward? Any thoughts on that?
- Scholastic and Entertainment Weekely have duplicate links
- I've looked and looked and I can't find these. Would you mind pointing them out for me?
- I just removed them myself. I use the duplicate link checker for this (a very handy tool). Sasata (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked and looked and I can't find these. Would you mind pointing them out for me?
- Thanks for all your comments! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think the article is well written and complies with the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
- Article: The novel deals with the struggle for self-preservation that the people of Panem face in their districts and the Hunger Games in which they must participate.[6]
- Source: I can't see this information in the source. Reference 1. would be better where it says," The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian North America (called Panem) in which 12 districts must each send a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in televised mortal combat--reality TV at its deadliest."
- Article: After writing the novel, Collins signed a six-figure deal for three books with Scholastic in 2006. First published as a hardcover in the United States on September 14, 2008, The Hunger Games had a first printing of 50,000 copies, which was bumped up twice to 200,000 copies.[1]
- Source: Scholastic acquired the trilogy in a six-figure deal via agent Rosemary Stimola in 2006..Although the book's 200,000-copy first printing (upped twice from an original 50,000 copies) is comparatively modest (the Meyer and Paolini titles have first printings of 3.2 and 2.5 million, respectively), the October title from Scholastic Press has been drawing early raves, particularly online, where commentary has lit up blogs and listservs.
- Article: The Hunger Games received many awards and honors. It was named one of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of the Year" in 2008 [41]
- Source: Subscription required
- Article: King noted that the reality TV "badlands" were similar to Battle Royale, as well as his own The Running Man and The Long Walk.[30]
- Source: Also, readers of Battle Royale (by Koushun Takami), The Running Man, or The Long Walk (those latter two by some guy named Bachman) will quickly realize they have visited these TV badlands before.
- Article: School Library Journal also praised the audiobook, stating that "McCormick ably voices the action-packed sequences and Katniss's every fear and strength shines through, along with her doomed growing attraction to one of her fellow Tributes."[25]
- Source: Collins creates a fascinating world and Katniss is a believably flawed and interesting character. Carolyn McCormick ably voices the action-packed sequences and Katniss's every fear and strength shines through, along with her doomed growing attraction to one of her fellow Tributes. This engrossing audiobook belongs in all public and school libraries.—Charli Osborne, Oxford Public Library, MI
- Article: The novel has also been controversial with parents;[39]
- Source: New Hampshire Parent Challenges 'The Hunger Games'
- No major issues, the nominator might want to address the minor issue with reference 6. Graham Colm (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Graham. I believe it's fixed now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 16:01, 15 September 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Davejohnsan (talk), TBrandley 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, after its previous failed nomination, we believe it's okay for FAC now. Awake is an American television police procedural supernatural drama that originally ran on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) for one season from March 1, 2012 to May 24, 2012. The show's concept has been considered too complex for American television. It has had extremely low ratings, but high reception since its original debut. Awake recently underwent a peer review, a copy-edit from Davejohnsan, and has already been promoted to GA status, earlier this year, in mid-June 2012. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, the "series overview" section is complete, and recently, the "Setting" section has been merged into that. The "Reception", "Distribution", and "Broadcast history" is filled with fully-referenced information, while, the "External links" area is filled with useful "External links". The article has many useful images, with "Alt" on the images. Prior to this nomination, these were the changes I made on the article for FA. My inpersation for this article was House (TV series) and Firefly (TV series). Thank you for looking at this and considering it. If there are any outstanding concerns, please write below. Thanks again! TBrandley 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I gave this article an extensive review at its previous (suddenly failed) FAC, including a spotcheck of sources. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An article which I believe was ready even at the time of the end of the first FAC. A FA, indeed. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A solid article that deserves the featured article status :) Sofffie7 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
- File:Kyle Killen by Gage Skidmore1.jpg is fine
- File:Howard Gordon by Gage Skidmore.jpg is fine
- File:Jason Isaacs by Gage Skidmore.jpg is fine
- File:Awake Logo.png is possibly not PD-simple owing to the colouring and split E. A Fair-Use rationale would be safest. Is the controversy over this logo finished yet?
- File:David Slade 001.jpg is possibly a copyvio (web resolution, no EXIF data) and I've nominated for deletion. Anything safer?
- File:JasonIsaacsMarch09.jpg is fine
- Quick prose comment: Last paragraph of #Production team is a mess, any way to combine these references into one? See Wikipedia:Citation overkill.
- Not done; not really. There are all separate different references. TBrandley 01:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use something like
- Not done; not really. There are all separate different references. TBrandley 01:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<ref> *{{cite web|ref1}} *{{cite web|ref 2}} *{{cite web|ref 3}} </ref>
- so that it shows up as a single footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See my example at the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to ask, but, could you do it? It keeps getting messed up every time I try. Thanks, TBrandley 03:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the citewebs within the group ref you created, are repeated later in the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest perhaps keeping them separate (one named reference for the later, single uses, and a group reference for the two sentences in question. Having a ref after every name is hard on readers and editors, so I don't think there's a problem with duplicating the citation templates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the citewebs within the group ref you created, are repeated later in the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to ask, but, could you do it? It keeps getting messed up every time I try. Thanks, TBrandley 03:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See my example at the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing! I've replied to your concerns above. Cheers, TBrandley 01:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
- Support on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Ruby2010
Lead: the link to Pilot (Awake) should be used when you first mention the "first episode".Lead: the mention of critical commentary becomes a little repetitive and redundant (you say "critical success" and then soon after note the positive reviews the series received). I would either trim this or at least rewrite/rewordThis is sort of implied, but it would be better if you make it clear that it was canceled due to its low ratings"...show, and has been nominated for five awards." - split into another sentence"Kyle Killen, the series' creator, devised the concept of the program, that was described as a procedural mixture that is based on the life of a detective experiencing a parallel universe after a car accident with his family" - I don't like how this is phrased. Perhaps change to "Kyle Killen, the series' creator, devised the concept of the program, which has been described as a police procedural about the life of a detective experiencing a parallel universe after a car accident with his family".Those two block quotes in the conception section are a little excessive. I would recommend phrasing at least some of it into your own words- I just removed the quote itself. So, done, I guess. TBrandley 21:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the conception section, I don't like how everything is mashed up together (quote box, image, infobox). Can you move the image or quote box lower?- Done. Moved image further down to writing. TBrandley 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are redundant to use one after another: "further elaborated on the conception of the series:" and "Kyle Killen sought inspiration from the dreaming process."Wikilink first mention of NBC- Why was Kevin Reilly apprehensive?
- Your change just made it more confusing. Why did Reilly reject the script if he enjoyed reading it? Ruby 2010/2013 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casting: Wikilink first mention of Jason IsaacsHannah's casting seems out of order; it would make more sense if you mentioned that Michaela McManus was first cast, and then added in Laura Allen. There's also a repetition of "received" that hurts my eyes
I've only read through the production section so far, but the content seems solid. Mainly just minor prose and linking issues that I've listed above. Ruby 2010/2013 04:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! I addressed/replied to all of them above. Hope you can support or leave further comments. Cheers, TBrandley 21:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More
- "His therapists insist that he is "making of all this up", and that he is helping himself "cope" with the pain" - typo?
- The Series overview section uses the "accident" a lot; is there another word you can sometimes substitute in?
- Lots of uses of "however" that are a bit irksome
- "However, Ed asks for protection then he will tell him, but, then attacks Michael while he is distracted." - too many commas
- "Michael later finds out that Carl is involved in the setup. Finally, Michael finds evidence that Tricia is also in on the setup." - these two sentences can be merged and removed of redundant wording
- Series overview: You should mention which of the events occurred in the finale, to make Killen's comments in the following paragraph more clear
- Series overview: "In response to viewer speculation on the meaning of the finale, Killen said that he has seen intersecting theories, stating that no one is wrong, expect for people who called Awake's finale a Dallas or a Newhart." - Huh? Very poorly written
- Series overview: In fact, the first couple sentences of that paragraph could use a copy edit
- The quote marks around the red and green realities aren't really necessary after you first establish what each one is.
- Yeah, they are. Its there in every Awake-related article, including Say Hello to My Little Friend, an FA
- Where does David Hinckley's (New York Daily News) quote begin?
- In critical response section. Last paragraph. ?
- The storylines of the "red reality" in that episode were praised, while the storylines of the "green reality" in the entry were criticized, which were considered "boring". - needs a rewrite
- "Handlen thought that if the "red reality" storyline was not featured in this installment, it would not work as an episode" - This installment? I think these few sentences are meant to cover the last episode mentioned, but they are confusingly written
Ruby 2010/2013 02:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! Have addressed/replied to all of them. Cheers, TBrandley 00:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Reading through, I see no real issues at all. A great article, and one I have come to expect from these two nominators. Congratulations! --CassiantoTalk 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Frankly, I'm disappointed in the reviewing that has taken place up to this point. There are a bunch of one-line supports from TV article editors and a comment that someone sees "no real issues at all". I see a large number of issues in what I've read, from awkwardness in the writing to an overreliance on quotes to blatant grammar errors that should have been caught before this point. I really think this needs one more good copy-edit to merit the star.
- Conception: "which was canceled shortly after airing two episodes due to low ratings." Since the show was canceled, but the network aired it, this is awkward. How about "which was canceled shortly after two episodes were aired due to low ratings."
- Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: TBrandley, wasn't it cancelled before the final two episodes aired? Where's this "after" coming from? I don't remember seeing it during my read through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For Awake, yes. Giants is referring to Lone Star. "Killen previously created the American television drama Lone Star (2010) for the Fox network, which was canceled shortly after two episodes were aired due to low ratings". Regards, TBrandley 02:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "which, after airing two episodes, was canceled due to low ratings"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. TBrandley 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not addressing the issue. It still implies that the show aired itself, not that a network aired it as the sentence should indicate. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, but to avoid issues perhaps add "by the network" after "canceled". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that would be enough to fix the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, but to avoid issues perhaps add "by the network" after "canceled". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not addressing the issue. It still implies that the show aired itself, not that a network aired it as the sentence should indicate. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. TBrandley 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "which, after airing two episodes, was canceled due to low ratings"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For Awake, yes. Giants is referring to Lone Star. "Killen previously created the American television drama Lone Star (2010) for the Fox network, which was canceled shortly after two episodes were aired due to low ratings". Regards, TBrandley 02:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: TBrandley, wasn't it cancelled before the final two episodes aired? Where's this "after" coming from? I don't remember seeing it during my read through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast, the other reality where his wife is alive, the 'red reality', the background is infused with a brighter, golden hue color." Needs "in" before "the other reality".Production team: In the last sentence, "Principal" shouldn't be capitalized.Writing: The first sentence of this section is a direct copy of what's in the lead. Personally, I feel the prose should look at least a little different from the lead to the body, and would hope to see some variety.- Something I'm noticing throughout is that the writing is literally laced with quotes.
A few quotes here and there are desirable, but seven in a two-paragraph Writing section alone is a little hard to stomach. Surely we can use original writing for at least a few of them; otherwise, this looks like just a string of quotes, which I wouldn't expect to be featured. What must the critical reception section be like?- Done some. TBrandley 02:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Gordon asserted that the concept of Awake was understandable if you sat down and paid attention to it properly." By using "you" like this, the writing is sort of talking to the reader, which it shouldn't do. An easy fix is "if the viewer sat down...".Series overview: "After the crash, Michael is conflicted with two separate realities." Wouldn't "conflicted" make more sense as "confronted"?Main characters: "Michael has a routine to help him maintain the illusions of control." "illusions" → "illusion"?"in the 'green reality'. In the 'green reality'...". Don't like to see this kind of repetition from one sentence to another, especially for a whole phrase."Michael sees two separate therapists: Dr. Jonathan Lee, and Dr. Judith Evans, Dr. Lee claims that...". The comma after Evans' name should be a period instead. Surprised that such an issue made it past five supporters, who I assume read the article.- Good catch. Thanks! Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Dr. Lee claims that Michael's two realities are a problems that are not there to help him". Clearly, the supporters didn't read this bit. I think this would work if "a" was removed.- Oops, another good catch. Done. Also, just a note, that was actually added after those people supported the article, I am horrible when it comes to prose. :0 Cheers, TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Directly after this is "while Dr. Evans states that it is 'remarkable'." Here, "it" is referring to the pair of realities, so this is actually a plural and should be "that they are 'remarkable'."- "but the writers ultimately did not get to it due to other storylines." Get to what? Making a romance between the two part of the story?
- Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not done: The sentence is worse now: "but the writers ultimately did not to that storyline to it due to other story arcs."--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. TBrandley 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (Talk) 01:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for comments above. How does it now look? May I ask if further comments are coming, despite your oppose? TBrandley 02:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Critical response: I've always heard from the real FAC prose gurus that "amongst" is awkward and that "among" is a better choice of wording.
- "Fowler noted that Allen and Minnette's performances in the series deserve praise for playing characters who are dealing with loss". The performances didn't play the characters; the actors did. Needs rewording with that in mind.
- "he described it as a show that will not fit into prime time television." Since the series has been canceled, shouldn't "will" be "would" instead?
- Distribution: "with episodes appearing the day after their live airing". This needs to be updated, since no more episodes are going to air. Maybe add "originally appearing" in there?
- All caps in ref 106 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I have to agree with Giants2008 regarding the quality of reviews by those who have supported this article. He pretty much took the words out of my mouth. I find it hard to believe that everyone missed the simple mistakes that have been pointed out.
Lead:
- "He served as a writer, and avouched that writing the episode's scripts was a difficult process during the show's creation." Since you say "during the show's creation", shouldn't this be "writing the pilot script"?
- " Michael's seemingly erratic behavior often causes him to clash with his team, who do not know about Michael's uncanny ability to solve crimes using details from both realities." A team is singular, one thing. Maybe "his team, that does not know"
- "it has had large fan support campaigns who teamed up to create the "Save Awake" campaign to convince networks to revive the show." Seems to me it was "try to convince", since the effort did not work.
The first three paragraphs of Conception need work. As it stands, it is a jumbled mess of misquotes, IMO.
- "Killen stated that the cancellation of Lone Star was a good platform to explore new ideas for a potential television show." What does this mean? How is the cancellation a good platform to explore new ideas? After reading the source, I still don't see what you are trying to say here. It seems to me that Killen is referring to the duality concept, not the cancellation.
- "Jennifer Salke, the president of the entertainment division of NBC, encouraged Killen to conceive a concept for a future television series after the cancellation of Lone Star." This is mentioned after Killen's quote about creating the series. It seems out of place. Why jump back to Lone Star? Move to beginning of paragraph, or tack on to previous paragraph.
- "Initially, Salke and Korman looked to sell acquisition rights to Fox." I don't see where in the source it says they went to Fox first. (From the source: "Korman and Salke slipped the spec to a handful of networks, including NBC, whose not-yet-official chief Bob Greenblatt had been a big Lone Star fan." and "Also on that list was Fox,")
- "Although it successfully made its way into the lower executive branches of the company, the script was declined by Fox entertainment president Kevin Reilly, who felt apprehensive upon reading it, stating that Killen was trying to "sneak a cable show" onto the channel." In the source, the phrase "sneak a cable show" was used in reference to Killen selling Lone Star to Fox. It had nothing to do with Awake.
- "layered with a watery blue filter, and Michael usually wears blue himself". This is a direct copy of source, but not quoted. Don't put quotes, though, just reword.
- "brighter, golden hue color." This should just be hue, drop the word color.
Production team:
- "Gordon later compared the television series to The Good Wife. He said that The Good Wife has so many procedural aspects that they have to decide which format to use each week. He compared it to Awake, saying, then, "What makes an Awake episode?"
- Confusing: He compared Awake to The Good Wife, which he compared to Awake? huh?
- From the source, "why is this an 'Awake' episode?" is the actual quote, not "What makes an Awake episode?". You are completely missing the meaning of what Gordon was saying. Another misquote.
- "while Cherry Jones and BD Wong's characters were Michael's therapists in one reality." Reword, it sounds like they are both in the same reality.
Casting:
- "Killen thought that the premise behind the series would be relatable to audiences, making it easier to expand his fanbase." - This also seems like a misquote of sorts. I see no mention in the source about it being easier for Killen to expand his fanbase. (In the source, the discussion is of Lone Star: "there were aspects of Lone Star that were more difficult to get a wider, broader audience interested in") Synthesis?
- Is there a reason why you give the specific date of casting only once, for a recurring character, ("On September 8, 2011, Innes garnered a recurring role in the series") while general dates (e.g. March 2011) are used for other, more prominent roles? Change the sentence for Innes to "September 2011".
Writing:
- "Stating that "things that are initially confusing to us when we are just trying to break story", Slade hoped that when viewers watched Awake, they would be instantly oriented as to what reality you are in at the time."
- The quote here does not fit into the sentence. The wording is off. How about: "Stating that things are "initially confusing to us when we are just trying to break story", Slade..."
- In addition, I think it would be beneficial to reword the second part, to "Slade hoped that when viewers watched the final version of the episode,", or "Slade hoped that when viewers watched the completed episode," or something like that.
- You? use "they", as the viewer.
- "Upon reading the script, Isaacs felt that it was the script was complicated to comprehend." - Makes no sense.
- "According to Isaacs, knowing which reality you are in is a pleasure." First I questioned the use of the word "you", but upon checking the source, this is another case of not knowing where you got this from. (From the source: "Do you always know what reality you're in? ... That's become a [gift]. It was hard but I quite like hard work.")
- "He stated that every pilot comes from people who have "amazing prestige", and that there are many talented people, but the head of NBC could only choose one." What is the purpose of this sentence? The rest of the paragraph deals with complexities/difficulties with the show/script. This sentence does not belong.
- Ref 9: You link to page 2 of the article. Either link to page one, or to the option of a full article on one page.
I've only covered the Lead and Production section. (Please also note my comment toward the end of Giants2008's reviews above.) In addition, my main concerns (and those of another reviewer) from the first review regarding poor paraphrasing were never fully addressed. This, combined with the obvious misquotes I have stumbled upon, lead me to continue to believe that accuracy is a huge issue here. This is still not a Fine Article.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More...I have just noticed, well after making my comments above, that several of my issues are related to this edit where you were trying to paraphrase for FAC. Just further evidence that paraphrasing and accuracy are an issue for you. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [6].
- Nominator(s): Davejohnsan (talk), Nikkimaria (talk), TBrandley 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following my successful FA nomination of "Say Hello to My Little Friend", we present, "Nightswimming". This episode is regarded by many as one of the worst ever produced, and, per other critic reviews, perhaps, even the actual worst. "Nightswimming" recently underwent a peer review from TRLIJC19, an A-class review from TRLIJC19 and Grapple X, a thorough GA review, again, from TRLIJC19; "Nightswimming" received two copy-edits, one of which was by Nikkimaria, and the other by Davejohnsan, both of which did great wonderful copy-edits which helped me be at FAC today. I feel that the article is truly comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, perhaps, the most for an Awake episode, and the page has topics on filming, filming locations, casting, writing, credits, for the production section only, also containing themes, broadcast numbers, and the episode's critical response, followed by external links for the episode. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, with good non-free rationales, which I have expanded very much due to that. As was flagged in my other FAC nominations, reviews from the TV Fanatic and Den of Geek (not my FAC for that one) have had their notability questioned, but have been deemed reliable. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Say Hello to My Little Friend/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)/archive1 (Grapple X's separate nomination). Despite the bad storyline of parts/bits of the episode, this article, I hope is a good read for you. Thank you for taking a look at my article, I will for sure be able to addressed all issues. Cheers, TBrandley 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
- Support on prose and images. Looks fairly solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with a note that we have an article on Pain in My Heart, so that should probably be linked. Good work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the album, not the song. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it is! Disregard. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the album, not the song. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another FA-worthy article in the Awake series. Well done, TBrandley! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No apparent problem; it is a well-written article. --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Gen. Quon moved to talk
- Support Looks good. My suggestions were rather not-needed, as all the issues seem to have been squared away. Good job here!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Incredible work done from the Awake Wikiproject. Prose, referencing, images are are good; quality article. And I say this as someone who's never watched a single episode of the series. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A flawless article worth FA-status. -- CassiantoTalk 23:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: I'm maybe a bit out of touch with the main TV critical sources, particularly as relating to US TV shows, so I looked at a couple. Screen Rant says on its "about" page that "reviews are written from the point of view of 'was it a fun/exciting/scary/compelling movie' instead of from some highbrow esoteric level that only other movie critics will relate to". That made me wonder a bit whether reviews from this source will have the required objectivity for encyclopedic neutrality? The other I investigated was TV Fanatic; I discovered this was part of Mediavine which resolved any doubts. I did a few spotchecks, no concerns there. Subject to any comment you might have about Screen Rant, sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on its website, I do think Screen Rant is a good source. TV Fanatic is fine, as above. Cheers, TBrandley 23:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a slightly stronger rationale for the use of Screen Rant? Obviously you think it's a good source, but why should others share your view? No problem with TV Fanatic. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Screen Rant operates with a dedicated editorial staff, and is operated/owned by Relativity Media. Itactually appears on Google News, if you search "Screen Rant" there, with their reviews being listed at Rotten Tomatoes. Per this, I still think is is a good source. Regards. TBrandley 00:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a slightly stronger rationale for the use of Screen Rant? Obviously you think it's a good source, but why should others share your view? No problem with TV Fanatic. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:44, 15 September 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): SSZ (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all the FA criteria. SSZ (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is something small you would like to change please go ahead and do it. If you need assistance, please let me know. The idea is to improve the article since past comments have been very useful. The rest is unimportant to me. Thank you. PS: If you think the lead section needs to be rewritten I have the CIA World Fact book content that is perfect (which is available under This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.). I can also assist in updating few small things such as references but first I need your feedback.
Comments by Grandiose: perhaps another FACer could advise on the usage on Encarta here.
- May be I should have started by repeating that this article and set of articles do not exist in any place. So it is hard to compare it to a model. This article is setting the standard, hopefully. Wikipedia itself has no FA to compare it to. I was told the economy of India (formerly FA article) was judged on lower criteria (see previous FA review for exact quote).SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Pistachios, liquefied propane, methanol (methyl alcohol), hand-woven carpets and automobiles are the core items of Iran's non-oil exports. is taken directly from the source (Pistachios, liquefied propane, methanol (methyl alcohol,) hand-woven carpets and automobiles are the core items of Iran's non-oil exports.) which is very worrying at FAC. In any case it's a very vague idea.
- This is easy to fix. Sometimes I add things, since the most important part (specially in economics) are FACTS and FIGURES, not prose. I agree, I should have paid clearer attention to this. May be there are around 10 such instance (rough estimate) in this article. From my understanding it is NOT a copyright violation since there is absolutely no originality whatsoever in the prose. Whether I say "the basket is composed of 10 apples and oranges" or "there are 10 apples and oranges in the basket" does not make ANY difference. This is not a novel. FACTS are important here. I would appreciate if during this review people could just make the correction themselves, if they feel this is important to them. Also, I am not sure I understand your "very vague idea" comment. Please clarify. Thanks. SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the reference for "Since the mid 90's, Iran has increased its economic cooperation with other developing countries in "south-south integration" including Syria, India, China, South Africa, Cuba and Venezuela."? Ref currently 236, here doesn't mention it.
- It is just a broad statement. Take a look at foreign relations of Iran and see sources for each country, wherever available. I have updated the information for each main partner.SSZ (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You say " Iran is expanding its trade ties with Turkey and Pakistan and shares with its partners the common objective to create the ECO" but the source says "The ECO is an intergovernmental regional organization established in 1985". Since there is a change in direction, is it that the new thing is going to be inside the ECO framework? Needs clarification
- Good point. It should rather read "Iran is expanding its trade ties with Turkey and Pakistan and shares with its partners the common objective to create a single economic market in West and Central Asia through ECO." I will make the correction. SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't get [8] to work.
Just a few things, plenty more to examine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the link with webarchive. Again if there are things that can be fixed by the reviewers, I would appreciate if you just go ahead and make the change, since it is more helpful. Thank you.SSZ (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd like to see an FA out of this, but I examined just the first sentence and found the following: the two citations do not support the figures "17" (PPP) and "26" (nominal GDP). Those numbers aren't necessarily wrong, but they aren't supported by those sources. Yes, this does say "17" (in fact, has the president himself saying it), but the primary source should be used (see List of countries by GDP (PPP)). Meanwhile, the infobox has "17" and "25" rather than 26. Dates should be added to qualify these numbers. If this attention to detail is indicative, there's a ways to go yet. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you are wrong. This article pays a lot of attention to details.
- Economic data is updated every month. I can change it to make it uniform. Often those rankings go back and forth within a month (I think the CIA World factbook gets its data from the EIU :) SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence "US sanctions against Iranian banks ironically ensured Iran's immunity from the global financial crisis" is an exact copy of source 257. (Edit: here is the diff that added the sentence.) Two short reviews have found two instances of copying. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see above comments.SSZ (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this can motivate the editors and reviewers here, NO SUCH SET OF ARTICLES COVER IRAN'S ECONOMY IN ANY LANGUAGE according to the US Library of Congress (2008). For the rest if you really want to get this to FA, then please do a copy-edit. The 6-year work was do the research and make it into a coherent set of articles (~1,200 pages). False modesty aside, The IMF , World Bank, World Factbook and Encarta are very far (despite their institutional resources and the central importance of this subject today) to have produced something similar in terms of content and quality. Please see references given in the article for comparison. Thanks again for your contributions. SSZ (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SSZ, really important topic, and not an easy one given that the sources are likely to be variable in reliability, since the management of Iran's economy is not really an open affair. You might wish to withdraw and bring on some word-nerds and editors who can review the sourcing, then renominate? Tony (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, Tony. I wish I had more time for this FAC promotion. I will seek advise and renomiate in two months. SSZ
- SSZ, really important topic, and not an easy one given that the sources are likely to be variable in reliability, since the management of Iran's economy is not really an open affair. You might wish to withdraw and bring on some word-nerds and editors who can review the sourcing, then renominate? Tony (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that this nomination has been withdrawn, but as a quick comment I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on Iranian news reports given that the Iranian media is subject to censorship. I know from experience in military topics that PressTV publishes all sorts of nonsense when directed (I assume) to do so by the government, so I don't think that it qualifies as a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Military info is different from economic info. In times of wars "truth becomes the first casualty". PressTV is no less reliable than BBC, FoxNews or CNN. They are all under the direct influence of the their respective governments in such matters. For the rest, this article presents the same facts and conlusion as the CIA World Factbook, which is reassuring to a large degree. This also disproves any question about the reliablity of the cited sources. Now, if you have any specific comment, please go ahead. I will be more than happy to correct - whenever your comments are true and verifiable. I can't see ANY at present (and nobody was able to disprove anything in 6 years as far as I can recall). SSZ
- Since when are the BBC, Fox News and CNN under the direct influence of their governments? (I bet Barrack Obama wishes that he could tell Fox News what to report!). Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Off topic. SSZ
- Since when are the BBC, Fox News and CNN under the direct influence of their governments? (I bet Barrack Obama wishes that he could tell Fox News what to report!). Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Military info is different from economic info. In times of wars "truth becomes the first casualty". PressTV is no less reliable than BBC, FoxNews or CNN. They are all under the direct influence of the their respective governments in such matters. For the rest, this article presents the same facts and conlusion as the CIA World Factbook, which is reassuring to a large degree. This also disproves any question about the reliablity of the cited sources. Now, if you have any specific comment, please go ahead. I will be more than happy to correct - whenever your comments are true and verifiable. I can't see ANY at present (and nobody was able to disprove anything in 6 years as far as I can recall). SSZ
- FAC review closed.***
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [9].
- Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 1963, Britain's Duncan Sandys horrified Roy Welensky of Federal Rhodesia and Nyasaland by telling him "we British have lost the will to govern." Julian Greenfield, one of Welensky's ministers, snapped back "But we haven't." Amidst the wildly accelerated constitutional landslide associated with the Wind of Change, a significant headache for Britain was the significant white population in south-central Africa, who were far from ready to stop running their own affairs.
Rhodesia ultimately issued its Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965, but UDI was preceded by an international quarrel over whether Rhodesia had to right to appoint its own foreign representation. Previous British legislation appeared to allow it in Rhodesia's eyes, but Whitehall disputed this. Ostracised by Britain for its staunch refusal to adapt to the new world of the 1960s, Rhodesia threw in its lot with Portugal, and announced its intention to open an independent representative mission in Lisbon in June 1965. Britain tried to stop this, but proved helpless to do so, and the office opened in September. It remained until 1975, when Portugal's post-Carnation Revolution government closed it.
This had a largely unproductive peer review recently, but I still feel it is ready for FAC. I feel that the prose is of a high standard, that a neutral point of view is maintained, that the huge amount of necessary background is explained thoroughly without excessive detail, and that sourcing is at the level required. Images are used appropriately, I believe, without dominating the article.
Overall, I think this article provides a comprehensive overview of the Lisbon Appointment, which I personally find interesting as a less obvious parallel to UDI. The Portuguese link helped Rhodesia hugely during the UDI era, both economically and militarily, and the Lisbon office played no small part in this. I hope you find it interesting too.
Please note if you leave comments that unavoidable career commitments will severely restrict my ability to see them for most of each week. I am around on Wikipedia on Fridays and Saturdays (Jerusalem time, presently UTC+3). I would appreciate if administrators would also take this into account. Here is a link to see when I was last about. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Per MOS, dates should not use "th" at the end, see section "Britain despatches", uses "cabled back on the 18th..."
- My understanding was always that this only referred to "18 November" rather than "18th November". This article uses this correctly throughout. Where the month is omitted, "18th" rather than "18" is surely correct? "cabled back on the 18 accepting Hughes' visit" is, so far as I know, incorrect. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go with whatever the consensus is on this, I don't think that it is enough to hold up the article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me, thanks. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go with whatever the consensus is on this, I don't think that it is enough to hold up the article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding was always that this only referred to "18 November" rather than "18th November". This article uses this correctly throughout. Where the month is omitted, "18th" rather than "18" is surely correct? "cabled back on the 18 accepting Hughes' visit" is, so far as I know, incorrect. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In above section heading, "despatches" is misspelled.
- No it isn't. "Despatch" is an acceptable British-style alternative for "dispatch" that is commonly used in Commonwealth versions of English. This article in particular uses South African English. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No alt text for coat of arms image.
- That's part of a template rather than the article, and the template doesn't appear to have an alt text parameter. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick image check showed proper licensing.
- Lekker stuff. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I get a chance, I'll look at it in more detail later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review so far, it is appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- Disclaimer: I didn't give any thought to POV issues.
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Lisbon Appointment#Early negotiations. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I've reorganised the background section a bit and added about an extra paragraph, giving more explanation about Britain's shift in policy c. 1957–1963. You might want to run over this again. Sorry for any inconvenience, and thanks again. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The new paragraph is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Dank. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The new paragraph is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I've reorganised the background section a bit and added about an extra paragraph, giving more explanation about Britain's shift in policy c. 1957–1963. You might want to run over this again. Sorry for any inconvenience, and thanks again. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Be consistent in whether you provide locations for journals and publishers for newspapers
- "Online sources" should either all include location or none
- Where is Salisbury?
- It was renamed Harare in 1982, on Zimbabwe's second birthday. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Berlyn ISBN returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected it from the book. Thanks for the source review Nikkimaria. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still invalid: ISBN 0-86919-083-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum — click for error message; it's an invalid checksum (the last digit). Even correcting the digit still produces no results on Google or Worldcat. It could be printed wrong, but it seems like it is not a properly assigned ISBN. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the book in front of me. The exact wording is:
- ISBN 0 86919 083 4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character
- M. O. COLLINS (PVT) LTD
- Victoria Street, Salisbury, Rhodesia.
- April 1978
- Possibly a misprint, but otherwise I am at a loss. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no doubt that it's printed that way. But it's simply wrong. That never, ever, will be a valid ISBN, as the math is wrong. It's a typo on their part. Things were not done by machine then. The purpose of including the ISBN in the cite is to enable looking it up, and it won't ever be found in a computer search on that. Someone may reprint this someday, which would result in a valid ISBN being assigned, but in the mean time, I'd be inclined to omit it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then let's do that. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you with my tone, as that was not my intention. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that you cut it and looked back here. I wasn't offended, just being clear that it's busted. Reminder; it's also in use in Shangani Patrol. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers buddy. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that you cut it and looked back here. I wasn't offended, just being clear that it's busted. Reminder; it's also in use in Shangani Patrol. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then let's do that. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you with my tone, as that was not my intention. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no doubt that it's printed that way. But it's simply wrong. That never, ever, will be a valid ISBN, as the math is wrong. It's a typo on their part. Things were not done by machine then. The purpose of including the ISBN in the cite is to enable looking it up, and it won't ever be found in a computer search on that. Someone may reprint this someday, which would result in a valid ISBN being assigned, but in the mean time, I'd be inclined to omit it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the book in front of me. The exact wording is:
- It's still invalid: ISBN 0-86919-083-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum — click for error message; it's an invalid checksum (the last digit). Even correcting the digit still produces no results on Google or Worldcat. It could be printed wrong, but it seems like it is not a properly assigned ISBN. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected it from the book. Thanks for the source review Nikkimaria. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to all, particularly administrators: I will be off Wikipedia between 23 September and 5 October because of work commitments, and will not be available to answer queries and so on. I would appreciate if everybody would take this into account. I would particularly appreciate if this nomination would not be closed prematurely before 5 October due to perceived inaction on my part. I always endeavour to resolve issues as soon as I can, as I'm sure some of you know, and I look forward to jumping straight back into this as soon as I get back. Thanks all, and have a great couple weeks. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, Graham, but did I not ask for this to be kept open while I was away? I just got back this minute and saw that the nomination had been closed this morning. I suppose it's academic in any case as nobody seems to want to comment on this, but I'm still rather miffed, frankly. But hey-ho. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I kept it open until late last night. I closed it not "due to perceived inaction on [your] part", but because of total inaction – there have been no comments or reviews for nearly a month. Because there were no further points for you to address, I decided that a few hours would make little difference. Were it not for your request, I would have closed the nomination much earlier. Graham Colm (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. Thank you for the explanation, Graham. I'm sorry for flying off the handle at you like that. I'll keep on working on the article and perhaps nominate it again later. I hope you're well, and have a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I kept it open until late last night. I closed it not "due to perceived inaction on [your] part", but because of total inaction – there have been no comments or reviews for nearly a month. Because there were no further points for you to address, I decided that a few hours would make little difference. Were it not for your request, I would have closed the nomination much earlier. Graham Colm (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 20:30, 2 October 2012 [10].
- Nominator(s): ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating Pink Floyd for featured article because after almost three years of sporadic work on the article, and a thorough copyedit last month, I believe it now meets or exceeds the FA criteria. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. For the sake of disclosure, I will say that I've worked with Gabe quite a bit and did some minimal copyediting work on this article prior to the nomination. However, I absolutely think it is a superb article, and Gabe and everyone else who put the work into generating the prose and the content have done a fantastic job. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think everything has or will be said below. Gabe let me know if you need help with anything. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments after a brief glance-through:
- Lead: needs rewriting. Excessive attention given to the Barrett era as well as the 2000s reunions (which barely merit a mention). I suggest the Radiohead model of giving every album (or group of similar albums) their due via a sentence or so. You'll also avoid list-y sentences like "The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), Wish You Were Here (1975), Animals (1977), and The Wall (1979)", just for the sake mentioning every album by name. I also think the lead should mirror the article—their legacy should be the last paragraph, not the first.
- I reworked the lead, trimming out the excess Barrett and reunion info, and rearranging the graphs as you suggested. I disagree with your suggestion: "giving every album their due via a sentence or so", and prefer to use the short list of five albums in one sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't those "Associated acts" just old names for the same band?
- Yes they are, and it's my understanding that this is okay, i.e.: "A group from which this group has spun off". Maybe we need more clarification on this point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These have been removed, issue resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are, and it's my understanding that this is okay, i.e.: "A group from which this group has spun off". Maybe we need more clarification on this point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Album-cover images: Don't really meet our non-free use criteria and should be removed. (unless the images themselves are specifically discussed in the prose, which they shouldn't be, except maybe TDSOTM)
- All the album covers included in the article are discussed in the prose. As Thorgerson and the band's cover art is a significant aspect of their artistic contribution, I tend to think they should be included. If others disagree with me, or if the covers do not pass the image review, I will certainly remove them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This FURs have been brought up to standards and several images have been removed. This issue has been resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No music samples to illustrate their different musical styles?
- This is not a requirement to my knowledge, and I would rather not add them unless needed. IMO, the sound samples belong at the song and album pages if anywhere. Again, if others disagree with me here I will add some. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Their influence on other artists is a surprisingly short two-sentences, one of which is an unattractive list of names. Check out R.E.M.#Legacy for a model section on how a band influenced others.
- I disagree here also. The above linked section is really a mix of musical style, influence and album sales, which the Floyd article treats separately. I am certainly open to discussion on this though. Also, as a matter of sourcing, I'm not sure what could be done here other than a quote farm of people stating why they like Pink Floyd. Maybe this is a personal preference issue. I'll see how it plays out over the course of the FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a fan of the "Main article:" tags. Wouldn't linking the album on first mention be enough?
- Another personal preference issue. Some would say they are needed, others disgree. I see no harm in including them, and indeed they are easier to locate then to search a 10,000 word article for the first mention of an album. Again, if others complain about them I will consider removing the tags. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the use of "Main article:" tags for articles on individual albums where you have a short summary section on the album is perfectly appropriate and pretty much standard procedure. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another personal preference issue. Some would say they are needed, others disgree. I see no harm in including them, and indeed they are easier to locate then to search a 10,000 word article for the first mention of an album. Again, if others complain about them I will consider removing the tags. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How are Musical style, lyrical themes and live performances part of a band's legacy? They should be their own section.
- Done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Band members: you don't really need a separate section for this for five people. And that "Timeline" is as ghastly as it is unnecessary. Delete the whole thing please?—indopug (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some bugs in citations
- Shaffner 1991 (Shaffner or Shaffer?), Povey 2005 (no 2005 citation), Harris 2006 (2005?) have broken harv links. You can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to check articles for such problems. Make sure, that author's name and year are exactly identical in harv-template and citation.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fitch 2001 is listed as a source, but not used as an actual reference in the main text (==> "further reading"). GermanJoe (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images are very problematic. We have a very large number of non-free album covers with useless template rationales. It's unusual that album covers are going to be needed in artist articles; unless the design of the cover is particularly notable (and, to demonstrate the significance, we're probably going to need explicit discussion in the article...) they are rarely going to be needed outside the article on the album. The lead image is also a little questionable when we have a free image of the band in later life lower down the article, but I seem to remember that this is a discussion that we've had before. J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All five of the album covers used in the article are explicity discussed in the prose. Floyd's album art is needed to convey that aspect of their artistic contribution. Also, I'm curious, why would sound files be okay to use but not album art, and why can cover art be used at album pages but not artist pages? What in particular is wrong with the current FUR for the infobox image? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there has been concern raised a couple of times regarding the lead image. My involvement (I've been asked to comment) is that an earlier upload had been deleted because it had an inappropriate use rationale, and I uploaded it again with a more appropriate and descriptive rationale. As far as I am aware, it is one of the only three known images of the band with all the prominent members. The other two images were taken by the same photographer at the same photo shoot, and this is the best of the three. The concerns raised have been a) the use rationale (which is now OK), b) that it is a poor quality image, and there are better quality more attractive images available, and c) that it is a non-free image, and there are free use images available of the band in performance. The argument in favour is that this is an historic and encyclopaedic image which we are allowed to use because of its uniqueness and irreplaceability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gabe, if there is explicit discussion of each of these album covers, then perhaps they are a useful addition. However, it's impossible to judge that from the useless, copy-paste rationales that are currently used for the album covers. In response to your questions... Also, I'm curious, why would sound files be okay to use but not album art... I am not sure where you believe I have said this. Sometimes non-free sound files are a useful addition in the context of discussion of the music, but there's no kind of entitlement to use them. Equally, album covers may be useful in the context of the discussion of their artistry (or the controversy they caused or what have you). ...and why can cover art be used at album pages but not artist pages? There is a general consensus that the album art adds significantly to an article about the album, in the same way that there is a consensus about book covers on book articles, or corporate logos on company articles. This does not extend to related articles (such as author articles, or articles on the corporation's products. SilkTork, my objection is that we quite clearly have a free image of Pink Floyd. Unless you're going to pretend that they are not performing as Pink Floyd on this image, then you're going to have to accept that we have free images of Pink Floyd. If we have free images of Pink Floyd, we have no business leading the article on Pink Floyd with a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never heard before that templates should not be used for FURs, would it be better if I copy pasted each field separately? Are you saying that the album images are okay to use but the FURs need improvement? Re: "Unless you're going to pretend that they are not performing as Pink Floyd on this image", I don't have to pretend J Milburn, the file is a collage of post-Floyd images taken at least 10 years after any activity; none of the pics were taken when any of the members were in Pink Floyd. I will wait to see if others share your opinion that these images as objectionable enough to oppose. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Templates can be used, but copy-paste rationales (as are provided by templates) are useful only when incredibly generic usages are being made- album covers in articles about the album, for instace. The NFCC require that separate, specific rationales are required. We need you to provide specific rationales explaining what this particular cover is adding to this particular article. Not generic bumph, as is provided by a template. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that the image meets Wikipedia:Non-free content because of its historical and iconic significance and because it cannot be replaced by a free image. That there are other free images in the article does not in itself impact on the image, as they are not of the same unique line-up. An argument could be made, however, that the article does not comment directly on the image. The relevant wording is: "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." Does the image "aid in illustrating historical events"? That, I feel, is the pertinent argument. I feel it does, but that perhaps the caption could enlighten the reader to the situation - that this is a picture of the band at the point of transition and tension. Here is another image from the same shoot - [11]. It's not used as much as the image in the article. The image used in the article is quite iconic - perhaps because Barrett and Waters are looking in opposite directions. Be useful to get some sourced material which discuses the image SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the specific question if whether an album cover can be used in this article: The WP:NFCI non-free use guideline says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." That means that the article has to be analyzing the album, not the album's cover. As long as this article analyzes the albums, their covers can be used in this article. Of course, the rationales provided must be specific and detailed, and the album cover must be degraded, etc. --Noleander (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been said, repeatedly by several people, this is wrong. 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the specific question if whether an album cover can be used in this article: The WP:NFCI non-free use guideline says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." That means that the article has to be analyzing the album, not the album's cover. As long as this article analyzes the albums, their covers can be used in this article. Of course, the rationales provided must be specific and detailed, and the album cover must be degraded, etc. --Noleander (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never heard before that templates should not be used for FURs, would it be better if I copy pasted each field separately? Are you saying that the album images are okay to use but the FURs need improvement? Re: "Unless you're going to pretend that they are not performing as Pink Floyd on this image", I don't have to pretend J Milburn, the file is a collage of post-Floyd images taken at least 10 years after any activity; none of the pics were taken when any of the members were in Pink Floyd. I will wait to see if others share your opinion that these images as objectionable enough to oppose. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gabe, if there is explicit discussion of each of these album covers, then perhaps they are a useful addition. However, it's impossible to judge that from the useless, copy-paste rationales that are currently used for the album covers. In response to your questions... Also, I'm curious, why would sound files be okay to use but not album art... I am not sure where you believe I have said this. Sometimes non-free sound files are a useful addition in the context of discussion of the music, but there's no kind of entitlement to use them. Equally, album covers may be useful in the context of the discussion of their artistry (or the controversy they caused or what have you). ...and why can cover art be used at album pages but not artist pages? There is a general consensus that the album art adds significantly to an article about the album, in the same way that there is a consensus about book covers on book articles, or corporate logos on company articles. This does not extend to related articles (such as author articles, or articles on the corporation's products. SilkTork, my objection is that we quite clearly have a free image of Pink Floyd. Unless you're going to pretend that they are not performing as Pink Floyd on this image, then you're going to have to accept that we have free images of Pink Floyd. If we have free images of Pink Floyd, we have no business leading the article on Pink Floyd with a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there has been concern raised a couple of times regarding the lead image. My involvement (I've been asked to comment) is that an earlier upload had been deleted because it had an inappropriate use rationale, and I uploaded it again with a more appropriate and descriptive rationale. As far as I am aware, it is one of the only three known images of the band with all the prominent members. The other two images were taken by the same photographer at the same photo shoot, and this is the best of the three. The concerns raised have been a) the use rationale (which is now OK), b) that it is a poor quality image, and there are better quality more attractive images available, and c) that it is a non-free image, and there are free use images available of the band in performance. The argument in favour is that this is an historic and encyclopaedic image which we are allowed to use because of its uniqueness and irreplaceability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, based on the non-free content issues I have outlined above. If these are resolved, I am happy to withdraw my opposition. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, are you saying you will oppose until the images are removed, or you will oppose until the FURs are improved? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose while there is still an issue. If you sort the rationales out, I would potentially be open to the album covers remaining- I would be willing to reassess. J Milburn (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegates- I am discussing this issue with Gabe, and progress is being made. Hopefully the issues will be resolved soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the non-free content issues outlined above have now been resolved, J Milburn pinged 25 September. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegates- I am discussing this issue with Gabe, and progress is being made. Hopefully the issues will be resolved soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose while there is still an issue. If you sort the rationales out, I would potentially be open to the album covers remaining- I would be willing to reassess. J Milburn (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Will add more comments later, but I'm a little surprised that Pink Floyd at Pompeii doesn't appear anywhere in the article at all outside a passing mention in a footnote, as it receives at least a sentence or two in most Floyd biographies. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is already 9,500 words long, so there is little room for specifics without making the article too large. There are many things that could be mentioned but this is an overview article written in summary style. I'm not sure what level of detail you are suggesting, maybe you could clarify. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the relevant sentence - however, that does suggest that the article can't be considered comprehensive (because it would get too long) and can't qualify as FA. I know some GAs can't be FAs because they're too short - maybe this is the reverse? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Noleander
- Wording: "By 1967, Pink Floyd had begun to attract the attention ..." - That phrasing seems a bit too passive & I find it annoying. Can you just use the plain "In 1967 Pink Floyd began..." or "Pink Floyd began to ... in 1967" or similar?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange source description: "Doctor of philosophy and author Patrick Croskery ..." - Animals is a really famous album, so the only persons that should be quoted here are very notable music reviewers, say from the Rolling Stones or some major publication. I don't know who Croskery is, but if he is a major reviewer, that fact should be before his name, not his college degree. Even if this quote is for the "Themes" section (not the Animals section) I'd still expect 1st person quotes to be from a more notable person within the music industry or art community.
- I used Croskery because he is one of the few good sources to intellectually analyse the philosophical nature of Floyd's lyrics. Do you know of a better source? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm sure he is a fine source. My point is that the job description before his name is so vague. Is he noted for analyzing music? For being a Pink Floyd expert? Why should the reader care about Croskery's opinion?
- He is an author who is also a Doctor of philosophy and professor. Should I just mention his name only and leave out his description? How about the other philosophers I cited in the section? I thought this was needed to help explain why he is being quoted as an expert on philosophy viv a vis Floyd lyrics. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are correct, for obscure persons named in the prose, a job description is needed. I was hoping he was some famous author, but he is not. The "Doctor of philosophy" is particularly confusing to me (US) because that means anyone with a PhD degree in any field, e.g. Chemistry. Maybe just change his description to "Scholar PC .." or "Author PC ..." .. that would remedy the issue. --Noleander (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are correct, for obscure persons named in the prose, a job description is needed. I was hoping he was some famous author, but he is not. The "Doctor of philosophy" is particularly confusing to me (US) because that means anyone with a PhD degree in any field, e.g. Chemistry. Maybe just change his description to "Scholar PC .." or "Author PC ..." .. that would remedy the issue. --Noleander (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He is an author who is also a Doctor of philosophy and professor. Should I just mention his name only and leave out his description? How about the other philosophers I cited in the section? I thought this was needed to help explain why he is being quoted as an expert on philosophy viv a vis Floyd lyrics. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm sure he is a fine source. My point is that the job description before his name is so vague. Is he noted for analyzing music? For being a Pink Floyd expert? Why should the reader care about Croskery's opinion?
- I used Croskery because he is one of the few good sources to intellectually analyse the philosophical nature of Floyd's lyrics. Do you know of a better source? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Section vs. paragraph: In the "Exploitation and oppression" section, there is a paragraph on the Animals album; then a 2nd paragraph follows starting with "The album's characters include the "Dogs",..." That reads as if the entire section is about the Animals album. If that is the intention of the section, maybe the section title should include "Animals". Or, better, discuss other albums/songs within this section.
- Yeah, its all about the lyrics of Animals as they relate to exploitation and oppression. I will try to dig up some examples from other albums, but my feeling was that this sub-section is already detailed enough to convey the message. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "... and would be classified by some..." - use plainer words. If you are saying that during the 60s & 70s they were categorized that way, try "... and they were classified as ..."; or if that categorization is still applicable, try "... and they are categorized..". Or maybe "... and their work from that era is categorized ..."
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Material from quote not in prose: "It's hard to see why we were cast as the first British psychedelic group. ..." - that is in a quote box, but the prose next to it doesn't have comparable material. If the band was categorized as "psychedelic" in the 1960s, that should be stated in the prose (which does already have "Pink Floyd began their career at the vanguard of London's underground psychedelic music scene ..." but that is not the same has saying they were the first.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes, citations, and sources look good.
- Thank you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Further reading" - Are there any documentaries or video interviews? You've got a good list of books, but there must be some video materials, no?
- Added five docs. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More details: " .... Pink Floyd's first experience playing large stadiums, the size of which became an issue." - What exactly was the issue? The following sentences are rather vague, and could be a problem in any live venue. It sounds more like the band was just burned out, or ??? If there was not a specific problem with large venues, then that sentence should be reworded.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "The Wall concept also spawned an eponymous film,..." - To me, eponymous means that the film was named after the band, not the underlying album. I'd just remove "eponymous".
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plainer words: "The division of royalties became a difficult subject during production of the album...." - Better would be to say that "The division of royalties was a source of conflict between band members." if that indeed was the case. Is it possible to add a specific quote or incident to illustrate the point?
- Fixed, and added quoted material to illustrate point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Medical terminology: " ... staring off with a blunted affect and refusing to move his lips ...." - Either that was an official medical diagnosis, in which case that should be stated; or (2) that is just a description of his behavior, in which case that is a very obscure term and you should probably remove the blue link and just put in plain words (" ... he did not respond to questions from the hosts and stared off into space ..."). Maybe the blue link cold be put in a footnote?
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording: "... it came time to mime "See Emily Play" ..." - "mime" confused me a bit ... I'm thinking Marcel Marceau. Would "lip sync" be better? or is mime the more common term in UK?
- I think mime is more common in the UK as the sources specifically use that term. Also, it helps avoid the redundancy with "move his lips" earlier in the sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: " Barrett agreed to leave, and Pink Floyd agreed to Blackhill's legal entitlement to receive royalties in perpetuity from the band's previous recordings" - The 2nd half of that sentence doesnt seem too important: the managers were getting a cut of all proceeds from songs that were produced under their mgmt. Could that be eliminated from the article? Or is there more to the story?
- Fixed, trimmed out as excess detail. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "Pink Floyd performed at the first free concert in Hyde Park..." - I have a hard time believing that there were no free concerts in that park before 1968. Do you mean PF's first free concert?
- According to the sources it was the first ever free concert in the park. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Date that Barret left: "Working with Barrett eventually proved too difficult, and matters came to a head en route to a performance in Southampton when a band member asked if they should collect Barrett. According to Gilmour, the answer was "Nah, let's not bother", signalling the end of Barrett's tenure with them." - Month of his departure is important. I see that March is mentioned in the next sentence as the date of legal separation, but when did the "lets not bother" event happen?
- Clarified, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall it is a great article. Leaning to Support, once the above issues are addressed.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the great review! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the great review! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review by Noleander
- File:Pink_Floyd_-_all_members.jpg - This appears to meet the WP:NFCI requirements under clause #8 " Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." I have updated the fair use rationale to specifically address those three essential criteria (no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance).
- File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg - This appears to meet the WP:NFCI requirements under clause #8 " Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."
- File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
- File:Roger waters leeds 1970.jpg - The photographer granted a CC-BY-SA license for this photo, so it is okay.
- File:Dark Side of the Moon.png - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
- File:WishYouWereHere-300.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
- File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
- File:Astoria (Péniche).jpg - Copyright holder provided a CC-BY-SA license.
- File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
- File:Pink floyd live 8 london.jpg - Photographer provided photo with a CC BY 2.0 license.
- File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg - Photographer provided photo with a CC BY 3.0 license.
- File:Pinkfloyd.png - This is a composite of four images: three have licenses. The fourth is a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license http://www.flickr.com/photos/edberman/500752312/. Need to check that more thoroughly because it limits use to noncommercial. Will investigate that further.
- This image's description page contains the note "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 13 August 2008 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date." That makes me think that the 4th image had a CC BY-SA 2.5 license (on Flickr) in 2008, but the Flicker owner has since changed the license to CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidance at Wikipedia:CCPS says that the NC licenses are not acceptable for WP. So this is a tough call: should we rely on the assessment made in 2008 by Mattbuck, and assume that the photo owner changed their license within the past 4 years? --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This image's description page contains the note "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 13 August 2008 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date." That makes me think that the 4th image had a CC BY-SA 2.5 license (on Flickr) in 2008, but the Flicker owner has since changed the license to CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Side conversation not directly related to this FAC but related to image usage in general
|
---|
End Image Review by Noleander. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Can we continue the policy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Album_covers_in_artist_articles? That is a new RfC that was just created to try to get clarity on the WP-wide policy. Once that is resolved, we can then apply the consensus to the images in this PF article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing is going to change, and it's seemingly only you who needs clarification that, yes, images can be used if and only if they meet the non-free content criteria. Please, it's not difficult. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More sensible image review from J Milburn
Let it be known, in case it isn't already, that I consider Noleander's understanding of the non-free content guidelines and policies, and consequently his image review, to be severely lacking. I am not, as some may have been led to believe, a rabid deletionist, and, considering the subject matter, a lot of these non-free images are probably justified.
- The lead image I'd prefer to see gone. We have a free image of the band, even if one of the members is not in it. I am willing to let this drop if I am a lonely voice.
- Which free image of the band are you referring to? The one you suggested, File:Pinkfloyd.png, is not in fact an image of Pink Floyd at all, but a collage of images of former members of Pink Floyd from a decade after they became inactive. Also, per Noleander, the image of Nick Mason in the collage has no copyright info whatsoever. So it seems the image you prefer is the least justified of them all. Again, which free image of Pink Floyd are you suggesting we use? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about the collage. (The perceived copyright issue is not a problem- this is why we have that "this image has been checked" template. Once the image has been freely released, it cannot be revoked.) However, we also have File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg- I'm not sure you could really deny that this image is of Pink Floyd; they're even performing, which some may call preferable. No, it's perhaps not as interesting as the non-free image, but that is a necessary sacrifice that has to be made in the name of using free content. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which free image of the band are you referring to? The one you suggested, File:Pinkfloyd.png, is not in fact an image of Pink Floyd at all, but a collage of images of former members of Pink Floyd from a decade after they became inactive. Also, per Noleander, the image of Nick Mason in the collage has no copyright info whatsoever. So it seems the image you prefer is the least justified of them all. Again, which free image of Pink Floyd are you suggesting we use? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg should probably go. Yes, it's a significant time in the career, but this does not mean that it needs to be illustrated. The claim that it illustrates the psychadelic nature of the music is a solid one, but, in that regard, it seems to be redundant to the next image, which also does that.
- File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg is justified, but its rationale needs to be tightened up. The cover itself is clearly significant, as evidenced by the discussion of its design and purpose. The rationale needs to tie this image to this article, explaining what it illustrates, what it adds and so forth. It would also be useful if the caption tied it to the text of the article.
- File:Dark Side of the Moon.png is justified, as above, but improvements are needed, as above.
- File:WishYouWereHere-300.jpg seems to be one which could go if you were looking to cut down; however, again, there is solid, sourced discussion. I am not opposed to it staying in the article, provided the rationale is cleaned up (and perhaps the caption is tweaked) as above.
- File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg is as above- OK, but perhaps not absolutely essential. Again, rationale cleanup definitely required if it's staying.
- File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg is justified. Again, rationale cleanup definitely required if it's staying. Also, it should probably be reduced a little- 300 by 300 px is the general requirement for album covers.
- The free images are all absolutely fine.
And, with that, I am done. No sweeping changes, and no demands for urgent deletion. Just addressing what is needed with closer attention to what our policies actually are. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In case it's lost in the discussion below, I'm happy, after edits, meets our various image policies. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Following on the above, there's a few points I'd add.
- File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg and File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg - the discussion on the album art makes it more than justified for inclusion on the album article, but I still question why it helps the reader to understand about the band (As I read it: "What point is there in my understanding about the band Pink Floyd that the Division Bell cover was inspired by Moai statues?"). That said, if there was a section to describe the band's use of Storm Thorgerson and Hipgnosis as go-to for the cover arts, these two images would be justified in there. This may be part of JM's recommended rational cleanup.
- File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg I have a harder time justifying because "imposing a flying pig over a picture of Battersea Power Station" is really not that hard to envision compared to the above two abstract covers. Yes, there's discussion, but again,like above, how does that make me understand the band immediately? It's perfect on the album page, but not here.
- I would argue in favor of using the current lead (non-free) image of the band over File:Pinkfloyd.png, because of the fact that at its height of popularity, the band was composed of those five members, and we can never get another free image of that group. The free image is perfectly fine to discuss the later years, but I think it would be doing our readers a disservice if we used the free 4-image collage as the infobox image. Again, the balance in using non-free here. (As a comment, when comparing this to the Beatles lead, which happens to be in the PD due to its publication date, is perhaps the non-free band image possibly free?)
- I agree with all other statements JM's made for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Masem. The album covers are suggested as meeting NFCC because the article text itself discusses the album covers. However, I don't think the album covers, barring a few iconic exceptions (like DSOTM), need to even be discussed in this article; they are only tangentially related to the story of the band as a whole. For example, remove the Thorgerson sentence from The Division Bell paragraph, and the reader's understanding of Pink Floyd doesn't diminish at all.
- To compare with an exist FA: every Beatles album-cover was iconic, but the article uses only two images of them, one of which they've managed to freely recreate.
- I think the infobox band pic should stay.—indopug (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Following on the above, there's a few points I'd add.
Comment I notice the mention about the lack of sound files above, and repeat the same "concern". What I've seen of FA band/musician pages is nearly always one or two critically discussed sound files to show the style of the band or its progression in its history, which may or may not duplicate a sound file already used in the album or the song page. Again, like the cover artwork, outright repetition is not called for but I would think this article has the possibility of including a few samples simply because of the band's career. That said, unlike other bands, its very difficult to nail down its sound, and so I can accept the argument that it may be hard to nail down a truly representative sample, though at some point, if we have the choice of numerous representative samples all that could be used equally well with sourcing to back them up, we select one that we think is best represents that band. The "Money" clip is a good one, for example to consider and avoids adding a new NFC audio file. I wouldn't consider the lack of a non-free audio file as stopping this being FA, but it is conspicuously absent. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer to not add them and as far as I know they are 100% optional. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, and I don't think it's ever come to this yet, but this is just discussion right now - not having NFC sound files when its possible to make and include them could be seen as a violation of FACR#3 about media use. This is just my thoughts and I'm just throwing the idea out because of consistency with previous artist FA, but if every other reviewer cares not that no audio files are present and all FA requirements are met, there you go. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my third FAC on a musical subject and I have never once added a sound file; it was never a problem before. You seem to be saying: "you cant use album images" but "you must use sound files" confusing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, and I don't think it's ever come to this yet, but this is just discussion right now - not having NFC sound files when its possible to make and include them could be seen as a violation of FACR#3 about media use. This is just my thoughts and I'm just throwing the idea out because of consistency with previous artist FA, but if every other reviewer cares not that no audio files are present and all FA requirements are met, there you go. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have improved the FURs for the album images used in the article and I believe they are now up to standard. Please correct me if I am mistaken. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Primarily criterion #3. Strange and lop-sided use of non-free media. While the visual aspect of Pink Floyd is overrepresented, the article fails to illustrate what they sounded like (which is arguably the first thing you should know about a band).—indopug (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If ever there was a band which you could not do justice to their sound with samples this is it. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Clarification from Delegate Are non-free sound files a requirement of FAC to the extent that an oppose based on their exclusion is indeed objectionable? I need some guideance here as this was never an issue before. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The criterion is clear on this. It says, "It has images and other media where appropriate...non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labelled accordingly." The nominator and reviewers should reach a consensus regarding the appropriateness of sound files and to justify the use of non-free content. Graham Colm (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the nominator is getting thrashed unfairly. One reviewer Opposed based on too many non-free images; another reviewer is now opposing based on too few non-free sounds. The FA criteria are a bit vague on this, but my understanding is that The absence of images/sounds from an article should not be a bar to FA status if no free images/sounds are availble. The FA criteria shouldn't require editors to include non-free media in music articles, because that conflicts with WP's goal of providing a free encyclopedia. Non-free media are acceptable, but should not be required. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Opposition based solely on the absence of non-free content will not be taken into consideration when closing. Graham Colm (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to push too much on this - I'm trying to throw out food for thought here - but one thing to consider about NFC is NFCC#8 which has two parts: whether the reader benefits from the inclusion of non-free within the article, and if the omission harms the reader. When we are talking articles on musical groups, there is certainly no doubt that any non-free sample will meet the first part, but often the second is not really the case; a group can be popular without its musical style itself being fairly significant, and thus barring anything else, most sound samples for that band would fail the second half of NFCC#8. Here, however we are talking about Pink Floyd, one of the premiere names in psychedelic/progressive rock, which has a very unique sound. Arguably the section "Musical style" almost begs for a sound sample in that the lack of one to demonstrate their style is failing NFCC#8. Almost. I agree it is not 100% required, and normally I would be "let's avoid adding NFC just because its a musical artist", but that said, we are talking a band that had a distinctive sound.
- And to address the above point about penalizing on too many non-free images and not enough non-free audio files, when you consider both together, we're describing what NFC to include to best have the reader understand this article on the band. Some album covers (like Dark Side) certainly help but not all that were originally present. Similarly there is the possibility that some audio may help but they're not there yet to really evaluate. We'd normally work by judging all the non-free content (images and audio and video) as a whole, and, at least as submitted to this FAC, the article was heavily overall with NFC use and possibly unbalanced towards images. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this, but I reiterate that opposition based on the absence of non-free content will not be considered. I am concerned that this would set a precedent that goes against the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. With regard to the "distinctive sound", this can be argued. I recall no unique sound or style that unites say "Corporal Clegg", "Grantchester Meadows", "See Emily play", "Us and Them", or "Another Brick in the Wall" and most of "The Final Cut". What many recall, and regard as distinctive is David Gilmour's guitar style. And he wasn't even in the band when I first saw them perform. Having said this – and as a delegate I have probably exceeded my remit – I don't want to see this escalate into a test case. This would be unfair on the nominator. Graham Colm (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham, I'm quite surprised by this selective interpretation of WP:FA?. It clearly states "It has images and other media where appropriate" (not necessarily free media only), yet you feel that opposition based on the non-fulfillment of this criterion is not actionable. As you know Pink Floyd has had several musical styles through their history; I think this is all the more reason to have 10-20 second clips from each distinct eras—"See Emily Play" for Syd's psychedilia; something from the proggy DSOTM; one from much later on (3 or so samples in total). This is necessary for somebody to get a very basic understanding of this band and their musical evolution. I can't imagine how an FA about a musician (or group) can be complete without an indication of what they sound like.
- In any case, I also strongly oppose the excessive use of images, none (barring the DSOTM cover) of which add anything to the article, as they have little to do Pink Floyd as a whole (the band didn't even design them themselves). Also, if you see the July version of the page, you'll find that not only is it not worse for the lack of album-covers, but that free replacements (see Animals) were used to good effect. I hope at least this part of my opposition is actionable and valid.—indopug (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this, but I reiterate that opposition based on the absence of non-free content will not be considered. I am concerned that this would set a precedent that goes against the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. With regard to the "distinctive sound", this can be argued. I recall no unique sound or style that unites say "Corporal Clegg", "Grantchester Meadows", "See Emily play", "Us and Them", or "Another Brick in the Wall" and most of "The Final Cut". What many recall, and regard as distinctive is David Gilmour's guitar style. And he wasn't even in the band when I first saw them perform. Having said this – and as a delegate I have probably exceeded my remit – I don't want to see this escalate into a test case. This would be unfair on the nominator. Graham Colm (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Opposition based solely on the absence of non-free content will not be taken into consideration when closing. Graham Colm (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the nominator is getting thrashed unfairly. One reviewer Opposed based on too many non-free images; another reviewer is now opposing based on too few non-free sounds. The FA criteria are a bit vague on this, but my understanding is that The absence of images/sounds from an article should not be a bar to FA status if no free images/sounds are availble. The FA criteria shouldn't require editors to include non-free media in music articles, because that conflicts with WP's goal of providing a free encyclopedia. Non-free media are acceptable, but should not be required. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The criterion is clear on this. It says, "It has images and other media where appropriate...non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labelled accordingly." The nominator and reviewers should reach a consensus regarding the appropriateness of sound files and to justify the use of non-free content. Graham Colm (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and never mind about the sound files: not an easily excerptable band. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Arb break Further to my opposition above about images and media, I'm concerned about whether the article is comprehensive enough.[reply]
- As I noted above, I think Recognition and influence doesn't deal enough with how they influenced other bands and were a seminal influences on many genres. What we have now is only a handful of artists' names.
- I don't see the need for a quote farm from artists explaining why they like Pink Floyd. Seems like fancruft to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily from artists, but from critics, explaining how they changed the way people approached music.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'll dig up a quote farm from critics for you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this issue is now resolved by my addition of material to the Musicianship section, specifically under Genres, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for the great comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'll dig up a quote farm from critics for you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily from artists, but from critics, explaining how they changed the way people approached music.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the need for a quote farm from artists explaining why they like Pink Floyd. Seems like fancruft to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Musical style appears inadequate too, halfway of it being an unrelated digression about the fact that they composed soundtracks. Many important things about the relevant topic are missed: what was the songwriting dynamic like, what about their hugely influential production techniques, how did the members' individual musicianship contribute (esp. Gilmour's guitar playing), how did their music evolve (esp after Syd's quitting) etc etc.
- You are expecting way too much detail for an overview summary article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, why doesn't this logic apply to the Lyrical themes section?
- And how are the soundtracks relevant to their musical style?—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting I delete the soundtrack material? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are expecting way too much detail for an overview summary article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the songwriting dynamic" is made clear in the article body, there is no need to rehash here, nor should the article be redundant in this regard.
- "individual musicianship" - covered.
- "how did their music evolve" - covered. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lyrical themes: on the other hand, this section goes on for a couple of paragraphs too long; a lot of stuff can be moved to individual song and album articles. We should be summarising on themes found throughout their career, so focusing on those found in only a couple of individual songs and albums. (and it reads like "Us and Them" is from The Final Cut)
- I like it as it is but thanks for your helpful advice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lyrics section is three times as long as the Music section. —indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are several topical articles that already deal with prog rock, art rock, acid rock, space rock, etcetera. There are no articles that detail Floyd's lyrics. Which graphs would you remove and why? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which paragraphs would you trim out and why? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lyrics section is three times as long as the Music section. —indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it as it is but thanks for your helpful advice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor: World War II → Second World War in BritEng. Discography needn't have the live albums and definitely not low-importance compilations.
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the discography.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't include the live albums and compilations, indeed I did so for the recently promoted Paul McCartney, no one complained. This is yet another arbitrary demand and if I thought for one minute that you would actually strike your oppose I would consider your comments more seriously but IME, once an oppose has been cast it typically stays no matter how much effort I put into pleasing the reviewer. Is your goal to block promotion at all costs or to help the nom/article? Because at this point I really cannot tell. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Assume good faith. I want to see this on the main page as much as you but I cannot support if I feel the article doesn't meet WP:FA?.
- Anyway, the reason you don't include the compilations and live records is that there is a link to their discog article right there; you thus only need to list their major recordings, i.e. their studio albums. Including the other stuff begs the question about where to stop; "why not add the EPs and singles as well?"—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be another "random spheres of influence" issue, as I have never heard this before. Can you please point me to the relevant guideline? Also, while I would love to AGF, you have already cast your oppose, so really, IMO, you are approaching this backwards by opposing then making comments. Like I said, I seriously doubt you will strike your oppose no matter what I do at this point, so while I will be happy to resolve any reasonable comments you make for the sake of the article, I am not going to bend over backwards to please an oppose. Would you? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go.—indopug (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay thanks, I've now trimmed out the live and compilation albums. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go.—indopug (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be another "random spheres of influence" issue, as I have never heard this before. Can you please point me to the relevant guideline? Also, while I would love to AGF, you have already cast your oppose, so really, IMO, you are approaching this backwards by opposing then making comments. Like I said, I seriously doubt you will strike your oppose no matter what I do at this point, so while I will be happy to resolve any reasonable comments you make for the sake of the article, I am not going to bend over backwards to please an oppose. Would you? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't include the live albums and compilations, indeed I did so for the recently promoted Paul McCartney, no one complained. This is yet another arbitrary demand and if I thought for one minute that you would actually strike your oppose I would consider your comments more seriously but IME, once an oppose has been cast it typically stays no matter how much effort I put into pleasing the reviewer. Is your goal to block promotion at all costs or to help the nom/article? Because at this point I really cannot tell. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the discography.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the July version of the article (before your final push for FAC), I wonder if you haven't trimmed too much of the band's history. For eg: why has essential info like the names of the musicians the band get its name from been shunted to the Notes (which have become really huge)? Also, now there's nothing about how they were viewed as dinosaurs during punk. It also loses a lot in terms of narrative; A Momentary Lapse of Reason now isn't as explicit as before about the fighting between Gilmour and Waters.
- The article was over 11,000 words so I cut it to around 9,500-10,000 per FAC requirements. All the info is retained in the notes. I promoted material to do with the origin of the band's name. I don't see the need for more detail on Roger and David fighting, the sources are scant and its not that relevent. The article makes clear the dynamic IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'll accept the infighting trim. But are you sure the punk thing shouldn't be there at all?—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think the punk thing is not notable. Most bands, if not all bands from the 1960s were dinosaurs in the late 1970s. This was not at all unique to the Floyd. Should I also mention that their relative popularity waned in the wake of hip-hop? Its an undue issue IMO, as I don't think the sentiment was widespread or significant, afterall, Animals sold millions of copies in 1977 and The Wall was a massive commercial success in 1980. So, how outdated could the commercial market have really considered them during the brief punk phase? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'll accept the infighting trim. But are you sure the punk thing shouldn't be there at all?—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was over 11,000 words so I cut it to around 9,500-10,000 per FAC requirements. All the info is retained in the notes. I promoted material to do with the origin of the band's name. I don't see the need for more detail on Roger and David fighting, the sources are scant and its not that relevent. The article makes clear the dynamic IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Billboard 200 wasn't called so until 1992 (DSOTM).
- Fixed.~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As said above, I don't think descriptions of the album cover should be in prose, unless the cover is important in the context of the band's career overall. That happened only once.—indopug (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A personal opinion which I do not share. Why isn't WYWH or The Wall iconic? This is a matter of opinion and you stated that you think evey Beatles album is iconic but really, what's iconic about the Please Please Me cover, With the Beatles or Beatles For Sale? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But those two covers aren't in The Beatles, are they? FWIW, I do think Pink Floyd's album art is quite iconic; but we have a commitment to minimum non-free use, and their absence from the article doesn't significantly hamper readers' understanding of Pink Floyd (NFCC #8).—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's iconic about the "White Album" cover? The art is needed to convey that the Floyd were groundbreaking and influential in terms of their album art. There are also elements of the absract and the absurd in their art, which tie in well to the lyrical themes. Waters helped design Animals and DSOTM, and the Division Bell cover was inspired by Barrett and Waters absence, another lyrical theme that ties in well with the art. WYWH also ties in with "lyrical themes" and SFOS demostrates the psychedelic era of the band, something that is difficult to convey without visuals. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The White Album cover, due to its simplicity, and therefore a free image, so the metric for inclusion is much much lower. Were all the PF album covers free images, one could conceivably include them all, but then there's taste and aesthetics for the overall article that have to be considered, but that's outside NFC's realm at that point. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, remember that we have album articles to go into detail on the album art. Those non-free covers that have a less direct connection between the band's career and the cover art (eg: Animals and WYWH) are probably best left to the album pages, while those where the link between the band's career and the art are inseparable, such as DSOTM, should be kept. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's iconic about the "White Album" cover? The art is needed to convey that the Floyd were groundbreaking and influential in terms of their album art. There are also elements of the absract and the absurd in their art, which tie in well to the lyrical themes. Waters helped design Animals and DSOTM, and the Division Bell cover was inspired by Barrett and Waters absence, another lyrical theme that ties in well with the art. WYWH also ties in with "lyrical themes" and SFOS demostrates the psychedelic era of the band, something that is difficult to convey without visuals. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But those two covers aren't in The Beatles, are they? FWIW, I do think Pink Floyd's album art is quite iconic; but we have a commitment to minimum non-free use, and their absence from the article doesn't significantly hamper readers' understanding of Pink Floyd (NFCC #8).—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A personal opinion which I do not share. Why isn't WYWH or The Wall iconic? This is a matter of opinion and you stated that you think evey Beatles album is iconic but really, what's iconic about the Please Please Me cover, With the Beatles or Beatles For Sale? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm convinced. I removed the Animals and WYWH album images per Masem, Indopug and J Milburn and the Hapash poster per J Milburn. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok- per the long discussion and careful edits, I'm happy that the non-free content use in this article passes the bar. While there is a lot of non-free content compared to other FAs of its type, it is adding a lot to the article. I'd recommend tying the captions to the text (so, for instance, mentioning the psychadelic nature of the A Saucerful of Secrets cover) as this helps clarify why the covers are actually there. It probably help avoid issues like this in the future from others concerned about NFC issues. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support J Milburn has been trying for years to get that 5-person image removed from the infobox and in every case, the discussions have resulted in the consensus that the existing image is the most appropriate. I'm not going to rehash, again, why that is but the image is not replaceable regardless of what J Milburn wants. If his response to me is to ask "but aren't there free live photos of Pink Floyd" my response is to go back and look at what people said in the several talk threads you started on this topic. In any case, he's clearly biased in this case, as anyone who views the talk archives can see, and his comments regarding that image should be taken with a grain of salt. I do not think it appropriate for him to dismiss Noleander's commentary based on his own personal extremist interpretation of NFCC. I have no comment regarding the album covers, they can go or stay. Otherwise, the article looks good to me. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is bang out of order. I acknowledged when I entered this FAC that previous discussions about this has ended in a different way, and said all along that I would be willing to let that issue drop, as I appreciated that the consensus was against me. I have made my view on the matter clear, but I was never opposing based on that issue- it would be wrong of me to do so. I am very experienced with non-free content issues, and have been performing image reviews here for a long time- my views are most certainly not a "personal extremist interpretation of NFCC", and my comments should not "be taken with a grain of salt". On the other hand, as has been repeatedly demonstrated that Noleander's understanding of the NFC guidelines and policies are severely lacking, not only by myself, but by other editors highly experienced with non-free content issues. Further, a support backed up only with an attack on someone opposing is going to be ignored by any FAC director worth their salt. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The simple fact is that you've tried repeatedly to get that image removed and you tried again in this FAC, though qualifying your statement by mentioning previous consensus. Consensus has been clear for some time, but you still brought it up hoping someone would change their mind. There is a history there that people need to know about and yes, it means your comment regarding that image should be considered taking this history into consideration. I think it's time to stop beating that particular dead horse, please, instead of waiting a few months and then quietly bringing it up again, repeatedly. Thank you. - Balph Eubank ✉ 21:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is bang out of order. I acknowledged when I entered this FAC that previous discussions about this has ended in a different way, and said all along that I would be willing to let that issue drop, as I appreciated that the consensus was against me. I have made my view on the matter clear, but I was never opposing based on that issue- it would be wrong of me to do so. I am very experienced with non-free content issues, and have been performing image reviews here for a long time- my views are most certainly not a "personal extremist interpretation of NFCC", and my comments should not "be taken with a grain of salt". On the other hand, as has been repeatedly demonstrated that Noleander's understanding of the NFC guidelines and policies are severely lacking, not only by myself, but by other editors highly experienced with non-free content issues. Further, a support backed up only with an attack on someone opposing is going to be ignored by any FAC director worth their salt. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I am personally content with the presence of the images and the absence of ogg files, the discussion of both of which seems to have swamped this nomination of a particularly fine article. Oculi (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a dense, detailed article, and there's a few issues for me to bring up once I can set aside time to detail them, but chief among them is the paltry focus on the band's music itself. It's not like this is a topic not frequently covered by secondary sources--pick up a guitar magazine and you're bound to find in-depth articles about the guitarwork of Pink Floyd. As is stands, half of the brief Musical style section is focused on what genres Pink Floyd is labeled and the other half is rattling off soundtrack work they did. There's a little bit more sprinkled throughout the biography portion, but overall there's little detail about what Pink Floyd sounds like, and that is a major failing. The refusal to include soundclips mentioned elsewhere in this FAC doesn't help that aspect of the article. For examples of fully fleshed-out musical style sections in FA-level band articles, I offer the sections I've written for R.E.M., Joy Division, and Nirvana as reference points to guide you. There's a few other issues that stand out (inconsistent coverage of commercial and chart success, notes that veer between trivia and details that really should be in the article body, the still not-completely warranted non-free image of the A Saucerful of Secrets cover), but this is the one that requires the most attention from the article's primary authors at the moment. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WesleyDodds, thanks for taking the time to comment. I will start work resolving your concerns now and as I see these as easy fixes, I should finish in the next couple of hours. I'll post an update when I do. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Musical style - I've now expanded the section to include some detail on Gilmour's guitar playing per your suggestion. At this point any more about Gilmour there would likely be excessive and more appropriate for David Gilmour.
- Clarify. As far as what Pink Floyd sounds like, are you suggesting I describe art rock, space rock, acid rock, psychedelic rock etcetera? Can you please be more specific with your suggestion? As a musician of 25+ years I think genres are a fine way to express the sonic qualities of a band that also allows a writer to avoid drifting into fancruft. I think the expanded Musical style section resolves this issue, I am, of course, certainly open to specific suggestions.
- Per "inconsistent coverage of commercial and chart success", this issue is now resolved.
- The SFOS art passed two independent image reviews, so I don't think its an actionable objection at this point.
- As far as your complaint about notes, could you please tell me which you think are trivial and which should be restored to the article body? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - To the best of my knowledge, all actionable objections have now been fully resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine are not fully resolved yet; I'll add details soon. My objections will be resolved when I list them as such. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've struck my oppose on account of a number of my suggestions being incorporated. A few final suggestions:
- the new Musicianship section: Film scores has little relevance there; why not just mention chronologically in the appropriate historical section?
- I really think the sub-section belongs with their Musicianship, as an aspect of their sonic variety, and not in the timeline. Several points are brought out in regard to the soundtrack material yielding music for their studio albums, so it seemed awkward in the timeline. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the sub-sections Gilmour needs an introductory sentence like "Gilmour's guitar-playing was a key component of the Pink Floyd sound". I also renaming the section to something more specific like "Gilmour's guitar-playing".
- Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sonic experimentation too needs a "Throughout their career, Pink Floyd have experimented with their sound" sentence. This section needs a little more "glue" combining disparate instances of their experimentation.
- Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor: Discography (Album (year)) and Tour (Year: Tour name) are formatted differently. Change the latter to "Tour (year)" for consistency?
- Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor: Shouldn't the first-level history-related sections (eg: "1978–85: Waters-led era") need to come under a overarching History section? It doesn't semantically seem right that "1978–85: Waters-led era" and "Further reading" be at the same level.—indopug (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a bit redundant. From 1963-present is clearly a historical bio, and I don't think there is a need for a redundant header for something that should be self-explanatory to readers. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for striking your oppose Indopug, and for these comments. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - This has been a long, and at times contentious FAC. But I have decided to promote this candidate. I am mindful of the unresolved issues and I would like to see your discussions continued on the article's talk page. I thank the nominator and all the reviewers for their time, effort and constructive criticism. Graham Colm (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [12].
- Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the few examples of women who have led new religious movements, Ruth Norman overcame a challenging life to become the best dressed religious leader in the U.S. She made several predictions about the dates of alien visitations and broke new ground in her creative explanations for the failure of said predictions. She was a harmless lady though, unlike some others who started UFO religions. Anyway, this article has been GA reviewed, copyedited, and thoroughly peer reviewed. Hopefully my changes in response to the feedback have made this a top-quality article. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Disclosure: I did the GA review.
Why not link Ernest Norman in the lede?- In 1972, Ruth Norman began publishing Tesla Speaks, a series of messages that she said were given to her by Nikola Tesla from his dwelling in outer space." - Why not "In 1972, Ruth Norman began publishing Tesla Speaks, a series of messages that she said were given to her by American inventor and engineer Nikola Tesla from his dwelling in outer space; she stated that messages from scientists Albert Einstein and Louis Pasteur were channeled through Tesla" or something similar?
Otherwise the changes since my review look good.- I am satisfied with the images
- Not much at all from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that was quick. I feel band about taking so long to review your articles now :) Alright, well, I've tried to remedy the two issues you pointed out above. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're a tuba? Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, it's been a long day... thanks for the support. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that was quick. I feel band about taking so long to review your articles now :) Alright, well, I've tried to remedy the two issues you pointed out above. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "by the Archangel Raphiel." Should that be Raphael, or is it correct? Othewise excellent. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, now after discovering Michiel, I am convinced that it is correct. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I put a hidden [sic] in. For some reason, the group insisted that angel names end in "iel" (so that they match "Uriel"). Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Overall, this looks very good. I commented extensively in the PR and most of my concerns there have been addressed. On reading it again, I have noticed a few prose issues. There is nothing glaring, but there is a slight lack of flow and some cumbersome sentences. Parts just need to be tidied up and a little redundancy removed.I have copy-edited it slightly, and feel free to revert anything I have messed up, and have noted some of my prose concerns. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Claim", "stated" and "believe" seem to crop up quite a lot, but I'm not sure there is a way around that. Also, as mentioned in the PR, perhaps a little too much "students" and "followers",
- Ok, I tried to cut down on the use of those. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are several times when we could lose "that" from some sentences.
- I've done away with a few. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He stated that he channeled historical figures…": A little inelegant with "he…he", but not sure I can think of a better way of phrasing.
- I took a stab at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and told of people's past lives": Ambiguous. This could mean just going around talking about random people's past lives. Presumably it was more of a "one-on-one" consultation. Maybe "told people of their past lives".
- "spiritual journeys": Maybe explain a little more in the lead what this means.
- Added a little more detail for clarity. Let me know if you think it needs more. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although she had stated that she would live to see the extraterrestrials' landing in 2001, she died in 1993.": Maybe "Despite her predictions that she would live to see the extraterrestrials land, Norman died in 1993."
- Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unarius continued to operate after her death,
adapting to her loss byforming a board of directors and spiritualizing her predictions about alien landings."- Removed. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In her early to mid-teen years…": Not the best phrasing; maybe make it more precise, like "Between the ages of X and Y…"
- Instead of more precise, I went more general "As a teenager..." Hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ernest believed that he channeled messages from historical figures and received communications from extraterrestrials.": Could these be brought closer together; for example "Ernest believed he could communicate with both extraterrestrials and historical figures [channeling messages from them (? did he do this for both of them)]".
- Yes, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Using this ability, she helped him record the information he channeled in books…": Seems a slightly grand way to state that she typed his books for him! There must be a simpler way to state this.
- Tried to simplify a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ernest also discussed the scientific knowledge of the inhabitants of other worlds.[17] The couple also discussed revelations…": Discussed…discussed. Also, not quite sure what "discussed the scientific knowledge of the inhabitants of other worlds" means here. And possibly we could lose "of the inhabitants".
- I tried to fix this. Basically, he talked about scientific discoveries that had taken place on other planets. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and she determined that she was spiritually an archangel named Uriel": Again, not quite right, this sentence, but can't think of an alternative.
- Tried to condense a bit for flow. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked at the PR about Tesla, but may not have made myself clear. He just seems a slightly random scientist to chose, in comparison to Einstein. Why did he "contact" her? What was the attraction?
- Ahh, yes, sorry about that. It took me a while, but I finally found a good source that explained why--there were rumors that Tesla was interested in some pseudoscience topics that appealed to the Normans. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1973, she stated that she had experienced a spiritual marriage…": Again, this sentence does not really flow.
- I rephrased it, hopefully an improvement. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "She and Spiegel recorded the events of the ceremony over several days…": Recorded how, and why did it take several days?
- I rephrased a bit, since the source doesn't say how they recorded it. As to why it took several days, I have no idea. Perhaps celestial weddings take longer than those on Earth? There were apparently over 30,000 angels there, so the receiving line alone must have taken forever :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In her view, there were many levels of beings in the universe, and humans were the lowest.": This slightly breaks the narrative of the "Space Brothers".
- Moved it to a footnote. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The students sometimes acted out scenes from their previous incarnations, productions which the group filmed.[41] Participants found these experiences to be therapeutic, citing this effect as proof that the past-life events were real.": Slightly uncomfortable. Maybe "The students sometimes acted out and filmed scenes from their previous incarnations, an experience that participants found therapeutic; they cited this benefit as proof that the events were real."
- "she stated that the Space Brothers had said that it was acceptable": Again, a little clumsy. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrased a bit, hope it's clearer now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all the comments, you've been a tremendous help thus far. I've started working my way through, will try to get to all of them this weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got them all now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrased a bit, hope it's clearer now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm happy to support now, and all the changes look good. I think the prose could possibly still be tightened in places, but it's certainly good enough to meet the criteria. Just a couple of final nit-picks. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He engaged in channeling, telling people of their past lives, and attempts at communication with extraterrestrials.": As written, this reads like he was telling people of his attempts at communication. Is this the intended meaning?
- "Ernest also spoke of scientific advancements of other worlds": Not sure about this. Maybe "the scientific advancements", or "of scientific advances made by other worlds"? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all your help thus far, the article is much improved by your comments. I think I've taken care of the last two points. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and image check Support and images fine. PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and what a great couple of images they are :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comments Only in California... Nice work, I just made two notes reading through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruth spent time with her as well — in the UK we would say "had access", but I don't know if that's a phrase used in the US?
- variety of fields — I prefer "jobs" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, I used both of your suggestions since they were both simpler than what I had. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:36, 27 September 2012 [13].
- Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) & Keilana (talk · contribs)[reply]
We are nominating this for featured article because we feel it is of equal standard to other constellation Featured Articles and can't see anything else to improve. My only niggle is whether to devote more space (and expand upon) the material about the molecular cloud. Otherwise we're pretty happy...let us know what else we can do...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: This is a wikicup nomination. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- {{page needed}} tags need to be dealt with
- Got all of those. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are some pages hyperlinked and others not, even within the same book?
- I'm assuming this is because some were accessed via the online edition and others were accessed via a library. Is this a problem? I can probably hunt down most of the physical copies if I need to.
- I've never figured out how to hyperlink to more than one page in a google book. I figure linking to one and then letting the reader find the other pages is better than linking to none at all Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google doesn't offer preview for all books, or for all the pages of a book. The mechanism in place in this article allows as many links to specific pages as you want, albeit at the cost of the refs being more complicated. The reason the links are on the specific page numbers (ass opposed to in the {cite book}) is to allow unlimited page linking within a book. The urls in the biblio are to the whole books, not specific page numbers because a) there's only one url per {cite book}, and b) a reader following a fn-link for p. 123 to the biblio might well get then taken to a preview of p. 456. And snippet views are even messier because the urls get huge.
- gbook links are capricious. They come and go, availability varies by region. Far too many editors are really sourcing to google books, not the actual books. I'd cut all the page specific links and let them find what they may via the ISBN link or at most a gbook link to the whole book. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww, I find a link to any page more helpful than none at all, but we can go with
numbersconsensus on this page Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Well there's the foolish consistency mindset seeking links for all-or-none, ignoring the realities of Google's practises. Gets those very impotent italics right, though. The FAC process frequently misses the forest for teh little saplings. Anyway, the mechanism is on offer in this article to allow linking to as many specific pages within a specific work, if desired. I restructured them, but they were extant for the most part, and I expect more could be added, Google willing. Take it or leave it; it's messy to maintain and most editors are not going to be able to cope with it. If cut, the {{refn}} linking to {{harvnb}} in the {{refs}} would become standard inline {{sfn}} calls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww, I find a link to any page more helpful than none at all, but we can go with
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books; if so, check NY vs NYC
- Springer or Springer New York?
- I have seen both given in the books; I'm not sure if there's a difference. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bakich 2010: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher was given as "Springer Science+Business Media". Keilana|Parlez ici 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by Duplicate detector tool found the following repeated in main text (excluding lead and infoboxes) star forming region, Telescopium, Sagittarius and Theta Coronae Australis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Got 'em all Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regarding magnitude facts:
- "Southeast of Theta and southwest of Eta lies the open cluster ESO 281-SC24, which is composed of five 10th to 11th magnitude stars, the brightest of which is the yellow 9th magnitude star GSC 7914 178 1." ==> Is there a typo in the magnitude numbers? Otherwise i don't understand, how 9 is between 10 and 11 range-wise. GermanJoe (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Joe, I think the reason GSC etc. was mentioned was because it is brighter than the 10th-11th magnitude stars that compose the rest of the cluster. The sentence is a little unclear, though - do you think it should be rewritten? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the brightest of which" won't work in that context, but i tried rephrasing it. Feel free to revert, if i changed the intended meaning. GermanJoe (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's good. The source talks of a string of stars and GSC 7914 178 1 so is reworded okay. thx :) 06:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- "the brightest of which" won't work in that context, but i tried rephrasing it. Feel free to revert, if i changed the intended meaning. GermanJoe (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Joe, I think the reason GSC etc. was mentioned was because it is brighter than the 10th-11th magnitude stars that compose the rest of the cluster. The sentence is a little unclear, though - do you think it should be rewritten? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image check Images are free licensed. PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I fixed two poor image source formats on Commons. Your Royer ref doesn't link because you have three names in the author line, you need to break them out like the other multi-author. PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have splitted out author in ref per FAC....but still not linking...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll need to list the last names in the harvnb-template aswell. Like "harvnb|last1|last2|last3|year". With more than 4 authors you'll need to create a new harvid, but up to 4 just listing them works (not stalking at all). GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It should work with only three listed, you can also use et al. I"ll take a look in a bit. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll need to list the last names in the harvnb-template aswell. Like "harvnb|last1|last2|last3|year". With more than 4 authors you'll need to create a new harvid, but up to 4 just listing them works (not stalking at all). GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have splitted out author in ref per FAC....but still not linking...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed and support now I fixed the Royer ref by adding Zorec and Gómez to the harv line. PumpkinSky talk 12:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. 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, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I'm starting a read of the article now, will hopefully finish soon, but it might take me a few days. The lead looks fine, just a couple small comments thus far:
- "are defined by a polygon of 4 segments." Should "4" be written out "four" here?
- Funny, I thought I'd done that already. Never mind, done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "but it can be seen from southern Europe,[7] and the southern United States.[8]" Can we remove the comma here?
- I'd kept the comma in for the rule of always having refs after periods or commas, but agree that makes the punctuation not the best, so have removed the comma. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Notable features" section is very long, is there a good way to add a subsection header to break it up a bit? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- split now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, here's the rest of my comments, the article looks great, just a few minor questions and comment:
- Check for consistency with the serial comma.
- I am not a fan of the extra comma before the last item, but it is useful for referencing. I've just looked through and I think everywhere there should be one there is one....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, check for consistency when using a comma before "respectively".
- removed stray comma. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some copyedits, hopefully all agreeable. (feel free to revert any if you like)
- It's funny, I would not have inserted the first "it" you put in, but whenever I write a subordinate clause leaving "it" out, someone invariably adds it again, so must be me.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might be able to remove "located" in a few locations.
- done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "both components are F8V dwarf stars with a magnitude of 5.01 each." Do we need "both" and "each" here?
- It is unusual that the stars are identical. I've managed to get rid of one "both" Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "These star systems are known as Contact binaries" Should "Contact" be capitalized here?
- nope - lowercase. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Though it is visible in large amateur telescopes, 3.9 degrees west-southwest of Beta Sagittarii, amateur telescopes will not show more than a suggestion of its spiral structure." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of "amateur telescopes" here?
- rejigged as the magnitude will indicate what can see it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "called" is used a lot in the second paragraph of "history", might want to cut down on that if you can.
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see some inconsistency with "17th century celestial cartographer Julius Schiller" vs "The 18th Century French astronomer Jérôme Lalande", might want to check the other names too. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- century all to lower case now Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work folks, everything looks fine now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another nice addition to the growing constellation collection. Just a couple of small points:
- "Corona Australis may have been recognized by ancient Mesopotamians in the MUL.APIN". I'd argue that it wasn't recognized by them in the MUL.APIN, but described or catalogued by them in the MUL.APIN.
- Agree - but used the word "recorded" which I think carries the best connotation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Corona Australids are a meteor shower that takes place between 14 and 18 March each year". The PDF cited at ref #58 calls this shower the Beta Corona Australid shower, but on doing a Google search I find many references to the Beta Corona Austranid shower as well; are they the same thing? Also, the article says that the shower peaks in mid-March, but this h2g2 site claims it peaks in mid-May. Colour me confused.
Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird. "Austrinid" would derive from "(Corona) Austrina", but this name has really declined in use against "Corona Australis". The BBC page is an h2g2 blog or wiki, and I have seen things there which I have (frustratingly) not found elsewhere. (internet pages ruffling) found something! Interesting....will ad in a tic Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe Corona Austrina ought to be mentioned as an alternative name in the lead? That h2g2 site isn't the only one claiming that the shower peaks in mid-May rather than mid-March, so that's a bit concerning. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, Corona Austrina is mentioned in the lead as an alternative name (first sentence). Essentially there are two minor meteor showers - the Corona Australids which are seen in March, and the Beta Coronae Australids (which are very very minor and only mentioned in two publications....and h2g2) which appear in May. I have mused on Corona Austrina not being in the lead as it is somewhat archaic, but still pops up here and there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is, silly me. I hadn't noticed you'd added a bit about the Beta Coronae Australids, so that looks good now. I have to say though that "a shower originating near Beta Coronae Australis were described as the Beta Coronae Australids" looks very strange to me. Is it commonplace in astronomical circles to refer to a singular "shower" in the plural? Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, good point...hadn't thought of that. All meteor showers are described in the plural as "-ids", yet shower is clearly a collective noun here. "Shower were....?" (just sounds weird but I guess is more grammatically correct?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about something like "A 2006 meteor shower originating near Beta Coronae Australis, the Beta Coronae Australids, appeared in May, the same month as a nearby shower known as the May Microscopids, but they have different trajectories and are unlikely to be related." Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, they were first described in 2006, but meteor showers appear every year - the wording above makes it look like they only appeared the once... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, sorry I wasn't able to chime in earlier, but sometimes meteor showers really do only pop up once in awhile. Some recently described showers - seems like this is included - have only been seen once and we are waiting to see them again, as I understand it. Also, as far as I can tell, the singular/plural convention is to use the plural when you have the shower name written out (e.g. "the Perseids were great last year") and the singular when yous say "shower" (e.g. "the Perseid meteor shower was great last year.") Just my 2 cents/pence. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, they were first described in 2006, but meteor showers appear every year - the wording above makes it look like they only appeared the once... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about something like "A 2006 meteor shower originating near Beta Coronae Australis, the Beta Coronae Australids, appeared in May, the same month as a nearby shower known as the May Microscopids, but they have different trajectories and are unlikely to be related." Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, good point...hadn't thought of that. All meteor showers are described in the plural as "-ids", yet shower is clearly a collective noun here. "Shower were....?" (just sounds weird but I guess is more grammatically correct?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is, silly me. I hadn't noticed you'd added a bit about the Beta Coronae Australids, so that looks good now. I have to say though that "a shower originating near Beta Coronae Australis were described as the Beta Coronae Australids" looks very strange to me. Is it commonplace in astronomical circles to refer to a singular "shower" in the plural? Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, Corona Austrina is mentioned in the lead as an alternative name (first sentence). Essentially there are two minor meteor showers - the Corona Australids which are seen in March, and the Beta Coronae Australids (which are very very minor and only mentioned in two publications....and h2g2) which appear in May. I have mused on Corona Austrina not being in the lead as it is somewhat archaic, but still pops up here and there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe Corona Austrina ought to be mentioned as an alternative name in the lead? That h2g2 site isn't the only one claiming that the shower peaks in mid-May rather than mid-March, so that's a bit concerning. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird. "Austrinid" would derive from "(Corona) Austrina", but this name has really declined in use against "Corona Australis". The BBC page is an h2g2 blog or wiki, and I have seen things there which I have (frustratingly) not found elsewhere. (internet pages ruffling) found something! Interesting....will ad in a tic Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I being ignored? I don't like to be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, sorry, I hadn't thought to check on this. Real life and all that. You're not being ignored, promise, I'll get to fixing this in a little bit. My apologies! Keilana|Parlez ici 05:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I think all the terminology and verbs and such should be taken care of in this section. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks for your patience - sorry this took so long. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I being ignored? I don't like to be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks good overall. Small details:
- "The variable stars R and TY Coronae Australis light up parts of the nebula, which varies in brightness with them." - probably phrase the 'with them' part less succinctly but with more clarity
- I was going to write "in harmony with them/the stars", but then wondered whether the adverb "accordingly" had sufficient enough connotation to convey the same meaning......? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It cannot be seen from the British Isles as it lies too far south,[6] but it can be seen from southern Europe[7] and the southern United States.[8] It is only visible at latitudes south of 53° north.[5]" The second sentence seems to make the first redundant. Or wrong. Iridia (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what that's trying to say is that parts of the constellation become visible at 53 north but the whole thing is only visible from southern Europe and the southern US. Maybe Cas could weigh in? Keilana|Parlez ici 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The locations help those reading visualise where it is seen from. I rejigged it so it makes more sense. The word I forgot was "easily" seen from the southern US (changed to "readily" in the text). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Asia? Africa? South America? Oz is rather implied ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what that's trying to say is that parts of the constellation become visible at 53 north but the whole thing is only visible from southern Europe and the southern US. Maybe Cas could weigh in? Keilana|Parlez ici 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Stars section could use some more paragraphs.
- Question - where would you split? Para 1 = brighter stars, Para 2 = doubles, Para 3 = others... I guess alpha and beta can have a para each...I'd worry the section looked too choppy then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to define L☉ etc since they're never subsequently used.
- ok, reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Deep sky section should probably lose some of the redlinks: it's very densely linked, and hard to read. 9th-10th mag objects probably aren't going to get their own page created unless there's someone very keen.
- I was planning on linking alot of the fainter variable stars to Corona Australis Molecular Cloud once the latter article is made. Most of the other objects are galaxies which I think will end up with a page...tricky. I am loth to delink so might try and blue some of the links. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Associating South Africa and Australia in the Mythology sections doesn't really make sense: add a para.
- Para split Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Australian section is missing the association of Corona Australis with the Gosses Bluff impact crater in Central mythology. Paper is probably by Hamacher et al. and would be recent.
- I got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support once these are addressed. Iridia (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, already. This has been nicely polished-up and is ripe. Almost FA-starred it myself when I saw a congrats on it… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [14].
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a high quality look at a fairly important figure in Indonesian military history. It just passed the A-class review and it is easily the best look at the subject on the web. If promoted this would be our first FA on an Indonesian military figure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I recently reviewed this article in its A class review, and I think that it also meets the FA criteria. Once again, great work with this excellent article. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nick! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Move the first image in Indonesian National Revolution and death to right side per MOS:IMAGELOCATION
- Per MOS:ACCESS, use actual sub-sections for Footnotes and Bibliography.
- Categories below should be sorted in alphebitcal order
TBrandley 15:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made (including the last edit, mine) since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dank. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Check alphabetization of Bibliography
- Done.
- Check for template glitches like doubled periods
- Done
- Pour: GBooks link appears to go to a different book?
- Fixed
- Sardiman: first name? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No first name (Javanese don't always have more than one). WorldCat give Sardiman A M, but his name's written in the book as Drs. Sardiman, A.M., M.Pd so I think A M is an academic title and not part of his name — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Malleus Fatuorum I'm frankly leaning towards oppose because of the quality of the prose. Here are a few specific examples:
- "Because his parents wanted him to follow in the steps of his maternal grandfather by becomeing a regent, after elementary school Oerip was sent to the School for Native Government Employees in Magelang." Rather awkwardly written I think, and that "becomeing" should have been picked up before now.
- Trimmed and fixed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Oerip Soemohardjo was born with the name Mohammad Sidik". No he wasn't, he was given the name after he was born.
- Changed to "born Mohammad Sidik" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... at a young age Sidik began showing leadership qualities, commanding groups of neighbourhood children". Commanding them to do what?
- Added "in fishing and games of football."
- "After he awoke, his mother send a letter to Widjojokoesoemo ...". How can this article have two supports when it contains errors like this?
- Fixed.
- "... but nevertheless paid Oerip's tuition". He didn't pay it, he paid for it.
- Fixed.
- " Samarinda, Tarakan, and ultimately Malinau." That's not a sentence.
- Fixed.
- "Together, Sudirman and Oerip were able to eliminate much of the differences between former KNIL and PETA troops." Should be "many of the differences", and probably "address" rather than "eliminate".
- Done.
Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, please feel free to comment further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You already have the required three supports, unjustifiably IMO, and I'm not certain I have the energy right now to fight the MilHist steamroller, so no more comments from me. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, please feel free to comment further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to delegates: The article had an image review by Nikkimaria at its A-class review and no images have been added or removed since then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good; well done. TBrandley 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment:G'day, I've taken a run through and made a few wording tweaks. Could you please check that you are happy with these changes? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks peachy except one typo (which I've fixed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for that. The only other suggestion that I have is that the National Heroes of Indonesia template at the bottom of the article might be better presented in collapsed form, as it is currently quite large. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Collapsed (modified the main template, as I expect at least three new heroes to be declared in November; SBY has declared at least three national heroes a year since taking office) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks for fixing that; I've added my support. There is only one more sentence/pargraph that I think could be improved (sorry, I missed it before). In the last paragraph of the Legacy section, this doesn't quite flow because they are dealing with two different things (streets and memorials), I think: "Several streets are named after Oerip. On 22 February 1964..." So, were the streets named after the memorials were established? If so, I suggest moving "Several streets..." to the end of the paragraph and just tweaking it to: "In addition, several streets were named after Oerip" and maybe including a couple of the notable examples, for instance if there is one in his hometown and or the capital city, etc. (assuming that there are reliable sources for the examples). If the streets were named before the memorials, perhaps just do something like this. "Several streets were named after Oerip after his death. In addition, on 22 February 1964..." This is just a suggestion, though, and it doesn't impact upon my support. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly do-able. I'll get on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and image check no issues. Image licenses fine. PumpkinSky talk 23:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [15].
- Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Clarke is a sadly overlooked figure; he quietly revolutionised military deception for the Allies during WW2, the files on his activities locked till well into the 70s (and even later, in some cases). I am nominating this article for Featured status to obtain the highest level of scrutiny Wikipedia can offer. It is the first FAC in what I hope to be a series on deception during the war. The research for this has been immense (and also fun) but I am now confident it covers the entirety of his life, as it is exists on record. What I need help with is making sure the article exhibits the very best prose and style. This is my first FAC so please be a little gentle with me :) Errant (chat!) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- Welcome to FAC. I noticed this article wasn't tagged for WP:Milhist ... if there are any other military history articles you're working on that aren't tagged, I'll be happy to do it.
- We prefer consistency on Second World War vs. World War II, and similarly for World War I. BritEng articles tend to go with Second World War and First World War, but I don't have a preference.- Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "spent the rest of the war learning to fly; first in Reading and then Egypt.": We use commas here instead of semicolons or colons ... I see there are more of these later on.
- ✓ in the lead, will check the rest of the article. --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "First, Tony Simonds (with whom he worked on intelligence in the region) and, later, John Dill and Archibald Wavell.": sentence fragment.
- ✓ reworked --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "he formulated the idea for commando raids into France – the early stages of the British Commandos.": I think I'd prefer something more specific, like "planned" or "proposed" or whatever his role was. Also, in what way is this the early stages? Same people, same modus operandi, same unit?
- ✓ This is a little more difficult. He proposed the idea and was then "volunteered" to help organise it. The raiding parties eventually became the British Commandos, but that is way outside the scope of this article as his involvement ended soon after the first rads. See what you think of the new version --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The following year he established 'A' Force; the eponymous department which would define his legacy": I may be missing something, but doesn't this work without the "eponymous"? (And watch the semicolon, as before.)
- "Once the department has taken root": ... had taken root.
- ✓ Reworked the 'A' Force sentence - I was trying to be too clever with my words. :) --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise,so far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at the end of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the review so far! :) Very handy. As to the MilHist - my work is documented at User:ErrantX/Sandbox/Deception. Feel free to tag anything I have missed - but I will remember to do so in future as I move the draft work live :) --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and don't use templates like {{done-t}} on FAC pages ... WP:FAC transcludes all the pages, so templates can put WP:FAC over the limit. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the greatest deceiver of World War 2": Where does the quote come from?
- Rankin; the cite was after the next sentence, but I moved it to directly support the quote. (the next cite supports the second sentence just as well) --Errant (chat!) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "nearby military present at Aldershot, including the new Royal Flying Corps.": What was he exposed to at Aldershot other than the RFC? - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Army mostly - but also the military establishment. And I think there was a naval contingent there at some point too (might be about the same time). Aldershot is a big military "hub". Sources are non-specific, just say that he was influenced by the glitz/glamour of the uniforms. So I've added something about that. Pointing out the RFC being located there ties to his later decision to join them from the RA. --Errant (chat!) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing. "In 1923 he reformed the Royal Artillery Officers Dramatic Club": Were they naughty? I assumed not, and went with "re-formed".
- See WP:ALLCAPS; capitalize the first letter only, except in acronyms and initialisms. Instead of "TORCH", write "Operation Torch" (and link on first occurrence of course). - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed my use of the smallcaps template; convention on military writing always appears to be that operation names are referred to in uppercase. {{smallcaps}} was the neat solution I found - but as you note it is not a formal policy exclusion here. I hope to address that in future :) but for now, removed! --Errant (chat!) 15:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to oppose for a MOS violation if you keep all-caps or smallcaps. Sorry, not my call. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I edit conflicted with you in removing them :) working on it now. THANKS for copyediting; that was what the article needed, FA status or no. --Errant (chat!) 15:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I edit conflicted with you in removing them :) working on it now. THANKS for copyediting; that was what the article needed, FA status or no. --Errant (chat!) 15:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to oppose for a MOS violation if you keep all-caps or smallcaps. Sorry, not my call. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed my use of the smallcaps template; convention on military writing always appears to be that operation names are referred to in uppercase. {{smallcaps}} was the neat solution I found - but as you note it is not a formal policy exclusion here. I hope to address that in future :) but for now, removed! --Errant (chat!) 15:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One more point, and I'm done: "whilst", "amongst": Just be aware that there's an issue here, and many writers prefer "while" and "among" even in BritEng. "whilst" in particular has a slightly pompous and comical feel for some non-Brit readers, and AmEng style guides universally recommend against these two words. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess to not being a fan of "while" over "whilst" :) But I'm happy to replace the word "whilst" with "while" to meet style conventions. I don't think there is a use of "amongst" in the article. --Errant (chat!) 09:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review - spotchecks not done
- Check alphabetization of Bibliography
- Molnari or Molinari?
- Don't provide full bibliographic info in both Bibliography and References
- No citations to Hastings
- Cruickshank: closing quotes in wrong place
- Be consistent in whether you provide location for newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers! I Think I addressed all these points. Excellent catch on the Molinari reference (making a note to self about checking references copied from other articles) --Errant (chat!) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth emailed me to say he will be leaving some comments here later today :) --Errant (chat!) 14:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Errant. I'll copy over my notes now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (version reviewed)from Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting at the end of the article... I was wondering what the point of the 'see also' section is? Normally, the ideal at FAC is for these to be integrated into the article, and it seems this can be done here (see below). Unless there is a reason this link has been kept here?
- ✓ A relic of the article from before my work :) now incorporated in the article --Errant (chat!) 09:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The precise date of gazetting of all the awards listed in that section near the end are available. Certainly the year and level of the Legion of Merit (1946, Officer) should be provided. When I Googled it, I went from this to this to this. That last one (from the London Gazette) is the one that I'd cite, if your current source doesn't give the details.
- ✓ Added Legion of Merit (with cite) year and level. Will work the rest of the awards fully into the text later on. --Errant (chat!) 09:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, rather than list the awards, I think they should be integrated into the text, with any listing being done in the infobox (the OBE is missing from the infobox, though that may be deliberate). I also went and looked up the pages in the London Gazette for the awards. His OBE is here. His CBE is here. His Order of the Bath is here. One more minor quibble about the wording: rather than "several British and American awards", why not "three British awards and one American award"?
- ✓ Phew, OK this is now done :) just a few more points you raised to tidy up. --Errant (chat!) 23:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead, some of the language is a touch overdone: "under the shadow of", "As the First World War dawned", "had a first taste". There are some traces of this in the main text as well: "sprang up", "first taste", "just in time". Also, is there a reason why the following in the lead doesn't have links? "British Commandos, the Special Air Service and the U.S. Rangers".
- Is this a serious issue? I tried to keep the writing formal, but interesting :) (also: ✓ fixed the links) --Errant (chat!) 09:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll offer an opinion if you want it: there are probably better metaphors for wars than "dawning". Having a "first taste" of disinformation seems a little off. In "Chanak Crisis sprang up", my problem isn't so much with "sprang up" as that most readers won't know what you're saying; it might be good to add something like "a threatened Turkish attack on British and French troops". The others seem like a matter of personal preference ... which everyone's entitled to have, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ✓ Thanks, I reworked a lot of that & incorporated your recommendation into the Chanak Crisis segment, --Errant (chat!) 23:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll offer an opinion if you want it: there are probably better metaphors for wars than "dawning". Having a "first taste" of disinformation seems a little off. In "Chanak Crisis sprang up", my problem isn't so much with "sprang up" as that most readers won't know what you're saying; it might be good to add something like "a threatened Turkish attack on British and French troops". The others seem like a matter of personal preference ... which everyone's entitled to have, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a serious issue? I tried to keep the writing formal, but interesting :) (also: ✓ fixed the links) --Errant (chat!) 09:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The man who would grow up" - should be 'boy' not 'man'.
- ✓ gotcha. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This bit: "Soon afterwards he accompanied their first raid into France, although with express orders to remain in the boat, and was almost shot in the ear." appears to be Operation Collar (linked in 'see also'). Is there a reason the exact date is not given and the article not linked? I can see there are contradictions between "a slight wound" and "almost shot in the ear", but those contradictions should be addressed and resolved, if possible, for FAC.
- ✓ Added the date & expanded on what is claimed to have happened (he says he was shot... who knows) --Errant (chat!) 23:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the '1943: Barclay' section, the word 'phase' is used instead of the correct 'faze', see here.
- ✓ good catch --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These bits: "He then took a job at Conservative Central Office" - what year?; "He also served as a director of Securicor for a while." - this is too vague to be useful. Both bits also appear to be unsourced - it is unclear what source these two items are from.
- No idea, none of the sources note dates. As with many wartime individuals their latter career is only lightly recorded. Any advice? --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 'After the war' section, the link to 'Michael Howard' is to the wrong one. Should be to Michael Howard (historian). This is a serious error in linking - suggest all links are carefully checked to see if they are correct. The original edit introducing this link is here.
- ✓ fixed. Ugh, I do have a note about Howard's article link on my desk (as he is important to the topic), but this one I missed. Checked the other links this morning, but will keep checking them to be sure :) --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- End section: 'middle class origins' needs a hyphen for 'middle-class', ditto for "upper class establishment". Dates needed for Nina and the Sussex woman, and also a link for Weisban (possibly Wiesbaden?). It is not at all clear where this Weisban is! Do you sources give more details?
- ✓ the hyphens. I will check on Weisban in the sources - no dates for the relationships, they are discussed in the context of him not marrying, and rest on several comments from people who knew him. But Holt makes no mention of dates IIRC. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ✓ It was Wiesbaden, my error. Thanks for catching it. I was also misremembering the dates - Holt mentions one exact year and one vague date (late 1920s). Best I can find :) --Errant (chat!) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ✓ the hyphens. I will check on Weisban in the sources - no dates for the relationships, they are discussed in the context of him not marrying, and rest on several comments from people who knew him. But Holt makes no mention of dates IIRC. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the books section, "pp. XXX" should be "XXX pp." (the former is used to refer to pages within a book, the latter to number of pages in a book). I believe this is the convention, but you may want to double-check this.
- You might want to raise that issue at {{cite book}} as this is generated by the template. However, I've gone off page totals so I've removed it. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found two additional snippets of information in the London Gazette: (i) Address at death is here. He was living in Dolphin Square. (ii) He was mentioned in despatches, see here.
- ✓ added these details. --Errant (chat!) 10:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That mentioned in dispatches, I found while searching the records of the National Archives, where I also found the following: (i) Medal card here. (ii) WWI service records here. (iii) Three WW2 records here (the mentioned in despatches and two of his three awards). Not all those will be useful, but it might be worth putting them in the external links in some form.
- ✓ Incorporated some of them, others added as EL's --Errant (chat!) 23:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that, the article was excellent. I enjoyed reading Clarke's story, and the writing is really good. Very much brings it to life. I'm looking forward to reading more about deception strategies during WW2. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review & the compliment! Comments are in-line, if I haven't commented then I'll be working on fixing the issue over the next day or so :) Holt is the main source for this; his book is exhaustive in detail, so where he doesn't note dates there likely is not record or information about this. --Errant (chat!) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:13, 20 September 2012 [16].
- Nominator(s): ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article on an off for almost a year, and believe that it is finally ready to be listed as a Featured Article. It was failed a nomination in April; since then, I have improved the article, dealing with the criticisms from the last FAC as well as making further improvements with the content, sourcing, and prose. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with Staszek Lem moved to article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
- Support - Looks well written enough, images are fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I supported this at its last nomination, and, having looked through the subsequent changes, I see no reason to rescind my support for this round. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image Check - all images are OK in public domain (2 PD-old-100, 1 Yorck project, 1 CC 3.0), author- and source-information is provided. GermanJoe (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with one quick comment: Should sources be small per MOS:ACCESS? TBrandley 05:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Bennet or Bennett?
- FN21: italicization
- Little is missing date
- No citations to McGrath 1999. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [17].
- Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA requirements. This episode is regarded by many critics as one of the best entries the series ever produced, and has been heralded as a classic by many others. "The Post-Modern Prometheus" recently underwent a peer-review and was already promoted to GA status, earlier this year. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is complete, and the page has sections for filming, themes, broadcast numbers, and critical reception. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, included a screenshot from the episode to illustrate the episode's unique style. To anyone who would like to do a spot-check, I'd be willing to email scans of the books and articles in question. Thank you for looking at this and considering it. Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Source spotcheck
- FN 23 [18]
- Article: "In a review of the entire fifth season, Michael Sauter of Entertainment Weekly said that "The Post-Modern Prometheus" was the most striking of the season's stand-alone episodes."
- Source: "The most striking is The Post-Modern Prometheus, that tongue-in-cheek, black-and-white update of the Frankenstein theme."
- ✓ Could perhaps do with quoting "most striking" but representation is accurate.
- Added quotes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 10 [19]
- Article: "The first five seasons of The X-Files, including "The Post-Modern Prometheus", were filmed in Vancouver. It was the third episode of the program that Carter directed;"
- Source: "He also decided to direct the episode himself, only the third time he has done so on X-Files."
- No mention of Vancouver. The X-Files (season 1)#cite note-Good Forests-9 might be worth appending to cover this.
- Fixed this by adding a ref to the next Meisler book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 2 [20]
- Article (a): Used to support a scene being "fanciful".
- Article (b): Todd VanDerWerff of The A.V. Club reasons that the ending was not the actual conclusion of the episode, but rather the fanciful and elaborate happy ending that was concocted by Izzy Berkowitz, the writer of the comic book, after talking to Mulder. In this manner, VanDerWeff notes, "the episode abandons logic and reality and, for lack of a better word, transcends."
- Source: Both supported by article, quote is accurate.
- ✓
- FN 16 [21]
- Article: Three citations to various quotes.
- Source: All quotes used as accurately representative of the source.
- ✓ I'm thinking that the unusual casing present in the source could be dropped as an acceptable typographic change though.
- What exactly needs to be dropped?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Phrases like "Modernity's Naturalism" in the middle of a sentence don't need those capitals; although they're present in the source they're needless and it's acceptable to bring them to lower case instead. GRAPPLE X 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Phrases like "Modernity's Naturalism" in the middle of a sentence don't need those capitals; although they're present in the source they're needless and it's acceptable to bring them to lower case instead. GRAPPLE X 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly needs to be dropped?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 23 [18]
- Source review (spotchecks above)
- "Bumpus, Eric; Tim Moranville (2005), Cease Fire, the War Is Over!, Xulon Press, ISBN 978-1597815826" -> Missing OCLC for consistency, also second author is parsed incorrectly.
- Fixed author, and removed oclc completely, as I can't find this book on Webcat.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hurwitz, Matt; Chris Knowles (2008). The Complete X-Files: Behind the Series the Myths and the Movies. New York, US: Insight Editions. ISBN 1933784725." -> Missing OCLC for consistency
- Removed oclc completely.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at FN 2 vs FN 10, there's a difference in the punctuation there. FN 2 uses a full stop after the URL, 10 has a comma. Are they both using the same template? I'm not sure what would cause this. 23, 24 and 25 also use commas, the other web sources all seem to use full stops.
- "Bumpus, Eric; Tim Moranville (2005), Cease Fire, the War Is Over!, Xulon Press, ISBN 978-1597815826" -> Missing OCLC for consistency, also second author is parsed incorrectly.
- GRAPPLE X 19:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the comma issues. It looks like it was using the template "Citation" instead of "cite news".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Prose, source accuracy, the kitchen sink. Great job. GRAPPLE X 17:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I made some minor fixes to the article. This article is in a great shape, and is for sure ready for FA status. It is IMO one of Wikipedia's finest. TBrandley 20:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wondering if an image of the Great Mutato would be more descriptive. Can still talk about the black and white there. Glimmer721 talk 22:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I changed it to Mulder and Scully taking the Great Mutato to the Cher concert so that A) the black and white could be mentioned B) the makeup of the monster could be noted and C) the entire scene and its interpretation by critics could be added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment before I go over the whole article: you should standardise whether you use ISBN10 or ISBN13. ISBN13 is preferred, per WP:ISBN. You can use this converter to get the correct ISBNs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
- Support on prose, looks peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of the very best articles related to the entire project. Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While we don't finish the Season 5 GT, let's put an FA into it at least. igordebraga ≠ 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Workin' on the topic now. ;)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [22].
- Nominator(s): John (User talk:John), Malleus Fatuorum (talk)
Melford Stevenson was a controversial English judge described by one of his peers as the worst judge since the Second World War. Renowned for the severity of his sentencing, he almost single handedly quashed student protest during the 1970s. But he also had a lighter side, and I hope you'll agree that we've done the man justice. Malleus Fatuorum 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image check. There's only one, with an appropriate non-free use rationale. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning to support. Interesting, hilarious and exasperating in turns, as doubtless was the man himself, I enjoyed the article. There seems to be material in the lead that is not in the body text: i'm thinking particularly of this: "Retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Robin Dunn called him "the worst judge since the war", prompting several high-profile legal figures to come to Stevenson's defence,". Suggest this be reproduced at an appropriate point in the article text. Other than that - great job. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't entirely agree with that "nothing in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article body" idea, which is why there's a citation. Take a look at wife selling for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. This is a pretty polished article, on a somewhat interesting figure. Just some minor niggles regarding citations:
- Can't see date for Ref 13
- Likewise authors for Ref 34
- Should Ref 14 be Telegraph Media Group, to follow suit with the other Lemonade51 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a look. I think all those issues have been dealt with now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A very readable and enjoyable one. No real problems here, just a couple of minor points; feel free to ignore them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two short paragraphs in the lead. Is there any reason they could not be combined with another paragraph?
- Possibly, but as there's an abrupt change of subject in each case I think the present paragraphs are justified. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stevenson's "fluent delivery, distinctive voice, remarkable sense of timing, and pungency of phrase soon marked him out as an advocate of note."": Does this require in-text attribution?
- "Stevenson's decision to "subject the prosecution witnesses to a minimum of cross-examination",[15] and his "near silent performance in court",[16] have been severely criticised by Muriel Jakubait, Ellis's sister.": Again, does this require attribution? At the moment, the implication is that these are Jakubait's words.
- "Stevenson was of the opinion that had he been allowed to, he "could have successfully prosecuted Adams on six murder counts": In what way (at least in his opinion) was he not "allowed to"? Presumably, because he could not cross-examine, but this does not quite come across explicitly in this section.
- The defence opted not put Adams on the stand, therefore he couldn't be cross examined. I'll look at that section again and see if I can make it any clearer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The ODNB article suggests that the there was a delay in his appointment as a judge owing to his eccentric reputation. Is that worth including?
- Another minor point: the lead gets across some of the criticism he faced, but the main body seems a little light on this. But it may be my imagination. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be in the eye of the beholder; others have voiced the opinion that the article is too critical of Stevenson. It's a difficult line to tread, but I think the article is just about as neutral as any other major account of Stevenson's life. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I haven't got far, yet, but here are a few points from the first few sections:
- It might help readers if you identified Wickham Steed, rather than requiring them to use the link
- I've added a brief explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Crockford's Clerical Directory, the form "Reverend Stevenson" is deprecated. In this case it would be "John Stevenson..." – but perhaps Congregationalists do things differently.
- I have no idea, but the ODNB calls him "Revd John George Stevenson", so take it up with them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase "of which he became treasurer in 1972" is in the wrong tense at this point in the article, since it is foreshadowing an event still 50 years in the future. Thus: "of which he would become treasurer in 1972"
- I don't agree; that's a typical American abuse of the subjunctive. MalleusFatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had hoped for a more constructive response, but let it pass. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean you hoped I'd just change it because you say so? Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with Malleus here. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had hoped for a more constructive response, but let it pass. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "himself" at the end of the Early life section is unnecessary.
- I don't agree. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it necessary? It serves no purpose other than to extend the sentence; there isn't any confusion with another Melford Stevenson. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't "necessary" any more than including vowels in the middle of words is necessary, but it makes the sentence more readable IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On this one I think Brian has a point. I tried to compromise though. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it necessary? It serves no purpose other than to extend the sentence; there isn't any confusion with another Melford Stevenson. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a distinct lack of information about what he did in the 1930s. Perhaps he did nothing remarkable in those years. But the trouble is, it makes nonsense of the "Early career" title of the next section, because the events described—becoming a KC, a bencher, a Recorder, an advocate at the war tribunals, passing 50, etc— are not "early career" milestones. They are indications of recognition in the maturer stages of a legal career. If there is nothing substantial to say about his career in the 1930s, I would still include a couple of general sentences indicating that he made steady progress in his career, blah blah blah, and then retitle the Early career section with something more appropriate.
- Good suggestion, I'll pad that out a little. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bit and moved a bit, see what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The section is still misnamed "early career". This needs to ba addressed - it is not his early career being described. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that it's misnamed; it describes his early career. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His "early career" which lasted beyond his 50th birthday? You cannot be serious. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He had a long career. By my calculation its mid-point was in 1952, so Malleus has a point here. --John (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Careers of 50+ years are not divided into just two parts, whereby the first 25+ years are deemed "early". Typically, early career means the years where one is working to establish oneself; in Stevenson's case I would argue that this phase ended with his appointment as King's Counsel. The subsequent years, in which he serves as a recorder and bencher, and is involved in high-profile cases, are years of consolidation and achievement. I am not suggesting major structural changes, merely that the offending section title be changed to something more representative of the content. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a problem with this. What would you suggest? --John (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "Career at the bar"? Logically, the "Early life" section should end at "... articled clerk in his uncle's legal practice", the rest being transferred into the next section, beginning: "Stevenson was determined to become a barrister..." (the term "barrister" should be linked at first mention, for the benefit of non-UK readers). Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean like this? --John (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that looks good. I have changed the pronoun to "Stevenson" as it's a new section. Also, there is no reason why you shouldn't keep the Ellis and Adams cases in a "notable cases" subsection, though perhaps "Notable criminal cases" would be better. I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The section is still misnamed "early career". This needs to ba addressed - it is not his early career being described. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back to read the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: I have read the rest of the article. My main concern is about comprehensiveness; there isn't much of it (1600 words) for the life of a distinctly notable, even notorious member of the British judiciary. A few specific points:
- He served as Recorder of Rye before his appointment at Cambridge (see ODNB)
- Just two "notable cases" are described. Even if details are lacking it would be worth mentioning his involvement in a few other cases, for example the Crichel Down affair which was a newsworthy government scandal in 1954.
- Done --John (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought his involvement in the Kenyatta appeal was worthy of a bit more detail, rather than the brief mention in the "early" career section.
- Done --John (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A piped link to liberal elite might be appropriate for "liberal establishmant"
- Done --John (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Prescott's 15-year sentence is mentioned, it should also be noted that this was reduced on appeal to 10 years.
- Done --John (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The account of his judicial career as provided is pretty well a summary of gaffes, incautious comments and unpredictable judicial behaviour. At the end we have Roskill's comment that "he showed great mercy to those whom he saw to be victims rather than aggressors." It would be a good idea if examples of this benevolence could be cited, to mitigate the Judge Jeffreys picture otherwise given.
- I've tried to address this by using material from the ODNB article. I can only use what can be sourced and I think I have run out of steam. It's up to reviewers whether they think I have done enough. --John (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the citations I think that "Roskill" should be given his full name, as in the text. Also, in my experience the online ODNB articles are often not the same as in the printed ODNB; they are revised much more frequently. So the citation should give the publisher as "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online".
- "Roskill" is the name the article is published in the ODNB under; as you know, it is not uncommon for the aristocracy to simply use one name. I've added the "online" to both ODNB citations. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this, but American and other readers may not. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is well written, it reads more like recorded highlights than a proper biographical article. One problem is that there doesn't seem to be a full biography of Stevenson, which is perhaps surprising. However, I am not sure that full use has been made of available material, and would like to see the article expanded. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your "recorded highlights" comment rather strange, and not a little insulting. If you want to see a "proper biographical article" then you'll have to wait for someone to write a "proper biography". I can assure you that full use has most certainly been made of all the available material, of which there is not as much as you seem to imagine. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand Malleus being a little miffed by the comment as he has done the lion's share of the work on the article; however I too am frustrated by the relative paucity of sources. I will have a look at any possible expansion tonight. I appreciate and sympathise with the comments and accept they are well-intentioned towards improving he article. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for having the grace to realise that my comments are well intentioned and are designed to make the article better. I am surprised that Malleus, who has known me as a reviewer for years, takes such surly umbrage at my relatively mild remarks, but there we are. I appreciate that sources are scarce, but I'm not absolutely convinced that full use has yet been made of what is there, hence my references to Crichel Down and the Kenyatta appeal. Malleus's insistence that a lawyer beyond fifty years of age, who is a Recorder, a bencher and a KC is still in his "early career" is taking obstinacy to new levels; perhaps you can persuade him to see sense. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Later) You have done pretty well in expanding the article by 300+ words from admittedly scant sources. There may not be much more to be had - though you should mention his recordership at Rye, his first semi-judicial appointment. I hope the "early career" impasse can be settled; otherwise, I have just one remaining issue, which concerns the lead. Notwithstanding Malleus's defence elsewhere in this review, I think the lead at present is an unsatisfactory introduction to the article. The main problem is not its organisation into short paragraphs, but the general organisation of the lead material. Stevenson's claim to fame is as a controversial and outspoken judge, and the body of the article reflects this. However, the first paragraph of the lead is almost entirely taken up with his role in the Peleus affair, as though this was his main distinction. This paragraph needs to be rewritten to clarify for the general reader who Stevenson was, and why he was notable/notorious. The rest of the lead material can be reorganised accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. I will try to look at this later tonight. See above for my work on the "Early career" argument; if you agree that this is ok we can hopefully put this one to bed. --John (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the Recordership at Rye.--John (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I expanded the lead slightly. How does it look now? --John (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mind if I fiddle a bit with the lead, in my sandbox? I'll come back to you shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not. I need to take a break anyway. --John (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've posted a slightly altered lead section. The main change is that I have added some "punch" to the opening sentence, as a means of drawing in your readers - their interest is less likely to be aroused by the bland statement that he was a barrister and judge. A few textual adjustments follow as a consequence, but essentially the rest of the lead is unchanged. Could you ping my talkpage when you're ready to comment, as this page isn't on my watch. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I corrected a typo and switched around the words in one sentence to reduce the passive voice. I can definitely live with it as it is now. --John (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've posted a slightly altered lead section. The main change is that I have added some "punch" to the opening sentence, as a means of drawing in your readers - their interest is less likely to be aroused by the bland statement that he was a barrister and judge. A few textual adjustments follow as a consequence, but essentially the rest of the lead is unchanged. Could you ping my talkpage when you're ready to comment, as this page isn't on my watch. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not. I need to take a break anyway. --John (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mind if I fiddle a bit with the lead, in my sandbox? I'll come back to you shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Later) You have done pretty well in expanding the article by 300+ words from admittedly scant sources. There may not be much more to be had - though you should mention his recordership at Rye, his first semi-judicial appointment. I hope the "early career" impasse can be settled; otherwise, I have just one remaining issue, which concerns the lead. Notwithstanding Malleus's defence elsewhere in this review, I think the lead at present is an unsatisfactory introduction to the article. The main problem is not its organisation into short paragraphs, but the general organisation of the lead material. Stevenson's claim to fame is as a controversial and outspoken judge, and the body of the article reflects this. However, the first paragraph of the lead is almost entirely taken up with his role in the Peleus affair, as though this was his main distinction. This paragraph needs to be rewritten to clarify for the general reader who Stevenson was, and why he was notable/notorious. The rest of the lead material can be reorganised accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for having the grace to realise that my comments are well intentioned and are designed to make the article better. I am surprised that Malleus, who has known me as a reviewer for years, takes such surly umbrage at my relatively mild remarks, but there we are. I appreciate that sources are scarce, but I'm not absolutely convinced that full use has yet been made of what is there, hence my references to Crichel Down and the Kenyatta appeal. Malleus's insistence that a lawyer beyond fifty years of age, who is a Recorder, a bencher and a KC is still in his "early career" is taking obstinacy to new levels; perhaps you can persuade him to see sense. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the amendments and addition have raised the standard of the article, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Other editors may still find the odd prose glitch, but I am sure these will be minor and will have no significant effect on the article's overall quality. Of course, if someone comes along and writes a full-length biography of Stevenson, then I daresay the whole thing will have to be rewritten. But that is for another time. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the thoughtful comments which I think have definitely resulted in the article being improved. --John (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Per WP:LEDE this article should have one or two paragraphs of text in the lede. You have four.
- Where did you get that idea from? Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LEDE, as stated.
- I disagree that the article should be restricted to one or two paragraphs even if God himself believes otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, it's not set in stone and I agree that merging some of the paragraphs would be illogical. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that the article should be restricted to one or two paragraphs even if God himself believes otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LEDE, as stated.
- Where did you get that idea from? Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "intending that he would join the family firm once his school education was complete." - Perhaps a way to clarify it was Stevenson
- I've expanded on that slightly. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "eventually becoming head of chambers himself" - Is "himself" really necessary? I think it's not
- I think it is. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "One commentator described him as a "shameless performer" " - Do we know who? Anyone notable?
- No, I'm afraid we don't know who, as the article quoted from has no byline. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- nolle prosequi is technically Latin. Why isn't it italicised (both here and in the article)? We italicise de jure and de facto
- We don't italicise any of those, as they've all been incorporated into the English language. Perhaps once we did, but not now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "For the first four years he was assigned to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, but after his transfer to the Queen's Bench Division he began to attract press attention." - Perhaps a way to avoid repeating "division"?
- Can't see one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "liberal establishment" - Liberal according to?
- That's a cited quotation from Massingberd. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that, but was wondering if it was Stevenson's reading of them or Massingberd's. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Massingberd's. Stevenson probably just thought of them as "constipated Methodists". Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that, but was wondering if it was Stevenson's reading of them or Massingberd's. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a cited quotation from Massingberd. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph about his resignation is quite abrupt (a single sentence). Any more details? Reason?
- He was 76 years old when he retired, already beyond the normal retirement age, but having looked into this a little more closely it appears that there was no mandatory retirement age for judges, which resulted in some speculation that he may have been subjected to some pressure. I've added a sentence explaining that. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the bit on his electoral campaign should go into the section on his career
- Hardly, as he lost the election. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a copyedit, be sure to double check it.
- There seems to be a bit of controversy over inserting non-breaking spaces, so I've stopped doing it, but your edits look good to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks solid, leaning support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are my other comments not worth responding to? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they've all been responded to now? Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, just a small niggle. "... which resulted in some speculation following the announcement of his retirement from the bench in 1979 that perhaps his unpopularity with certain sections of the media and establishment had led to pressure on him to step down." Aside from being really long, this sentence has a small redundancy: if it's speculation, than "perhaps" is overly cautious. Speculation is by nature not certain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they've all been responded to now? Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are my other comments not worth responding to? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of brief comments (having commented previously on the talk page at an earlier stage).
eBay shouldn't be used as a source for an image, even one being used under a non-free license with a fair-use rationale. The ODNB use the same image, but source theirs from the National Portrait Gallery. I mentioned this on the talk page in my earlier comments, though there I was referring to a different eBay copy of that portrait. Unless you can be 100% certain that the copy on e-Bay is there legitimately, I wouldn't use that. If you want clarification on what sources can legitimately be used as a source for non-free images, I suggest asking at WT:NFCC (or somewhere around there). The NPG images are here. They have a vintage print and a half-plate negative, both purchased in 1996.(On second thoughts, no longer sure about this, so am checking this elsewhere first)- My understanding is that we have to say where we got the image from, and it wasn't from the NPG, which doesn't have the portrait online. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added more detail to the image page to make the image history and provenance clearer. Other than that, the issue of whether this image should be used or not is something I've raised elsewhere, so I'm striking it here as it shouldn't become an issue at this FAC as long as the rationale is OK (which it is). Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that we have to say where we got the image from, and it wasn't from the NPG, which doesn't have the portrait online. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the talk page I mentioned the lecture/talk he gave to the Medico-Legal Society on 9 March 1978 at the Royal Society of Medicine titled 'The privilege of silence'. It seems that lecture/talk was published in the Medico-Legal Journal, volume 46, page 63 (see here for the journal details, and here for the index that lists Stevenson). I may at some point order a copy of this and see what it says. The reason I mention it here is that I think it would be a useful addition to the article in the sense that some readers may wish to follow up reading this article by reading something that Stevenson wrote (or said), and this seems a suitable example. There may be better examples to point readers towards, but is there anything else published that Stevenson wrote outside of legal documents? Did he write newspaper commentary or columns or anything like that?
On a point of order, the quote ending the first paragraph in the lead needs sourcing: "One of his fellow judges, Sir Robin Dunn, described him as "the worst judge since the war"." - also, when was this said and where? Was it 1994, some years after his (Stevenson's) death? Is the source later used for those that came to his defence (The Times, 1 November 1994) sufficient to use here?(dealt with this myself)- On sources, the ODNB article is used (as it should be). Of the obituaries, the one from The New York Times is used and the one from The Times. Are you aware of the one that was published in The Guardian? It probably doesn't add much, but can be accessed through ProQuest which is available through most UK libraries. The details are: 'Last of the grand eccentrics' (PANNICK, DAVID. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 29 Dec 1987: 13).
There are also valedictory articles published when he retired, such as this one from The Guardian: 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' (ADAM, CORINNA. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 10 Apr 1979: 23.). That could be useful (the picture is a different one, though of poor quality, but the article does seem to confirm that he was a member of the Garrick Club), though judging how much to use such sources is a balancing act (clearly, as you've used the obituaries from The Times and The New York Times, you are amenable to sometimes using such sources).He also wrote the following (short) article in his retirement, though it is likely of only passing interest: 'A judge's guide to sentencing the criminal' (Stevenson, Melford. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 17 Sep 1979: 14).The one thing that puzzles me with the sources are the citations to Massingberd 2001. Looking at the source list, this is 'The Very Best of the "Daily Telegraph" Books of Obituaries' - are you quoting from an obituary of Stevenson that was re-published in that book? If so, that should be made clearer.- We had some difficulty in locating a source definitively confirming that Stevenson was a member of the Garrick Club, but I've found one now and added it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure what you're asking for and why with regard to Massingberd 2001, but I've added a note to each of the Massingberd citations saying that the obituary was first published in The Daily Telegraph on 29 December 1987. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would include details of the obituary and the page range within the collection, treating each obituary in the collection as a separate article and citing in that way. Just as you would include the title of the obituary if citing from the original newspaper, so you would include the title if citing it when reprinted in a collection of obituaries. Does that make clearer what I was getting at? Giving the original date of publication (which I had not thought of) is even better.Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- OK, I think I've got that now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, thanks. And thanks for incorporating the 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' article into the sources you have used. That article includes other interesting background as well, such as comments on his record as regards cases being sent for appeal and verdicts overturned at appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a closing quote from that article that seems to round off the story in terms of his appeals record. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, thanks. And thanks for incorporating the 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' article into the sources you have used. That article includes other interesting background as well, such as comments on his record as regards cases being sent for appeal and verdicts overturned at appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I've got that now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another point of order, this time on the ODNB citation. The author citation given in the ODNB is "Roskill, rev.". I'm not sure where the 'rev.' bit should be put in the Wikipedia article's citation, but it should be there. What that indicates is that the article was revised between the time Roskill wrote it for DNB publication (he died in 1996, the same year the article was originally published in a DNB supplement) and the time of ODNB publication (in 2004). In this case, the revision is anonymous, and was someone other than Roskill (this is indicated by the lack of square brackets around the 'rev.' bit). The conventions used by the ODNB for their 'rev.' terminology is given in the 'Help' section if any of that is unclear. The important thing is to include "rev." and put it in the correct place in the citation, though where I'm not sure. You could follow the placement used in the ODNB's suggested citation format. It doesn't matter hugely, as I've read the 1996 DNB version and it looks identical (any revisions appear to have been minor). But if you are citing the 2004 ODNB article rather than the 1996 DNB article, you do need to include the "rev." bit.(now dealt with)- When this issue has cropped in the past I've preceded the revising author's last name with "(rev.)", which I've done the equivalent of here even though we don't know who the revising author was. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of matters that may be only of passing interest: (i)
does anyone know what the medals he is wearing are, or were for? Do you get a gong for being on the Privy Council and being knighted?(medals now identified) (ii) Are there more details (dates and programmes) available of these "guest appearances on television"?- The medal on the right looks like the standard 1939–1945 War Medal, the one on the left is one of the Second World star medals, perhaps the France and Germany Star, no idea about the middle one. I haven't come across any source that definitely identifies Stevenson's medals though. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the guest appearances on television I'm afraid the answer is no, at least none that we've been able to find. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a bit on this. I'll put it on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What seems useful from that is that he made regular appearances on Granada TV's The State of the Nation in 1979, so I've added a sentence on that. Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a bit on this. I'll put it on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I left a few comments a while ago on the talk page. The article is doing a great job in squeezing the maximum information out of rather scant sources. It is unfortunate that there is no substantial published biography of Stevenson that can be used as as source, other than the ODNB, which makes me suspect that there may be some areas that are not dealt with as comprehensively as they deserve. For example, which of his cases (if any) set important legal precedents? Were his rulings usually upheld on appeal, or overturned?
- We obviously can't go beyond what the sources say without entering into the realm of original research, and none that I've come across give an opinion on whether his rulings were usually upheld on appeal or not. Obviously some were and some weren't, but nobody seems to have tallied them up yet. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But more particularly,
- a few more of the cases in which he was the judge could be mentioned, such as his (likely) involvement in the trial of the traitor Theodore Schurch (better source needed), but more securely in the first trial of St Albans poisoner Graham Young, the trial of the Cambridge rapist Peter Cook, and perhaps also the first inconclusive trial of George Ince for the murder at the Barn motel in Essex (a famous mistake of faulty identification at the first trial, but acquitted at the second trial due to an alibi from Dolly Kray, wife of Charlie Kray), and the trial of Christoper Bryant for corruption in relation to construction contracts in Birmingham (see City Architect of Birmingham)
- We've failed completely to find any reliable source for the Schurch stuff, which we really did want to include. I'm not certain the other trials are sufficiently notable with the passage of time, but if John disagrees then I've no objection to adding a little bit about at least a few more of them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there are recent cases that cite his judgments (for example, on contempt of court, or the requirements for a breathalyser result to be legally valid, with more details on the talk page)
- There are a few, but I'm struggling to see their significance. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the article says Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was "the only U-boat commander to be convicted of war crimes". Karl-Heinz Moehle also a German U-boat commander who was convicted of war crimes (he is in the List of successful U-boat commanders; his trial is Case 54 of Volume IX of the Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, published by the United Nations War Crimes Commission). Further, Hajime Nakagawa (I-37 and I-177) and Toshio Kusaka (I-26) were also submarine commanders and were convicted of war crimes, although you might quibble that Japanese submarines are not U-boats. The source used in the article, uboataces.com (the article calls it uboat.net: a reliable source?) actually says "the Kriegsmarine had only one U-boat commander convicted of war crimes" (emphasis added). It might be more accurate to say that Eck was the only German convicted of war crimes for his actions as captain of a submarine. (Incidentally, the Peleus trial is reported as Case 1 in Volume 1 of the UN reports if you would like a better source for the trial itself.)
- Hmm, not sure about this. Strictly speaking Karl-Heinz Moehle ceased to be a U-boat commander in June 1941, when he was given charge of the 5th U-boat Flotilla. The war crime he was convicted of (passing on the Laconia Order to newly trained U-boat commanders) did not happen when he himself was a U-boat commander. And as you say, Japanese submarines aren't U-boats. We could perhaps add a note explaining that Moehle was not in command of a U-boat when he committed his crime and hadn't been for more than a year before the Laconia Order was issued. If Moehle were to be considered a U-boat commander in 1942 then so would Dönitz have to be. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Malleus here. U-boats were German submarines (and in WW1 Austrian ones as well), so the Japanese examples are not relevant. Moehle, and Dönitz too, were former U-boat commanders at the times of their trials. I believe the wording of the article is strictly accurate as it stands. If you feel a clarification is important maybe we can figure something out. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition:
- in his early career as a junior barrister, the ODNB says he did mainly insolvency and "running down cases". Is "running down" insolvency-related, or perhaps car accident/personal injury? The ODNB also says he did divorce and libel cases as a silk, not primarily criminal cases, which may explain why he was first assigned to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division when he joined the bench.
- I understand "running down" to refer to the process of winding up a company voluntarily, as opposed to being forced into administration by creditors. certainly nothing to do with road traffic accidents anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- he seems to have turned down the chance of promotion to the Court of Appeal, but like most High Court judges he sat occasionally on the appeal bench. Did he sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Anything significant in the appeals he heard?
- There's no evidence to suggest that sat on the Judicial Committee and no reason to suppose that he might have done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord Roskill was a retired Law Lord (not High Court judge) when his ODNB biography of Stevenson was published in 2004. The article makes it appear that Roskill was replying to Sir Robin Dunn's comments, but their comments were separated by 10 years: Sir Robin Dunn was a retired Court of Appeal judge when he made his remarks about Stevenson in his memoirs, Sword and Wig, in 1994. The report in The Times in 1994 also quotes Dunn's remarks about Stevenson's "savage sentencing" diverging from guidelines set by the Court of Appeal, and would often be reduced on appeal; and that Stevenson could not resist a witty interjection. It also mentions another quote from Stevenson in a bribery case: "You have tried, and to some extent succeeded, in converting Birmingham into a municipal Gomorrah." (this in relation to the Bryant trial, I think: [23])
- Marcus Lipton introduced a motion to the House of Commons in 1976 asking for him to be dismissed from the bench, due to comments that Stevenson had made about other judges, for which Stevenson later apologised (perhaps the "constipated Methodists" comment? This was apparently in reaction to appeals in three of his cases being allowed on the same day.)
- The Marcus Lipton thing, coinciding with three of Stevenson's decisions being overturned by the Court of Appeal in a single day may indeed be significant, so I've added that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stevenson was also involved in The Sunday Times/thalodomide injunction/contempt of court case, which eventually went to the European Court of Human Rights.
- He was involved in loads of cases, but I'd prefer this article didn't degenerate into a list, and instead tried to tease out some kind of a consistent narrative of the man's career. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on shape and ribbon colour, I suspect the medals are the France and Germany Star and possibly the Defence Medal and War Medal (which are worn in that order, I believe: see British campaign medals). -- Ferma (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the tentative medal identifications made here by you both (Malleus and Ferma), many thanks to you both for that). It is something that could be added to the image page (with caveats), but not to the article (unless sources are available). One point of correction about Eustace Roskill - he died in 1996. The article he wrote on Stevenson (along with a couple of others he wrote) was published in 1996 by the DNB in one of their supplements. The 2004 date is when these articles were published as an ODNB articles. The points you make about Roskill and Dunn still stand, but I wanted to correct the point about Roskill being a retired Law Lord in 2004 (he was retired in a more permanent sense by that time). Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:18, 21 September 2012 [24].
- Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I have expanded it to many times the size of the GA version[25], which was not very comprehensive, and was badly structured and sourced (and one third pop culture trivia). Having read a lot of literature about the bird, I can not think of any major issues having been missed (some of the included info is even quite obscure). Both sides of controversial issues have been presented. The most important contemporary images and descriptions have been added, which mirrors most of the comprehensive secondary sources (comparable to Rodrigues Solitaire, but has a better text to quote ratio). I have searched far and wide for rare paintings and photos, and I'm pretty happy that I could find images of all surviving non-fossil specimens (one I had to photograph myself). The article is pretty long, but shorter than for example Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I support this article for the same reasons as stated above.Lucky102 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This article widely covered details which are know about the bird and its cultural significance, it is also one of the most viewed among African articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Popular pages). Kingroyos (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
How is this done?
- Use language=French, or language=Dutch, or whatever, in the template. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Books need page numbers
Done.
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
I will add locations to all.
- FN20: formatting
I removed "/ by Richard Lydekker" from the title, if that's what you meant.
You mean the cite DOI template? They are bot generated, and have not been a problem in other articles.
- FN33: need full citation
Done.
- FN68: italicization
The title?
- FN71: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Page numbers? Should be there, if you're referring to Rothschild 1919. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- All those Quote Boxes are out of place. The quotations are longish, but they should be indented quotes, because in almost every case they follow directly from the context of the article itself.
- The quote boxes have the effect of breaking the article into bits, and disrupting, rather than flowing.
- The purpose of quote boxes it to set aside a quotation that is relevant to the subject in some way, but is not itself expounding upon that subject. For example, in an article about a writer, one might place a particularly pithy paragraph that the subject had written, with a quote box, so that it is separated from the text. But a quote analysing the author's work, or commenting on him or relating an incident would simple be indented and within quotation marks.
- So every quote box needs to go, except the one with the poem.
Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The 350 year old accounts of sailors to far flung lands are so open to interpretation that it is most prudent to let the reader see them for themselves to interpret. They also add alot of colour to the prose. I like them all but I suppose could lose the second one if any needed to be lost....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The quotation issue was discussed at length during the Rodrigues Solitaire FAC, which passed, see the discussion there[26]. As for this article, I have removed several quotes before, and I could sure remove a few more, perhaps one of those in the white Dodo section (not so relevant to this particular bird), as well as something else, the quote explaining how Dodo fossils were excavated can be paraphrased, since there isn't anything about Dodo behaviour or appearance which is up for interpretation. The quote about Dodos taken aboard a ship for food could also be paraphrased. But I disagree that most of the quotes should be removed, per my comments at the other FAC. The contemporary accounts are sometimes so inconsistent that paraphrasing them or interpreting would do more harm than good. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now paraphrased the Clark quote, as well as added some more relevant information I overlooked and left out before. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading Amandajm's comment again, it seems that her issue is not the quotes themselves, but the boxes they're placed in. I have no opinion on that, but I originally used the block quote template, which does not create boxes. This was later changed by other users, so I assumed it was preferred. In any case, I actually think the sub fossil section is better off without the quote. It can now be found in the newly created Mare aux Songes article anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any more opinions on which quote template should be used? I like the current one, as it clearly separates the quotes from the main text. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you and Cas, for what it's worth. The quotes are very much something that should be in the article, and this box is an excellent way to show them. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recall somewhere an MOS ruling that we should not use boxes around them, but I think the boxes are better visually for marking the text as separate from the prose as such, so I like them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree, the presentation is better with the boxes, and Funkmonk's rationale makes sense to me too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recall somewhere an MOS ruling that we should not use boxes around them, but I think the boxes are better visually for marking the text as separate from the prose as such, so I like them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you and Cas, for what it's worth. The quotes are very much something that should be in the article, and this box is an excellent way to show them. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any more opinions on which quote template should be used? I like the current one, as it clearly separates the quotes from the main text. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading Amandajm's comment again, it seems that her issue is not the quotes themselves, but the boxes they're placed in. I have no opinion on that, but I originally used the block quote template, which does not create boxes. This was later changed by other users, so I assumed it was preferred. In any case, I actually think the sub fossil section is better off without the quote. It can now be found in the newly created Mare aux Songes article anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now paraphrased the Clark quote, as well as added some more relevant information I overlooked and left out before. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The quotation issue was discussed at length during the Rodrigues Solitaire FAC, which passed, see the discussion there[26]. As for this article, I have removed several quotes before, and I could sure remove a few more, perhaps one of those in the white Dodo section (not so relevant to this particular bird), as well as something else, the quote explaining how Dodo fossils were excavated can be paraphrased, since there isn't anything about Dodo behaviour or appearance which is up for interpretation. The quote about Dodos taken aboard a ship for food could also be paraphrased. But I disagree that most of the quotes should be removed, per my comments at the other FAC. The contemporary accounts are sometimes so inconsistent that paraphrasing them or interpreting would do more harm than good. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsNice article, I fixed an obvious typo, some comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The duplicate detector found the following overlinked in the body of the article (I.e. excluding infoboxes and the lead section): clade, ostrich, travel journal, terrestrial, clutch, Broad-billed Parrot, Mascarene, Dutch East India Company, Thirioux's Grey Parrot, Peter Mundy, London, Amsterdam, Surat, Red Rail, British Museum, Denmark/Danish, Richard Owen, skeleton, Roelant Savery.
- Genetically nested within pigeons and doves — I don't like the use of nested here and later, it invites confusion in an article about a bird.
- seasonal, however, and that individuals were fat during cool seasons, but slim during hot seasons — overuse of "seasons", also check for overuse of "bird" in this section"
- encounters with Dodos made between the Dodo's discovery and its extinction — clunky, perhaps encounters with the Dodo between its discovery and its extinction?
- Work the Maure aux Songes swamp has shown — missing word?
- I'll fix those things. But to be honest, the article could use a copyedit, two different users already volunteered to copyedit it at different times, yet both simply vanished from Wikipedia before finishing half of it, so I just gave up and nominated it anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues should be fixed now, is "grouped" better than nested? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer it in this context. I've been fortunate in that my current nature reserve-type FAC and the previous two had enough military history in the dunes to persuade the Milhist project to copyedit, but I know that otherwise it can be tricky. I picked up the duplicate detector from them too, makes it easy to pick up overlinking in one's own articles as well as persecuting FAC candidates {: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the detector? And some kind of poem tags were wrapped around the Belloc quote in the culture section, but it hasn't done anything but break the reference template. Not sure what the goal was. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was me, and the issue with the ref is fixed. The point is to clean-up the markup of embedded break tags and leverage a CSS class. It also has the visible effect of a proper sized break between paragraphs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the detector? And some kind of poem tags were wrapped around the Belloc quote in the culture section, but it hasn't done anything but break the reference template. Not sure what the goal was. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues should be fixed now, is "grouped" better than nested? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll fix those things. But to be honest, the article could use a copyedit, two different users already volunteered to copyedit it at different times, yet both simply vanished from Wikipedia before finishing half of it, so I just gave up and nominated it anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeon prose quality. Quite a lot of issues with the writing. A sample;
- overlinking of wild, century, popular culture, mascot, Denmark etc etc
Done. I have also removed many other links that seemed redundant. Please elaborate on "etc".
- " males being the largest" should be "larger"
Done.
- lots of "actually"s and "however"s; benchmarks of poor writing. Also "In fact" and "notable"; these terms should not be used much if at all in an article
Done. Removed two "actuallys" (which were added during copy edit) and the "howevers". "In fact" was also added by a copy editor.
- "the bird itself"; why "itself"?
Removed.
- "26 museums worldwide"; don't start a sentence with a number
Reworded.
- "Why is the bird's name capitalised? It looks especially awkward alongside mention of non-capitalised animals like cats and dogs.
See below.
- "below" seems to be missing, but the reason for the caps is at WP:BIRDS#Bird names and article titles. --Stfg (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the mid 19th century", "an island of 1,860 km2" and "up to 23-centimetres (9-inch) long"
Reworded.
- Lots and lots more. I'm sure with a really thorough copyedit this could pass, but it is definitely not ready yet. --John (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go along and fix those issues. Please list whatever other issues you have so I can fix them, as most of the problems mentioned appear to be very trivial and easily corrected. In fact, the first half of the article (where most of the problems mentioned are found) has already been copy edited twice by different editors ("overlinking" was done during copy edits), so I'm surprised there are still so many problems there. I find it almost comical that a new copy edit is needed to correct two previous copy edits. As for the name, bird names are always capitalised in Wikipedia articles, I think it's a policy of the bird wikiproject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues have now been addressed, please express if the changes are satisfactory or not, and elaborate on whatever else you don't like, so the article can be improved. I have brought up the issue of the missing copy editors here.[27] I hope someone will have pity and come save the damn Dodo, if not from extinction, then from rejection. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is now being copy edited anew, and many of the suggestions above that I implemented have now been changed back to the former state (wording, wikilinks). I hope this goes to show that much of this is subjective, and should not have an impact on whether the article passes or not. FunkMonk (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues have now been addressed, please express if the changes are satisfactory or not, and elaborate on whatever else you don't like, so the article can be improved. I have brought up the issue of the missing copy editors here.[27] I hope someone will have pity and come save the damn Dodo, if not from extinction, then from rejection. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go along and fix those issues. Please list whatever other issues you have so I can fix them, as most of the problems mentioned appear to be very trivial and easily corrected. In fact, the first half of the article (where most of the problems mentioned are found) has already been copy edited twice by different editors ("overlinking" was done during copy edits), so I'm surprised there are still so many problems there. I find it almost comical that a new copy edit is needed to correct two previous copy edits. As for the name, bird names are always capitalised in Wikipedia articles, I think it's a policy of the bird wikiproject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I now tentatively support following the major copyediting that has taken place. The writing still isn't perfect but I am confident it will be further improved in the normal editing process. --John (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stfg is now kindly giving it one more thorough copyedit, I hope it will address remaining concerns. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comments: I'd like to see some spotchecks for verification and to check for close-paraphrasing please. Graham Colm (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotchecks done I checked six of the references to sources that have on-line text, all looked OK to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 20:41, 2 October 2012 [28].
- Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (talk)
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been a GA for a number of months and the book is considered a key work in its medium. —Curly Turkey (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN32: page(s)?
- Done. Whoops—misnamed parameter. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN139: formatting
- Done. {{sfn}} should have been {{sfnm}}. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanatory notes should go before citations
- Done—but is there a reason for this?. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides convention, in this instance you include footnote citations on the explanatory notes, which had the reader jumping up instead of down. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—but is there a reason for this?. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check italicization of publications in Works cited
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check alphabetization of Works cited
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hammarlund, Johnston: publisher?
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reibmann: missing editor's last name
- Done. Misnamed parameter. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weschler: should use piped link for magazine
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check formatting of quotes within quotes and titles within titles.
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Frans_Masereel_-_Passionate_Journey_-_two_pages.jpg needs US PD tag
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Maus_volume_2_page_50_panels_3-4.jpg needs to explicitly identify the copyright holder; same with File:Art_Spiegelman_-_Maus_(1972)_page_1_panel_3.jpg and File:Maus_page_103_panel_2_HITLER_DID_IT.jpg
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Maus.jpg: suggest expanding purpose of use.
- Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I wrote on talk (Talk:Maus/Archive 1#Comprehensiveness_quibble) more could be added on reception in Poland, but I understand that requires a Polish speaker to look at the sources. I will try to find some time in the future to see if I can help. For now, I think the article is almost comprehensive, but a little bit more could be added. It probably fits our general standards, so I am not going to object to featuring it as it is, but I cannot support it until I have looked some more into the comprehensiveness of the Polish coverage. PS. I would like to hear what FA copyeditors think about the possibly weasel formulations like "Some commentators..." and "Some critic..." (in the Criticism section)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked at WikiProject Poland for help, but got no response. To be honest, I have to wonder just what would be missing in its Polish coverage at this point.
- I'd assumed that the "some commentators" and "some critics" were implied to be the commentators and critics in the sources provided. I don't want it to be an issue, so I've gone and named the names from the sources. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ref 173 (Harvey Awards) is dead. Otherwise, it meets the FA criteria. Particularly very well-researched. maclean (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed dead link (the Hraveys site has redone the way they do their URLs---I imagine this will affect a lot refs in a lot of comics articles). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the "Overview" section it is clunky saying "including his second wife, Mala. He had remarried after Anja's 1968 suicide." Vladek's "loved ones" leaves the detail for a better later explanation. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first part of that change you performed in the linked diff is perfect. The second part, not so much. The sentence is awkward: "Vladek has remarried to a woman called Mala since the suicide of Art's mother, Anja, in 1968." Why at this point do we need to tell the reader who Vladek is married to? Is Mala in the synopsis at this point because she helps Art get Vladek to spill the story? There is a sentence, "Art wants to get Vladek to recount his Holocaust experience"; we could follow that with something about the presence of "Vladek's second wife Mala" and whether she helps. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Art's mother's suicide and and Vladek's remarriage are all first presented on the first page of Chapter One. Art stops by his father's house and is greeted by Vladek and Mala. It reads:
- (panel 2, caption) "He had aged a lot since I saw him last. My mother's suicide and his two heart attacks had taken their toll."
- (panel 3, Vladek) "Mala! Look who's here! Artie!"
- (panle 3, caption) "He was remarried. Mala knew my parents in Poland before the war."
- This is before we learn why Art has come to visit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we restricted from arranging the elements of the synopsis to better suit the flow of information? Or must we stay in lockstep with the chronology of the literature? I think we can massage it a little bit in order to create a brief and readable summary. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it doesn't have to "stay in lockstep with the chronology"---it wasn't originally, when I had that information in the "Overview" section, which I thought was the best place to put it, setting up the general background. Mala appears throughout the book, and Anja's suicide keeps popping up, too.
- To be honest,I don't really see what the problem was in the first place. If you could give me a more concrete example of what you think would be better, maybe I could see more clearly. Curly Turkey (gobble)
- How about this suggestion? As an adult, Spiegelman visits his father, Vladek, from whom he had been estranged. Art wants to get Vladek to recount his Holocaust experience. Vladek's second wife Mala leaves them alone to talk. Vladek tells Art of his time in Częstochowa, Poland, describing how in 1937 he came to marry his first wife, Anja, and join her wealthy family in Sosnowiec to become a manufacturer. I hope that conveys a sense of what I was looking for. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...I think I'd like to get a second opinion on that. Anja's suicide comes up over and over in the book and is an important part of its background—right from page one of Chapter 1. I think it would be a mistake to de-emphasize it. Also, Mala doesn't really "leave them alone" to talk. All we know from the book is that, after dinner (which is mentioned but not depicted), Art and Vladek get together to talk. (gobble) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this suggestion? As an adult, Spiegelman visits his father, Vladek, from whom he had been estranged. Art wants to get Vladek to recount his Holocaust experience. Vladek's second wife Mala leaves them alone to talk. Vladek tells Art of his time in Częstochowa, Poland, describing how in 1937 he came to marry his first wife, Anja, and join her wealthy family in Sosnowiec to become a manufacturer. I hope that conveys a sense of what I was looking for. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we restricted from arranging the elements of the synopsis to better suit the flow of information? Or must we stay in lockstep with the chronology of the literature? I think we can massage it a little bit in order to create a brief and readable summary. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Art's mother's suicide and and Vladek's remarriage are all first presented on the first page of Chapter One. Art stops by his father's house and is greeted by Vladek and Mala. It reads:
- The first part of that change you performed in the linked diff is perfect. The second part, not so much. The sentence is awkward: "Vladek has remarried to a woman called Mala since the suicide of Art's mother, Anja, in 1968." Why at this point do we need to tell the reader who Vladek is married to? Is Mala in the synopsis at this point because she helps Art get Vladek to spill the story? There is a sentence, "Art wants to get Vladek to recount his Holocaust experience"; we could follow that with something about the presence of "Vladek's second wife Mala" and whether she helps. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [29].
I am nominating this for featured article because... we think it meets the criteria. The Seated Liberty dollar was struck for a third of a century, though never in large numbers. It was struck in response to deposits of silver by people and corporations. With a glut of silver about to hit the Mint, it was abolished, an action which became known as the Crime of '73 and which led to the great silver/gold debates of the late 19th century. Note that RHM22 is presently inactive, so I'll be handling this for us both. Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review (no spotchecks possible):
- Citation 50 requires p. not pp.
- Coin World Almanac': It might be better to use the OCLC ref rather than the Amazon code. The OCLC per Worldcat for the 3rd edition (1977) is 4017981
- In the bibliography, US states are given in their abbreviated form, except for Ohio. Maybe Ohio is never abbreviated, I don't know; but I thought I'd mention it.
- "O." or "Oh.". As the full name is short enough, I did not see any reason to risk variants and so just gave the state its full name.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The bibliography is in small print - any reason? It makes us elderly folk peer a bit more than usual.
Other than the above minor issues, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Brian. I just fixed the smallness. It's {{refbegin}} doing a foolish 90%. That really needs re-thinking. You can kill this in your prefs:
- Gadgets->Appearance, and check:
- "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as Infoboxes, Navboxes and Reference lists."
- Gadgets->Appearance, and check:
- Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The matters Brian brought up have been done. Thank you for the review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I gave this article a going-over at its peer review. All seems in order with this latest instalment of a well established and always informative series. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and image check: Another fine article. I find no issues. Images are fine as they have the standard info and are all clearly PD. PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for both.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: The article looks pretty good, seems up the the standard of coin featured articles. I made a few copyedits, hopefully all Ok. A few minor comments:
- "Julian agreed, noting that the act instituted a de facto gold standard in the United States" Do we usually italicize "de facto"?
- Some of the notes aren't complete sentences, so I don't think you need periods for them.
- "the first to be issued were 2,303 pieces paid to a Mr. A. Wright on February 11, 1870." I think you might be able to remove "paid to a Mr. A. Wright" from the sentence, it seems a bit extraneous to me.
- It helps to emphasize that the coin was not struck by the government on its own account, but in response to silver deposits, and it's a bit of color in an article which is shorter than my usual. I think it's worth the keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the last two paragraphs of "Later years" you have several of the same citations consecutively cited, you could probably remove some.
- Check the placement of the letter citations (inside vs outside punctuation): "amidst the constellation irregularly dispersed of twenty-four stars[a]".[11]" & "after the completion of the transcontinental railroad[c]," vs "the designs would remain on those coins for over 50 years.[b][18][19]"
- "of which the mintage is not known as there is no record of them being struck." I'd suggest "of which the mintage is not known as there is no record of their striking." but not a big deal.
- "they could now only receive Trade dollars, with their limited legal tender status." I'd suggest "which had a" instead of "with their", again, minor issue.
- "The Charlotte and Dahlonega mints only struck gold, catering to miners in the South seeking to deposit that metal" I'd suggest "who sought to" instead of "seeking to" here.
- "The Mint acquired a portrait lathe in 1837, which allowed Gobrecht to work in large models for the later versions of the Gobrecht dollar, and for the Seated Liberty dollar, with the pantograph-like device mechanically reducing the design to a coin-size hub, from which working dies could be produced." This sentence feels a bit long to me, I'd suggest breaking it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except as noted, that is everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Alright, fixes and explanation look good, and I'm now willing to support, good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the good words and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comments:
- I noticed this ungrammatical sentence in a quotation: "The few pieces made for Asiatic and other foreign trade and are not seen in circulation." Please check against the original.
I didn't notice any other issues. Ucucha (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice to see you back, U! - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed thanks and wb.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [30].
- Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article, but I think it includes everything it needs. I'm afraid I can't promise tales of poisoning or great economic importance, but I did manage to acquire a photograph of this obscure Nordic species, and I've included my own sketch of the spores. Thank you for your time! J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Mostly minor nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lead: link habit- Done.
"and may includes" -> include- Done.
perhaps add a few words to describe what characters are typical of the section Marginatae (assuming it's more than just association with Salix)- You're right. I will look into this. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll make sure this is done at some point next week- I'm going to have to wait until next time I'm on campus. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll make sure this is done at some point next week- I'm going to have to wait until next time I'm on campus. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I will look into this. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The cap's colour varies from yellow-brown to pale brown, and is palest at the margins." add underlined (or similar)- Done.
"The slender stem measures from 0.7 to 6.2 centimetres (0.28 to 2.4 in) by 1.5 to 6.5 millimetres (0.059 to 0.26 in)." it's obvious, but perhaps add "long" and "thick" to these measurements. The value "0.28" should have one fewer sig fig to match the input- Done.
"It varies in colour" clarify "It" ( the stem, or the atypical specimen referred to in the previous sentence?)- Done.
- probably should tweak image placement so that the spore pic isn't pushing in the "Micro chars" subheading
- Short of a hack to move the mycomorphbox to the left (which I couldn't work out) this is about the best I can do. That ends up looking rather right-heavy. Do you prefer it? J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all right-aligned images is a lesser evil than pushed in subheaders, but it's just my preference (and doesn't bother me that much anyway). Sasata (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Short of a hack to move the mycomorphbox to the left (which I couldn't work out) this is about the best I can do. That ends up looking rather right-heavy. Do you prefer it? J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Four spores are borne on each basidia." basidium- Done.
"The cell wall can be as much as 4.5 μm thick." -> is up to- Done.
"strongly-protruding excrescences" no hyphen needed after "-ly" words- Done.
"In addition, they are found in vastly different habitats; I. mixtilis and" think a colon is better than a semi-colon here- Done.
"… has confirmed that it is I. obtusiuscula and I. saliceticola are separate species." extra words "it is" here?- Done.
"while the spore are larger." -> spores- Done.
for consistency, might want to use short form binomials for three Salix species in "Dist & hab"- Done.
am wondering if a range map might be a more useful image for "Dist and hab" rather than a single species of moss with which the fungus grows?- I will look into this. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks very much for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will look into this. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Sphagnum_squarrosum_091207.jpg: image description page says "My name (Bernd Haynold) must be clearly visible close to the picture" - would you read this as a request for caption attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's just a reminder that the picture is not just in the public domain. My usage is consistent with the licenses under which the image is released. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has now been removed and been replaced with a map. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's just a reminder that the picture is not just in the public domain. My usage is consistent with the licenses under which the image is released. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I'll mainly be looking at prose, punctuation, and manual of style here, since I don't know too much about the subject matter. It looks pretty well written, only a few small issues:
- I think that one weakness in the prose is the number of short sentences, particularly in "Microscopic characteristics", the end of the first paragraph of "Description", and the second paragraph of "Distribution and habitat".
- I've tried to improve the flow a little. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the mushrooms of I. hirculus have a much more fibrillose cap, that is, a cap with many more fibrils" Is there a more concise way to put this?
- I've cut out the defintion but added a link to Wiktionary. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "with the original description describing it only as "fungoid"." Not a big deal, but this is the WP:PLUSING construction.
- Done.
- There are a few commas that I think could be removed: "particular species favoured by the fungus are unclear, and may include beech and alder taxa", " The longer caulocystidia (cystidia on the stem) measure up to 99 μm in length, and have a more variable shape." & "the abundant cauloparacystidia can have slightly thicker walls, and are often arranged in clusters".
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "I. salicis is rare in Nordic countries, and is typically collected from dunes." I'm not sure we need the comma here, also, is it rare in Nordic countries because of the lack of dunes there? I feel similarly about "it grows on fine sand, and has not been recorded in Finland".
- I don't know- the point is that both are features which differentiate it clearly from I. saliceticola. I worry that removing the comma would imply that the two facts are more related than they are. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's it from me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to read the article. I've been away this weekend, and have found myself busy now- I will get to them. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ok, I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations, the article looks FA quality to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comments Looks FA to me, just two quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to read the article, I really appreciate it. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The duplicate detector found the following linked more than once in the body of the article (i.e. excluding infoboxes and the lead section): willow and Inocybe
- Done.
- conical or nearly so, but as the mushroom matures, the caps flatten into a more convex — surely flatter is less convex?
- No- "convex" is a specific shape which is flatter than a cone. Agaricus bisporus has a convex cap, but it is flatter than the conical cap of Hygrocybe conica. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The duplicate detector found the following linked more than once in the body of the article (i.e. excluding infoboxes and the lead section): willow and Inocybe
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:52, 15 September 2012 [31].
- Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I worked really hard on it for a period of time. First I promoted it to GA status and really wasted plenty energy on it. Many users helped me during its maintenance and editing including Wikipedian Penguin. I would like everyone who opposes on the review to leave the points and opinions here or eventually on my talk page so I can resolve them. Thank You — Tomica (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments - There's an awful lot of sourcing to online retailers (namely iTunes) and primary sources like liner notes. If a reputable secondary source doesn't discuss an item, then it probably isn't noteworthy. Also, I see a mistake that's been cropping up in recent song articles and that's listing when the song was issued to radio as a release date--it isn't, as radio is a promotional venue, not a form of commercial release. The prose is stiff in spots, but nothing a once-over by an experienced copy editor couldn't fix. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I share WesleyDodds' concern of the heavy overuse of iTunes sources. Also, there's an inconsistency with the use of {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. For example, FN26 uses {{cite news}}, but FN57, a similar source (in terms of the publisher), uses {{cite web}}. Be consistent with the use of one or the other. Another problem is the handful of dead links used in the article. I'll be willing to reconsider my oppose, if these issues are addressed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:52, 15 September 2012 [32].
- Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.
All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article would benefit greatly from a thorough copyedit--Ykraps (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been several copyedits already. Can you please point any actual actionable concerns? Cambalachero (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearing in mind that criterion 1a states, "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"; I found the whole article difficult to read. Many of the sentences are unnecessarily wordy, and indeed, the first 3 sentences I read had problems.
- The United States Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776 led criollos (Spanish peoples born in the Americas) to believe that revolution and independence from Spain could be realistic aims.
- Why not, "...could become a reality"' or "...was achievable". Also, ‘criollos’ sounds like a proper noun? If it is, it ought to be capitalised.
- Between 1775 and 1783, the American patriots of the Thirteen Colonies waged the American Revolutionary War against both the local loyalists and the Kingdom of Great Britain.
- We have been told which war in the previous sentence so I would have thought "Between 1775 and 1783, American patriots fought against loyalists and British soldiers" to be sufficient.
- "The fact that Spain aided the colonies in their struggle against Britain weakened the idea that it would be a crime to end one's allegiance to the parent state".
- I needed to read this sentence carefully to make sense of it. I gather this means that, because Spain had always maintained that breaking allegiance with one’s parental state was a crime, its aid to the rebel colonies was seen as somewhat hypocritical.
- "Books from the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies through Caracas, owing to the proximity of Venezuela to the United States and the West Indies".
- This sounds like books from the USA found their way to the W. Indies first, then to Caracas and from there into the Spanish colonies. Is that what you meant? Or did you mean, “Books from the West Indies and the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies via Venezuela, which was in close proximity”.
- I note some of these issues have been addressed but the whole article is littered with similar examples to the point where it isn't at all 'engaging'. I am sorry if this all sounds rather scathing, it is not meant to be, I am genuinely trying to offer some constructive criticism. It should also be noted that this is my first attempt at a featured article review so you may want to take my comments with a pinch of salt.--Ykraps (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Ykraps on this, I did some and will do some more soon, just juggling a bit much. Plus it is good to step back and re-examine when copyediting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Engaging" does not mean "For dummies", it is right to be concerned with excesive wordiness, but the text should not follow either a pattern "subject does action. stop. suject does action. stop. subject does action. stop." It is needed to provide details and add explanations, specially in a topic like this one, which is not familiar for most English-speaking readers before actually reading it. As for the US, the US declaration of independence and the revolutionary war are related things but not the same thing, both ones should be mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really want to treat us all like dummies, you can always pipelink fought against to American revolutionary war or use explanatory footnotes to give more information.--Ykraps (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would go against the Principle of least astonishment. Cambalachero (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Engaging" does not mean "For dummies", it is right to be concerned with excesive wordiness, but the text should not follow either a pattern "subject does action. stop. suject does action. stop. subject does action. stop." It is needed to provide details and add explanations, specially in a topic like this one, which is not familiar for most English-speaking readers before actually reading it. As for the US, the US declaration of independence and the revolutionary war are related things but not the same thing, both ones should be mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been several copyedits already. Can you please point any actual actionable concerns? Cambalachero (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - reading through now and copyediting as I go. Please revert any changes I make which accidentally change the meaning. I will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a few changes but need to prioritise some other work currently. The prose does need some work. Not insurmountable but not negligible either. Back later...
- I will note that I used quotations marks in "May Week" at the intro according to WP:WORDSASWORDS (I did not use italics because the paragraph already had words in italics, and didn't want to abuse). It is also unneeded to fix links to redirects into links to the proper article name, specially if it is a piped link and the visible text remains the same. But feel free to continue or suggest things if needed. Cambalachero (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 23:03, 24 September 2012 [33].
- Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm bringing this article back for a second crack at getting FA status. This one has been a labour of love, starting from a stub and taking about two years. The last FA attempt only garnered two substantive responses; the first supporting and the second recommending a further peer review. This has since been done and the issues raised there have been dealt with, so I am hoping that I can get this through this time. Comments and suggestions are welcome and I will (hopefully) be around most days to deal with any issues. Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review File:View frim sheriffs highway.jpg is fine. The "date" field in File:Malcolm3Canmore.jpg is empty (if it's contemporary of that man, the century would be enough, and {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} a better license). File:Pottersfield stone(2).jpg is fine. File:Fanny pit miners.jpg should have the "information" template. File:Blue quarries road sign.jpg is fine. File:View from Sheriff Hill (Westa).jpg is fine. File:View from causeway.jpg is fine. File:Geograph-1687812-by-wfmillar.jpg has two instances of the "Information" template, fix them into a single one. File:P4020179.JPG is fine. File:Sheriff Hill Lunatic Asylum.jpg seems unclear: no author and no date, how do we know it's PD? File:QE foundation stone.jpg is fine. File:Hodkin Park Central Trees.JPG is fine. File:Ye Olde Cannon 2010.JPG is fine. File:Zion gym.jpg claims that Andy Williamson authorized it, but the source site says "The pictures on it are not for sale and may not be used commercially"; commercial use must be allowed. File:St John's Church, Gateshead Fell - geograph.org.uk - 415223.jpg is fine (it requires categories in Commons, but that does not concern this FAC). File:Sheriff Hill Methodist Church.JPG is fine. File:P4020133.JPG is fine. File:P4020143.JPG is fine. Cambalachero (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Information template added to Fanny Pit Miners image and duplication removed from geograph image. I have removed the Zion image and replaced it with a different, better licensed image (I also have a modern one of my own which can be used if necessary). Categories have been added to the S John's Church file. The Malcolm image isn't mine; I simply used it when I found it in the Commons so I have no information as to it's source at all. As the lunatic asylum was completely demolished in the 1920's, the photograph must pre-date that time and is part of Gateshead Council public archives, so it is PD Crown Copyright. I've changed the licence to reflect this but if necessary we can simply remove the image.Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nit-pick. There's some unusual punctuation with dashes in this. page ranges have a dash between page numbers, with a space each side of the dash, which is unusual. There's titles where there's a dash with a space on only one side, which I've never seen, and the dashes (where they aren't text based) are actually hyphens. There's one spot where a dash is used, when it should really be a comma. Suggest an editor takes a look at this. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [sigh] Me and endashes have a real thing for one another (namely, we share a mutual loathing). I've re-re-read WP:DASH and made some changes so that hopefully this is now fixed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my comments in the previous FAC Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nick. I rather hope this attempt garners a little more feedback than the last :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment - Consider rewriting "The name of the settlement derives from 'the Sheriff's March'; a ancient, biannual procession on the turnpike road held from 1278", it suggests there was a turnpike there in 1278, which is unlikely. Also, 'an ancient' not 'a ancient'.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done; thanks for commenting! Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - reading through now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...Ye Olde Cannon, was visited bi-annually - why not plainer English "Ye Olde Cannon, was visited twice yearly..."
- Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
::Sheriff Hill has existed in some form for over one thousand years - reads funny and leaves me wondering what has existed for over a thousand years....most hills are alot older....
:: by "a retinue of native insurgents and foreign auxiliaries", - should be a straightforward rewrite to de-quote here "retinue" --> "band" etc. lots of synonyms to choose from
- I was very fond of that quote...rewritten:) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
::This quickly became the essential trade route between Durham and Newcastle - "essential" seems a funny adjective here...wouldn't "main" or "principal" be better?
- Rewritten as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- two public houses, Ye Olde Cannon inn and the Three Tuns inn, were built alongside - do we know when approximately?
- Sadly not. The Old Cannon must date from the 13th century because it was part of the Sheriff's March, but the Three Tuns is very difficult to date with any certainty at all. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- two public houses, Ye Olde Cannon inn and the Three Tuns inn, were built alongside - do we know when approximately?
::It lies on an "historic route from Durham to the north". - dequote
::In the 20th century the village was enveloped, so that "now it is surrounded by suburban Gateshead, which has developed in dense form around it with little visual delineation" - dequote. active tense will help here too.
- Rewritten and lots of removals of material. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
::The result is that the suburb benefits from "striking topography" and residents can enjoy panoramic views. - dequote. actually this could probably be minimised or removed as there is a bit about the view in these bits.
- I've made fairly sweeping removals in this section to remedy this. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
::paint "his first remarkable picture", - dequote
- population not economically active - err, what? link or explain...
- It is the phrase used by Gateshead Council on the ward factsheet. They aren't kind enough to provide an explanation... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- population not economically active - err, what? link or explain...
:: "struggle to compete with the lower prices and convenience of the supermarkets located in central Gateshead, the MetroCentre and Team Valley". - dequote
- Dequoted and rewritten. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now the quoted bits in the Housing are good and add atmosphere nicely...just saying :)
- Thanks! :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now the quoted bits in the Housing are good and add atmosphere nicely...just saying :)
::The Egremont Estate is a "quiet, peaceful and very distinctive estate" behind Sheriffs Highway with entry at Egremont Drive - dequote and reduce adjectives. Does not read neutrally as is.
:: character here is "a progressive suburban development, constructed on a plateau nestling in the landscape...this has the feel of an enclosed community, with development encircling a central space" - dequote and reduce words. Does not read neutrally as is.
::Here is "an informal grouping of vernicular stone buildings, with the character of a small rural farmstead, on the perimeter of a vestige of woodland". - dequote
- In light of these three comments, I've completely rewritten this entire section, reducing it in size by quite a bit and removing almost all adjectives. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few more quoted bits that could probably go too.
- There are less than a handful of quotes left; I've essentially removed all but a handful and replaced with paraphrases. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few more quoted bits that could probably go too.
Overall, quite a nice read and will be even better once there are fewer quotation marks jarring the flow. Obviously exhaustively comprehensive. I've not checked the sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to comment. I think I've addressed everything you noted :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very much enjoyed the article, and liked the history in particular, but there are quote a few problems:
Per Casliber, I think the number of small in-line quotations needs to be trimmed in place of paraphrasing. I don't mind them in the history section, though.
- I've made sweeping changes (see above). Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1890's - why the apostrophe?
- Removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
footnotes 53 and 54: misspelling of author name in one, problems with the year in both (should be 1827, 1834, or there is a ref missing from the bibliography)
Do any other reviewers have any concern about extensive reliance on a book nearly forty years old (Manders 1973) for an article about a place such as this?
- Sadly, that was the last major, published history of Gateshead; or at least it is according to the staff at Gateshead Central Library. This is a factor in almost all Gateshead articles– despite being a fairly old and large place there is an appalling dearth of secondary source material on the town and it's surrounds. Obviously a new book would be ideal, but if you can find one you are a better soul than I... Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly don't think it is appropriate, in describing the urban geography, to cite a 170-year old source in the present tense: "The spire at St John's Church is a landmark visible for miles in all directions which "gives an aspect of comfort and civilisation to the district"." If the spire at St John's Church really is, right now, a landmark visible for miles in all directions then I think, per WP:CK, you don't need a reference for that. Regardless of that, however, it is not possible for us to use such a dated reference for a description of how the place look now. Given there are too many quotes, I would actually just drop the McKenzie quote altogether and just have "The spire at St John's Church is a landmark visible for miles in all directions."
I took a quote out of the geog section: "awe-inspiring".
- No problem. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the economy section to remove a quote - please check my edits
- Checked and fine. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This rental rate actually declined in the preceding years,..." I think "subsequent years" is meant. Can nominator pls check?
- Your suggestion is better. Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has this: "He informed local newspapers that: "…we can build houses, but we cannot build homes. Only the people themselves can do that and I hope that the spirit of ‘esprit de corps’ will prevail and this will be a model estate"[1]" I think in terms of keeping the WP article focussed on its subject and reducing the number of quotes, esp outside the history section, this can be deleted.
- Not sure if I can agree. The article outlines the initial reluctance of the local council to even build a council estate and I think that this quote nicely dovetails that aspect in that it demonstrates that, even as the building was nearing completion, the man behind the project still wasn't entirely convinced that he was doing the right thing... Meetthefeebles (talk)
- Ah, i see what you were getting at now. You might consider introducing the quote in that way, along the following lines. "As the project was completed, he still had his doubts:" or something like that. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Considered and done Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, i see what you were getting at now. You might consider introducing the quote in that way, along the following lines. "As the project was completed, he still had his doubts:" or something like that. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I can agree. The article outlines the initial reluctance of the local council to even build a council estate and I think that this quote nicely dovetails that aspect in that it demonstrates that, even as the building was nearing completion, the man behind the project still wasn't entirely convinced that he was doing the right thing... Meetthefeebles (talk)
"After the initial period of procrastination followed a time of great ambition and pride." doesn't sound very encyclopedic. It also has a ring to it that suggests it may come from a source of the period and lost its quote marks / citation?
- It isn't from a source, as I would have included quotation marks (as evidenced by my fondness for them elsewhere in the article). I've rewritten the sentence. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point :-) thnks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't from a source, as I would have included quotation marks (as evidenced by my fondness for them elsewhere in the article). I've rewritten the sentence. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be overly sensitive, but maybe I am. Anyway, health para 1 has this: "Escapes were rare but some incidents were recorded." It was an asylum, not a prison. I know what is meant, but it both not particularly noteworthy, and jarring. Suggest delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't important who the doctor was in 1904 or who assisted him. Delete that sentence.
This sentence doesn't work: "First mooted in 1931 when a local governmental survey concluded that hospital provision in Gateshead was inadequate, work began on the Queen Elizabeth Hospital." If it was first mooted in 1931, then the second clause, telling us that work began, has to be in a later year, so we should be told what it is. Otherwise, "first mooted in 1931" doesn't work.
- I've split it up and re-written. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Harrison quote in note 5 is unremarkable as a description of school life, and not particularly "local" or distinctive, and could be dropped.
- It is eye-witness testimony of conditions over 100 years ago; something rare when it comes to source material on Gateshead. I could be convinced to remove it but I'm not sure... Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that such testimony is often handy. But it should say something distinctive that contributes to the article about Sheriff Hill, whereas it sounds like any eyewitness account of school life anywhere circa a century ago.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has to go, I'll delete, but my view is that whilst you and I known about school conditions at that time, many of WP's younger and non-English readers might not, so although quite typical it is still perhaps of benefit? Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. If no-one else has a concern, I'm dropping mine. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has to go, I'll delete, but my view is that whilst you and I known about school conditions at that time, many of WP's younger and non-English readers might not, so although quite typical it is still perhaps of benefit? Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that such testimony is often handy. But it should say something distinctive that contributes to the article about Sheriff Hill, whereas it sounds like any eyewitness account of school life anywhere circa a century ago.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is eye-witness testimony of conditions over 100 years ago; something rare when it comes to source material on Gateshead. I could be convinced to remove it but I'm not sure... Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Described as a "green oasis" - well, yes, by the town council trying to talk it up. An unusual case of POV, but I've edited it out :-)
- lol Fair enough Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some fairly severe edits to the stuff on the parks - i think it was too detailed, not notable, relied on local council news releases for facts, and got down to trivia such as recent pruning. But if other editors think I've gone overboard, happy to discuss.
- The park is fairly notable - it is locally listed, which I think indicates it's relative importance (though wouldn't justify a seperate listing, certainly). The edits look okay but they are very severe...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few notability / reliability issues in the article. I've edited one out myself. I also really think the international pie festival thing has to go - it is a one-line reference in a lightweight free mag of a local society in favour of beer. To put it mildly, this ain't a reliable source, nor a notable fact! More generally, editors might want to check the journals etc list in particular and consider whether all of those meet the standards of WP:RS. Nikkimaria, whree are you? :-)
- Is Canny Bevvy unreliable? Genuine question? If it isn't, I'll remove. Also, just had a quick check and it seems the pie festival was in the local press as well here, for example so perhaps I might simply replace the existing source with this better one? Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does CannyBevvy look like a magazine written by professional journalists with a reputation for fact checking? Well, before or after they've sampled their beloved ales? I don't think it would come within cooee of being reliable, myself. Go with the local newspaper instead. (I'm still skeptical about reporting a local "international" pie festival:-))hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your scepticism is unfounded... :) I've left it in because it was notable enough to be reported by a reliable source and it gives some modern information as opposed to the plethora of material beforehand which, whilst relevant, relates to centuries before. I've also addressed the reliability issue as best as I can; several sources and material have been removed 'just in case', the bibliography has been slashed and I am confident that the remaining sources are fine (though a check might confirm). Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does CannyBevvy look like a magazine written by professional journalists with a reputation for fact checking? Well, before or after they've sampled their beloved ales? I don't think it would come within cooee of being reliable, myself. Go with the local newspaper instead. (I'm still skeptical about reporting a local "international" pie festival:-))hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Canny Bevvy unreliable? Genuine question? If it isn't, I'll remove. Also, just had a quick check and it seems the pie festival was in the local press as well here, for example so perhaps I might simply replace the existing source with this better one? Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why this sentence is sitting there on its own: "Sheriffs Hill had a number of Methodist chapels but only one remains along with the Anglican church." It lacks context and isn't really a helpful introduction to the paras that follow. If that was the intention, I would delete it.
- It has gone Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the building itself is a neat,..." once again, we can't have the present tense for a 170 year-old source.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see why 'neat' might have to go but 'plain' and 'gothic' are unlikely to change as regards a church, even after 200 years! I'll have a root about and see if there is anything more recent...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have resourced to the listing at English Heritage, which is obviously a lot more recent. That should be better... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see why 'neat' might have to go but 'plain' and 'gothic' are unlikely to change as regards a church, even after 200 years! I'll have a root about and see if there is anything more recent...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the more cosmetic (for want of a better word) of the suggestions above but those relating to the quotations will take a little more time and I will address those of both Casliber and Hamilton when I get home from work. Thanks to both for taking the time to review :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these are all now addressed. Thank you for commenting, and re-commenting – 'tis much appreciated :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least for now. This is like deja vu for me, because only yesterday I completed the GA review of a neighbouring suburb, Carr Hill. Unfortunately though I find many of the same problems with this article as I did with that one. I would have hoped that the nominator would have applied the same fixes to this article as were applied to Carr Hill, but obviously not. Hopefully all of the issues can be addressed within the span of this FAC, but the bottom line for me is that this nomination is premature. Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In my defence, the Carr Hill review and your comment were slightly less than 24 hours apart! per the earlier review, I've added a climate chart, rearranged and added census data to the religion section, addressed your bibliography concern by removing the abbreviations and indeed removing those sources from the bibliography and including them instead in the references using the 'cite web' template, checked and changed all references for consistency (accessed-retrieved etc), removed a possible non sequitor from the lead etc. I've also made some fairly considerable edits to remove material which might have been superfluous. If there are any more specific concerns I would welcome the chance to consider/correct them :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned in that review that I'd be expecting to see a section on public services in a UK settlement article at FAC, but I can't find one here. I'm not at all convinced that public houses are sufficiently notable to have a section all to themselves. Are any of them particularly notable in some way? Adding the new climate table has pushed File:View from causeway.jpg down the page and created an unsightly block of white, so it needs to either moved or removed. Personally I'd remove it, as it seems overly promotional: "just one of the extensive views enjoyed by residents" looks like it was written by an estate agent. In fact much of the language seems overly promotional: "It is a remnant of Sheriff Hill's rural past, is visually warm and full of character", "The surviving grounds, enclosed by the original stone walls, also add to its character", "local residents are still able to enjoy excellent views of the surrounding locale".
The citations in the Notes section should be in with the rest of the references. What does "See Unknown (Unknown)" in note #3 mean anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned in that review that I'd be expecting to see a section on public services in a UK settlement article at FAC, but I can't find one here. I'm not at all convinced that public houses are sufficiently notable to have a section all to themselves. Are any of them particularly notable in some way? Adding the new climate table has pushed File:View from causeway.jpg down the page and created an unsightly block of white, so it needs to either moved or removed. Personally I'd remove it, as it seems overly promotional: "just one of the extensive views enjoyed by residents" looks like it was written by an estate agent. In fact much of the language seems overly promotional: "It is a remnant of Sheriff Hill's rural past, is visually warm and full of character", "The surviving grounds, enclosed by the original stone walls, also add to its character", "local residents are still able to enjoy excellent views of the surrounding locale".
- I disagree as regards the public houses; one of the (the Old Cannon) was fundamental to the naming of the settlement and the other (the Three Tuns) was a focal point for village life for nearly two centuries. Both are also locally listed and have been commented upon in various published sources. This makes both notable enough in my view. I also think "written by an estate agent" is unduly harsh regarding the offending sentences; they are toned down paraphrases of much more extravagant descriptions in published, reliable sources. The view from Sheriff Hill, an urban area in an industrialised region, is a notable feature and should thus be commented upon. I'm not entirely sure what words other than 'extensive' or 'panoramic' I can use and I wouldn't consider either particularly promotional. I certainly wouldn't equate them as the language of an estate agent. Nonetheless, I have made further amendments where possible. I have nested the references in the notes as requested and I will see if I can put together a public services section. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we'll have to agree to differ and my oppose will stand. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a public service section. What words to you suggest to remedy the above impasse? I have taken source material which describes a 20 mile view in three directions as 'fantastic', 'Uncommonly grand', 'stunning' and 'striking' and paraphrased these as 'panoramic' and 'extensive'. I am at something of a loss as to where else I can go without completely misrepresenting the source material...Meetthefeebles (talk)
- The best option in that case would have been to quote and cite "fantastic" etc. rather than try and paraphrase it, as it looked as if you were giving your own opinion. My last general observation is that you need to seriously review the level of detail being provided here, given that this is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article and not a local guide book. Do I really need to know, for instance, that the Travellers Rest is at 1–2 Southend Terrace, or that "Trees divide the larger, floral section of Hodkin park from the children's play park", with a picture of said trees no less? Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what was originally quoted in the article and you described it as the work of an estate agent. In the event, several comments advised me to paraphrase. That is 'estate agent' and 'guide book' have been insinuated in the same day. See above for the reviewer who took the park section to task. If I remove that detail re: Sheriff Hill Park there will be nothing left. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to take a look at this in the new Public services section: "Sheriff Hill's Distribution Network Operator for electricity is Northern Powergrid. drinking is administered by Northumbrian Water". I very much doubt that Northumbrian Water have the authority to administer drinking. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One word missing, as I was out and about, and you didn't feel moved to make an amendment? Says a lot... Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What says a lot is that you're not listening to what I'm telling you, and have been telling you for the past few days. Therefore I have nothing to add to what I've already said and will not be revisiting this nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me ask you a serious question. Can you see nothing wrong with this sentence: "Drinking water is provided by Northumbrian Water; water being sourced from Kielder Reservoir"? Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:13, 20 September 2012 [34].
- Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of three vital articles about Madagascar. It's at GA level now and has gone through multiple peer reviews and copy edits. Having polished up many of the Madagascar-related cultural and historical articles here, I'm happy this root article is finally at a level I think is up to FA standards. I'm looking forward to your feedback and am available to make rapid edits and additions per reviewers' recommendations. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by MONGO:
- As I mentioned in April during a peer review (last bullet point), I would like to see a small expansion of the ecological challenges/borderline disaster issues to the flora and fauna of Madagascar. Though the article explains how humans have impacted the ecology of the island over a little more than the last 2 millennium, the emphasis should be more about those changes in the last 125 years, which have been drastic and constitute the bulk of the deforestation and species loss. I think you'll still meet summary style if wording akin to what we find in the daughter article Deforestation in Madagascar is added...
"Deforestation[1] with resulting desertification, water resource degradation and soil loss has affected approximately 94% of Madagascar's previously biologically productive lands. Since the arrival of humans 2000 years ago, Madagascar has lost more than 90% of its original forest.[2] 70% of the forest cover of Madagascar was destroyed between 1895 and 1925, while Madagascar was under French rule.[3] Since 1953, half of the remaining forest has been lost.[4] Largely due to deforestation, the country is currently unable to provide adequate food, fresh water and sanitation for its fast growing population.[5][6] One major cause of deforestation has been the introduction of coffee as a cash crop during the French colonial period.[3]"
- To most in the English speaking world, we think about this environmental issue since that is about all we hear about the island nation on a routine basis.--MONGO 14:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to comment here, Mongo. I agree it would be good to include a little more about the process of deforestation. The challenge is finding data that is correct, as much of the content out there is still being debated. The cite above about 70% being lost under French rule has been discredited by more recent researchers. I will have a look around to see if I can determine whether a consensus has been reached recently, but if it hasn't then a brief summary of the claims and a comment on the lack of consensus might be the best I can do. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some detail explaining that the deforestation began picking up speed around 1400 years ago and was already complete in the highlands 500 years ago. I'll keep looking for reliable data on more recent forest destruction. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've completed edits to respond to the issue you raised, Mongo. I found solid scientific journal articles that provide greater information about the extent of recent forest loss on the island and the anticipated date of complete deforestation outside national parks (2025, very sad). Lemurbaby (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good...I will have some time to dedicate to doing another check of anything else that I find in the next day or two.--MONGO 04:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like you and Lemurbaby have settled this, but I wanted to comment on the quote above from Deforestation in Madagascar. Originally the article had a statement very much like this, but I pointed out to LB that the sources were not scientific, and that there is a lot of historic finger-pointing going on outside of the academic literature—all usually citing old, non-scientific literature. (It's one of those sobering reminders that sources—even reliable ones—are not always correct.) At a glance, the information LB has written looks correct, although I'm not as familiar with the authors and sources she sites. I might run the section by an expert to be sure, since some of the sources are from the 1990s. (I will also be offering my review shortly.) Good job handling this, both of you. – Maky « talk » 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and Lemurbaby made what I believe are adequate adjustments to that section. I suppose the issues I wanted addressed included what the impacts are, approximately when did they happen and what if anything is being done to solve the crisis.--MONGO 02:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the section Independent state, please update the information about the elections at the end of the section.--MONGO 15:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Primates in Peril: The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates 2008–2010 is a dead link...I couldn't easily find it in the article.--MONGO 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done.
- "Many high-level technical positions were filled by French expatriates, and French teachers, textbooks and curricula continued to be used in schools around the country. Popular resentment over Tsiranana's tolerance for this "neo-colonial" arrangement inspired a series of student protests that overturned his administration in 1972." - source?
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- References section includes multiple uncited sources - shouldn't mix uncited and cited in same section
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN1: missing italics
- FN2: need complete citations
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistently use endashes for ranges
- Question: What is the preferred format for these? I used to use &ndash but have since had those removed by bots or editors from other articles. I've also tried copying/pasting from an n-dash elsewhere, but when I paste it into the article, it looks no different. Suggestions? Lemurbaby (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you include publishers and locations for newspapers/magazines
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- I've checked, and I think everything should be okay. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
- Used a consistent style to indicate this throughout. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN79, 145, 146: formatting
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how BBC refs are notated
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mix different types of citation templates
- I wasn't able to spot an instance of this. Example? Lemurbaby (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: The only instance I see that you might have found different was the Cite DOI for the smallest chameleon ref in the ecology section. Is that the one? If that isn't an acceptable format, let me know and I will change it. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you abbreviate US states. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Maky:
"a type of prosimian primate" – I know I use both "strepsirrhine" and "prosimian" in the lemur articles, but I wonder if it would be best to use "strepsirrhine" here, since that's the official taxonomy and more accurately describes their phylogeny.
- I believe strepsirrhine was used in an earlier version of the article, and a copy editor later changed it in order to be more accessible to a wider readership as a top-level geography article. There are probably already a good number of readers who will not know prosimian, so I feel this was probably the right choice for this article, even if strepsirrhine is much more precise and correct. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how "prosimian" makes it more accessible to the public, given that when I give tours at the Duke Lemur Center (DLC), many people guess that lemurs are marsupials, of if they do know they are primates, 99% of them have never heard the term prosimian (whereas students who've taken anthropology classes give me funny looks for using outdated terminology). I know the DLC favors "prosimian" because it's easier to explain the Latin roots and play off the general misunderstandings about evolution (that "primitive" organisms evolve into "advanced" organisms.) We're not doing either here, but honestly, whatever... – Maky « talk » 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I just realized I was the one who put prosimian in there, as I copied the wording you had proposed on the talk page. Do you feel strongly about strepsirrhine? I do think prosimian is more recognizable, but maybe because I learned it in school 20 years ago, and if it's outdated, then... you'd know best. What's your final recommendation - change it or leave it? Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The island's iconic traveler's palm (Ravenala) features in the national emblem." – I capitalized "Ravenala" because I thought you were referring to the genus, but if you're referring to the local name, then that probably needs a reference. Anyway, if it is a local name, is it universal across all the dialects?
- It's the name in official Malagasy. Some dialects may have other names for it. I can't find a source that explicitly states it is the name in official Malagasy, only that it is the Malagasy name for the plant. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"State-controlled logging of precious woods within national parks, authorized in January 2009 by Ravalomanana, has dramatically intensified under the Rajoelina administration as a key source of state revenues to offset cuts in donor support following Ravalomanana's ouster." – I don't think the source supports this statement. Anyway, as far as I know, the logging is not state-controlled... in a manner of speaking. The state authorizes loggers to go in and collect trees that fall over after cyclones, but instead the loggers cut down the hardwoods that don't fall over. The wood is then stashed/hidden, and then given the green light to sale every few years when world-wide demand peaks. They then flood the market, a few people in Madagascar line their pocket, and the new government gets their cut to supplement the international support that was cut by the West following the coup. The same basic thing was happening under Ravalomanana, but to a much smaller extent. If needed, I can try to help find a more recent source and maybe help re-word that sentence if necessary.
- I reworded it and replaced the other source with a more recent one. Feel free to tweak it as you see necessary. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough. Thanks. 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about the external link in the "Largest cities or towns of Madagascar" table under "Demographics". Normally external links are only permitted in the "External links" section or under the "References". Is there any way to set this up as a reference?
- That table was added by another editor and I feel it's a bit out of place, too prominent and adds more detail than is needed in this article. Maybe it could work better in an article about demographics of Mada or something. What if we removed it? Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article is large enough as it is. I would move it to an article about demographics. – Maky « talk » 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm removing it. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Having been repeatedly postponed, presidential elections are currently scheduled for 8 May 2012, while parliamentary elections and second-round presidential elections are set for 3 July 2012." – Anything new on this? Otherwise say "were last scheduled".
- Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, that should have been 2013, not 2012. I've fixed it (and kept the "last scheduled for" - should this change now?) Lemurbaby (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
caption: "Toy animals made from raffia" – can raffia be briefly explained?
- I linked raffia and added a brief explanation. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
caption: "Child immunization is rising" – This is vague—from when to when, starting when, or compared to when? Basically, I look at the photos before I read the section, and I see pictures that are not adequately explained. It's generally safe to assume that most people won't read the bulk of the text, but will read the lead and look at the pictures/captions.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good caption. – Maky « talk » 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
caption: "Malagasy ethnic groups" – Perhaps "Regional distribution of ethnic groups"?
"...with about 20 percent practicing Roman Catholicism" – 20% of the 41%, or 20% of the population? I'm having a hard time interpreting the numbers in this sentence, particularly this part.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The zebu (humped cattle), introduced to Madagascar by Bantu-speaking..." – Link and explanation should occur much earlier in the article.
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"An epic poem exemplifying these traditions, the Ibonia, ..." – Wouldn't "Ibonia" be italicized?
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Its nearest geopolitical neighbors include the French island territory of Réunion and the island nation of Mauritius to the east, as well as the island state of Comoros and French island territory of Mayotte to the north west. The nearest mainland state is Mozambique, located to the west." – Missing a citation... though I'm not sure if it's necessary since this information can be gathered from looking at a map.
- I believe WP guidance for citations is to cite statistics, contentious info and info that is not general knowledge... I'm okay with trusting this can be considered general knowledge because it can be seen on a map. I did look for sources just now and strangely couldn't find anything where this was written out. If a cite is needed I'd probably be linking to a map. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...and caused more than US$250 million in damage." – Missing a citation.
- Added. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The French established trading posts along the east coast in the late 17th century." – Missing a citation.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Many high-level technical positions were filled by French expatriates, and French teachers, textbooks and curricula continued to be used in schools around the country. Popular resentment over Tsiranana's tolerance for this "neo-colonial" arrangement inspired a series of student protests that overturned his administration in 1972." – Missing a citation.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"These include such projects as coal mining at Sakoa and the extraction of nickel near Toamasina by Rio Tinto, as well as the development of the massive onshore heavy oil field at Tsimiroro and ultra heavy oil field at Bemolanga by Madagascar Oil." – The source does not support this. It makes no mention of Toamasina, Tsimiroro, nickel, etc...
- Thanks for raising this here. It's something that was also mentioned on the Talk Page, and I responded there that I would fix this in the next several days - but it's better to have that documented here as well. Given my schedule at work for the next couple of days, I expect I'll be able to make this change Saturday or Sunday at the latest, and then I will have responded to all the points raised in the review. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made changes to the section and added new references. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Several major projects are underway in the mining, oil and gas sectors that are anticipated to give a significant boost to the Malagasy economy. These include such projects as ilmenite and zircon mining from heavy mineral sands near Tôlanaro by Rio Tinto..." cites this ref, but I'm still not seeing the material in it. The other parts of that edit look okay. – Maky « talk » 23:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a Rio Tinto citation after the piece about ilmenite and zircon that covers it. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, a beautiful article! Excellent work on a very high-priority, broad topic! I can imagine how much work this must have taken, given what I went through with Lemur. You should be very proud of this. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – Maky « talk » 02:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've responded to all your comments. Thanks as always for your eye for detail, and for taking the time to provide all this helpful feedback. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent work. The article meets FA criteria, IMO. – Maky « talk » 18:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - (Done) most images are OK (checked all, most are PD-own, CC, Flickr), however two issues:
File:Andrianampoinimerina.jpg - misses US-tag (pd-old-100, pd-1923 or similar can be added as second parameter to the pd-art template itself). Also summary information is very thin - source, publication date, author name and year of death should be added (when available).
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ethnic groups of Madagascar Map.png - which source data was used to create this map? Add info to summary.
- Added. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hira_gasy_dancer_Madagascar.jpg - has maintenance tag for categories. Not relevant for FA-criteria, just noting as info.
- Fixed. MathewTownsend (talk)
- 3 multiple images are a lot, but in this case i think, they are really helpful to illustrate the topic. If other reviewers disagree, you could still move a few to sub-articles. GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the images are immensely helpful in conveying the country's enormous contrasts. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion to FA...I have some minor quibbles but none that make me feel the article isn't featured article ready. Lemurbaby has made huge improvements to the article since it was at GAC and Peer Review and has been receptive to addressing other issues as they have been brought up. There is a lack of reference material regarding Madagascar in the western world since the focus is overwhelmingly about the unique flora and fauna and the environmental impacts the island nation is dealing with. This article ensures that, while these aspects are discussed, we also learn about the human inhabitants, their history, culture, language, politics and other things which should be included in this article.MONGO 14:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Agree that Lemurbaby has made huge improvements since my GA review and has been exceptionally receptive to reviewers' comments. This article is an enormous achievement, no easy task. Beautifully done, IMO. Kudos muchos to Lemurbaby. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ucucha:
"Madagascar later split from India about 88 million years ago, allowing plants and animals on the island to evolve in complete isolation." The last part of the sentence is incorrect; though Madagascar has a highly endemic fauna, its isolation is by no means complete. Lemurs, for example, arrived long after Madagascar split from India. The source itself says this.
- Changed to "relative isolation". Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are several known species of elephant birds (the precise number is apparently controversial), so it is inappropriate to refer to elephant birds as "this species". Also, is the height given for all species or just for the largest? Mullerornis was significantly smaller, I believe.
- Rephrased. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that the "average height" figure is correct? It is unusual to give average heights for families (as opposed to species). I don't have full access to the source (Davies 2003), but from Google Books (showing section on elephant birds starting on p. 103) it seems that either the page number given in the article (pp. 99–101) is wrong or Google Books has a different version of the book than the editor who added the reference.
- I'm going into this much detail because the number seems unrealistic to me. According to doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.02.001, the height of the largest elephant bird, Aepyornis maximus, averaged only 2.7 m. I haven't yet found a height estimate for Mullerornis, but it was significantly smaller than Aepyornis (e.g., see [35]). On the other hand, Hawkins and Goodman (1999, pp. 1019–1044 in Goodman & Benstead, The Natural History of Madagascar) say that Aepyornis maximus reached a height of 3–4 m. I'm not going to make the change myself because I don't have access to the source, but it seems more accurate to say that elephant birds reached a height of up to 3 m—the average surely was lower. Ucucha (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have access to the Hawkins and Goodman source, and it does in fact say 3–4 m, but the sources it sites are from 1931 & 1947. Honestly, height may not be the best measure to use here—I'd favor mass. Although mass estimates are best guesses, height depends on how you reconstruct the skeleton and how the animal carried its weight. But then again, I'm not well versed in ratite morphometrics... – Maky « talk » 03:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary to talk about height or mass, actually... too much irrelevant detail given the focus of the article. I'm removing it. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Security" section says Madagascar became a French colony in 1897, but according to "History" it was annexed in 1896.
- That's correct. It was annexed in 1896 as a protectorate but did not become a colony until 1897. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, it is just confusing to have both of those dates in different sections of the article, without any explicit explanation. Ucucha (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed: "France annexed Madagascar in 1896 and declared it a colony the following year..." Lemurbaby (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Historically, security has been relatively secure"—perhaps substitute "Madagascar", "the island", or something similar for "security".
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"only seven percent of Madagascar's 22 districts had access to water provided by Jirama"—that is mathematically impossible. If only one district has access, that is 5%; two districts would be 9%. The source talks about fokontany, which are apparently some lower level of government.
- Good catch, you're right - that's 7% of the fokontany. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... the Islamic religion failed to take hold in all but a handful of southeastern coastal communities. Today, Muslims constitute 7% of the population of Madagascar and are largely concentrated in the northwestern provinces ..." Is this correct? If Islam took hold only in the southeast, why are Muslims mainly in the northwest now?
- Yes, it's correct. Islam was introduced in the southeast in the 7th-9th centuries by Arab sailors who didn't form lasting communities, but much more recently (the last several hundred years) new arrivals primarily from South Asia and Mauritius established strong and enduring communities in the northwest, particularly in Mahajanga. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I suppose further explanation of that point would go into too much detail for this article. Ucucha (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are minor points, and overall the article reads very well and appears to be well-balanced. Ucucha (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—All comments addressed. The article appears comprehensive and well-written. Ucucha (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (All Done) - mostly minor issues, great work so far:
- Geography - "Due to its [relatively] lower population densities, ...." ==> redundant, "lower" is always relative.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Politics - "The political [arena] in Madagascar [has been marked] by struggle for control. Since Madagascar gained independence from France in 1960, the island's political transitions [have been marked]..." ==> "arena" is a common term in news, but sounds a bit too informal here. Also marked ... marked repetition. Suggest to remove the short summary intro.
- Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Security - "The Minister of the Interior is responsible for the national police force, paramilitary force (gendarmerie) and the [secret police]. These bodies are stationed and administered [at the local level]." ==> Can you double-check this please? I guess it's possible, but it sounds strange, that "secret police" would be administered at "local" (town) level (maybe regional level?). Local level is usually the lowest level of administration.
- I couldn't find this in the source either, so I changed it. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Infrastructure - "The port at Antsiranana, considered one of the [finest] natural harbors in the world, handles a relatively low [the] volume of shipping due to the town's remoteness and poor ground access to the capital." ==> "finest" is vague, is it "safest" or "most beautiful" (POV)? Also grammar, "the" seems lost.
- Rephrased. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Religion - "Many of the Christian churches are influential in politics. [The best example of this] is the Malagasy Council of Churches..." ==> Avoid essay-ish examples, just plainly state, what the MCC is and who thinks it's influential and why.
- Rephrased. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Religion - "[Eastern religions] are also present on the island. Islam was first brought..." ==> That's a bit confusing. According to a popular Internet encyclopedia (...) Islam is not an Eastern religion. From an European POV that term is most often used only for far-eastern Asian religions. In any case the term is quite vague and Western-centric and is best avoided. Suggest to remove the sentence (if other Eastern religions like Buddhism are meant, they need more detail). GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (All Done) - don't be discouraged. A nice article, but it's long and has lots of information, therefore lots of comments follow:
- lead - "Current and future generations in Madagascar are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between economic growth, equitable development, and natural conservation." ==> Remove that part. A true, but unencyclopedic statement - also not particular unique for Madagascar, but for all countries.
- Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Etymology - Just checking: Is the whole second half after "The name Madageiscar ..." covered by source [8]? It contains several critical facts about the name's development (first record and usage spread), so should have a source.
- Yes, the source discusses all these points. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Geography - "Due to [its] lower population densities, Madagascar's dry [deciduous] forests have been better preserved than the eastern rain forests or the original woodlands of the central plateau." ==> plural. Also "dry forests" should be specific enough to avoid repetition.
- I find it's important to include both descriptors of this kind of forest. "Dry" is added to differentiate from the climate zones where rainforests occur, and deciduous refers to the quality of the forests themselves separately from the zone they're in. The spiny forests in the dry zones are not deciduous, for example. Changed "its" to "their". Lemurbaby (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ecology - "[As of 2008, there were officially 99 species and subspecies of lemur, 39 of which have been described by zoologists between 2000 and 2008.[29]] By 2012, the number of identified species had increased to 103.[30] ==> Remove the first sentence (to a sub-article if needed), assuming the 2012 number is also reliable. The article focus is Madagascar, not lemurs and the history of their classification - too detailed.
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Environment - "Tavy has [strong cultural meaning], in addition to its practical value as an agricultural technique." ==> vague, what kind of meaning? can a very brief detail be added?
- Added. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "[An example is the island's] elephant birds, a family of endemic giant ratites that went extinct in 17th century or earlier, most probably due to human hunting of adult birds and poaching of their large eggs for food." ==> remove "example" and rephrase as fact.
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Numerous extinct giant lemur species [also] ..." ==> redundant
- Reworded this section. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingdom of Madagascar - "From his initial capital Ambohimanga, and later from the Rova of Antananarivo, this Merina king rapidly expanded his rule over neighboring principalities, [with the intention of bringing the entire island under his control], [59]" ==> check source 59, the first part is covered with some interpretation, but i couldn't find the "intention"-part. If it doesn't have a RS, just state what happened as matter of fact and remove interpretations.
- Corrected the source. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- French Colonization - "In 1958, there were 68,430 European settlers living in Madagascar." ==> This small phrase lacks context with the surrounding text and would better fit into "Demographics" (or expand it's relevance for history).
- Moved to demographics. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Politics - "has occasionally been used to impede political demonstrations.[94][40]" ==> switch cites to ascending order
- Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Security - "and was [obliged] to surrender following an attack on the royal palace at Antananarivo" ==> forced (for an armed conflict)
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Infrastructure - "Air Madagascar services the island's many small regional airports, which offer the only practical means of access to many of the more remote regions [of the island] during rainy season road washouts." ==> first sentence already establishes "on the island", can be removed.
- Revised. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Education - "The LMS was invited by King Radama I (1810–28) to expand [their] schools throughout Imerina" ==> "its schools" (singular subject)
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "By the end of the 19th century Madagascar [could boast] the most developed and modern school system in pre-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa." ==> "had" or "had achieved" would avoid the POV-ish "boast".
- Revised: "had" Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "[created tension among] those desiring a complete separation from the former colonial power." ==> "Created tension with those ..." sounds more logical. Someone advocating a "complete" separation would not support a major French influence altogether - so the tension was likely with that group (?), not among it.
- used "dissatisfied those..." Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, the quality of education remains a challenge in Madagascar and student repetition and drop-out rates are high." ==> Is that statement aimed at 1996-2006 from the previous statement or is is the actual situation? If it's describing the actual situation, it should probably be moved after Ravalomanana's second term efforts focussing on quality? Also i am no fan of this "remains a challenge" phrase (later used again), better to use more neutral phrases.
- Rephrased every instance. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethnic diversity - "Only two general censuses, in 1975 and 1993, have been carried out after independence." ==> with what results? Are the total populations or other noteworthy facts from those censuses available to add between 1900 and 2011?
- The reason for mentioning this is to allow the reader to understand why so many demographic figures are estimates and why more recent detailed information isn't available. The data from either survey is too old to bear inclusion, in my opinion. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Language - "eastern Malagasy (spoken along the eastern forests and highlands, including the Merina dialect of Antananarivo) and western Malagasy, spoken across the western coastal plains." ==> use parentheses for both "spoken in"-clauses or none of it (i'd prefer no parentheses, the content is essential part of the main text).
- Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Religion - "In addition, the Malagasy believe in a creator god, called Zanahary or Andriamanitra." ==> all Malagasy including Christians, Muslim and Hindu?
- Yes, the Christians kept the traditional name for the creator god. Some Muslims use the name Allah. The Hindus in Madagascar are South Asians, not Malagasy (and this is both ethnic and political as the vast majority of South Asians have not been given Malagasy citizenship even if they are born on the island). But I'll clarify by specifying "traditionally believe...". Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Culture - "a traditional division of social classes into nobles, commoners, [and slaves]" ==> How does this influence Madagascar's actual society, especially the slavery part? GermanJoe (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a complex thing to summarize, and I didn't see a single source that attempts to make a broad sweeping statement about this (I'll keep an eye out for one in the future). For now, I've cited a book that explores the topic on a page where the issue is discussed as it plays out in two ethnic sub-groups. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've responded to all your comments, GermanJoe. Thank you for taking the time to review this and offer your very helpful remarks. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (remaining points Done) Among country articles this one is certainly one of the most comprehensive. Overall well-structured and -referenced. A few minor points follow:
- Geography - "Its nearest [geopolitical] neighbors include the French island territory of Réunion and the island nation of Mauritius to the east, as well as the island state of Comoros and French island territory of Mayotte to the north west." ==> Maybe it's possible to avoid the numerous islands here: "Neighboring islands include the French territory of Réunion and the country of Mauritius to the east, as well as the state of Comoros and the french territory of Mayotte to the north west." ("geopolitical" is redundant here too).
- This has now been changed by another editor. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Environmental challenges - "At the 2003 IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban, Ravalomanana announced the Durban Vision, an initiative to more than triple the island's protected natural areas from approximately 17,000 km2 (6,600 sq mi) to over 60,000 km2 (23,000 sq mi) (an increase from 3 percent to 10 percent of Madagascar's land surface)." ==> Too detailed for a "vision" (NPOV). Trim that to the pure fact "At the 2003 IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban, Ravalomanana announced the Durban Vision, an initiative to increase the island's protected natural areas from approximately 17,000 km2 (6,600 sq mi) to over 60,000 km2 (23,000 sq mi)." (the other calculations add nothing new to the fact). Is an actual summary value available - how much of this plan has been realized in terms of area by now?
- I find it helpful to include the percentages, because this puts the surface area into context. Is it a drop in the bucket or a major increase? The percentages tell us that.Lemurbaby (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After rechecking some background information (the plan was mostly implemented), the current desciption seems ok. GermanJoe (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Structure - "In 2011, the capital's population was estimated at 1,300,000 inhabitants[. By comparison], the next largest cities ..." ==> can be merged, the comparison is redundant / obvious.
- Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A general remark to Ecology and Environment. Those aspects are important topics for Madagascar, so their coverage should reflect that - no problem. However their sections length is at the upper limit per WP:WEIGHT compared with other sections. When more details need to be added, i recommend to look at the sub-articles and expand those rather then the main article. The main article can't (and shouldn't) cover every detail (WP:SUMMARY).
- Agreed. I'll be keeping an eye on this article and making sure future editors are aware of this need. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from those nitpicks great work with such a broad topic. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:44, 15 September 2012 [36].
- Nominator(s): Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has undergone substantial improvement as a result of the previous FAC, but that was botched as no spotchecks were performed. It is my hope that the article gets the review that it deserves in this second FAC. It is already a good article and FA is the next logical step in the article's improvement. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Queries. This article is interesting and, despite some of my comments below, I generally like its discursive style. It is a tough gig: writing about something that can be only one of two things: obscure, quirky and hampered by the musings of cranks; or, the most important topic in the history of humankind. It can't be anywhere in between. It may take work, but it is a worthwhile exercise, and kudos to Wer900 for taking it on.
- I'm not sure what's happening with the citations here. The majority of scholarly cites have online versions available (not just dois - i mean direct links), but only in the minority of cases are there retrieval dates (I am excluding websites, for which there are retrieval dates). Examples with retrieval dates: 29, 53, 54. Most other items similar in nature to those at 53 and 54 do not have a citation date. What are the criteria here, and how are editors aiming for consistency? There is also an apparent inconsistency in the pagination of citations. For example, note 57 cites an individual page of a book, presumably because that is the page containing the relevant info. That's fine. However, note 58 cites the page range for a chapter in a book, while notes 59 and 60 appear to cite the full page range for journal articles, not the relevant pages supporting whatever is cited in the text. I realise there may be a fair amount of work needed to get this ironed out, but there should be a consistent approach, whatever it is.
- On-line versions of "real" texts are a courtesy, not mandatory. Since the text is fixed, they do not need retrieval dates. Normal practice is to give the whole article page range for journals, and the relevant page(s) for book. If a book has chapters by different authors, it's a matter of judgement whether to ref the exact pages, or the whole of a short chapter, but that should be done consistently Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, happy to run with that - looks like there just might be a small number of "real" texts where retrieval dates are better removed for consistency. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know why there is a "see also" for European colonization of the Americas?? There's been a lot of colonisation of all parts of the world. Why this one link? I'd get rid of both 'see also's. Either write about stuff in the text, or drop it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous parallels have been drawn between the European colonization of the Americas and the cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. I've made that link in the text, although it is scattered throughout the article. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a problem with article structure in the "Background" section. I do not see why "impact assessment systems" or "post-detection protocols" are subsets of "background" information for an article about cultural impact of ET contact. On the contrary, they are central subjects for it.
- These post-detection protocols in and of themselves are part of the background, as they are being written and agreed upon before extraterrestrial contact. They are about planning for contact, rather than the results of this planning. Impact assessment systems provide a similar background, as they do not cover the results of contact so much as how they are derived. This is the background, the foundational knowledge upon which the rest of the article can build. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Impact assessment systems" section begins with a sentence that sounds more like it comes half way through a para: "The Rio Scale was devised as a better gauge of the types of contact with an extraterrestrial civilization and the consequences of each type." Better than what? And we need to begin with an introductory sentence or two on the very concept of an "impact assessment system".
- Better than "I think... will happen if ET contacts humanity." Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The final para of that section commences: "The beliefs of the general public about the effect of extraterrestrial contact have also been studied." That doesn't sound like information that is a subset of "impact assessment systems", but a different topic altogether. Maybe the heading needs to be broadened?
- Under "post-detection protocols", we are told about "one of the first" such protocols, and that it has been given a tick by SETI, IAU and a bunch of others. Then we have this: "A separate "Proposed Agreement on the Sending of Communications to Extraterrestrial Intelligence" was subsequently created". But by whom? And if no-one has acknowledged it (in contrast to the other one), is it being given undue weight here? Also, can an editor just confirm that the cited source does indeed say that the protocol ticked by IAU et al really was "One of the first post-detection protocols", and not the first? Has anyone mentioned what the first was?
- The "Proposed Agreement on the Sending of Communications to Extraterrestrial Intelligence" was created by the SETI Permanent Committee of the IAA, just like the "Declaration of Principles." I will make that clear. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tough (1986) suggests that..." The article doesn't seem to use Harvard-style years in the text elsewhere: is the reason it has been done here? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that Harvard referencing is used throughout the text. If not, someone must hav removed it. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't need to have the reference year in the text, as it is taken care of in the footnote. The only reason to mention years in the text is if the year is itself relevant (for example, if there is a discussion that reflects a chronological development of academic thought). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed those occurrences that were still in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't need to have the reference year in the text, as it is taken care of in the footnote. The only reason to mention years in the text is if the year is itself relevant (for example, if there is a discussion that reflects a chronological development of academic thought). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that Harvard referencing is used throughout the text. If not, someone must hav removed it. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The title suggests ... no, assumes ... that there has already been contact. This alone yields an oppose from me. Tony (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Tony. I mentioned this in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/archive1 ("Isn't this event more hypothetical than a given? Do we have any way of knowing this will ever take place and, if it does, what the impact will be? Isn't this fantasy and speculation not based on science?") MathewTownsend (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The scientific consensus is that at least a handful of extraterrestrial intelligent species exist in our galaxy. It's not fantasy, it's based on logic and reason. I agree that none of the information in the article, except for the "background" section, contains anything which can be certainly stated to be true, but I think that I've made it clear to any reader of the article that 1) extraterrestrial contact has not yet occurred and 2) if and when it occurs, the information in the article may not necessarily be accurate and is merely based on existing research. The reason that you are stating that this is a complete fantasy is probably because of the "giggle factor" resulting from such a subject which has been covered more extensively by science fiction writers and mad people than by astrobiologists.
Granted, there is a small chance that extraterrestrial intelligence may not exist, but this is, according to the prevailing scientific consensus, so unlikely that a few sentences in the article suffices to further that position. This link uses EXTREMELY conservative estimates (some of which recent research shows to be too conservative) and demonstrates that there may be 4000 extraterrestrial civilizations within our galaxy. Given that many estimates are too conservative (but some may be too liberal) I'd raise the number of civilizations fivefold. With ~20,000 possible civilizations in our galaxy, it's really only a matter of time before we are contacted. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Tony's issue is a different one from Mathew's. Tony's is a question of appropriate article title. Tony, what would you propose as an alternative? Did you have something like "cultural impact of possible extreterrestrial contact"? Mathew's issue seems to me not to be actionable, and in any case, there is a reliable literature that doesn't agree: obviously it is speculation in the sense that contact hasn't happened. However, it is a subject about which researchers can and do theorise etc., and is an entirely reasonable subject for a WP article.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about "Cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"? Tony (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The possibility of future contact is assumed by the current title. It does not assume that contact has already taken place, nor could it. I believe that is something you are reading into it. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about "Hypothesized cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"? In actuality, we have no idea, despite speculations of today's scientists. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The current title is the hypothesis. You guys aren't getting it. Although it is completely unnecessary, I have no objection to "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact hypothesis" if that settles the problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I established a topic on the article talk page for discussion of the article title. Please comment there. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The current title is the hypothesis. You guys aren't getting it. Although it is completely unnecessary, I have no objection to "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact hypothesis" if that settles the problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about "Hypothesized cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"? In actuality, we have no idea, despite speculations of today's scientists. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The possibility of future contact is assumed by the current title. It does not assume that contact has already taken place, nor could it. I believe that is something you are reading into it. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about "Cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact"? Tony (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The scientific consensus is that at least a handful of extraterrestrial intelligent species exist in our galaxy. It's not fantasy, it's based on logic and reason. I agree that none of the information in the article, except for the "background" section, contains anything which can be certainly stated to be true, but I think that I've made it clear to any reader of the article that 1) extraterrestrial contact has not yet occurred and 2) if and when it occurs, the information in the article may not necessarily be accurate and is merely based on existing research. The reason that you are stating that this is a complete fantasy is probably because of the "giggle factor" resulting from such a subject which has been covered more extensively by science fiction writers and mad people than by astrobiologists.
- Oppose because of article title. BTW, Virititas's statement, "It does not assume that contact has already taken place" is unconvincing. That assumption is the default in that title. Tony (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC) .... and do you mean "Cultural impact of hypothesized extraterrestrial contact"? That sounds better to me. Tony (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such assumption in the article title nor could there be; you've confused this subject with the pseudoscientific subject of ancient astronauts and various aspects of pseudoscientific xenoarchaeology. These topics, on the other hand, do assume contact has already occurred and that cultural impact may have taken place sometime in the distant past or even up until the present time. However, the topic currently under discussion is completely and totally different, and when an editor like yourself is confused, we create a dab header to help the reader—we don't change a valid article title and redefine the subject. The topic of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact does not assume any such previous contact, nor does the topic cover such contact. There is nothing wrong with the article title in any way, nor can you demonstrate anything wrong with it. You're just confused about the subject. The title only assumes that if contact ever occurs there will be some kind of impact on our culture. That's altogether different that your claim that the title assumes "there has already been contact". In fact, the title assumes no such thing and I challenge you to show that it does. Not only doesn't the title assume that, the very subject of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact has nothing to do with any claims of previous contact. When the literature on this subject (SETI) uses the term "extraterrestrial contact", it never assumes that previous contact has already occurred because the entire discipline is built on the philosophical foundation of the Fermi paradox—the underlying assumption that contact has not yet taken place. That's why your claim about the title is so off. The assumption of previous ET contact isn't even part of the discourse when talking about the hypothetical cultural impact. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Viriditas, for bringing much-needed expertise to this discussion! I really dislike the fact that people consistently confuse this with pseudoscience assuming that it extraterrestrial contact has already occurred, which any sane thinking person knows is not true. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is assuming the science is pseudo? My problem is the strong implication in the title that we've already had ET contact. Tony (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MathewTownsend is assuming that this is pseudoscientific. As for you, I don't know anyone other than a hardcore Ancient Aliens, NASA's Unexplained Files, The X-Files or Chasing UFOs viewer who would assume that contact has happened. Now you don't even have to go through the lede, you just have to get to the hatnote, which I modified to make it clear that contact has not yet occurred. For anyone who does not watch the four previously listed shows, it should be clear from the start that this does not deal with an event that has occurred yet. The title is already long and complex as it is, and for people who do not watch the previously listed four shows, the title is unambiguous enough. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 02:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not assuming the article is pseudoscientific. If the article's name was Scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity, I'd have no problem. But the current article's title Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact assumes there has been/will be extraterrestrial contact, when this is a hypothesis for which there is yet no proof. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, let me reiterate my argument: the current title is excessively long and complex as it is, and any thinking person would interpret Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact to mean Scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity. "Scientific study of" is really redundant - "scientific study of the biology of fish" can be conveyed in the form of "biology of fish," encompassing not only the physiological characteristics of fish but the study of these characteristics as well. The fact that extraterrestrial contact is possible but not 100% certain is established very early on in the article, and is known to any thinking person. I would be glad to find a compromise title, but owing to the unnecessary length and complexity of your proposed title I cannot accept it in its current form. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 21:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, above I was accused of assuming the article content was "pseudoscientific". I don't. But there is no scientific proof that humans have experienced extraterrestrial contact. But many people do believe it has happened and is happening now, and some of them are readers of WP. So I think the article title should be clear that the possibility of extraterrestrial contact is a hypothesis. The fish article exists without "Scientific study of fish" because there is widely accepted scientific evidence of the existence of fish. The existence of fish is not in question. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, let me reiterate my argument: the current title is excessively long and complex as it is, and any thinking person would interpret Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact to mean Scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity. "Scientific study of" is really redundant - "scientific study of the biology of fish" can be conveyed in the form of "biology of fish," encompassing not only the physiological characteristics of fish but the study of these characteristics as well. The fact that extraterrestrial contact is possible but not 100% certain is established very early on in the article, and is known to any thinking person. I would be glad to find a compromise title, but owing to the unnecessary length and complexity of your proposed title I cannot accept it in its current form. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 21:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not assuming the article is pseudoscientific. If the article's name was Scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity, I'd have no problem. But the current article's title Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact assumes there has been/will be extraterrestrial contact, when this is a hypothesis for which there is yet no proof. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MathewTownsend is assuming that this is pseudoscientific. As for you, I don't know anyone other than a hardcore Ancient Aliens, NASA's Unexplained Files, The X-Files or Chasing UFOs viewer who would assume that contact has happened. Now you don't even have to go through the lede, you just have to get to the hatnote, which I modified to make it clear that contact has not yet occurred. For anyone who does not watch the four previously listed shows, it should be clear from the start that this does not deal with an event that has occurred yet. The title is already long and complex as it is, and for people who do not watch the previously listed four shows, the title is unambiguous enough. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 02:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is assuming the science is pseudo? My problem is the strong implication in the title that we've already had ET contact. Tony (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Viriditas, for bringing much-needed expertise to this discussion! I really dislike the fact that people consistently confuse this with pseudoscience assuming that it extraterrestrial contact has already occurred, which any sane thinking person knows is not true. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such assumption in the article title nor could there be; you've confused this subject with the pseudoscientific subject of ancient astronauts and various aspects of pseudoscientific xenoarchaeology. These topics, on the other hand, do assume contact has already occurred and that cultural impact may have taken place sometime in the distant past or even up until the present time. However, the topic currently under discussion is completely and totally different, and when an editor like yourself is confused, we create a dab header to help the reader—we don't change a valid article title and redefine the subject. The topic of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact does not assume any such previous contact, nor does the topic cover such contact. There is nothing wrong with the article title in any way, nor can you demonstrate anything wrong with it. You're just confused about the subject. The title only assumes that if contact ever occurs there will be some kind of impact on our culture. That's altogether different that your claim that the title assumes "there has already been contact". In fact, the title assumes no such thing and I challenge you to show that it does. Not only doesn't the title assume that, the very subject of cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact has nothing to do with any claims of previous contact. When the literature on this subject (SETI) uses the term "extraterrestrial contact", it never assumes that previous contact has already occurred because the entire discipline is built on the philosophical foundation of the Fermi paradox—the underlying assumption that contact has not yet taken place. That's why your claim about the title is so off. The assumption of previous ET contact isn't even part of the discourse when talking about the hypothetical cultural impact. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Million Fax on Washington, Coast to Coast AM (take a look at the guest list of that radio show), Sightings (TV series), Ancient Aliens etc. - evidence that there are believers! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my God. Do we call the page on evolution Not just a theory of evolution in order to deal with creationists? Creationists are a much larger minority than are believers that alien contact has occurred, making up 46% of the US population, but we do not attempt to refute their hypothesis in our titles of the pages regarding evolution. While evolutionary theory is not in dispute by the scientific community, nor is the belief that extraterrestrial contact has not yet occurred. And while absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, that principle is accepted by me in the existence of the article - had we known extraterrestrial beings not to exist with almost complete certainty, then there would be no purpose for this article. Much as creationism and intelligent design are given pages on Wikipedia with which their position is analyzed in depth, so are ancient astronaut theories already. There is thus no need to change the current title, an accurate descriptor of the page content which is not absurdly long and does not state the super-obvious. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Million Fax on Washington, Coast to Coast AM (take a look at the guest list of that radio show), Sightings (TV series), Ancient Aliens etc. - evidence that there are believers! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "Potential implications of extraterrestrial contact" be okay? It's short, it doesn't assume that contact has already happened, and makes it clear that the article is not likely to be 100% accurate if and when extraterrestrial contact occurs.
- I oppose that title as it isn't accurate. The topic is about the cultural impact of ET contact. There is absolutely nothing in that title that implies contact has already occurred, and anyone that maintains that it does is misreading it. "Potential implications" is implied in the concept of cultural impact, the most accurate description of the subject. By removing it, you are proposing to make the title inaccurate, which I cannot support. Nobody has been able to show anything wrong with the current title other than "I don't like it". You could get away with saying "cultural impact of potential extraterrestrial contact" but that is both redundant and assumes that ET might exist. We don't know if they exist or not, we just know that if they do there will be a cultural impact, just as we have observed on Earth when a more advanced culture comes into contact with a less advanced culture, as only one example of such a scenario. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at the comments above and there does not seem to be much in the way of an emerging consensus. For reasons explained below anything with "scientific study" in the title would not work for me. The problems seems to me that both the extraterrestrial contact and the cultural implications thereof are both "potential" rather than actual and not having some kind of caveat in the title is therefore a concern. Having two qualifiers would be overkill. Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact would be my first choice as the first word covers both. "Cultural impact of possible extraterrestrial contact" does the job, but is for me rather clumsy. I don't accept that a qualifier of some kind is redundant.Ben MacDui 19:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose that title as it isn't accurate. The topic is about the cultural impact of ET contact. There is absolutely nothing in that title that implies contact has already occurred, and anyone that maintains that it does is misreading it. "Potential implications" is implied in the concept of cultural impact, the most accurate description of the subject. By removing it, you are proposing to make the title inaccurate, which I cannot support. Nobody has been able to show anything wrong with the current title other than "I don't like it". You could get away with saying "cultural impact of potential extraterrestrial contact" but that is both redundant and assumes that ET might exist. We don't know if they exist or not, we just know that if they do there will be a cultural impact, just as we have observed on Earth when a more advanced culture comes into contact with a less advanced culture, as only one example of such a scenario. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "Potential implications of extraterrestrial contact" be okay? It's short, it doesn't assume that contact has already happened, and makes it clear that the article is not likely to be 100% accurate if and when extraterrestrial contact occurs.
- All editors here appear to believe that 1. there has been no contact with aliens 2. aliens might exist, but we don't know, although there is a reliable literature that hypothesises their existence as likely, and 3. there therefore might be future contact with aliens, but we don't know.
- I think all editors agree that there is a reliable literature discussing what the effects of possible contact might be.
- The only question is how to signal the subject matter to readers.
- WP policy on article titles states "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
- It seems to me that some of the debate here comes down to whether, in order to "unambiguously define" this subject, we need to rule out the interpretation that might be placed on it by individuals with fringe views. I can't imagine anyone with mainstream views could possibly interpret this article as meaning anything other than "what might happen". On the other hand, if one day there is actual contact, then that contact will need its own article, so maybe we should preserve Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact for that occasion :-)
- Of the various suggestions, I favour "potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact" (per Ben Macdui); my second preference would be "cultural impact of possible extraterrestrial contact".
- The reason I'm happy to have the word "possible" (or "potential") placed immediately prior to "extraterrestrial contact" rather than at the start of the title, is that no-one questions that there would be cultural impacts if contact were to occur.
- "possible future" is redundant in my view. We are not designing wikpedia to be idiot-proof. If a reader already believes aliens came and drew the nazca lines, then this article will either set them straight, or it won't, but no amount of lengthening of the article title is going to change that. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First of all, I echo Hamiltonstone's comments at the top of the page - this is a difficult topic and I admire the nominator's diligence in researching it and fortitude in bringing it here. I have two main comments, a subsidiary question and two relative trivialities.
Firstly, I agree that a better title has to be found. I am not sure whether the discussion is now happening here, on the talk page, or perhaps both at once, but like Tony I am concerned that it could be misleading. I will give this some further consideration and comment in due course.
Secondly, I am concerned about the hatnote. You may think this is not a matter of significance, but I note that the assumption of the hatnote is repeated in this discussion above. It states "This article is about the scientific study of the effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity." I beg to differ. It is mostly about the possible effect of possible extraterrestrial contact on humanity as discussed by scientists and some others including theologians and lawyers. I don't think it can be called a "scientific study" in the normal sense as, whilst the Fermi paradox holds good, it is simply untestable. This does not mean that I am attempting to dismiss the topic - it seems to me to be entirely worthy and creditable. Nor am I entirely sure what the hatnote should say - perhaps simply omitting the word "scientific" would do or perhaps "… the rational study of the effect…", which would include the law etc.
- I actually think this is an open and shut case, that Ben is right, and I have made a revision to the hatnote. Happy to discuss further tweaks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question is given that "cultural" includes the arts, it seems odd there is no detailed mention of this. At the risk of unwittingly passing some kind of debating event horizon surely one of the biggest impacts of any contact would be on… science fiction? There would doubtless be other impacts. I recognise that these are almost certainly unknowable, but surely our worthy reliable sources must have commented on this beyond the brief comment under "Benevolent civilizations"?
On to the trivia. Dyson sphere should be linked in the image and there are probably one or two other possible image links. Last and least, inter alia will be an obscure phrase for many readers and should be linked e.g. via Wiktionary. Ben MacDui 18:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS Those of us with a GSOH woud surely wish to see The Martians as a "see also"?
- I will make it clear in the hatnote that:
- This refers to a potential real-world scenario.
- The topic has received attention from priests, theologians, lawyers, and artists in addition to scientists.
- I don't think specific such references are needed in the hatnote, which should be brief. I've attempted a concise revision. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inter alia has been linked to the Wiktionary page.
- With regard to the title, though, I am split. Certainly a "better title" is needed, but we have no clue what a better title would be. Potential cultural impact of possible future extraterrestrial contact, as has been suggested before, is not unlike saying Not just a theory of evolution. In both cases, the title attempts to placate a significant population of people who willingly and knowingly believe in pseudoscience. Yet in the case of the page on the Theory of evolution, obviously predating this one, we don't attempt to refute the "just a theory" argument in the title. Similarly, I don't see the need to refute "contact has already happened" in this article's title.
As for your comments on the arts, literature, film, and other areas of human society which are more commonly associated with "culture", that is not really something that we can even begin to know about. Sure, as an advanced species they may see the fundamental beauty and splendor of the Universe in a similar way that we do, but their specific artistic traditions - and thus their impact on our own - are topics that we cannot even begin to think about. There are not too many reliable sources which discuss their art, as we have no specific example of extraterrestrial art or literature.
Science and technology are more set in stone, and based on the laws of physics, so we can get some idea of what they might do given their motives. These motives, however, are unknown to us, so we must group them into broad categories of "benevolent," "malevolent," and so on. Sure this is an oversimplification, but doing the same for art would result in an even greater oversimplification. It is therefore that I cannot put too much information about art in the article. Even the discussion on religion and law deals mainly regarding "what will happen if they come here" and "are they religious or not," rather than how SPECIFIC religious traditions will impact us. It's not unlikely that some groups will start worshipping he extraterrestrials, but we cannot know what specific ritual practices would arise from this. Same for art. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a reminder, Wer, that Ben isn't asking us editors whether (for example) these are things "we can even begin to know about": it is solely a question of whether the reliable sources discuss these matters. Just take a look at them and see if they do. If so, include useful and relevant content; if not, then we're done. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable sources have little to say on the subject. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I share the above concerns about the speculative nature of much of this article expressed above and see nothing to add to them. In general I'm not a fan of these articles with "phrase" titles in any event - they tend to be a little essayish and this one seems no different. As a general rule if a reader cannot reasonably be expected to enter the exact article title (excepting disambiguation) when looking for the very material the article covers that suggests to me that the material itself is probably not highly encyclopaedic in nature. I have two main specific criticisms in addition to those more general comments:
- Images For the most part these are highly speculative in nature, even more so than the article text. Arecibo Observatory, fine, the others contribute absolutely nothing to the article unless an RS specifically discusses them. The double helix and Dyson's sphere in particular strike me as complete irrelevances.
- I agree re images of kudzu vine and atomic explosion. The others didn't bother me, and appeared associated with key concepts under discussion. But I agree with you that they should be raised in RSs before they appear here. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudzu vines were merely placed to give an example of an invasive species. Atomic explosions were only shown to show a risk that a benevolent ET may eliminate. Both invasive species and the elimination of risks to humanity by extraterrestrials were mentioned, with nuclear explosions being mentioned specifically by one source. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article scope This is restricted to cultural impact. Ecosystem damage or even the introductory stuff on SETI is out of place here, as is extensive discussion on the methods and means of contact, except as brief background and as relevant to the actual subject of the article. This is quite extensive - I haven't gone through it with a red pen but I'd suggest perhaps a third of the article could be trimmed out without losing any pertinent coverage. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Agree this is an issue, but my suggested solution was to drop the word "cultural" from the article title. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an issue alright, but one of the fascinating things about this form of inquiry is that it is easy to forget that it is all a Gedankenexperiment. The moment someone has the thought "how might alien contact impact our ecosystems" this is an, albeit minor, cultural impact. In the absence of such contact there is no ecosystem damage, and so thinking about it is a cultural, not an ecological effect. The wording of the section probably needs amending to reflect this as these trains of thought are telling us a great deal about how we as humans tick, but, by definition, they tell us nothing definitive at all about how ET thinks or behaves. Similarly, whilst SETI is an example of scientific action, it is a significant cultural phenomenon too. Ben MacDui 09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantum, my view would be that either the article satisfies the five pillars or it does not, and in terms of the first pillar, the only debatable point might be WP:CRYSTAL. However, as this article reports current reliable source literature on the subject, it doesn't seem to me to be problem. Are you arguing that the article breaches a relevant policy? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is where it deviates from those sources: if you make ten points, backing up four of them isn't enough to assert that it is reliably sourced if the remaining deviate substantially from those sources. I don't say that every sentence needs a reference for simple stuff that is broadly in line with the sources that are given, but we need to avoid any extension, extrapolation, or deviation from those sources. Since I raised the images specifically we may as well continue with them: where are the sources asserting that those illustrated objects are directly raised in the sources? How much is extrapolation on the part of the authors? For subject matter as inherently speculative as this we can't cut much slack if any at all in that regard, lest the entire article becomes a primary source of original research as opposed to a genuinelly encyclopedic article. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think we need to hold this article to a higher standard than others in respect of illustration, but I think I can see the issue you're getting at with the images. There should not be a point made in the image caption that is not a point made in the article text, and appropriately sourced there. However, I just checked two examples - the nuclear weapon image, and the dyson sphere, and both appear to meet this condition. I actually don't think the nuclear bomb itself needs to be named in the source (though Wer says that it is): insisting on that would be to misunderstand the purpose of representative illustration. That said, I'm not at all wedded to the images, and I still think the kudzu vine and a couple of others could go. Moving away from images, I haven't examined the whole article, but it appears to be generally well-sourced, with regular statements explicitly linking the text to the authors involved. Do you have any particular examples of concerns around this?hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is where it deviates from those sources: if you make ten points, backing up four of them isn't enough to assert that it is reliably sourced if the remaining deviate substantially from those sources. I don't say that every sentence needs a reference for simple stuff that is broadly in line with the sources that are given, but we need to avoid any extension, extrapolation, or deviation from those sources. Since I raised the images specifically we may as well continue with them: where are the sources asserting that those illustrated objects are directly raised in the sources? How much is extrapolation on the part of the authors? For subject matter as inherently speculative as this we can't cut much slack if any at all in that regard, lest the entire article becomes a primary source of original research as opposed to a genuinelly encyclopedic article. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:36, 27 September 2012 [37].
- Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has achieved good article status and has been through a peer review and I believe it is good enough to become a featured article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: This is a wikicup nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- Hi, welcome (back) to FAC. I see LittleJerry talked you into this, so I'll blame him if anything goes wrong :) You've written a lot more than I have, but I hope my copyediting comments will be useful.
- Thank you. Your comments and copyedits are most helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this is just an artifact on my screen, but the first toad image has a purplish hue. I don't know if that's intentional.
- I have replaced the image.
- "a group of closely related taxa": "taxon" is a very common word among biologists ... not so much among 13-year-olds (or adults for that matter), and the linked article didn't help much. At least the lead of an article on toads ought to be readable by smart, curious schoolkids who are willing to follow a few links. How about this? "a group of closely related animals" - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- "race": Do toads have racial characteristics?
- Changed to "type".
- "north African": either North African or (maybe) northern African
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwiseso far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Common toad#Description. These are my edits. (Edits may take many days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Striking "otherwise"; edits look good in the part I did. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- FN4: publisher missing, formatting
- Done.
- FN3: page(s) missing, formatting
- Done.
- Ranges should use endashes
- I believe they are all done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Use consistent italicization
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you include publishers for journals
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN42, 44: formatting
- I replaced these with easier to cite references.
- FN47: page(s) missing, formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The whole of chapter 10 is online with no page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please flip File:Bufo metamorphosis.jpg horizontally. Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to do that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could put in a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. Albacore (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I have made a request. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing yet from the Graphics Lab. Personally I like the vertical layout. Do others have views on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed this request. I will do it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I made this, what do you think?[38] FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. That would be fine, although I must admit that I prefer the vertical one, the dimensions of which are more appealing. For the moment, I have resized the image in the article so that it fits better. Do you think that looks OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It definitely looks better, but another thing is that the MOS says that text shouldn't be "sandwiched" between images, and that section has a "wall" of images on both sides. If this image was horizontal, you would have room to left align more of the other images, for example, and there would not be so much "sandwiching". FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. That would be fine, although I must admit that I prefer the vertical one, the dimensions of which are more appealing. For the moment, I have resized the image in the article so that it fits better. Do you think that looks OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I made this, what do you think?[38] FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed this request. I will do it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing yet from the Graphics Lab. Personally I like the vertical layout. Do others have views on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I have made a request. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could put in a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. Albacore (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to do that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I see you still have the information from the deleted low quality source in the discussion of toads and witches. The witchhunt book contains some information not included it the article. I think you should have it replace the now uncited text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Some material added, other uncited material cut out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I found a better source for the claim about Zoroaster, but since be lived in Iran can it even related to this species? LittleJerry (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Zoroaster removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: My concerns have been addressed. I do however think you should check out that coat of arms image since the description labels them frogs not toads. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical check I'll do a proper review when I have more time, just some results from running duplicate links, dab and link tools Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
paratoid gland, predators, common frog, Irkutsk, bufotalin and Pyrenees are linked more than once in main text, i.e. excluding lead and infobox
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anorexia and Basque Country are disambiguation pages
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All links to external sites are working
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim First run through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link "genome" and "steroid", link "Least Concern" and "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" at first occurrenceDone.- Up to you, but the original Linnaeus source is {{cite book | last=Linnaeus | first=C | authorlink=Carolus Linnaeus | title=Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata. | publisher=Holmiae. (Laurentii Salvii). | date=1758| language = Latin |page=120}} Done.
- In the light of Eau's comments below, I think you need the original. If you change the page range to 210–212, that covers all the then known toads, and all the frogs except the tree frogs Hyla, which Linnaeus had already put in a separate genus. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left the page range at 648-649 because that is correct in the source I have used. 210-212 refers to birds. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to show subspecies consistently, fine to say they are sometimes treated as full species, but you put "split into B. bufo and B. verrucosissimus", as if you accept them as full species, and then immediately treat them as subspecies.
- This is difficult. Should I accept the findings of the 2012 study, give them all full species status and remove the subspecies section entirely? Another point, they can't seem to decide whether the specific name should be "verrucosissimus" or "verrucosissima". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The main thing is to decide one way or another, it's your judgement whether the research is accepted enough to drop the ssp, but as long as you have a defensible position, and are consistent, it's your call. I had a similar problem with Water Rail, where some authorities split the eastern race Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten this section accepting that the former subspecies are now considered to be full species. This agrees with their treatment in AmphibiaWeb. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worth saying that Bufo is Latin for toad? Done.- First two lines of description have three large and two grow Reworded.
small warts — not actually warts, look like wartsDone.The paratoid glands of both are parallel rather than slanting as in the common toad.[9] It also... — "It" refers back to the glandsDone.Pelophylax kl. Esculentus — kl.? Removed.
- The edible frog is apparently a hybrid between P.ridibundus and P.lessonae, and the kl. is apparently short for klepton. The wikipedia article on this frog uses it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has a large appetite — compared to?Done.The sloughed skin is eaten — by?Done.bufotoxin called bufagin — toxin better, we haven't been told yet what bufotoxin is yetDone.They questioned how an air-breathing animal could survive at such depths — So how can it?Reworded.
*First para of "Reproduction" overworks pondDone.The males mount on the females' backs— don't need onDone.predation by otters and increased competition from the frog Rana perezi which both seem to be extending their ranges — your two subjects are "predation" and the frogDone.- cinobufagin, — does this occur in this species? It seems not. I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The clever men at Oxford — I didn't think we linked inside quotes?Done.- Image captions shouldn't normally include the name of the article's subject If an image is of a common toad walking, do you approve the caption "Toad walking" or what else would you suggest?
- It's a guideline, most of the images don't need the name, but some, like the "walking" one, it might read better with it in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Removed those that I thought were unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure you need retrieval dates for Shakespeare, I don't think he's planning a rewrite (: Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No further queries from me, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In view of the changes to the taxonomy section, Cwmhiraeth asked me to look again to see if there were any further concerns. I think the present text is a comprehensive and clear summary of the current situation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from EauOo Eau (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The common toad was first given the binomial name Rana bufo by the Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae in 1758.[3]" Your citing this to Linnaeus (in translation) amounts to original research. Please find a reliably secondary or tertiary source.
- I've suggested above using the original source, better than a translation. For his binomials, it's normal to ref to Linnaeus, and I can point you to several existing FAs which do that. I don't think that this is a valid point unless you doubt that attribution Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although done, it is OR, and should be limited to the taxonomy box. If the genus name has been changed, the entire name shouls be cited at least once with the correct authorities and this would include the taxonomic citation usable for this statement. The Linneaus can be uses in addition but not stand alone. Please list existing FAs that do this, and I will correct them. Eau (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In this work, he placed all the frogs and toads in the single genus Rana." All frogs and toads known at the time? All European frogs and toads? All specimen-available frogs and toads from lands explored by Europeans? This statement also requires a citation.
- See my comment above too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It later became apparent that this genus should be subdivided, and in 1768, the Austrian naturalist Josephus Nicolaus Laurenti placed the common toad in the genus Bufo, naming it Bufo bufo." Unsourced.
- I've taken the liberty of adding the original as a ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And another Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The toads in this genus are known as true toads and are characterised by having no teeth, dry warty skin and horizontal pupils." This source gives no description of the characteristics of the genus. Maybe you mixed up the source, or there is a subpage?
- I have removed the statement.
- "Bufo bufo is now considered to be a species complex, a group of closely related species with unclear dividing lines between them." The reason for a species complex, though, is recent speciation, and the article you cite does delve into this.
- I have altered the wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is believed that the modern subspecies are descended from a common, preglacial ancestral form." No, the other four subspecies are believed to form a "group of ancient related preglacial subspecies," this does not describe their descent from a common ancestor.::I have altered the wording. Would it not be fair to say that subspecies, by definition, have a common ancestor? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is believed that the range of the ancestral form extended into Asia but that isolation between an eastern and western type occurred as a result of greater aridity and desertification in the Middle East during the Middle Miocene.[6]" This source appears to remove glaciation as a dividing line for ancestral forms as used above.
- I don't believe the article states that glaciation is a dividing line for ancestral forms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The exact systematic relationships between the subspecies remains unclear.[5]" Do you mean taxonomic relationships or systematic relationships?
- Well, the Systematics page of wikipedia states "The term "systematics" is sometimes used synonymously with "taxonomy"". Nevertheless I have changed the word systematic to taxonomic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some authorities consider B. verrucosissimus to be a species in its own right while others consider it a subspecies of the common toad, B. bufo verrucosissimus." Which authorities consider it to be a subspecies, which a species, and why?
- I have removed the statement.
- "Similarly, there is confusion as to whether B. spinosus should be recognised as a species or as a subspecies.[7]" This is a blog. If Naish published on toads, these can be used as a source, but I disagree with using his blog, particularly on issues of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a rigorous science and does not use blogging for establishing taxonomies.
- Darren Naish is a research fellow at tthe University of Portsmouth, a very respected tetrapod paleontologist who has published a number of papers. He is the author of the Tetrapod Zoology blog and is making the exact point that I try to make in the article. I believe this can be regarded as a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now rewritten parts of the taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More later.
- I know Darren Naish, and you read this sentence wrong, and transcribed the information incorrectly, and a blog is not the place to decide the uncertainty about a species/subspecies. If there really is such uncertainty it will be cited elsewhere.
- I have now rewritten that part of the taxonomy section and removed Darren Naish's blog material from it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know Darren Naish, and you read this sentence wrong, and transcribed the information incorrectly, and a blog is not the place to decide the uncertainty about a species/subspecies. If there really is such uncertainty it will be cited elsewhere.
Comment. Just noticed it was up for FAC. I don't have issues other than the ones I brought up during peer review, but I wondered if a horizontal version could be made of the tadpole image. It protrudes very far down, in a way which interferes with many unrelated sections. Image licenses look good, though the two first ones could need description boxes on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have resized the image and moved the amplexus image. The result looks better on my screen. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also made a collapsible synonyms list as you suggested. Were there any other outstanding issues you had? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think you've covered it well. Though I was told in a GA recently that I should add description templates to images on Commons I used which lacked ones, and the one in the taxobox and description sections here do. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
- There still seems to be an issue with subspecies. You mention different subspecies in the article body, but not in the taxonomy section. If any are recognised, they should be listed under taxonomy. Done. If possible, authorship of the synonyms should be listed along the names.FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
- And another thing, could maybe be nice to mention in the image captions where the photos are taken, as this might have implications for what subgroups the pictured individuals belong to.FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done where possible.[reply]
- There is still mention of subspecies: "The subspecies Bufo bufo gredosicola is restricted to". FunkMonk (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to keep nagging about the species/subspecies issue, but now the taxonomy section mentions both a separate species, Bufo spinosus, and that Bufo bufo spinosus is a junior synonym of Bufo verrucosissimus. The synonym list for Bufo bufo also lists Bufo bufo spinosus. What is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the taxonomy is exceptionally confusing, and rather than change the Taxonomy section again now (and probably get it wrong again) I will rely on Eau's kind offer below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to keep nagging about the species/subspecies issue, but now the taxonomy section mentions both a separate species, Bufo spinosus, and that Bufo bufo spinosus is a junior synonym of Bufo verrucosissimus. The synonym list for Bufo bufo also lists Bufo bufo spinosus. What is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still mention of subspecies: "The subspecies Bufo bufo gredosicola is restricted to". FunkMonk (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And another thing, could maybe be nice to mention in the image captions where the photos are taken, as this might have implications for what subgroups the pictured individuals belong to.FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done where possible.[reply]
- There still seems to be an issue with subspecies. You mention different subspecies in the article body, but not in the taxonomy section. If any are recognised, they should be listed under taxonomy. Done. If possible, authorship of the synonyms should be listed along the names.FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
- No, I think you've covered it well. Though I was told in a GA recently that I should add description templates to images on Commons I used which lacked ones, and the one in the taxobox and description sections here do. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
You are working so hard on this article, I cannot believe it. There are still areas you just do not get about writing about biology, though; you can't just remove information you don't understand. If you remind me Friday afternoon, I will see what I can do to finish up the problems, but I am too busy right now. I do appreciate how much work you are putting into this, and I would love to see an article like this on the main page, but I am unwilling to ask you to keep correcting things you don't have the background for. I also appreciate that you are learning, listening to what people say, but you have a huge gap in your ability to deal with the highly technical (bio), and we have to move forward. Eau (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I am most grateful for your help in this field in which I agree I have insufficient knowledge. Yesterday I changed the list of synonyms to that provided by a better source (Frost 2011) and it currently states that Bufo (Bufo) spinosus and Bufo spinosus are both synonyms of Bufo bufo. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Most of the images appear fine from a copyright perspective. One possible exception is the Mr. Toad picture which may not be in the PD in certain countries. LittleJerry (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's from a pre-1923 US edition of the book, with original drawings made for it by a US artist, so it should be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really necessary to state in the captions where each of the photographs was taken? Users interested in that can look at the image page. Pokajanje|Talk 14:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the image locations at FunkMonk's suggestion made above on September 8th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is relevant for population identification. FunkMonk (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the image locations at FunkMonk's suggestion made above on September 8th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. 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, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten parts of the "Taxonomy" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The new additions are nice. I noticed a few inconsistencies. If Bufo spinosus has been split off, then it shouldn't be listed as synonym of Bufo bufo? Then you also mention Bufo bufo gredosicola as valid, yet it is also listed as a synonym. Are there perhaps other valid subspecies? Bufo bufo bufo would certainly be valid, otherwise I assume Bufo bufo gredosicola wouldn't be possible to separate as a subspecies? FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone with Frost and stated that Bufo bufo gredosicola is a synonym and I have removed Bufo spinosus from the list of synonyms. This conforms with both AmphibiaWeb and Wikispecies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I've been thinking for a while that it could be interesting to have a photo of a skeleton in the taxonomy section, to display some anatomy. This is the best one I could find[39], maybe something to consider. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice! I see three variations of Bufo spinosus are still in the taxobox, though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have corrected the synonyms list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice! I see three variations of Bufo spinosus are still in the taxobox, though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I've been thinking for a while that it could be interesting to have a photo of a skeleton in the taxonomy section, to display some anatomy. This is the best one I could find[39], maybe something to consider. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone with Frost and stated that Bufo bufo gredosicola is a synonym and I have removed Bufo spinosus from the list of synonyms. This conforms with both AmphibiaWeb and Wikispecies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks:
- Article: "It is largely found in forested areas with coniferous, deciduous and mixed woodland, especially in wet locations."
- Cite 16: "The Common Toad is associated mainly with the forest zone (in conifer, mixed and deciduous forests), where it prefers conifer forests with marshes."
- Article: "The common toad cannot be legally sold or traded in the United Kingdom..."
- Cite 36: "In Britain, the common toad is protected by law from sale and trade."
- Article: "Atropine, phenytoin, cholestyramine and lidocaine may prove useful in its management."
- Cite 44: Article lists these as treatments.
- Article: "The common frog (Rana temporaria) is also similar in appearance but it has a less rounded snout, a more angular shape and a damp smooth skin, and usually moves by leaping"
- Cite 17: "Common Toads often breed in the same water as the Common Frog (Rana temporaria) and may be confused with them. At 8 to 13cm (3 - 5in) the toad is larger than the frog (6 - 9cm, 2.5 - 3.5in) which prefers to hop whereas the toad generally walks. The toad has a rounder snout than frogs when viewed from above and on close inspection, the warty skin of the toad identifies it from frogs."
The article appears to reflect the sources overall, although the last source one doesn't mention shape. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - All issues I have brought up on the talk page and during peer review have been addressed. To me it looks well written and to cover the subject comprehensively. I've made a few cosmetic edits, but I don't think my involvement in the article is too big for me to vote. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [40].
- Nominator(s): -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This marks the second time, and in some ways a continuation of the first time, putting the Istanbul article up for featured status. After a peer review in May and the previous FAC (closed just last week; more on that in a second), I am confident that this article meets all the criteria for the featured star: it's well-written, well-referenced, and comprehensive. Major changes, primarily in the form of condensing, were made in June in response to remarks at the peer review and pre-existing concerns about length. Minor changes (rewording, a couple additional references, etc.) were instead predominant in last month's FAC, suggesting the article had begun to coalesce around the featured level target. That FAC was closed as no consensus, ostensibly because of a lack of clear support after a month. However, it seems the more likely reason was simply the spat at the end of the FAC period (referenced by and almost directly preceding the closing statement). Without rehashing the issue, those who are interested can observe that matter seems resolved (from here and here), and that the reviewers agree that, regardless of what happened at the conclusion of the FAC, the article is at or near featured level and is deserving of the bronze star. So, I'm giving this another shot. -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment. I'm just noting that the first one was archived two weeks ago today, so the timing is fine here ... that wasn't clear from the nomination statement. Glad to see this one back for another round. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know the best way to note that. Rewrite the statement and change the timestamp of the comment? -- tariqabjotu 14:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Closed just last week" will suggest to some people that it hasn't been two weeks; I was just clarifying. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- Commons suggests that Turkey has freedom of panorama for works in public streets, but this would not seem to extend to 3D works indoors. Therefore, File:Patriarchate_Constantinopolis.jpg should have its licensing reviewed
- I don't know enough about licensing (anyone?) to perform the necessary review. But am I understanding that something in the photo would have to be considered copyrighted for this to be ineligible? What would that be, especially since the room is very old to begin with? -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In all likelihood it's all PD. The problem is that without FoP, you actually have to demonstrate this, and include appropriate licensing tag(s) for the 3D artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced the photo, so this is done. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In all likelihood it's all PD. The problem is that without FoP, you actually have to demonstrate this, and include appropriate licensing tag(s) for the 3D artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know enough about licensing (anyone?) to perform the necessary review. But am I understanding that something in the photo would have to be considered copyrighted for this to be ineligible? What would that be, especially since the room is very old to begin with? -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Map_of_Constantinople_(1422)_by_Florentine_cartographer_Cristoforo_Buondelmonte.jpg needs a US PD tag and a non-Wikipedia source
- File:Sultanvahideddin.jpg needs US PD tag, and source link returns 404 error
- Replacing the source link is not a problem, but I believe I need to prove this was actually published before 1 January 1923 for this to be eligible for PD status. I'm doing my best, but this may take a bit of time. If I can't find such evidence, I'll replace it with another image. -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might also work to demonstrate this was PD in Turkey on the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the source to a link from the same archive site. The image was certainly taken in 1922, most likely November 1, 1922. An important image like this is also likely expropriated as "national heritage" in Turkey, removing copyright. If it must be replaced, I'd suggest an image of Atatürk from around the same time period, like this.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the photo was taken on November 17, 1922. The New York Times published an article on November 19 (dated November 18) saying "The Sultan left his palace by the back door, known as the Malta Gate...", the precise scene depicted in this image. As I noted in an inquiry at Commons, this image was almost certainly published before the end of the year. If The New York Times can publish an article noting the scene the day after, the photo had to be published somewhere. But this is a guess, and I have no proof of it. What's this "national heritage" exception you mention? -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I got zero response from Commons on this, so I'll probably just replace the picture. I really think it's a useful, iconic photo, but after searching extensively a couple weeks ago, I have no proof that it was published anywhere in the month and a half after it was taken. In addition, I cannot think of any way in which this can otherwise be taken as an acceptable, free photo. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the photo was taken on November 17, 1922. The New York Times published an article on November 19 (dated November 18) saying "The Sultan left his palace by the back door, known as the Malta Gate...", the precise scene depicted in this image. As I noted in an inquiry at Commons, this image was almost certainly published before the end of the year. If The New York Times can publish an article noting the scene the day after, the photo had to be published somewhere. But this is a guess, and I have no proof of it. What's this "national heritage" exception you mention? -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the source to a link from the same archive site. The image was certainly taken in 1922, most likely November 1, 1922. An important image like this is also likely expropriated as "national heritage" in Turkey, removing copyright. If it must be replaced, I'd suggest an image of Atatürk from around the same time period, like this.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might also work to demonstrate this was PD in Turkey on the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacing the source link is not a problem, but I believe I need to prove this was actually published before 1 January 1923 for this to be eligible for PD status. I'm doing my best, but this may take a bit of time. If I can't find such evidence, I'll replace it with another image. -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Peramuzesi_nighttime.jpg: there's a claim that this image was "received for inclusion" from a museum, but there's no OTRS tag or other evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced this image, so this is done. -- tariqabjotu 13:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my comments at the previous FAC and on the talk page have been addressed. This is an excellent article that is informative, comprehensive, and fun to read. It is an example of what is best about Wikipedia. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On a quick look, it's odd to see the architecture section doesn't mention the city walls or Topkapi Palace. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why those in particular? We can't mention everything. -- tariqabjotu 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Topkapı is mentioned several times in the article, including in the Cityscape section right before "Architecture". I unfortunately think that Topkapı isn't particularly original architecturally. It was built erratically by different Sultans to emulate palaces in France and Austria, but without a coherent style of architecture. The city walls might be more significant, not many cities on this scale have preserved theirs. Like Topkapı though, they could be mentioned with either the parks or museums.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why those in particular? We can't mention everything. -- tariqabjotu 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So just like the Vatican then? Well I'm not going to argue the toss, except that most of Topkapi was built when sultans still intended to conquer "palaces in France and Austria" rather than emulate them. The WHO don't seem to agree with you, but what do they know? The "Anadoluhisarı and Rumelihisarı fortresses", which are mentioned in the article but are not in the WHO World Heritage Site, are utilitarian military buildings, though prettily sited. Topkapi is only mentioned indirectly in the museums section, via the Istanbul Archaeology Museums, which have 1 of 3 collections inside the palace. In terms of its collections, though not maybe the displays, the library etc make Topkapi arguably the most important museum in Istanbul. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Topkapi is incredibly historic, but you'd just asked about the Architecture section. Though I do feel that Topkapı was covered under the two sentences mentioning Ottoman palaces and how European styles were brought in, I've added an additional one to mention the wide variety of styles employed in Topkapı. Thanks for the suggestion.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So just like the Vatican then? Well I'm not going to argue the toss, except that most of Topkapi was built when sultans still intended to conquer "palaces in France and Austria" rather than emulate them. The WHO don't seem to agree with you, but what do they know? The "Anadoluhisarı and Rumelihisarı fortresses", which are mentioned in the article but are not in the WHO World Heritage Site, are utilitarian military buildings, though prettily sited. Topkapi is only mentioned indirectly in the museums section, via the Istanbul Archaeology Museums, which have 1 of 3 collections inside the palace. In terms of its collections, though not maybe the displays, the library etc make Topkapi arguably the most important museum in Istanbul. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
can you make the lead section more brief?" thanks Waveclaira (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead is just fine as it is, myself. I would have preferred a few more details in it in fact. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Four paragraphs is within the admissible length, as defined at WP:LEAD#Length, for leads in articles with more than 30,000 characters (a benchmark this article certainly exceeds). Is there something that you think should be removed from the lead? -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The lead needs to provide a summary of the most important information in the article and I can't see anything in it that I would like to see removed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead length is fine for me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The lead needs to provide a summary of the most important information in the article and I can't see anything in it that I would like to see removed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Four paragraphs is within the admissible length, as defined at WP:LEAD#Length, for leads in articles with more than 30,000 characters (a benchmark this article certainly exceeds). Is there something that you think should be removed from the lead? -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - reading through now...I will copyedit as I go (Feel free to revert if I accidentally change the meaning), and jot queries below... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- is it worth adding the descriptor "promontory" to Sarayburnu in the lead?
Using "draw" in that manner looks odd to me (though I agree it is nice and short) - I'd say "drawcard" or "attraction"- This is a matter of preference. Note that "drawcard" is not used in American English, the variant used throughout the article; in fact, I had to look it up. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fascinating the English variants that still pop up to surprise me from time to time here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a matter of preference. Note that "drawcard" is not used in American English, the variant used throughout the article; in fact, I had to look it up. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you've got "transcontinental" in the lead and "bi-continental" in the Geography section. Might be worth aligning these. Is one more significant than the other?- They mean the same thing here, obviously. I doubt anyone would really be confused by that. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is it worth adding anything on pollution? Is istanbul particularly over- or underpolluted? Not a dealbreaker as the article is pretty big and if it is not egregiously low or high possibly not more important than anything already in the article.- I think someone else may have mentioned this at some point, but Istanbul's pollution issues are not especially unusual for a city. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, very nice well rounded article which seems to have struck balance of everything right. Nothing jumps out as omitted or in too much detail, and the prose is nice, no obvious clangers anywhere. I have not checked the sources and defer to others who have more familiarity with the city (my only experience is as a tourist many moons ago....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:13, 20 September 2012 [41].
- Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is largely a translation of the FA-level article on Queen Olga of Greece at the French wikipedia. DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images - spotchecks not done
- Don't need day of week for newspapers
- Russia doesn't have freedom of panorama, so pictures of buildings and other 3D works should reflect licensing of both image and work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I've cropped out the frame on the Russian file, but I'm not sure how to handle the Greek grave and plaque. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article, but would really like to see a couple of points on tone resolved, even though the tone may originate in the sources.
- The following sentence was a bit propaganda-ish, and also off-topic. I'd suggest deleting it: "George I respected the Greek constitution and was never influenced by his family when making a political decision". hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fortunately for Olga, her domestic was a strong woman who was able to protect her from the crowd of revolutionaries". Whatever that source says, this has the hallmarks of mythologising. One domestic servant protected Olga from a "crowd of revolutinaries". With what? A bazooka? Surely this can't be credited. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I'm happy to make changes on both those points: [42]. I agree with you that when a story only occurs in one source, I think it's prudent to take a more critical stance rather than accept it at face value. DrKiernan (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI look at all the images and they all have copyright, and a great article, so a yes from me!--Lucky102 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments reading through now. Looking good. Will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... the Greek royal family faced unpopularity- hmmm, I think "popularity declined/plummeted/sunk" flows better. I'll let you choose the verb....
might wanna link old paralytics and consumptives....(the latter to TB obviously..but the former....?)
incomeless - hmm, interesting word. Not too fussed but might say "without an income" myself.....not a deal-breaker though
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Reads nicely - neither of the above are earth-shattering dealbreakers. Not being too familiar I can't exclude other comprehensiveness issues those familiar with the topic might find....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Changes made on the last two points[43]. I just want to check something in the source before making a change on the first point, which I will do later. DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I've changed the sentence on unpopularity to more accurately reflect the sources [44]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- nice work Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [45].
- Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, based on previous successful FACs, I believe it meets the criteria. I has undergone a thorough GA review from Belovedfreak, a peer review from TBrandley and a copyedit from Lfstevens. I should be quick to respond to anything that crops up, and welcome any comments. A word on the title—the additional disambiguator "episode" is because the article "Deep Throat (The X-Files)" is about the character. GRAPPLE X 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review from Crisco 1492
- File:DeepThroatE.jpg is fine.
File:MarkFelt.jpg needs a lot of clean-up. Link to the page which indicates it was a US gov employee's work, give a rough date. Source needs to be better outlined (not just a bare URL).- File:Seth Green Comic-Con 2011.jpg is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed Felt's image as the source given only features a tiny version of the image, with no indication that it was even taken by a US government employee. A search of the FBI website turned up no replacements either. Have replaced it with File:Nellis AFB - USGS - 09 June 1994.jpg which is sourced to the United States Geological Survey. GRAPPLE X 00:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- New image is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed Felt's image as the source given only features a tiny version of the image, with no indication that it was even taken by a US government employee. A search of the FBI website turned up no replacements either. Have replaced it with File:Nellis AFB - USGS - 09 June 1994.jpg which is sourced to the United States Geological Survey. GRAPPLE X 00:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
- Support on prose and images. Looks great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments and source review from TBrandley move to talk
- Support. Wow; fantastic work on this. TBrandley 02:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Not sure if these have been mentioned already because I would have to navigate to the talk page to find out. Very inconvenient.
- link to paranormal in the Lede perhaps?
- "...work on cases linked to the paranormal" probably "investigate" is more correct
- "Mulder is a believer in the paranormal," I think needs rephrasing as something along the lines of "Mulder is a believer in paranormal phenomena" as the word paranormal is an adjective
- debunk is too informal for professional standards of prose
- "Mulder continues and comes closer to the truth than ever before" --- the truth about what? The USAF conspiracy, or the truth about something else? The "than ever before" implies the latter, but it's not clear
- "only to have it snatched away from him again." -- is too informal. Things have to be tangible to be snatched, and truth isn't tangible
- change "the eponymous character" to "the eponymous character" to encourage readers to visit that article, rather than have them assume it links to the article "eponymous".
- "who would serve as Mulder's informant for the first season." -- why are you using would here? It messes with the tense. Why not simply "who serves as"? Remember to use present tense when writing about fiction (Wikipedia:WAF#Contextual presentation, WP:TENSE
- The final two sentences in the lede are very contradictory . Carter says the effects are good, later says they are the worst. Just strikes me as odd.
- Also, it should be [series'] not [series]
- In the Filming section, "It would later appear" has the same issue as previously raised
- "He and Duchovny then "just goofed off the whole time" while Duchovny, sweating from running in the sun during filming, was "very forward" with his body odor." seems a bit trivial. I don't think it's very encyclopedic to know that Duchovny has BO after sweating from running in the heat.
- "season 1" --> "first season" or "season one"
- "...after complaints from Fox ... Fox complained that..."-- too repetitive, but also shouldn't it be "Fox executives" or something? It's people who complain, not networks
- In Broadcast and Reception it gives the premiere dates for Fox in the US and BBC2 in the UK, then mentions how many people watched the initial broadcast. Is that figure a total of Fox and the BBC's viewers, only Fox's or only BBC's, a worldwide figure?
- You mention that the episode is available on some DVD anthology set, but there's nothing to say it was released on VHS and DVD season 1 boxsets, or whether it's at places like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc for streaming. All of which is, I think, desired and encyclopedic info.
- The lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, but there is nothing about the episode's critical reception or viewership, and doesn't mention that it's an alien-themed episode.
That's all I have, but there may be more that I've missed. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 06:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I've seen to everything here except for noting any streaming services, as I'm wondering how to cite those. If I find the episode available on any of them, would using the service itself a primary source be alright? GRAPPLE X 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum; can find it listed on Hulu.com ([46]) but I can't search Netflix as a non-member. Like I say, is it grand to be citing a commercial service like that as a primary source for what they have on offer? GRAPPLE X 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I've seen to everything here except for noting any streaming services, as I'm wondering how to cite those. If I find the episode available on any of them, would using the service itself a primary source be alright? GRAPPLE X 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
That non-free image needs a stronger rationale for inclusion; it's pretty generic right now.TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Have strengthened it based on the similar rationales for File:Squeeze.jpg and File:Manhunter-colours.jpg; let me know if this is sufficient. GRAPPLE X 10:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on images TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on the basis of prose and images. Nice work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The fact that it was positively received by critics is mentioned twice in the lead, first in the first paragraph and again in the last
- Removed the first mention. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only production material in the lead is about the special effects - isn't there more to be covered?
- I don't see why not; though I tend to under- or over-compensate. What do you think is important, and I'll bung it in? GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe something about the inspiration for the story: the military base concept. Guess there's not much from "filming" other than it was Vancouver. Glimmer721 talk 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a bit about the setting and the inspiration for Deep Throat. How's it look? Paragraphs might need split, I think. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He claims that Mulder is under surveillance, which later proves to be true." When is "later"? Later in the episode or later in the show? (If I remember correctly it's "E.B.E.", though I can't remember if anything turned up in "Deep Throat" or not.)
- I'd need to watch it again to be sure; though off the top of my head there is a scene in "Deep Throat" when a car full of men stop Mulder and Scully on an empty road and take all their findings, check their IDs, etc, which I believe is what is intended here; there's also Mossinger keeping tabs on things too. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The agents subsequently meet local reporter Paul Mossinger, who refers them to the Flying Saucer Restaurant; there they discuss UFOs with the owner." Might be worth mentioning what the owner says about UFOs (that she's seen/heard them), otherwise it doesn't seem necessary to the plot.
- Added briefly, it seemed to flow well enough to tack it on at the end of that sentence. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Scully, who has been sleeping while Mulder keeps watch, is awakened..." Think it should be "who had been sleeping".
- "Carter created the character to bridge the gap between Mulder and Scully and the shadowy conspirators working against them, "who works in some level of government that we have no idea exists". Change to bolded word. Also "works" reads funny to me; I assume the quote is referring to Deep Throat, but in the sentence it is referring to the "shadowy conspirators" and so it should be "[work]".
- Added "the", rephrased a bit. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The K in "Key grip" doesn't need to be capitalized.
- Not sure how I missed that one. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pilot" is linked twice in the broadcast and reception section
- Removed; guess I missed it before as it's an easter egg link. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The episode was listed by Entertainment Weekly as number 37 on its list of "The 100 Greatest Television Moments" of the 1990s." If it's a list of greatest moments, then which moment from the episode was listed?
- There's mention of the introduction of the character; but also a quote from Dan Sackheim that seems to be about the episode as a whole. I'll mention the former though as it seems to be the main thrust of what they have to say. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN #14 is the only one without a published date
- I don't think I've changed any refs around here (correct me if I'm wrong, it's half four in the morning here); but ref 14 is an sfn pointing to the Kowalski-edited book; it has a publishing year like the other books. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was that all the book footnotes give the author and the date (like "Lowry 1995") while this one just gives the author. Glimmer721 talk 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN #30 needs an author
- Ah yes, I see you what you mean now. Fixed. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it does (mentioned in text so I really don't know how I forgot it). Added now. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I can find, looks great. So that was how the voice-overs started. I think Carter grew a little too fond of them. Glimmer721 talk 01:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Let me know if I missed anything. Yep, old Carter definitely over-used them; not to spoil anything as I know you're still working through it but anything "deep" or Scully-centric tends to waffle like on Strom Thurmond. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies above. Glimmer721 talk 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I now Support. Glimmer721 talk 17:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies above. Glimmer721 talk 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is the mysterious informant ever actually identified or referred to as "Deep Throat" in this episode?—indopug (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I recall, it's "The Erlenmeyer Flask" before he's called it on-screen. GRAPPLE X 06:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you mention this in the article? Something like "The episode introduced the Deep Throat character (although he wasn't called so on-screen until 'EF'), played by... ". I watched this episode a month ago and was completely puzzled by the article, "what? That guy had a name?".—indopug (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spent this afternoon trying to find a source for it, but none of the print or DVD sources mention this (when looking for both episodes in question, too). Not sure how else to present it reliably; how would you suggest going about it? To be honest if I can't find anything solid that spells it out plainly then I'm liable to omit it, as it's only a bit of an aside. The credits, episode title and official book (Lowry 1995) all apply the name from the outset, just not out of a character's mouth. GRAPPLE X 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that's a tad excessive. If he's credited in the credits and its common knowledge, it should be good to go.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, no worries.—indopug (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that's a tad excessive. If he's credited in the credits and its common knowledge, it should be good to go.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spent this afternoon trying to find a source for it, but none of the print or DVD sources mention this (when looking for both episodes in question, too). Not sure how else to present it reliably; how would you suggest going about it? To be honest if I can't find anything solid that spells it out plainly then I'm liable to omit it, as it's only a bit of an aside. The credits, episode title and official book (Lowry 1995) all apply the name from the outset, just not out of a character's mouth. GRAPPLE X 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you mention this in the article? Something like "The episode introduced the Deep Throat character (although he wasn't called so on-screen until 'EF'), played by... ". I watched this episode a month ago and was completely puzzled by the article, "what? That guy had a name?".—indopug (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on above improvements. It is really needed to literally use the phrase "worst effects we've ever done" three times though? Bruce Campbell (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. One's in the body, one in the lead and another in a caption. I've paraphrased the lead's mention of it; could probably outright remove it from there if you feel it would help. GRAPPLE X 02:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [47].
- Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is presently a good article and has undergone a peer review since its promotion. The park contains the first post office constructed west of the Allegheny Mountains as well as replica buildings and artifacts that reflect the city of Danville's history as the site of the conventions that composed the first Kentucky Constitution and as an early center of political activity in the area both before and after Kentucky's statehood. A former state park, it is now operated by the county government of Boyle County, Kentucky. My interest was sparked by a visit last February where I took many of the pictures use to illustrate the article. I'm hoping for promotion to FA in time to make this TFA for October 15, 2012, the 75th anniversary of the donation of the land for the park to the state of Kentucky. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by doncram Hi. This looks like a nice article. I mostly edit NRHP articles and am not providing a complete review. But looking at the article i am struck by the mention of "The site comprises the majority of the Constitution Square Historic District which was added to the National Register of Historic Places on April 2, 1976." In which [[Constitution Square Historic District is currently a redlink. If there is a great amount of overlap, why not cover the Historic District in this article, and have the NRHP name redirect to here? From looking at National Register Information System (NRIS) data, it seems the district is 8 acres (3.2 ha) in size, is bounded by Main and Walnut Sts. and by 1st and 2nd Sts, and it includes 7 contributing buildings. It may be that the Ephraim McDowell House is included in the district but not in the site; I don't see that as an obstacle to covering the district in the site article. Or, if there is reason to keep the historic district article separate, it would still improve the position of this site article to create the historic district article at a start or stub level.
Also, I see the NRHP nomination document for the district is already given as a source in the article (PDF available at https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/76000847_text. It would be good to also incorporate the accompanying photos into that reference. 19 photos, many from 1975, are included in the photos document, available at https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/76000847_photos.
Hope these brief comments help. --doncram 17:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no expert on the requirements of NRHP listings and such, but having visited the site and examined the NRHP nomination form, I think there are at least three buildings that are part of the historic district but not part of the historic site. They are:
- Ephraim McDowell House
- Ayers Silversmith Shop
- The Apothecary Shop
- There is also something called a "brick dependency" in the district, but since I'm not sure what that is, exactly, I can't say whether it is in the historic site or not. It is not covered in this article, in any case. According to the NRHP document, the McDowell House was (is?) listed separately on the NRHP and obviously has its own article on Wikipedia. The Apothecary Shop also was (is?) listed on the Register and, if I understand correctly, is either connected to or directly adjacent to the McDowell House. It does not have its own wiki article but is discussed in the McDowell House article. That means that the Silversmith Shop is the only building presently without wiki coverage.
- One option, as you mention, is to try and cover the historic district content in this article. I think that is unwise, as it would be necessary to restate (duplicate?) content from the free-standing article on the McDowell House and Apothecary Shop here. Either that, or we'd have to redirect Ephraim McDowell House to this article as well, which to me seems imprudent, since the historic site and the McDowell House are pretty clearly distinct entities.
- Another option would be to make this the article about the historic district, transplant the McDowell House information here, and redirect both Constitution Square State Historic Site and Ephraim McDowell House to the renamed article. Although the title would then be more accurate, I think more people are familiar with the separate names of the historic site and the McDowell House than the historic district.
- That leaves the option of creating a stand-alone article for the historic district, distinct from the other two. Either that article would contain a ton of copied content, or it would be a simple list of what's included in the district, with links to this article and the McDowell House and some meager amount of content on the Silversmith Shop and maybe the "brick dependency".
- I'm not sure that any of these are really good options, but I think the third is the one I'd be most inclined to support. With my limited experience with NRHP articles, I might not be the best one to create that, though. I'd be interested on other comments from the community. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:The_Governor’s_Circle_at_Constitution_Square.jpg: given that the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, you need to account for the copyright status of the statue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Lemurbaby : You've put a lot of hard work into developing this article, and it's an interesting and informative read. Just a few points to look at. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the over-referencing. You don't need to have a reference at the end of each sentence, especially when consecutive sentences use the same exact source/reference. I'd recommend going through and pruning so that the reference only follows the last sentence in clusters where all sentences share the same source. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear this one from time to time. It's been my practice to only consolidate refs if the entire paragraph comes from the same source, and usually I only do that if someone complains. There are a few reasons. First, the current standard of only citing "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" is much too vague for my taste. How am I supposed to know what is likely to be challenged? And further, how much of a pain will it be for me to find which source contained the information if it isn't challenged until months or years down the road? Second, if content gets moved around (by me or another editor) I'd like to be sure that the cite goes with it. Otherwise, we can get information cited to the wrong source, which is bad. Third, it encourages editors who add information to the page to cite it, since everything else on the page is cited. Finally, I'm largely unconvinced by arguments that say that citing every sentence decreases readability. I think consolidating cites potentially creates larger problems than any minor readability issues it might raise. This has been my practice on each of my previous FAs, and while reviewers do comment on it from time to time, none have been so adamantly opposed to it that they opposed the article's promotion. A few have even agreed with my method or at least my reasoning. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Second, consistency in referencing. For what appear to be newspaper or magazine articles I see sometimes you include the article title in the short-form note, while in other instances you leave it out but include a page number. Your system isn't quite clear for me. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My preference is to give author and page number. However, when the author is not available (as with the Spindletop report), I give title and page number. When the source is non-paginated media (like web pages), I give author and title. Finally, when there is no author and no pagination, I give title and publisher. Does this help? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Third I'd suggest putting all your urls into an archiving system like Webcite so they can be accessed for all time and don't run the risk of going dead. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too familiar with this resource. You may have to help/elaborate. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Supported below I peer reviewed this article a couple months ago, so I made most of my comments then a few more small things I noticed when re-reading the article:
- "The Great American Brass Band Festival and the Kentucky State Barbecue Festival are among the annual events held at the site." I'd suggest flipping this around, "Annual events held at the site include..."
- Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "A portion of this plot was set aside as the city square, but unlike a typical city square that is located near the center of the city, Danville's city square lay near the eastern end of the city" Some repetition of "city square" here.
- Always thought this was an icky sentence. I've made some adjustments, but I'm not sure it's much better. See what you think. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is believed that advocates of the academy's establishment combined their efforts with those of the individuals who established Centre College in Danville" Not sure that there's a good way around it, but you might want to try to avoid the "it is believed" construction here.
- Yeah, that's a little difficult, but see how it reads now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The entirety of the Governor's Circle honors Isaac Shelby, Kentucky's first and fifth governor, who was said to have been responsible" There's a tense change here, might want to avoid that.
- Broken into two sentences and avoided shift in tense. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The transfer took several months to complete and was finalized on March 6, 2012." I think that stating when it was finalized would imply that it took several months in a more concise way, right?
- Yeah, that makes sense. The transfer itself didn't begin in June 2011, but that's trivial. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "When the court moved to Danville in 1785, it ordered that two men determine the cost of constructing a courthouse, jail, and other buildings needed by the court." Some repetition of "court" here.
- Revised. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- " In 1827, Goldsmith sold the house to Dr. Jefferson Polk, a newspaper publisher who developed an interest in medicine during a cholera outbreak in 1833 and went on to become a doctor who practiced briefly in Danville before moving to Perryville, Kentucky." I feel like there might be a little too much detail here.
- Now that I re-read it, you're right. Shortened. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some copyedits, feel free to revert if you don't care for them. Overall it looks quite good. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks as always for the review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fixes look good, any issues that I could come up with have been resolved. Great work, as usual. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Not keen on the opening "...site ... is a ... site" repetition.
- Hadn't noticed that. Dropped "historic site". "Open-air museum" is probably sufficient. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "from the state" but then, in the following para, link the state.
- Not sure exactly what the problem you are referencing is here, but I've changed the first instance of "state" to "Department of Parks", which is more specific. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "of an Indian attack". Not sure about how PC Indian is these days, but in any case, it may be worth linking Indian appropriately for international readers who may not be quite sure what people from India are doing attacking pioneers in 18th Century USA.
- I run into this a lot, since conflicts with the Native Americans were common for early Kentuckians. Someone, maybe Kevin Myers (talk · contribs), told me the preferable way to handle it is to specify the tribe, if known. If not, as in this case, Indian is OK for period-specific references, since that's what they were called at the time. This is referencing that period, but it's also about a modern park. Not sure which applies here, but I linked to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- should that "due to" be "because of"?
- No problem changing that. Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be picky but the reptition of dissolution in consecutive sentences is a little boring.
- Being picky is the point of FAC, isn't it? :) Changed one of them to "disbanded", since that was the first synonym that came to mind. Feel free to suggest another. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "within .5 miles " a leading zero on the conversion but not on this?
- Fixed. Didn't pay attention to that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any free maps you could use to illustrate the position of some of these things?
- Not that I'm aware of. I might still have the brochure I got there in February, but the map on it wouldn't be PD. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why you select "pound sterling" rather than just £?
- Because my keyboard doesn't have the "£" mark. ;) Copied and pasted it in. Does the £ go before the number (as with U.S. dollars) or after? I put it before. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure you need to link Major.
- I typically link all military ranks, and this is the first time I've gotten that comment. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "with brick laid in common bond " is that the common bond you really meant, or did you mean Brickwork#American bond?
- The latter. Could have sworn I checked that link before. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Great American Brass Band Festival " is linked three times in the article, unnecessary.
- Eliminated one, leaving the one in the lead and the first mention in the body, per my usual practice. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Spindletop Research, Inc.. " spare period.
- Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you need both Category:National Register of Historic Places in Kentucky and Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Kentucky and Category:National Register of Historic Places in Danville, Kentucky?
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely think we can do without Category:National Register of Historic Places in Kentucky. Deleted. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I'll try to respond to any further comments as soon as possible. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [48].
- Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
M-553! The county road that was so good MDOT made it into a state highway. Find out why...by reviewing this article!
Ok, in all seriousness, I feel that the article meets the criteria, and after capturing some additional photos earlier this evening, I feel that it merits consideration at this venue now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I supported the article at ACR, and believe it meets the criteria. Also, disambigs and external links checked. --Rschen7754 03:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- What is "a Michigan left"?
- File:Michigan_553_map.png: on what source(s) is this map based? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Michigan left, we have a whole article devoted to this kind of intersection. The term is linked from the body of the article, and I don't relink terms in captions.
- Clarified, like all of our maps, it uses GIS data from the state or federal government for the creation. Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I reviewed this article at ACR, where it was greatly improved, and feels that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 16:06, 15 September 2012 [49].
- Nominator(s): Savidan 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's a good model for articles about lower court cases. It's about a land claim by two Native American tribes to the majority of the U.S. state of Maine that was settled over the course of a decade for almost $100M. I look forward to comments. Savidan 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments:
*Need alt text for First Circuit seal;- In section "Aftermath", para 3, line 1, governs is misspelled;
- In section "As a precedent", line 2, capitalize "passamaquoddy"; and
It might be good to explain that traditionally the federal government and the tribe had concurrent jurisdiction in Indian country, and that the state did not have criminal or civil jurisdiction unless granted by Congress.
- Very well written and referenced. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have made these changes. With regarded to the last one, I have specified "outside of Maine," because, as the article notes, the prior situation in Maine was one of de facto state jurisdiction. Savidan 15:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:RogersClarkBallardMorton.jpg: source link returns 404 error
- File:ArchibaldCox.jpg: source link returns 404 error, and file is tagged as lacking author information
- File:William_Cohen,_official_portrait.jpg: source link returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been able to locate the Morton and Cohen images. With Morton, it appears the Commerce Dep't website just changed around the links. With Cohen, I can no longer find it on the DOD's webiste, but I can find it on Maine's website with the credit "Photo Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Defense" (which confirms the PD copyright tag). I cannot locate the Cox image or identify its author, so I have removed it from the article. Please let me know if you are not satisfied with the fixes to the Morton and Cohen images. Savidan 05:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:NuclearWarfare has located a link and replaced the image. I am satisfied with the link provided too. Please advise if you are not. Savidan 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did the GA review of this article and although I don't have time to examine the article again, at the time I noted some concerns which were satisfactorily resolved for GA but may be of use in assessing this article for FA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed the entirety of your comments, and I have done the same Westlaw and Lexis searches that been essentially copy-and-pasted to the talk page. I readily admit that the article does not cite every single law review article that cites this case (often in a single paragraph or footnote, perhaps in a string citation). Instead, I have focused on sources that devote substantial attention to the case and go into meaningful detail. Savidan 09:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 15:44, 15 September 2012 [50].
- Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Born This Way, the second studio album of American recording artist Lady Gaga, was released to the public on May 23, 2011. The album produced varying responses from music commentators, and many felt that the album was subpar from Gaga's previous efforts. However, a number of tracks on the album were praised, including "Government Hooker", a song that many of her fans profess to being Gaga at her best. I am nominating this for featured article because I think it fulfills the FA criteria. I've put a lot of work into this article, and it recently got a copyedit from Lfstevens. A previous nomination was closed not too long ago, but GrahamColm has given me permission to re-nominate the article within the two week limit due to limited feedback. —DAP388 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose While this seems comprehensive given that the song was never officially released as a single (to the extent that matters these days!), the article's prose needs a fair bit of work. Much of it contains jargon or reads like something from a magazine. My comments are:
- Both the paragraphs of the lead start with "Government Hooker"
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Government Hooker" was previously an unused track that Shadow and DJ Snake created, and was revealed as he was introducing numerous tracks to Vince Herbert for Born This Way." - this sentence is really difficult to follow.
- Fixed. I removed the latter part of the sentence, as I don't think it is relevant. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Recording sessions for the song took place at the Studio at the Palms in Las Vegas, Nevada." - when?
- I'd assume in August 2010, since that is when she visited the city during her Monster Ball Tour. The album notes states that it was recorded in 2010, but nothing more. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd assume in August 2010, since that is when she visited the city during her Monster Ball Tour. The album notes states that it was recorded in 2010, but nothing more. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gaga performed the song at various live appearances including the Born This Way Ball." - what the relevance of this? It's routine for artists to play all the songs off their most recent album during tours.
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the purpose of the quote from DJ White Shadow? It essentially says nothing other than that he likes the song.
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "This came out which when Shadow met up with Vince Herbert, Gaga's label boss, to introduce hip-hop beats for prospects." - poor grammar, and the whole 'it was revealed'/'it came out'-type phrasing is not necessary - just say what the events were.
- Fixed. I think the quote just reiterates what was being said. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We were in this studio in Vegas," he remarked, - who the 'he' here is unclear given that the previous sentence mentions several men
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that "We were in this studio in Vegas," Shadow remarked" is much of an improvement to be honest; this still reads like a magazine article (ditto "'We were sitting there thinking how to make a computerized voice," reminisced DJ Shadow") Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that "We were in this studio in Vegas," Shadow remarked" is much of an improvement to be honest; this still reads like a magazine article (ditto "'We were sitting there thinking how to make a computerized voice," reminisced DJ Shadow") Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Government Hooker" was previewed " - are songs really 'previewed'? Surely 'played in public for the first time' or similar is more factual.
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a song 'imbued' with elements of different genres?
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Amy Scarietto of PopCrush proclaimed that the opening was akin to Gwen Stefani incorporating the yodeling of The Sound of Music's "The Lonely Goatherd" (1959) into "Wind It Up"" - what's the relevance of this?
- Removed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'professed' seems an odd choice of words to use when describing a review
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rolling Stone declared "Government Hooker" as the twenty-eighth best song out of Gaga's discography" - did they really 'declare' this? It seems rather unimpressive given that she hasn't released a huge number of songs to date.
- Removed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Another journalist at that publication, Jody Rosen, affirmed " - 'affirmed' is rather odd in this context
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All the comments from reviewers are positive, even those referenced to Amy Sciarretto (you've left out her concluding sentence of "'Government Hooker’ should get a–es moving on the dancefloor, but it is not the best song on ‘Born This Way.’")
- Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In creating the vignette, Gaga wanted to give her fans an inside look of her daily life. "I really wanted it to be real, and I knew that MTV wanted it to be a true documentation of my life, and as someone that lives halfway between reality and fantasy, so do all my friends. So I felt [it would be] an injustice to not sort of honor them in this short film that we did."" - what does this have to do with the song? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Apologies for the late response.—DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my late responses! Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Apologies for the late response.—DAP388 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments have now been addressed; nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much! :) —DAP388 (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Hmmm, I saw the title and wondered whether this was some form of state-run prostitution.
- "The song's lyrical content subsumes feministic themes"—Is "subsumes" the right word? What about the plain vanilla "includes"?
- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Government Hooker" begins as Gaga sings in a melodramatic, operatic fashion." I'm not a fan of "as" in that context. I first comprehended ""Government Hooker" begins as Gaga ...", meaning begins in the form of Gaga. Then I had to reverse into the intended meaning.
- Done. I changed it to "when". —DAP388 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The song then catapults into the chorus"—OK, as long as it's a very energetic transition into the chorus.
- Meh. "Progresses" is a better word in this case. —DAP388 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "As the breakdown commences, the lyrics "Put your hands on me / John F. Kennedy / I'll make you squeal baby" suggests of the rumored affair between Marilyn Monroe and John F. Kennedy." Can we go plain? "At the start of the breakdown, the lyrics ... allude to the rumoured affair ...". And you can't suggest of.
- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Projection verbs. No no: the variation to avoid repetition is forced. I've bolded each:
- "Roberts asserted that the song was a "funky" exception to the "obnoxious" nature of Born This Way.[5] Caryn Ganz of Spin
avouchedsaid that Lady Gaga's eccentric and outlandish persona—the so-called "nutty come-ons"—were apparent in the "grimy doom disco" of "Government Hooker".[12] Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine described it as "filthy-fabulous",[13] while Jocelyn Vena of MTV called the song a "massive club track".[3] Rolling Stone journalist Jody Rosen felt that the production of the "requisite kinky song" was captivating,and pinpointedincluding its "shape-shifting assemblage of buzzes, beeps and clattering beats".[4] Dan Martin of NMEopinedwrote that "Government Hooker"wasis inimical to the campy nature of the album, and felt that as the track starts, Born This Way effectively transcends into "claustrophobic" techno beats."
- "Roberts asserted that the song was a "funky" exception to the "obnoxious" nature of Born This Way.[5] Caryn Ganz of Spin
- "asserted" is pretty strong, so I hope the context deserves this marked verb. Otherwise use the default verb for projection, which is "said". "Said" can be repeated a little without sticking out ... but not too much. "avoiched" ... ouch ... is that from a thesaurus? "called" and "described" sound natural, as does "felt". "Pinpointed"???? I hate "opined". The rest of the projections are ok.
- I think "asserted" is appropriate with the context. As for "pinpointed", I'm not sure what's wrong with it. This is what the journalist noticed when they heard the song. Maybe I should use "noticed" or "observed" instead? And I'm a little confused by the "natural" comment. What does that mean? —DAP388 (talk) 020:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "in two countries."—better a colon.
- Done —DAP388 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gaga performed "Government Hooker" at the Clinton Foundation's Decade of Difference celebration
, an event that occurredat the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, California." Clunky. Please take a look at these exercises, and be more conscious of the need to make your prose plain. In English, uniquely, plain is elegant. Tony (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses: Sorry, "sound natural" meant "they're fine". "Pintpointed" works only if the target is tiny; but it's not. I've tried to suggest improvements above. Tony (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okie dokie. Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsOppose - Hi DAP. Some suggestions and comments after having taken a look at the article. Note that I am a WP Lady Gaga member. Most are easily amendable tweaks, but two unsourced assertions and overusage of quotations are leaving me concerned.
- "It was composed and produced by Gaga in collaboration with Fernando Garibay, Paul Blair, and DJ White Shadow." – "in collaboration with" seems a bit wordy here. Why not just "... by Gaga, Fernando Garibay, Paul Blair, and DJ White Shadow"?
- I believe saying "in collaboration" would avoid any confusion on the writing and production credits. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? The credits section does suggest that all three did both production and writing. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes sense now, given I originally got confused between Paul Blair and White Shadow (they are the same person). Fixed. —DAP388 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? The credits section does suggest that all three did both production and writing. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe saying "in collaboration" would avoid any confusion on the writing and production credits. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... Shadow created
in collaborationwith DJ Snake."- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Recording sessions
for the songtook place in 2010 at the Studio at the Palms in Las Vegas, Nevada." – Redundant "for the song". It's obvious what the sessions were for. Note that this should be applied in the lead as well as Background.- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "experienced commercial success" → "charted"? More concise and accurate.
- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Avoid state-of-mind expressions (e.g. decided to). They are redundant.
- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Herbert was particularly enamored by the prototype of "Government Hooker", more so than all of the beats that he heard during the session." – A bit confused here. What were these beats? He was working on other songs?
- Shadow played other beats during the session beside the "Government Hooker" prototype. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't quite find this fact ("more so than all of the beats that he heard during the session") in the MTV link cited. Another thing, I think "enamoured" is a bit too strong here. Simply "Herbert liked the new prototype..." sounds accurate. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with the enamored bit. As for the beats, I got this from here: "We were in this studio in Vegas, and I was playing some hip-hop stuff [for Gaga's label boss Vince Herbert], and I ran across this [old beat I had made], and we were talking about faster songs, so I sped it up and I played it for Vince." —DAP388 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't quite find this fact ("more so than all of the beats that he heard during the session") in the MTV link cited. Another thing, I think "enamoured" is a bit too strong here. Simply "Herbert liked the new prototype..." sounds accurate. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadow played other beats during the session beside the "Government Hooker" prototype. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gaga constructed the lyrics" – Simply "wrote" sounds plainer.
- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "While writing, security guard Peter Van Der Veen was recruited to provide vocals; this process was chosen in lieu of devising computerized vocals." - sounds a bit rough and unplain. Also, the "while writing" implies that Peter was the one who was writing the song. I think we can make this a bit smoother. How about "During writing, security guard Peter Van Der Veen was recruited to sing in lieu of computerized vocals." If this changes the meaning of what you intend to say, then let's try something else.
- This is fine. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alongside with 'Scheiße' and a remix of 'Born This Way'" – "alongside with"?
- Removed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so fussy about a song containing elements. Sounds a bit awkward, but that's just my opinion. You could just say "dance-pop song with elements..." and "the song has 'deliciously' amalgamated elements..."
- I changed one of them to avoid any repetition. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think changing the other one would be repetitive, but I'm OK with it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed one of them to avoid any repetition. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the delicious amalgamation tidbit sounds more like it would belong in Reception as it is a praiseful opinion on the song.
- Meh. I think it'd be better in the composition section because of the references to the songs. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about remove "deliciously" then? It doesn't fit into the section. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. I think it'd be better in the composition section because of the references to the songs. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The song
's lyrical contentincludes feministic themes". It'd be a bit hard to understand how the music would have feministic themes. ;)- Silly me. LOL, done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ", which consist of the lyrics," – just replace with a colon. Redundant phrase.
- Done. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "A call and response ensues as a male vocalist accompanies Gaga's lyrics" – Original research.
- Removed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "As the breakdown commences" – Original research.
- Removed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Reception section is a bit too heavy on quotation usage and borderline quote farm. Try and see if any quotations can be trimmed and/or converted into original prose.
- I used some synonyms to replace those single word quotes, and I did paraphrase one of the bigger snippets. Not much else I can do without removed some of the oomph, in my opinion.
- Much better. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I used some synonyms to replace those single word quotes, and I did paraphrase one of the bigger snippets. Not much else I can do without removed some of the oomph, in my opinion.
- "The song was featured in a promotional video for the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards
,[20] which airedon August 18, 2011, coinciding with an episode of Jersey Shore." – Cut "which aired", which makes readers think it was the awards show that aired in that date, not the promo. Also, why is the fact that it aired during Jersey Shore relevant?- I was just taking advantage of the specificity. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there is a direct connection between the promo and the Jersey Shore episode, it comes off as fancrufty. You might be able to say "...on the night of August 18, 2011", but that's likely as specific as you can get. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. —DAP388 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there is a direct connection between the promo and the Jersey Shore episode, it comes off as fancrufty. You might be able to say "...on the night of August 18, 2011", but that's likely as specific as you can get. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just taking advantage of the specificity. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The singer was a candidate for several awards." – Has nothing to do with the song.
- Removed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tracklist? The song was never independently released.
- Removed. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The chart peak table needs to be formatted per WP:ACCESS with plain row headers.
- Huh? Is it not already formatted like that? —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My eyes must be playing games... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Is it not already formatted like that? —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PopCrush does not look like a reliable source.
- I was a little reluctant to use PopCrush as a source, but it is the only website that verifies the promotional video info and the song's hook. As for the "reception" section, it's a bit thin to begin with, so I added it because only a handful of other publications reviewed the song. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find any editorial information/qualifications on Amy Sciaretto, so that does not look promising. It's hard to say it would even pass muster for GAN, much less FAC. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm.... perhaps I could ask whether it is acceptable here. —DAP388 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm.... perhaps I could ask whether it is acceptable here. —DAP388 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find any editorial information/qualifications on Amy Sciaretto, so that does not look promising. It's hard to say it would even pass muster for GAN, much less FAC. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was a little reluctant to use PopCrush as a source, but it is the only website that verifies the promotional video info and the song's hook. As for the "reception" section, it's a bit thin to begin with, so I added it because only a handful of other publications reviewed the song. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Got a page number for ref 1?
- Yes sir. Added. —DAP388 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to withdraw my oppose when my concerns have been responded to. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments...
- Never released as a single... --> This is a bit awkward. Perhaps "Despite not being released as a single"?
- Genres in composition should be linked where possible.
- According to the music sheet published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing on Musicnotes.com --> Not necessary
- Also as pointed out above, PopCrush isn't a reliable source for FA. Till 07:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All good points, Till, but as per consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Musicnotes.com and WP:USM, in-text attribution is needed to Musicnotes.com and the copyright owner of the sheet music. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012 [51].
- Nominator(s): Theleftorium (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article a year ago without the intention of taking it to WP:FAC. However, I believe it is one of "my" better articles and therefore thought it would be worth a shot. :-) English is my second language so perhaps the prose isn't great, but the GA reviewer (User:J Milburn) thought it was well "well written". Thanks in advance for any suggestions and comments! Theleftorium (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Not a concern, but, could you write out the dates fully, rather 03, write March. Not a requirement.
- I'd prefer not. Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN8: "Click here to find out more!" is not needed, nor in the url
- Not sure why that was there, done! Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is ref. 10 a high-quality source?
- How is it not? Surely Dazed & Confused (magazine) is a reliable source? Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checking. Understood. TBrandley 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it not? Surely Dazed & Confused (magazine) is a reliable source? Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Ref. 10's date format different from the rest (January 2006)
- Ref. 17 is missing the publish date. It was "April 24, 2006" according to the source
- Why does Ref. 17 have a publisher, and the rest don't. Either remove the publisher, or add the publishers for the rest. Either works.
TBrandley 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- In the first image, a comma is missing after "in" and before "and".
- In Matt's image, is "enjoyed" really an encyclopedic word for Wikipedia. This has been questioned to me before.
- Yeah, I think it is. Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TBrandley 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reviews! Theleftorium (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I'll add some other comments now. Regards. TBrandley 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
- Link animated to animated cartoon
- Only Fox should be linked, not network
- I believe that "American" covers that it aired on Fox in the US. So, I don't think that "in the United States"
- I disagree, some Simpsons episodes have aired earlier in other countries and not all people know that Fox is an American company. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- people should be viewers, as it is a more encyclopedic word
- Viewers is used in the third paragraph of the lead, so I'd prefer some variation. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- television series → comedy series
- Which "Wife Swap" series; the British one?
- "like" isn't an encyclopedic word
- I've never heard that before, are you completely sure about it? Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the episode" how about change to "this episode"
- What sentence are you talking about? Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fox Broadcasting Company studios". No, its just "Fox studios". Thus, removed the previous "the"
- "he" means "Charles", right?
- What sentence are you talking about? Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "popular" is a violation of WP:NPOV
- Removed! Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- television series → comedy series in "Production"
- "that was broadcast in the United States on February 20, 2011" is off-topic
- I don't see how that is off-topic at all. Readers would want to know how far between his two guest appearances were. Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories should be sorted in alphabetical
TBrandley 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pretty solid. Great work on this article. TBrandley 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little copyediting; do check you're happy with it.
- "develop a crush" isn't all that encyclopedic.
- Agreed, I changed it to "develop an infatuation for her" - better? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "At this lunch, he was offered to appear in and write an episode of The Simpsons." Clumsy phrasing. As written, this means that Gervais was offered in exchange for an appearance.
- "At this lunch, he was offered to write an episode of The Simpsons and to guest star in it." Something like that? Theleftorium (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you don't offer a person to write- you offer a person a chance to write, or you offer them payment to write. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see what you mean now! Would "he was offered a chance to appear in and write an episode" solve the problem then? Theleftorium (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you don't offer a person to write- you offer a person a chance to write, or you offer them payment to write. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "At this lunch, he was offered to write an episode of The Simpsons and to guest star in it." Something like that? Theleftorium (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "but figured that" Again, a little colloquial
- Changed to "but came to the conclusion that" - better? Or maybe I should just use "realized"? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either's fine. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "but came to the conclusion that" - better? Or maybe I should just use "realized"? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "after a Friends episode from 2000 that drew 2.8 million viewers" Do we know what episode that was? A link probably wouldn't hurt
- It probably wouldn't be too hard to figure out, but since the sources don't mention the episode title I'm not really sure if we can. That might be considered OR? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the source doesn't mention it, don't worry about it. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably wouldn't be too hard to figure out, but since the sources don't mention the episode title I'm not really sure if we can. That might be considered OR? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That mystery British newspaper is still annoying. I'll have another dig tomorrow. The article's a strong one- definitely not far from FA-ready. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well technically we don't really have to include the newspaper part, do we? It could just say "According to Don Kaplan, writing for the New York Post, Gervais said in late 2005 that..." No? Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the great copyedits! Theleftorium (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought of something else- was this ever released on DVD/VHS? A line at the end of the first paragraph of "release" may not go amiss. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, the fifteenth season will be released this Christmas, but maybe in a year or two. :) Theleftorium (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am happy that this is what an episode article should look like. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Theleftorium (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above changes. Good work. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Theleftorium (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by David Fuchs
- Why does the lead pick out the Sky ratings after the US ratings, and in a completely different paragraph?
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't really think about that before. I went ahead and removed the UK ratings from the lead, as I think there is enough information from the "Release" section anyway. The US ratings are also more important since the episode's original broadcast was in that country. Theleftorium (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comments - spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ref number 23: Link is dead. --NewWikiBoy (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the link since I can't find an archive. Theleftorium (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
- Article: Many Simpsons staff members were fans of English comedian Ricky Gervais and his British comedy series The Office that he created and starred in.[2]
- Source: Groening recently heaped praise on The Office, saying: "Everybody on The Simpsons is a fan of The Office - it's one of the best shows on TV in the last decade."
- Article: When asked in an interview if the Simpsons staff learned anything from the experience of having Gervais contribute to the show, Groening said they found out "that we could stay true to The Simpsons' sensibility, with high-velocity visual gags, but also honor what Ricky does with subtlety and nuance."[4]
- Source: MG: That we could stay true to The Simpsons' sensibility, with high-velocity visual gags, but also honour what Ricky does with subtlety and nuance.
- Article: In July 2007, Groening stated that he would like to see Gervais appear on the show again because the staff enjoyed his performance. He also said that Gervais could decide himself if he wanted to return as Charles or a new character, should he choose to lend his voice again.[13]
- Source: Speaking about a possible comeback, Groening said: "We loved having him on the show. Whatever he wants to do - we'd love to have his character return. Or he could do something completely new."
- Article: Gervais has been praised by critics for his performance in the episode. In a 2010 article, Mike Bruno of Entertainment Weekly named Gervais one of the eighteen best The Simpsons guest stars,[5]
- Source: 'The Simpsons:' 21 Great Guest Stars... Ricky Gervais ...Charles (from Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife, 2006) The source is dated Feb 20, 2012, the number of guests is given as 21 and the link is wrong it should be this one: [52]
- Article: The Times critic Dominic Maxwell thought the "languid timing that Gervais brings to Extras and The Office was wrong here. Simpsons cameos are normally lean, but Gervais's shtick ran rampant through the second half, turning the regulars into extras."[23]
- Source: Online source requires subscription
- Article: He was also the first Briton to write an episode for the show.[7]
- Source: Simpsons creator – and fan of The Office - Matt Groening asked Gervais to be the first ever British writer of an episode.
- Just the one issue (in bold) needs to be addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the EW article was updated this year to include more guest stars from the later seasons. I've fixed it now! Thanks for the spotchecks! Theleftorium (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - I am not convinced that the prose is FA. The writing is clunky in parts and does not flow well.
- This, for example, needs some work: "At this lunch, he was offered a chance to appear in and write an episode of The Simpsons. Groening first asked Gervais for just a guest appearance, but came to the conclusion that he might be interested in writing an episode too. Gervais told The Independent that when he got the offer, "well, I knew I had to say yes, but fear kicked in at exactly the same time."
- Here, "He became the first person to be credited with simultaneously writing and guest starring in an episode of The Simpsons" - "simultaneously" is not the right word.
- Here, "After the lunch with Groening and Jean in early 2004, Gervais began coming up with a storyline" - coming up with is too colloquial, it should be "to develop". There is another "came up" later.
- This, "Gervais said to a British newspaper" sounds surreal.
- Here, "The large amount of viewers" should be number of.
- I would like to see more work on the prose before closing. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [53].
- Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the next northern constellation article for your collective wonderful consideration. Auriga is a big important winter constellation with a bright, distinctive pentagon pattern. It contains several really lovely star clusters and at least two major scientific conundrums in the stars Epsilon and AE Aurigae. It's in the same vein as the others, sourced to everything I could get my hands on in a 30 mile radius. I hope you enjoy and aren't quite sick of the constellations yet! Keilana|Parlez ici 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim Good work, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asterism—link at first occurence
"One" and "many" overused in lead
- I rewrote a few phrases, does it look alright now? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and who was the charioteer of Oenomaus—lose "who was"
a race, designed for suitors—lose comma, "intended" may be better than "designed"
- Comma's gone and I agree about "intended", that's changed too. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
chariot wrecked—"was wrecked"
- This is why I need coffee before I write. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
important religiously—any explanation in what way?
- Unfortunately no, the source was really vague. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18,000,000 kilometers... 9,600,000 kilometers... 11300000—inconsistent separators, and what's wrong with using millions?
- I skipped straight to millions, if that's alright. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11 miles (18 km) —Why the sudden change to imperial units?. Need to be consistent
- My American upbringing is betraying me! Fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other single stars—most of this might be better presented as a table rather than repetitive text
- Do you think all of it should be presented in a table, or should there be some prose and a table? I know that Andromeda (constellation) and Aries (constellation) didn't need a table, but it's different for a constellation with a massive number of bright stars like Auriga. Another option is removing some of them, but admittedly that's not my first choice. Just thinking out loud here. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Up to you, but certainly most of it would be better tabulated. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on making this section suck less; it's slow going with the amount of time I have but please rest assured I'm digging up more information on the brighter ones and will format a table for the dimmer-but-still-notable ones. Thanks for your patience! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I found some time this morning and I'm satisfied with this section. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Epsilon Aurigae. Epsilon Aurigae—link with comma, lose one of the names
Trumpler class—redlinked and unexplained, what is it?
- I think it's a redirect to the bit about classification in open cluster. Does it still need explanation? I'm happy to put a sentence in there if it's necessary. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
were observed in California—why such a limited area?
- Well, the Aurigids were not very well known and not many people believed that they would actually have an outburst then, so only a small handful of people observed it. The Aurigids are also known for being very very short - a few hours at most - so the chances of it being observed elsewhere in the world at random are very low. California was also in the right place for grazing meteors; the observer, Earth, and meteor stream all have to line up for that to happen. Tl;dr - it's an unusual shower that wasn't well observed. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
California time—even as a Brit, I'm pretty sure this isn't a standard time zone
- Heh, not so much. :P Because that's what the source said, I think I'll leave it but put UTC in parentheses. Is that ok? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm close to supporting, but since there is another list of comments, and you might need to redo the "other single stars", I'll hold off until you've had a chance to deal with these Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with the changes, perhaps the table would look better if centred, but no biggie, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – My concerns have been addresses and I think it's FA worthy. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Wow, you're sure cranking these out. Good stuff! Here are a few nit-picks:
There are many unnecessary uses of the redundant wording like "also" or "another". See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
- I rewrote as many as I could, how does it look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the paragraphs are inordinately long, which can make for tedious reading. Consider splitting up the larger ones.
- I split up several, hope that helps. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That one's split also. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source for the infobox entry saying this constellation has six planetary systems? I checked the List of stars in Auriga (which is not a reliable source), and one of the six stars that are noted as having planets is also listed as unconfirmed.
- I found all six listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia and added a subsection to the stars section on the planetary systems. It includes a paragraph on the unconfirmed planet. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Template:Stars of Auriga lists two nearby stars, both of which appear to be within 10 parsecs. The infobox says '1'.
- Changed. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead makes too much fuss about the constellation's size. According to List of constellations by area, it is only 21st on the list; hardly worth a mention.
- I trimmed it, just gave the area and said it was half the size of Hydra. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This association is supported by the fact that depictions of Auriga rarely show a chariot, because Myrtilus's chariot was destroyed in a race, designed for suitors to win the heart of Oenomaus's daughter, Hippodamia": This sentence is a little awkward and could use some cleanup and clarification.
- I've rewritten this to say "The association of Auriga and Myrtilus is supported by depictions of the constellation, which rarely show a chariot. Myrtilus's chariot was destroyed in a race intended for suitors to win the heart of Oenomaus's daughter Hippodamia" Is that better? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of "History and mythology" has three consecutive uses of "defined". Could a synonym be used?
- Yeah, I left one and rewrote the other two as "designated" and "created". Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The primary has a diameter of 18,000,000 kilometers...": My concern here is that listing a star's size in kilometres is not helpful in terms of having lay reader's relate to it. How big is that, really? It's much better to use a comparison with the size of the Sun, for example.
- Ok, I'd like to leave the number but I added that it was almost 13 times the diameter of the Sun. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The two components are separated by 11[,]300[,]000 kilometers": So their separation is smaller than their combined radii? Does this mean they have a common envelope? Again, it may be difficult for the reader to fully grasp this scale without a comparison. I know it is for me.
- The source wasn't specific about whether or not they have a common envelope but I would assume that they do. I've added a comparison to the Sun's diameter, not sure if anything else is needed there. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, well with all due respect to the source's author, Mr. Moore, I don't think that's true. Torres at al (2009, p. 13) lists them as "well detached". On page 34 of the latter source it lists a separation of 110 million km. You might consider using that ref. for both the radii and the separation. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrmmm. I've used that source for the masses, radii, and separation. I'm just assuming that this is new data that Moore didn't have in 2000; they mentioned in the paper that they had improved over measurements made in 1994. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be. But the orbital period seemed too long for it to be a contact binary and a common envelope would have been a prominent feature in the description. Then again they are giants, so what do I know? Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stars are weird! I'm gonna go off the more current source, I think, given that I'm not a professional astronomer (just a student) - I figure the most recent peer-reviewed study is going to have the most current/accurate information. I do agree - if they really did have a common envelope that would have been mentioned in the Torres/Claret/Young paper for sure, as well as in popular sources, given that that's an interesting tidbit. Are you okay with that part of the Capella paragraph as it stands, or do you think it needs tweaking? Thanks again for picking up on that - I totally missed it. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrmmm. I've used that source for the masses, radii, and separation. I'm just assuming that this is new data that Moore didn't have in 2000; they mentioned in the paper that they had improved over measurements made in 1994. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The source wasn't specific about whether or not they have a common envelope but I would assume that they do. I've added a comparison to the Sun's diameter, not sure if anything else is needed there. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Later in the same paragraph the text switches to using astronomical units rather than km.
- I don't particularly care either way; which do you think I should use? (or should I use both?) Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First use of "absolute magnitude", "light-year", and "eclipsing variable star" should be wikilinked.
"It is moving towards Earth at a speed of about 11 miles (18 km) per second." Umm, actually not, because it has a non-zero proper motion. The component of its motion in the direction of the Earth is 18 km/s.
- Astronomy fail. Fixed - this is why I need to get my degree... I stole your wording (with edit summary attribution) if that's ok. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have the first instance of M☉ wikilinked, but really, what readers are going to know this means the mass of the Sun (except for astronomy weenies like me)? I'd like to suggest that the first instance do something like this: 3.09 times the Sun's mass (M☉).
- Astronomy weenies are the best kind of weenie. :) I've taken your suggestion. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all sources list Beta Tauri as a B-type giant star. O-type stars are massive things, so the distinction is kind of important.
- Hrm, not sure what's up with that. I've fixed it & sourced to SIMBAD. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Other single stars" section is pretty dry reading. The text essentially consists of a series of star names, types, absolute magnitudes and distances. I'm not sure it is quite engaging enough.
- Yeah, I'm working on this. I'm adding more to the bright ones/the ones where there's something interesting going on; the other dim-but-notable ones I'll stick in a little table in the bottom. Thanks again for your patience! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some work on it last night and this morning, how does it look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks much improved. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Upsilon Aurigae, what is a "GM1-type star"? The 'G' looks like a typo.
- It was, I must have mistyped. It's corrected in the table now. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Eclipsing variable stars" section, the second instance of Epsilon Aurigae is linked rather than the first. It's also a bit redundant to start the second sentence with the end of the first.
- That's fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Zeta Aurigae, this is a binary system so there are two classifications visible; a K-type bright giant and a B-type main sequence star. The description makes it seem like it is only a K-type star.
- Fixed that by moving the spectral type to the description of the primary, where it belongs. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...but it varies irregularly": in magnitude? Some stars vary in other ways.
- Specified that it varies in magnitude. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...in aperture to distinguish": usually the word "resolve" is used here, per Optical resolution.
- Heh, that's what I get for trying to shake it up. ;) Fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...making it the richest cluster in Auriga": Which, the 150 total stars or the orange star at the center?
- Clarified that it's the number of stars, not the pretty orange one. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's some good material in this article, but I'm not convinced it's quite up to satisfying the FA criteria yet. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, thanks so much for the comments. I will definitely get to them in the next couple of days, please don't think I'm ignoring them! Real life is being particularly hard right now and the past few days have been spent entirely handling all that - not much energy is left for wiki-matters. I'm trying, I'll try to get through a few tonight but any major things ("Other single stars") will likely wait a couple of days. I'm really sorry and want to give your comments the time and attention they deserve, it just may take longer than I'd hoped. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I'm in no hurry. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for waiting. I think I've taken care of all your comments; would you mind taking another look? I really appreciate the help. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I'm in no hurry. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 8/18 Additions
I notice that the article uses units of 'miles' in a number of locations. Since this is primarily a science article, WP:UNITS indicates that kilometres should be used instead. Astronomical units are okay since they are specialized units in astronomy.- I should probably read the MOS someday. :P Fixed with {{convert}}. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well normally the SI units would go first, but close enough. Thanks. RJH (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should probably read the MOS someday. :P Fixed with {{convert}}. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the stars don't include the luminosity class that forms part of the Morgan-Keenan system. This is particularly so for the table in the "Other bright stars" section. I'm not quite clear why that is being left out since it can tell us something about the star's evolutionary stage. It's okay to leave this out if the star's evolutionary stage is already described, but I think not otherwise.
Otherwise this looks FA-worthy and I'm ready to support. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional comments! I've added the luminosity classes where not already discussed, sourced to SIMBAD. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Queries.
- I stared at the image of M38, and I cannot for the life of me see what the text describes as "a cross-shaped or pi-shaped object in a telescope and contains approximately 100 stars". I accept that reliable sources may describe M38 in this way, but it doesn't help a lay reader if the available image doesn't appear to support that.
- Here's an illustration. I think that astrophotos can tend to wash out what is seen with the eye because more stars are made visible. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks RJH, I also found this and this, which show it pretty well. Would it help if I clarified that telescopic views are different from photographic ones in either the text or a caption? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an illustration. I think that astrophotos can tend to wash out what is seen with the eye because more stars are made visible. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we want clarifying text. To be blunt, we either need an image where a lay person can see the pattern, or we remove the reference to the distinctive pattern in the caption (ugly but probably acceptable solution). Given the image has to be licenced as free, you may be stuck with the current one. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be acceptable to just include an explanation as to why the feature is not visible in the photo? Alternatively, I think the image could be copied and modified to outline the feature. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've changed the caption to say "A photograph of M38; its characteristic shape, clearly visible to an observer in a telescope, is obscured by the greater number of stars revealed by a long-exposure photograph." How does that look? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if there isn't a free image that actually shows the distinctive form, that your solution is an acceptable one. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we want clarifying text. To be blunt, we either need an image where a lay person can see the pattern, or we remove the reference to the distinctive pattern in the caption (ugly but probably acceptable solution). Given the image has to be licenced as free, you may be stuck with the current one. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a redlink for "orange supergiant". WP has a well-developed series of articles on stars, including luminosity classes, and this isn't mentioned. My first impulse was to create a stub, but my attempts to google the term (both mainstream and Scholar) suggest to me that it is not a valid encyclopedic term. Rather, there are stars that are red supergiants and look orange to our eye.
hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think that got sorted with the luminosity classes I added earlier. It's now described as an orange-hued supergiant, which is accurate to the spectral class as far as I can tell. It's a K-type star, which means it appears orange, and its luminosity class is I (supergiant). Does that look better to you? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Captions need significant editing. "Urania's Mirror" caption is ambiguous. Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Encyclopedic tone and wording should be observed throughout.
- I've removed the periods and edited the Urania's Mirror one. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The IAU copyright page seems to suggest that attribution is requested in the caption itself (looking at the YouTube example as an analogue to this situation)
- Hm, I'm not sure about that - you definitely know more than I do - but it just says that the credit can't be disassociated from the image, and I would think the IAU logo in the bottom right of the map is pretty clear. If you still think I should add it to the caption, I absolutely will, just wanted to clarify first. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does WP:CREDITS apply here? Regards, RJH (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I'm not sure about that - you definitely know more than I do - but it just says that the credit can't be disassociated from the image, and I would think the IAU logo in the bottom right of the map is pretty clear. If you still think I should add it to the caption, I absolutely will, just wanted to clarify first. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Aurigaurania.jpg needs US PD tag
- I added {{PD-1923}}, as it was published in London, not the US. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On what source was File:Capella-Sun_comparison.png based?
- I don't know, and its creator seems to be inactive. Should I remove it? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:M36_2mass.jpg: first licensing tag appears to be incorrect - the image was funded by, not created by, NASA. Based on the source link it's still PD, just not by the current reasoning
- Ah, it's under the same license as File:M37.jpg, I changed the tag accordingly. Keilana|Parlez ici
- File:M37.jpg: not sure why second licensing tag applies.
- Me neither. I removed it as the first seems to cover it pretty clearly. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsreading through now. I passed this article at GAN and will give it the extra scrutiny for FAC here....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lead has "eclipsing binary" but "eclipsing variable" is written elsewhere. Personally I find the former more accurate but the latter term is in widespread use. Given this the choice of the latter is not a deal-breaker for FAC as such, but article needs to be consistent whichever one is chosen...- Gotcha, changed them to "eclipsing binary". Keilana|Parlez ici 19:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, this may have represented just Capella (alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole.."alpha Aurigae" only part capitalised here....
Above are only minor quibbles - this looks good to go otherwise....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The book ref does not have page numbers: "sfn|Moore|Tirion|1997|p=" in any time it's used
- Added them. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed two cases of refs not being in sequence. Pls fix the rest.
- All the reference ducks should be in order. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The book ref does not have page numbers: "sfn|Moore|Tirion|1997|p=" in any time it's used
- Support and source check. Support now and all refs look reliable. PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
- To be ridiculously fussy, "nearby Epsilon Aurigae is an eclipsing binary with an unusually long period and has been studied intensively" is ambiguous ... well, if you don't have the context. You could try "Epsilon Aurigae, a nearby eclipsing binary with an unusually long period, has been studied intensively". Or "The nearby ...". I've borrowed this for my "Spot the ambiguity" exericises.
- I'm honored! I chose your first option thinking that it fit in better. Thanks.
- Theme and rheme: you might consider changing the "this is what I'm going to tell you about" opening, from "Auriga's stars" to "In Chinese mythology", which is a nice fresh contrast with the previous thematic flow: "In Chinese mythology, Auriga's stars were incorporated into several constellations, including the celestial emperors' chariots, made up of the modern constellation's brightest stars." You be the judge. Then, "Auriga is home to ...", to make the referent clear.
- I agree wholeheartedly. Changed per your suggestion. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch the back-referring "it" ... always check to see that the referent is clear; even experts would like this: "It was alternatively called ...". What is "it"? Apply that same technique for clear cohesion as you've done further down in the Myrtilus/Pelops sentence.
- Rewritten as "The first record of Auriga's stars was in Mesopotamia as a constellation called GAM, representing a scimitar or crook. However, this may have represented just Capella (Alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole; this figure was alternatively called Gamlum or MUL.GAM in the MUL.APIN." Is that alright? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paragraphing clashes with the topical theme: "However, Auriga is sometimes named as Myrtilus, who was Hermes's son and the charioteer of Oenomaus ...". The close back-reference of "however" has to jump across that gap you put there. So try medial position: "Auriga, however, is sometimes named as Myrtilus, who was ...". But I wouldn't balk if you decided to leave as is.
- That does help the flow. I changed it as you suggested. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His stepmother Phaedra committed suicide because he spurned her advances? If so, make it clear.
- Yeah, it's a little creepy. I clarified it by adding "as a result" to the end of that sentence. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is likely that it was" ... could you substitute the referent for the second "it", in this thematic equative (the first "it" is still the subject of the whole clause, of course).
- Since the first clause of that sentence had "Auriga", I rewrote the phrase as "it is likely that the constellation was". Is that okay? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "17th century France"—hyphen.
- "The two components are separated by 110 million kilometers."—it's fine, but if you want to excite the non-scientists, you could add "a little more than two-thirds of the distance between the Earth and the Sun" ... if my hunch is right. No big deal, just an idle suggestion.
- I agree, I've added "almost 75% of the distance between the Earth and the Sun", as it's just a touch more accurate. Thanks for the suggestion! Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the rest; the writing is pretty good so far. Well done. Tony (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I really appreciate it. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012 [54].
- Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FA criteria. It is currently a GA and just had a peer-review. Please note that this article uses WP:MOSLAW and per that styleguide to use local citation guides, references are in the Bluebook format. GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cryptic C62:
- The second paragraph of Murder of Spotted Tail should give the reader some indication of whether or not there is any modern academic consensus as to which version of the story is accurate.
- There is no consensus. There are basically three positions among historians. One block feels that Spotted Tail was a progressive, vision minded leader who was assassinated, one block feels that Crow Dog was standing up for the traditional views of the Lakota people against one who had sold them out, and the final block basically says they don't know, but give both sides of the story. I added a line to the paragraph indicating that there was no consensus. (As a side note, those in the first two blocks are not above taking potshots at the other in some of their articles - almost as if the fight between the two was still going on today). GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust that your evaluation of the sources is correct, but is the lack of consensus explicitly mentioned in a source somewhere? The reader should ideally be be able to verify such a thing for themselves. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not find anything explicit on it, despite checking any number of search terms and engines, including academic one. GregJackP Boomer! 12:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, poop. Just something to keep in mind if you happen to stumble across any new literature. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The reaction of the tribes is still bitter" So a statement by one guy that was made 40 years ago is sufficient evidence that the tribes are still bitter in 2012? I would disagree.
- I added a statement by Larry EchoHawk from 2000. If you want, I can expand with other references, such as Wub-E-Ke-Niew, We Have the Right to Exist:A Translation of Aboriginal Indigenous Thought : The First Book Ever Published from an Ahnishinahbaeo Jibway Perspective (1996); Stewart Wakeling, et al, Policing on American Indian Reservations (2001); Larry A. Gould, Indigenous People Policing Indigenous People, 39 Soc. Sci. J. 171 (2002); and Ken Peak, Criminal Justice, Law, and Policy in Indian Country, 17 J. Crim. Jus. 393 (2011), just as a start. Just let me know which way we should go with it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the problem is a lack of references. I don't even think the problem is the claim that the tribes were bitter for a long time, which itself is quite understandable. The problem is the phrasing which implies that Ducheneaux's quote directly shows that the tribes are still bitter. This can be resolved by treating the bitterness of the tribes and Ducheneaux as two separate ideas: "Many members of the Indian tribes were bitter with this outcome for decades afterwards. Wayne Ducheneaux, president of the National Congress of American Indians, testified before Congress on the matter in 1968: [quote]" I hope, of course, that I am not misrepresenting anything. You're welcome to tweak the phrasing if I am. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll start working on these in the next couple of days. GregJackP Boomer! 04:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments after peer review. It's an excellent article. It's well-written and accessible, a rarity among law articles. Just a couple things I noticed on further reading:
- You might consider linking Indian agent as discussed above, but better would be to both link it and describe the agent's role in text, i.e. "Indian agent, a representative of the U.S. government in Indian affairs." Or something else if that's not accurate. I see that it's linked later in the article; should be linked on first instance, I think.
- "The treaty also provided that tribal members would stay on the reservation provided" repeats "provided". You might just say "stipulated" on first instance.
- Could link French Creek (Cheyenne River).
- "the Black Hills Gold Rush brought prospectors into the Black Hills" could perhaps be worded differently to avoid repeating "Black Hills"; the second instance could be "the area" or "the mountain range".
- It'd be good to elaborate on "mistaking the other man's intentions" if the source material can support it. What were their separate intentions, and how were they mistaken?
- I'm not sure how to go about elaborating without adding a lot of material to the section. Crow Dog was concerned that Spotted Tail would try to kill him, as he had done to Big Mouth. Spotted Tail feared the same, as Crow Dog had put a rifle to his chest in July. Unfortunately, I haven't found cites that spell that out exactly, and to make it that concise, I would have to synthesize it from multiple sources. Do you have any suggestions? GregJackP Boomer! 12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Batard0 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think it's unnecessary to go into all the details. It's fine the way it is. The clause "both armed" I think helps clarify things.--Batard0 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One other thing: I noticed the references are in WP:SMALLCAPS, which the MoS seems to advise against. I'm no expert on legal style, but what's the logic behind this? Couldn't these simply be in plain text?--Batard0 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SCOTUS articles fall under WP:MOSLAW, which states that references should be done in the local style. In the U.S., that is almost always Bluebook (sometimes ALWD, but not very often). Smallcaps are used in Bluebook for authors and titles. It is similar on journal cites - in Bluebook it is Vol# JournalName Page# instead of the more common JournalName Vol#:Page#. GregJackP Boomer! 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments - the article is on the short end, but what has been written is very good. What follows are just suggestions for improvement. Take with a grain of salt. Savidan 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the U.S. Reports themselves to verify that the reporter gives the case name as "Ex parte Crow Dog." I have also seen this case cited as "Ex parte Kan-gi-shun-ca (Crow Dog)." Either way, the article title should probably stay the same, but if the latter is used in the reporter, perhaps it should be in the intro/infobox.
- The article says that the case is the beginning of the plenary power doctrine, and I think that's at least a common view, but is this absolutely the first case where the Court discussed the power of Congress vis-a-vis tribes? After all this doctrine is only dicta in this case (since Congress hadn't tried to do anything yet). Perhaps similar dicta predate.
- Not that I can find. As late as 1865, the court held in dicta that "Congress has never claimed, and cannot lawfully exercise the power of legislating for Indians, except as tribes or quasi domestic nations" in U.S. v Holliday, 70 U.S. 407 (1865). Crow Dog appears to be the first time that they speak of it. GregJackP Boomer! 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a bit more context on how common "bad men" clauses were in similar treaties. Extra credit if you can nail down a specific time period and region(s) in which these clauses were used.
- Done. Added to FN, this was boiler-plate language in 1821-68. All regions, from the northern plains, Indian territory, Arizona, etc. Apparently the Indian Service came up with standard language as Kappler shows 13 separate treaties with that language. GregJackP Boomer! 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a link somewhere to Criminal law in the Waite Court?
- Done. See also section link. GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the Dakota Territory trial court or supreme court an Article III court? If not, why did the Supreme Court have original habeas jurisdiction?
- Fixed. Appellate jurisdiction from territorial court, sitting as a circuit court of the U.S. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I re-read the opinion, it is clear that it is an original habeas case. Although the court does not discuss the issue, the clear implication is that, with original habeas, the Supreme Court can be the first Article III court to see the case. It would be nice if there were a source to explain more on this, but perhaps that is asking too much. As for "sitting as a circuit court of the United States," that only means that Congress has authorized the court to hear cases that the Judiciary Act of 1789 requires to be heard by "circuit courts." It does not mean that it is an Article III court. Savidan 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Appellate jurisdiction from territorial court, sitting as a circuit court of the U.S. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says " first time in the history of the country, [that] an Indian is held for trial for the murder of another Indian." The first time in a federal court? Or the first time in a federal or state court? And, had Indians previously been tried for the murder of non-Indians? Not even a murder committed outside of Indian country? I recall reading about this in some of the sources I cited here. Probably the first two Kawashima sources, the Koehler source, and the Ronda source.
- As far as I can tell from the sources, the first time in any court that an Indian was tried for killing another Indian. Prosecutions of Indian crimes against non-Indians go back beyond the start of the United States. Provisions for such trials appeared in a number of U.S. treaties in the early years, such as 1795 treaty with Wyandots, et al., the 1791 treaty with the Cherokees, etc. There was no specific language exempting Indian country for the mixed race trials. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If written at all, was the lower territorial decision reported? If not in a traditional reporter, perhaps in a newspaper or something?
- That the Major Crimes Act was in response to Crow Dog is certainly the conventional wisdom. But is there any legislative history or similar that makes this connection?
- Done. Footnote and ref. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that might be useful in the subsequent developments section is to explain the later developments regarding criminal jurisdiction. I.e. all the permutations of (1) committed in Indian Country/not committed in Indian Country, (2) state court/federal court/tribal court, (3) same-tribe defendant/different-tribe defendant/non-Indian defendant, and (4) same-tribe victim/different-tribe victim/non-Indian victim.
- I'll get on these. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably Crow Dog remained the law after the MCA for crimes other than the 15. Has anything since then changed that?
- The MCA is still current law, so "Crow Dog" has been superseded by statute as far as the major felony offenses. I'll try to add more as far as laws dealing with tribal courts, etc., when I get a chance. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added material, will continue. GregJackP Boomer! 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MCA is still current law, so "Crow Dog" has been superseded by statute as far as the major felony offenses. I'll try to add more as far as laws dealing with tribal courts, etc., when I get a chance. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps note the territorial court history as prior history in the infobox.
- OK, I'll get on these. GregJackP Boomer! 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- changes look good. I still support. Savidan 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images - File:Thomas_Stanley_Matthews_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with proviso that I've not looked at the images. I reviewed this at GA back in 2010. I had a doubt about one of the images then, but wasn't able to reach a conclusion. Hopefully that won't hold up someone more experienced with image review than I :-). My only other query is whether the very last sentence "Congress has subsequently used this power to breach the Medicine Lodge Treaty with the Kiowa by reducing the size of the Kiowa reservation without their consent" is a bit off topic, as neither that treaty nor that tribe have been mentioned previously in the article. But it is a minor quibble in a fascinating article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - on the Medicine Lodge treaty, it follows from the plenary power first articulated in "Crow Dog" - I'll try and expand and make it clearer to the reader. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As just a general note, I have gotten kind of busy in real life and don't have as much time for detailed work as I would like. I will respond and continue to clear up any issues in the article, it may just take a little longer period. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's note - Spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A preview of George Hyde & Harry H. Anderson, Spotted Tail's Folk: a History of the Brulé Sioux is available on Google books. It would help with spot checking if reference 9 was split into separate references that give narrower page ranges. The currently cited page range of 308-340 seems rather broad for the snippets of facts that are sourced to it. For example "the uncle of Oglala Lakota war leader Crazy Horse." Graham Colm (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started working on it, starting with Harring's book. I get them done as soon as I can. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyde's done, as is Ostler. Still working on Herring and others. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Herring done. GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
- Article: A later conflict with the Indian Agent forced the tribal police to disband, and Crow Dog lost his position.[19]
- Source: Crow Dog had long before lost his position as chief of police,
- Article: This version makes no mention of another man's wife being the reason for the killing, and states that Crow Dog ambushed Spotted Tail to gain power in the tribe.[20]
- Source: Henry Lelar, the chief clerk at Rosebud, knew these Indians intimately, and he reported the day after the murder that Crow Dog had deliberately planned the killing with the hope of ultimately succeeding Spotted Tail as chief.
- Article: He also supervised the tribal police of about 300 men. In contrast, Crow Dog was a "traditionalist"[13]
- Source: I can't see this information or "traditionalist" in source
- Article: In another version of the story, Crow Dog was appointed by the tribal council to head the tribal police, which undermined the authority of Spotted Tail. Crow Dog discovered that Spotted Tail was taking money from ranchers for "grazing rights" and he denounced him for it, while Spotted Tail defended the practice.[11][18]
- Source: ..and at every camp the boss had a receipt, signed by Spotted Tail, for money handed to the chief in payment for grazing rights.
- Article: as modified by the Assimilative Crimes Act allowed the territorial death penalty to be applied to Crow Dog.[28]
- Source: No preview available
- Article: In September 1881, Crow Dog was indicted by a federal grand jury for murder and manslaughter under the laws of the Dakota Territory. In March 1882 the case was heard by Judge G. C. Moody, held at the First Judicial District Court of Dakota, located in Deadwood, South Dakota.[29]
- Source: ...the case was ultimately headed for the U.S. supreme Court and because Judge G.C. Moody, who had tried Crow Dog, sentenced him to death, and denied the original demurrer on jurisdictional grounds, also heard the appeal in October 1882.
- Article: Crow Dog had a tremendous impact on tribal sovereignty.[52]
- Source: In deciding that Alaska was not, Judge McAllister ignored Supreme Court Justice Stanley Matthew's expansive definition of Indian country in his Crow Dog opinion...The U.S. Supreme Court's broad definition was a deliberate attempt to curtail the ability of local courts, including federal district courts and territorial courts, to weaken the Crow Dog doctrine by limiting the extent of the Indian country.
- Just the one issue to resolve. And I suggest a Bibliography section is created to list the multiply used sources. The references can then just use a sort form with page number. The use of supra (as is ibid) is discouraged. Graham Colm (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I corrected the tribal police cite and the traditionalist cite by deleting the original cite and putting two new cites in to support the text.
- The article uses the Bluebook citation style. This is a legal citation style which does not allow for citing back to a Bibliography section. In addition, after the original citation (what they call the long-form), subsequent citations require either "Id." or "supra", see Bluebook Rule 4.1, however "supra" may not be used on short-form cites for cases, statutes, constitutions, legislative materials, model codes, restatements, or regulations (Rule 4.2). WP:SCOTUS articles generally follow WP:MOSLAW#Citations and referencing, and the Bluebook is the style used at SCOTUS. See also WP:CITE#Citation style, where Bluebook is specifically mentioned as an acceptable citation style. I have tried to go back through and double-check all the citations against my copy of the Bluebook, but it is possible that I missed something. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Older nominations
- ^ Author Unknown, "Houses for the Workers of Gateshead – Costly Scheme Begins", Gateshead Post, 28 October 1920 at para 3