Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2013

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

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:13, 8 February 2013‎ [1].

---

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it concisely and completely covers a frontier fort that was involved in a critically under-recognized period of conflict, and because I have put this article through multiple ringers including WP:MILHIST A-Class Review, GAN, a lengthy Peer Review, and I believe this article is in peak condition. This is my first nomination, and the first article I've started that's gotten this far, so I look forward to the experience. Cdtew (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've reviewed this for A-class and Peer Review. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images (but not spotchecks) were mostly covered at the recent peer review, but a few more:

• Both "Historic site" image captions should have a comma after "site"
• FN41, 48: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Added commas to captions.
• Done re: fns, as well as fn. 31. Cdtew (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both FNs should use "pp" (multiple pages) not "p.". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done. I checked the rest and made sure they were right. Cdtew (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Follow-up: Based on your comments in the peer review, I tracked down and purchased a copy of the Arthur Dobbs biography by Desmond Clarke; funnily enough, it mentioned the fort in passing, mentioned the conflict slightly more, but was mostly focused on Dobbs' personal financial interests and his wrangling with the Provincial Assembly. I will be using it, but only to add a nice footnote about Dobbs' land near Fort Dobbs. Cdtew (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• And one last thing, since you did an image check. I've finally figured out how to extract an image of Hugh Waddell from an online book. The image is uncredited, but it appears as a print in a book published in 1885/1890. Does this pass muster for purposes of FAC image checking? If the PD tag I've got on the image isn't sufficient, or if the image constitutes a "substantial edit" that throws off the FAC review, I'll happily remove it. I've been trying to source it for weeks now, and had forgotten somehow that it was in the Waddell book. Cdtew (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Given pre-1923 publication, the image is PD and fine as tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed this article at Good Article Nominations and a substantial number of comments were addressed. Following this, I suggested to the nominator that he expand the archaeology-related coverage of the article. Looking again, this has been satisfactorily done, and I believe it now has the comprehensiveness necessary for FA. Good work. —Ed!^(talk) 03:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I've commented during the ACR and peer review process, and think that it is now in a good state for a FA in terms of covering the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia

1. This sentence in the lead makes sense when viewed with Wikilinks, but look at the problem when the links are left out (as they are on some mirrors):
   • Used as a provincial fort during and after the French and Indian and Anglo-Cherokee Wars,

     How does the reader know how many wars are there ? Without links, it looks like either three wars, or one war with a weird name.

2. Please try to vary the prose, sample ... built ... built

   Fort Dobbs was built to protect the British settlers of the western portion of what was then Rowan County. Built as a blockhouse ...

3. Unclear why the switch here ...
   • The fort's name honored Arthur Dobbs, the colonial Governor of North Carolina from 1754 to 1765, who authorized its construction, and played a role in designing the fort.

     Design is before construction, so why not who had a role in the fort's design and authorized its construction ... same tense.

   • And then the very next sentence again used "its construction" ... please try to vary prose.
4. Don't understand why these two sentences are connected at all, much less with "although" ?
   • the fort housed a variable number of militia soldiers, although many soldiers based at Fort Dobbs were sent to fight in Pennsylvania and the Ohio River Valley during the French and Indian War.
5. Scanning further into the article to see if there are similar issues:
   • The attack on Fort Dobbs and settlements in the North Carolina Piedmont led the government of North Carolina to join South Carolina and Virginia in their attacks on the Cherokee in their own settlements in North and South Carolina, known as the "Middle" and "Lower Towns". Initially, however, Governor Dobbs notified Governor Lyttelton of South ...

     Repetitive ... attack on ... attacks on ... Also, see here and here for discussions of the overuse of however; please review throughout.

I am not opposing (yet) because the article isn't in bad shape, but I would suggest additional prose checking and tightening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much, I'll have a look later tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking he time to look this over. I will go through the wording a little later (probably simultaneously with Dank) to see if I can make it sound more varied. I sincerely appreciate your comments, and look forward to your responses once the article has been revised accordingly. I've moved my responses to your points below:

1. The more I think about this, the more I think it should just be the French and Indian War, since that encompasses the Anglo-Cherokee war as well. I have made that adjustment.

3. I don't necessarily disagre, but as far as government is concerned, authorization for construction (and in this context it mainly means appropritaing funds) comes initially before the design of a structure. I'd be open or changing the order, though, if it just flows better.'

4. I agree, this sounds strange when I read it now. I'll change. Cdtew (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

5. I only see one use of "however", and I believe that it's the correct usage, since it isn't conjoining two complete thoughts, merely attempting to distinguish the thought that follows it from the prior sentence. I am, however (ha!), replacing it with "though", which is less clunky. Cdtew (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sandy, it looks like all of your points have been addressed (by Cdtew and me), and I'm running through it again now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Done, a few tweaks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Revisit by SandyGeorgia:
Now we have this:

• Used for frontier defense during and after the French and Indian War, the fort was built to protect the British settlers of the western portion of what was then Rowan County, and served as a vital frontier outpost for soldiers, traders, and colonial officials.

  Frontier defense and frontier outpost ... why do we need the second frontier? Otherwise satisfied, although I only did a brief prose scan on my first visit and on this visit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Removed second "frontier". - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'm satisfied here (unwatch). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- A belated welcome to FAC on behalf of the delegates, Cdtew... I'll want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which is standard procedure for new nominators (and is generally expected every so often for old FAC hands as well). If one of the reviewers above would like to take care of that, well and good, otherwise I'll scout around for someone to action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been posted at MilHist for a day or so, and I just posted it at WikiProject:NC; no responses yet. Cdtew (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Still no response, it seems. If it makes the spot check simpler, I have copies of pretty much all of the items in the bibliography (aside from some that I used the online version of only). If anyone needs scans, I'd be happy to send them. Cdtew (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks of 7 sources:

• "generally accepted by the academic community" - not sure this can be argued based only on the source given, though I don't doubt it to be true
• "constructed from parts of local, 19th-century log structures" - not in cited source
• "At the commencement of the French and Indian War, settlers in the nearby Fourth Creek Congregation settlement took refuge within the fort's walls" - the only thing about this in the cited source is "At times colonists stayed close to the fort's walls for protection". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Issue 1: Changed to reflect source That is a remnant of my original writing, so I've corrected it to conform more with the source. Regardless of academic acceptance (and admittedly, it hasn't seen any real academic comment as the Babits proposal was prepared privately for the Friends organization), the only two entities whose approval matters are the Friends (who are funding the project), and the State (whose historical site it is). As of now, both are all-in on reconstruction based on Babits.
• Issue 2: Done That was a forgotten cite to a different part of the website. It's not an independent source, but its not really controversial information; I believe I've seen this mentioned in one of my book sources, and if I find it (and if you think it'd be better) I'll replace it when I'm able with a third-party source. I imagine the third party source, however, will base its info on the state or the non-profit saying that's what it is, though.
• Issue 3: Done I've conformed my wording more closely to the fort. A later source I quote (Lofaro) does say that Daniel Boone's extended family found protection "in" the fort, but I checked back and it doesn't clarify or expand on that beyond a mention. Thanks for the s/c! Let me know if anything else pops up - I've been working on this for so continuously that these just got lost in the mix, or I never went back and clarified. Cdtew (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about #2, it's not a concern to have a non-independent source for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:13, 8 February 2013‎ [2].

---

Homework (Daft Punk album)

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Homework is the debut studio album released by French electronic music duo Daft Punk in January 20, 1997. Considered a blend of house, techno, acid, funk and occasionally hip-hop, its success brought worldwide attention to French progressive house music and incited interest in French touch music, as several touch artists gained influence from Homework's style. According to The Village Voice, the album revived house music and broke free from the "Eurodance formula". — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments – just taking a brief look; no plans on opposing or supporting right now.

• No hyphen in "hip hop". Also, links should be disambiguated to Hip hop music.
• Quotations need citations, even if in the lead. And links are discouraged within them, per MOS.
• Chart tables must be formatted per WP:ACCESS. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have addressed all. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The charts table needs plain row headers. Also, with regard to the certification table, why are the column widths forced? The chart headings are also unneeded. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Elaborate? I'm lost... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I think the error in the chart peak position table is that you forgot the "scope=row" for each chart but got the table class right ("wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"). In the certification table, you specified the preferred width of the columns. Is there a particular reason for this, because for accessibility reasons, sizes of images and table columns is better not forced. Both tables have headings too ("Countries and certifications" eg). They're not needed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay. I guess I got it all, although I can't add "scope="row"" before the {{albumchart}} template because the template already includes it, AFAIK. Anything else? :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Bam! Finally, make sure the charts are in alphabetical order in the table. I overlooked that one. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
              • ¬¬ Are you serious? haha consider it done :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
                • And consider my comments resolved! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
                  • Thanks Penguin :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

Not all bad, but certainly not there in terms of featured content. I note that a peer review was not conducted before FAC and would recommend this before coming here in future. A lot of what I have noted could have been avoided with a good peer review. There maybe a lot here, so you may wish to pull its FAC and initiate a peer review before resubmission. Then again, you may not. Either way, here is my review:

Lead *"Considered a blend of house, techno, acid, funk and occasionally hip hop, its success brought worldwide attention to French progressive house music and incited interest in French touch music, as several touch artists gained influence from Homework's style." --> seems a bit long and could do with being broken up to prevent breathlessness ;)

• "Critically and commercially acclaimed, <---BY WHO---> Homework was considered to be one of the best electronic albums of the decade, as well as "the foundation" of the "French touch" movement, although Darren Gawle from Drop-D Magazine called its content as"amateurish".
• You keep saying "Commercially successful and critically acclaimed, but it might be good to see evidence of this with a show of album sales, chart position etc.

Recording history

*"Daft Punk returned to the studio in May 1995 to record "Da Funk", and the same year, it was released alongside "Rollin' & Scratchin'" as singles under the Soma label." --> "Daft Punk returned to the studio in May 1995 to record "Da Funk" which was released later that year alongside "Rollin' & Scratchin'" under the Soma label."

• "The ensuing popularity of Daft Punk's singles led to a bidding war among record labels, which resulted in the duo signing to Virgin Records in 1996." --> We see no evidence of the "ensuing popularity" up until this point. If the singles which are mentioned in the first paragraph were successful, then you will need to say so and provide a ref.
• Their departure was noted by Richard Brown of Soma, who stated that "We were obviously sad to lose them to Virgin but they had the chance to go big, which they wanted, and it's not very often that a band has that chance after two singles. We're happy for them." -- Sounds like an admission to me rather than a stated comment.
• "Bangalter later stated that the B-side "was never intended to be on the album, and in fact, 'Da Funk' as a single has sold more units than Homework, so more people own it anyways than they would if it had been on the album. It is basically used to make the single a double-feature." Does he say "anyways"? If so, use a [sic] to show the mistake is intentional.
• WP:OVERLINK to Paris. I'm sure most would know where Paris is.
• OVERLINK to Mastering as it directs to the same article as "mastered" in the previous paragraph.
• Could you briefly describe who Slam are? I have no idea who they are and I had to click off the article to find this information out. Not good when you want to retain the reader. Perhaps say; " In 1993 Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo presented a demo of their own electronic music to DJ Stuart Macmillan at a rave in EuroDisney."
• "Virgin re-released "Da Funk" with the B-side "Musique" in 1996, before releasing Homework." - When, the same year? A year later?
• "The album was mixed and recorded in their own studio, Daft House in Paris, France." Do we need to be told Paris is in France?

Structure

*"Homework is considered to be a blend of house, techno, acid, funk and occasionally hip hop." -- by who?

• "The following track, "WDPK 83.7 FM" is considered a tribute to FM radio in the United States." -- by who?
• Why the link to the French government? This is self explanatory isn't it?
• "It is immediately followed by "Da Funk", which is considered to carry elements of funk and acid music." -- by who? If no one, then consider rewording to: "It is immediately followed by "Da Funk", which carries elements of funk and acid music." Either it does or it doesn't.
• "The song "Fresh" is stated to be breezy and light, and the duo consider its structure to be comical." -- who "stated" this? Where is this "stated"?
• "Michel Gondry likewise compared the track's bassline to that of "Good Times" by Chic." -- Likewise? Like who?
• ""Around the World" and "Da Funk" have been named among the best songs of their time." -- by who?
• WP:OVERLINK to Soma Recordings. Also, the correct name should be given to avoid confusion; in this instance "Soma Quality Recordings". If not, be consistent with which name you use, and only link once.
• "Daftendirekt" is an excerpt of a live performance recorded at the first I Love Techno Party in Ghent." Not many people will know where Ghent is so you could mention it is in Belgium.
• "The song sampled a previous track, 'Musique.'" - Too stubby. Could you either elaborate on this, or merge it into a fuller sentence?
• "to communicate its message of dumb fun." - who said this because your using inverts?
• Who is Michel Gondry? -- again, I'm clicking the link to find out.

Singles

*"Homework featured singles..." -- why the past tense?

• number-one single -- no hyphen
• WP:OVERLINK to United Kingdom and France. Everyday English words that are expected to be understood in the general context, should not be linked
• OVERLINK to "Da Funk"
• "Revolution 909" should be linked on its first mention

Commercial performance

• "Upon its release in 1997, overwhelming sales of Homework caused distributors to accelerate production and satisfy demand." -- Did the distributors accelerate production to satisfy demand, or was this a separate goal, in which case the "and" would be correct.
• "The album appeared in 35 countries throughout the world and sold over two million copies in a few months after it release." -- this kind of information should really be mentioned in the lede.
• "The album peaked at number 150 on the Billboard 200.[40] Homework first charted on the Australian Albums Chart on April 27, 1997, appearing a total eight weeks and peaking at number 37." -- and this.
• In fact, most of the rest of this section could do with a mention within the lede.
• "The fourth single was "Burnin'", released on September 1997" - on or in?
• "The fifth and final single released from Homework was "Revolution 909", on February 1998." - In the interests of copy editing, I think we could get away with saying "The final single released from Homework was "Revolution 909", on February 1998."
• Check the last paragraph; it is usual to finish with a citation. Can one be found?
• "Homework first charted on the Australian Albums Chart on April 27, 1997, appearing a total eight weeks and peaking at number 37." -- doesn't read right. May I suggest ending it with"...appearing over an eight week period and peaking at number 37."
• Homework was certified Gold by the British Phonographic Industry, for more than 100,000 copies sold. -- reads better by saying Homework was certified Gold by the British Phonographic Industry, for selling over 100,000 copies.
• " In 1999, it was certified Gold in France for 100,000 copies sold." -- again here.

Critical response

*And it proved to many club-goers that there was more to dance music than pills and keyboard presets." -- why are you starting the sentence with a conjunction? Does the period exist in the original quote?

• WP:OVERLINK to "Da Funk"

Track listing

• WP:OVERLINK to Thomas Bangalter & Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo and the tracks.
• Homework's success brought worldwide attention to French progressive house music and incited interest in French touch music, as several touch artists gained influence from its style. -- Could you give an example?
• Be careful in over quoting

Personnel

• Again here. Also, I find that this information would be better suited in prose form within the first sections of the article.

To sum up, far, far off from being featured content in my opinion, but not impossible to make so. There is a gross amount of overlinking, prose is a bit dodgy in places, quite a lot of missing authors of "considered it to be" and "is considred" etc and a need to swap a few "stated" for other descriptive words, such as "claimed", "confirmed", "said", "wrote", "described" etc. No rush for fixes, but if these comments are going to take too much time, then I would reconsider FAC until a peer review has been completed. If you choose to do this, I will happily move all this to there and take part. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey. Thanks for your lenghty and detailed comments. I have fixed all but one, the "ensuing popularity" one. If you have more comments, I'd be glad to fix them ASAP. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wow! Please excuse my preemptive and quite frankly defeatist attitude. Most would have run a mile at the length of this review and emerged over the hills at peer review; kudos for your resilience and double quick responses. I will check over again and report back at the next opportunity. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

*Still getting links appear on the second or third mention. I have done a couple but you will need to go through and secure the rest.

• Check for single linking to "The New Wave"
• Check for the correct amount of inverted commas when speaking of the single "Burnin'". Also check that this is not linked on the second usage. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Okay. I'm going to bed now. I will take care of it tomorrow. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay. I will take out all the issues left in an hour or so. Thanks :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I did another scan and fixed everything, I guess. Please check again. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• All done. My only two gripes now are the lede, which now appears a little too short and could be extended to three paragraphs,and the rather redundent "Personnel" section. This would benefit from being incorporated into the main text, possibly within the "structure" section (with a mention in the extended lede).
  • I am very lazy to expand the lead. I consider that it crafts the information very well, and I don't like odd-numbered leads :) Anyways, I will see what I can do. If it needs expansion, so be it :)

::*Yes, it does touch upon much of the information, but there is no mention of who the "duo" is (maybe introduce them by name within the lede somewhere near the top). If you could add at least this, I would be happy enough to strike this comment.

• Consider it done :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I don't find the personnel section redundant. I mean, this section is standard in album articles, AFAIK. I know that, as the duo is the only notable workers of the album, it may look as redundant, but I consider the opposite. I will leave it there for now :)

• I disagree. I don't really review music or album articles, so I'm not sure of the correct layout. I feel it is poorly situated and aesthetically uneasy on the eye. I would prefer an earlier mention within the "Structure" section. I would be interested in what others think.

*I'm no good with graphs and tables etc and have had to seek help with my two FL's. I do find the ugly white space under the smaller table an eyesore. I don't suppose there is anything we can do about that though. Check the tables against WP:ACCESS and you can't go to wrong in my opinion.

• • Yeah, they meet WP:ACCESS. After several FLs, I got the grasp of that for this tables, I guess.
• I won't do spot checks, these will need to be done at a later date but keep the "Retrieved on" and "Retrieved" consistent. That's all for now. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Will do. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

*Support - per resolved comments above and the confirmation Penguin has given in relation to the tables. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Still no resolution to the "Personnel" section which could be the straw that broke the camels back. Also, it is clear that there are still a number of prose issues, some of which slipped past me during my initial review above. I'm not opposing right now, but I feel I can't support either at the moment, pending improvement and the deletion of the pointless Personnel section. I will be staying Neutral for the time being and revisit it a week or two. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The article is now tip-top thanks to Mark's cute copyediting skills. As far as I can see all issues raised have now been fixed and I am happy to supports its promotion. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaning towards oppose – still needs a bit more work w.r.t. prose, sources and media. Read halfway into the article:

• The prose is still a little fluffy. For example: "The duo commented that they had produced the series of tracks without an initial plan [plans] to release an album."
• More: "However, after working on several projects that were intended to be separate singles over five months, the duo considered the material to be good enough to make [for] an album."
  • The first part's been addressed, but not the other one. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Unclear: "...Homework appeared in 35 countries throughout the world..." – I understand what you're saying, but "appeared in x countries" is not clear.
• When identifying a greater quantity than the given figure, "more than" is nicer than "over".
  • Still some in the commercial performance section. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• More redundancy: "...and was considered to be the foundation of the French touch movement."
• Unclear and a bit muddy: "The album features singles that had significant impact in the French house and global dance music scenes." (I have reread this and understood it now)
• Compound adjectives like "number one" here need to be hyphenated: "These include the US Billboard Hot Dance/Club Play number one singles 'Da Funk' and 'Around the World', the latter of which reached number 68 on the Billboard Hot 100."
• Unpleasant fused participle: "...which resulted in the duo signing to Virgin Records in 1996."
• Still redundancy, no need for "own": "The album was mixed and recorded in their own studio..."
• More: "the duo remain the owners of their master recordings through the Daft Trax label." – "remain the owners of" → "still own".
• "a series of" is often too wordy, like here: "At first, Daft Punk produced a series of tracks without a plan to release an album."
  • First sentence in Structure: remove "series of". —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• "[more listenable]" seems unnecessary.
• Better in active voice than passive: "'Daftendirekt' was sampled by Janet Jackson on her song "So Much Betta", which was included in her tenth studio album, Discipline in 2008." – so something like "Janet Jackson sampled 'Daftendirekt' on her song "So Much Betta", which was included in her tenth studio album, Discipline in 2008."
• What makes WhoSampled and Sputnikmusic high quality reliable sources?
• Why did you use the audio samples? They're non-free and need specific well explained captions and rationales for use. Audio samples are used to illustrate the sound of a song.
  • Elabaoration needed in the fair-use rationales. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a very well done contribution, but needs some work before it can be crisp and considered as one of Wikipedia's best. I'm willing to go further down the article once I'm happy with the upper half. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I finally convinced Mark Arsten to give it a copyedit. WhoSampled is not much reliable, I thought I have removed it. Sputnikmusic is a high quality music site, very reliable. Each review undergoes editorial oversight and is written by a proffesional set of staff writers. I see no issue there. I will expand the captions and raionales of the samples. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Sputnikmusic is generally not a high quality source since it is a mixture of user contributors and staff reviewers. Your review in particular is by an emeritus, so I guess that would be like a former staff reviewer. Not sure. I'll look into it a bit more. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Care must be taken when using Sputnikmusic. Captions have been expanded and WhoSampled is removed. I will take care of the rationales later. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Mark Arsten has finished copyediting the article. I think that this solved any prose issues left. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The prose has improved, but all my points have not been addressed yet. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Now they have, I guess. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have revisited and struck through whichever points have been addressed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the rest I guess. Some of the ones you didn't srtuck were already solved by Mark when he copyedited (I am unable to find them) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have revisited again. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Got the ones left. I think that the FURs are well done. I don't know how to expand them further. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This and this have generic rationales and do not explain how that audio sample in particular is useful to the article. Discuss the songs in question. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me see that I can do. I didn't see this comment before. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have expanded the rationales. Take a look at them and tell e if they are okay. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks a lot better! Just one more issue above re. "remain the owners of". —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 03:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! :) Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed and I've withdrawn my oppose. If I have time, I'll look at the article again sometime later. Best, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment media (done GermanJoe (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

• File:Daft_Punk_-_Around_The_World_(LP_Version).ogg - per WP:NFCC (section 10.c) the sound file needs a separate fair-use rationale for each separate usage. Simply copy the complete "Non-free use rationale"-template and add new parameters for the Homework-article (use a different rationale text, specific for the different article). GermanJoe (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Not yet:

1. Inconsistent citation format, authors have some first name last name, others last name, first name. Some pages are p. with a space, others are p. without a space before the page number.

   I think I took care of this. Will check again soon.

   I fixed multiple stragglers: [3] why is the book source listed under "Notes"? It isn't a Note-- it's either Bibliography, or Sources, or something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   I will do another scan tomorrow night, as I won't be available all day I guess. I changed the header to Bibliography. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Reliability check needed ... for example, http://www.westnet.com/

   Will check again.

   I don't know about Westnet, but Bob Gajarsky seems to be a recognized journalist and this makes this information, written by him, reliable enough for FA status. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

   Also, digging a bit furhter, WestNet is only hosting the issues of Comsumable Online (old archive from 1997 using Archive.org), "the oldest music reviews publication on the Internet, consists of reviews, interviews, tour information and other music related information." The magazine closed on August 1, 2000, and then all issues went to WestNet, which was the web service provider of the magazine.[4] Bob Gajarsky was the editor in chief and founder of the magazine.[5] The primary source says that the magazine was referred to by NetGuide as the "no-frills alternative music authority" (here is the issue, although not preview is available). I managed to find this, this and this by now. I guess this is enough to prove it is reliable. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

   (Without knowing all of that, it looked like a copyright violation, which we shouldn't link to). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Logical quotation (MOS:LQ_ review needed, samples: He contended that it proved "there was more to dance music than pills and keyboard presets." and ... into the record in a way that was "a groundbreaking achievement."

   Will take care of this this weekend. I am way too busy in weekdays.

   LQ check still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   I already did this. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

4. WP:ITALICS review needed, I saw for example Slant Magazine and Stylus Magazine ... are those available in hard print or are they websites? If they are available in hard print, they should be italicized ... pls review throughout.

   Indeed, they are not published on paper. Will fix ASAP.

   If they are not published on paper, they don't need italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   I have done this too. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

5. Redundant prose? " ... Ian Mathers of Stylus Magazine, in his review of the album, noted that ... please review throughout.

   Hmm I got a very good copyeditor so I don't know what to do. I will read and remove all redundancies I get.

   Now the sentence has a grammatical error:

   • Ian Mathers of Stylus Magazine was somewhat critical with the song, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   • Fixed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

6. I don't know what some of this means:

   It also sparked interest in French touch music, and several touch artists gained influence from its style. According to The Village Voice, the album revived house music and broke free from the Eurodance formula.

   "Gained influence"? the album broke free from the Eurodance formula? Please review throughout to make sure the prose is understandable to someone who isn't familiar with the topic.

   Well, I am not familiar with the topic as a whole and I got the meaning of it. I will take a look again. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   I hadn't read Sandy's comments before looking at the lead but exactly the same phase stood out for me. I've never heard the expression "gained influence from" before -- I assume you mean "gained inspiration from" or, preferably, "took inspiration from" or simply "were influenced by". BTW, I'm happy generally with "broke free from the Eurodance formula" but I think standard English would be "broke free of", not "broke free from". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

   Wow, I forgot that it was also written on the lead. I have fixed the phrase by now. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. I did a scan today and took out everything I saw. I will do another scan this weekend, as my time is pretty reduced for wiki on weekdays. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note I think I have adressed all the comments by SandyGeorgia. I am awaiting another check by her to fin out if I left anything behind. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support The article looks great, you've addressed many concerns brought up by other reviewers. If I could suggest one thing, it would be to archive all of the online sources that can be archived. Great work. --JDC808 ♫ 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Discogs isn't reliable, nor is this review Till 15:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done both. Thanks Till. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks good thanks Till 02:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks to you for pointing out those issues Till :) Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to give this a look over sometime soon. At first glance, I'd reduce the dependence on liner notes (a primary source) as much as possible. Find suitable secondary sources to back up the same information (or at least the important portions worth keeping). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Upon a brief glance, I see Discogs still used as a ref in the article, twice. And though this doesn't necessarily mean such coverage exisst, but looking through the footnotes I notice many of the more noteworthy music publications are absent. Are you sure there's nothing to be found about the album from articles published by Rolling Stone, Spin, NME, Melody Maker, The Wire, Q, and Uncut, just to name a few? A quick search using Google Books turned up useful magazine articles from CMJ and Billboard (the latter of which crucially provides a SoundScan sales figure for the record). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, well, I havent checked for new info for a long time. I will try to check tonight to add anything I could have missed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, taking a look at those links you added, they only were useful for commercial data. I didn't find anything worthy to be added that wasn't already explained on the article. When I expanded the reception section, I tried to be as comprehensive as possible, so I don't think I have missed anything. Anyways, I will do a check just in case. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wesley, this nom has been open quite some time and at this stage we appear to have consensus to promote, so if you want to review further I'd ask that you do so posthaste... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I'd love to see and discuss any comments Wesley may have on the article's talk page. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments – After a quick look, I found Ref 42 to be dead [6]. Also, in the lead you specify that the album appeared on 35 national charts, however there are only 14 in the charts section. Are other country chart positions unavailable? I also noted that in the critical performance section, you include only five reviews in the table. Why is Rolling Stone or The Village Voice not included in the table? — DivaKnockouts (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the reference now. Replaced "35 national charts" with "14 national charts" after checking the source (it said distributed in 35 countries, which is not the same as appeared on 35 national charts). About the magazines, I have no idea why they aren't showing because they are on the table :/ I have fixed the issue and now they appear. I can't add The Village Voice because they offered no score. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – per resolution of above comments by other users and mine as well. Article looks up to standard for a FA. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. In the 'Critical reception' section, shouldn't "sparkled" be "sparked"? Also, is it possible to expand the commercial performance section so that all (or most) chart placements are mentioned? Till 04:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh. I think that "sparked" is the correct word. WRT your second comment, that has always been discouraged on album articles. Only relevant charts should be covered in prose, as well as certification and sales. A discussion about this was held some time ago and the result was that including all charts in prose was a breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Interesting...do you know where I can find the archive of this dicussion? :) Till 10:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Let me see if I can find it. It was a while ago. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The prose has improved a lot from the start of the nomination and I think this article deserves the bronze star. Good job Hahc! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Tom :D — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Amazing article; It definitely meets all the requirements needed to obtain the featured article status. Good job, Hahc21!. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:13, 8 February 2013‎ [7].

---

Alloxylon flammeum

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Short and sweet – I am nominating this for featured article because it's about as comprehensive as it could possibly be as I've read everything I can find on it. Not very long but has come together nicely and I like to finish the job. I even took some nice photos and have it growing in my garden :) Have at it... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Did you miss the following article? Sasata (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Title: Vegetative cutting and in vitro propagation of the tree waratah, Alloxylon flammeum P-Weston and Crisp (family Proteaceae)

Author(s): Donovan, NJ; Offord, CA; Tyler, JL

Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE Volume: 39 Issue: 2 Pages: 225-229 DOI: 10.1071/EA97106 Published: 1999

Hmmm, I think in looking in my library digitally I came up with a more general one when searching for this one - found now and useful. Will add in a sec. added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• this source says it is slow growing and may not flower for 7–8 years (but flowers in 2 years in the tropics under ideal conditions); this is a bit more specific than what's currently given in the article. It also mentions it's sensitive to frost, and it has a range map. Also mentions that it should not be fertilized.

aaah, the range map there is of where it can be grown, not where it occurs. I can do up a map later tonight though. The Burke book is a bit clumsy though as it likes fertiliser, just they can't have a high phosphorus content (as it itself says, using a native fertiliser. straight after. Still it does have some good stuff to add which I will do soonish. I am wary about the frost assumption given it has been grown in Melbourne. Burke and others have assumed Queensland plants would not tolerate cold and been wrong before. Pre Xmas clutter here...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

range map added now Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• since the target article (EPBC Act) doesn't explain it, perhaps it might be good to mention what a "vulnerable" classification means (available here)

Good find - I was looking for something like that. Added now - wasn't sure whether to do verbatim plus quotation marks or reword. Went with latter but not averse to former. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• any picture of the seeds?

aargh, there is a big plant in the botanic gardens. Might take a look today if I get a chance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded a picture of the seed pods here. Please feel free to use or not use as you see fit. --Melburnian (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just went out and snapped one now from a street tree near my house...but yours is better, so added now Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• if your garden plant has flowers, any chance you could snap a clear, close-up pic? The current lead pic is acceptable, but if you've got the material at hand … If not, I think File:‪Alloxylon flammeum flwr rbgsyd email.jpg‬ is a superior image (lighting could be better though). Consider putting a picture of the entire plant in the taxobox, and close-ups of other bits elsewhere. If you've still got an immature potted plant, consider retaking the picture with better lighting, proper framing, and minus the distracting household stuff :)

I switched images - tree in taxobox, closeup of flower in description section. My plants are too young for flowers, and I have planted them in the garden now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• how does this species differ from A. pinnatum?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• ref #7 (Zich & West, Factsheet) gives some extra details about the flowers, fruits, and seedlings

details added - some material on seedlings at beginning of section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• worth mentioning that the plant was also listed as vulnerable by the IUCN in 1997?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I like all the new additions (you gave me everything I wanted ... must be Christmas or something). I don't suppose you could clonestamp out the power line in the lead pic? I'll be back with a prose review in the next few days (visitors have arrived so free time is spotty). Sasata (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

trimmed image and removed powerline now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It has shiny green leaves, and prominent orange-red inflorescences which appear in spring, followed by rectangular woody seed pods which ripen in late summer." which->that (x2); spring/summer not optimal according to WP:SEASON

changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Described formally by Peter Weston and Mike Crisp in 1991, it was designated the type species" "It" slightly ambiguous here (the initial specimen? the one cultivated? the subject of the article?)

changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• link canopy, Mabi rainforest

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "indicate that the species is bird pollinated." -> "indicate that the species is pollinated by birds." better?

tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The lead is a little short. I don't see anything about cultivation, and you could include some basic morphology (e.g., how tall does it grow, how long are the leaves), and briefly mention why it's considered vulnerable.

tweaked, so all these items are in the lead now...I have massaged the lead and the cultivation sections...how do they look now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "this is a rainforest tree which can reach" which->that

changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The new growth is hairy." is this referring to new bark?

branchlets and leaves - clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "but then have narrow elliptic entire leaves" I think the average reader is less likely to know what "entire" means than "elliptic"

changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "These are then succeeded by juvenile leaves which have" which->that (please audit throughout; which generally follows a comma)

changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "These are then succeeded by juvenile leaves which have two to nine lobes arising at 30 to 40 degrees forwards" cannot picture what this is trying to say

The leaves are pinnate, and the lobes are pointed towards the apex at 30-40 rather than being perpendicular to the axis of the leaf. Maybe aligning the photo here will help Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Want to make sure I'm reading this correctly … the juvenile leaves are up to 50 cm, but the adult leaves are only up to half that long?

yup - weird I know. I suspect the larger juvenile leaves are for low light conditions in the understory, but I have not seen that discussed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The pedicel and the outer surface of the perianth pubescent (covered in short fine fur)." fix

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The seedlings have obovate (egg-shaped)" obovate has already been wikt-linked previously, so the gloss should be removed (or moved to earlier)

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The New Guinea species A. brachycarpum resembles A. flammeum but has duller flowers and shorter wider leaves, and fewer hairs on its perianth." How about "The New Guinea species A. brachycarpum resembles A. flammeum but has duller flowers, leaves that are shorter and wider, and fewer hairs on its perianth."

tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• if the pollen colour of A. pinnatum is mentioned in the description section as a character to distinguish it from A. flammeum, the pollen colour of the latter should be given as well.

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• link Trinity Bay, Tolga Scrub

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "and what became known as Oreocallis sp. nova." shouldn't that be novum?

Oreocallis is feminine, hence "nova". Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Aside from tree waratah, it has also been called the satin oak, pink silky oak, satin silky oak, tree waratah,"

oops, fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The genus name is derived from Ancient Greek allo- "other" or "strange" and xylon or "wood" due to" I think ", and refers to" works better than "due to" as the latter implies a cause/effect that doesn't seem to fit

agree/tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "along with the true waratahs (Telopea), and Oreocallis and Chilean firetree (Embothrium coccineum) from South America." and … and

tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "hence the subtribe's origin and floral appearance most likely predates" ->predate

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• link sister species, understory, invasive plant, Victoria, iron deficiency, cutting

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).[1] That is, there is a high risk" how about "under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act),[1] which indicates that there is a high risk" (or similar, to remove the odd "that is, there is" construction)

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It does best in a well drained soil" hyphen

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Applying mulch to the soil around the plant and extra water in dry spells helps." helps what? (I know, but it sounds odd to leave it trailing like this)

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "fertilisers specifically for Australian native plants" Australian native plants or native Australian plants?

hmm, never heard them called the latter, always the former or "Australian plants" or just "natives" here..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• "and need support with stakes." "and need to be supported with stakes." better?

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• what is Clonex Red? If this is a specific product, perhaps it should be left out and replaced with generic "rooting hormone" or something? The specific amount used is maybe too much detail. If you don't think so, use 8 g rather than 8000 mg, and spell out litre to make it clear that it's applied as a solution.

they prefer 8000 mg in the source (and others) - it is a high concentration. Removed Aussie trade name and rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• link scion, rootstock, cut flower

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• last sentence about timber leaves me wanting to know more. Anything else that could be added to this?

annoyingly, I haven't found anything. I can't imagine it being used now due to its environmental status... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• In general, the prose in "Cultivation" sounds choppy.

yeah, not thrilled reading through it again - am a bit tired now - I changed a bit and will have another run through tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• need an accessdate for APNI, IBIS database?

Untemplated ref for the time being - will see if the template can be tweaked (for future use) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• publisher location for ref #3?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• need to indicate that Weston & Crisp (1991) is a PDF

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• are authors initials spaced (ref#8) or not (#18)?

unspaced Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• can you narrow down the page range for ref #8?

narrowed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• ref #9 (Weston et al. 2006) is available online as a PDF

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• journal article titles are not consistently title or sentence case (but be careful with those cite doi templates: if you change the case to be consistent in this article, you may throw off formatting in another article that uses the same cite doi … that's why I don't like 'em!)

fair point - luckily I don't know of any editors opting for sentence case.....are there? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Me (for journal article titles), but you don't have to worry about me messing with your doi templates :-) Sasata (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• don't need accessdate for print/PDF material in refs #13, #14

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• publisher location for ref #36 (Walter & Gillet 1998)?

fixed (glitch in ref fmting) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Each flower consists of a tubular perianth up to 4 cm (1.8 in) long, which partly splits along one side at anthesis to release the thick style, which is tipped with a slanting disc-like structure that contains the stigma." tweak to remove the repetitive which

• How about "Each flower consists of a tubular perianth up to 4 cm (1.8 in) long, which partly splits along one side at anthesis to release a thick style. The stigma is contained within a slanting disc-like structure at the tip of the style." Sasata (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

yep. I'll take it. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Ok, I've exhausted my nitpick supply for this article, and think it now meets the FAC criteria. Check my final copyedits to make sure I haven't messed anything up. Sasata (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

copyedits look ok. Last example might be tricky to fix....hmmm...thinking...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN1: wrong dash

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations

all books should be sorted now Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• FN13: publisher?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• FN17, 18: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

fixed x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim A few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perianth, style, stigma, notophyll — need links or explanation

linked first three - last is a bit tricky...will think on the best thing to do here... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Found on basalt- or granite-based soil, it is found in

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cultivation section, paras look a bit unbalanced for length

stubby para appended Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• not widely grown. It has been grown

grown --> cultivated Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• A large tree grows in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. — Not clear about the significance of this particular tree

I might have to think about rewording it. Essentially it is that it has been there for over 50 years and is growing happily there. i.e. happy in sydney climate. It's a fairly imposing tree and oft talked about in native plant enthusiast circles... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• successful in experiments Clonex Red (8000 mg indole-3-butyric acid/L) applied, — word missing?

reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Its soft silky timber resembles that of oak — I can't say that those two adjectives spring to mind with regard to oak, at least not regarding our species.

dunno. I guess oak is soft compared with our mighty eucalypt hardwoods...I'm not a timber expert so can't comment authoritatively..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Sydney tree still needs a little clarification, but I'm happy to support while you ponder that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (own work, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.

• File:Cacatua_galerita_in_a_Alloxylon_flammeum_tree-8a.jpg is no longer available under CC-license on Flickr. Per a recent discussion existing CC-licenses of downloaded files are still OK according to the CC-regulations - no action required. GermanJoe (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments on Taxonomy from Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Ferdinand von Mueller had described what is now known as Alloxylon wickhamii but also collected material of this species at Trinity Bay in 1881, not realising it was a separate species." Does "this" refer to A. wickhamii or A. flammeum?

A. flammeum - clarified now - tossed up whther to add "what would be named" before it... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• "It was only in the 1980s that it dawned on botanists" Unencyclopedic tone. How about "It was only in the 1980s that botanists realized" ?

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "With the recognition of the distinctness of the Australian members of the genus Oreocallis and their reallocation to the new genus Alloxylon, it was given its current binomial name of Alloxylon flammeum in 1991 by Peter Weston and Mike Crisp of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney, the type material having been collected by Garry Sankowsky and Peter Radke from Tolga Scrub in August 1987." This could easily be split into two (or even three sentences).

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The genus name is derived from Ancient Greek allo- "other" or "strange" and xylon or "wood"" What is the purpose of the last "or"? Seems to me that it should be removed unless xylon has multiple meanings.

aaah, a typo...reomved Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the Eocene radiation of nectar-feeding birds" I have no idea what "radiation" means in this context.

Evolutionary radiation - linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand why all latin names are italicized except "Embothriinae". Is this one special?

It is a subtribe rank - this rank (like family or order) is not italicised Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

Placeholder - hoping to review soon. --Rschen7754 23:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The second paragraph has three sentences that start with "Alloxylon flammeum" - try to mix it up?

made less repetitive... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• The EPBC Act in... Australia?

tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Description

• The flowers sit atop stalks (known as pedicels) to 3.5 cm (1.6 in) in length, - up to?

tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Two consecutive [5] references.

removed first and added commented out note after second (in editing page) to indicate it covers two previous sentences Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Conservation status

• What do you mean by "state-based"?

As opposed to Federal (i.e. National), australia has state government with state-based laws and policies Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• There's no external links, which looks just a little odd. --Rschen7754 07:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

removed header Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Should be a support after these minor issues are resolved. --Rschen7754 23:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks in advance :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support not qualified to evaluate comprehensiveness and reference formatting but everything else seems good. --Rschen7754 01:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promote, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 08:37, 5 February 2013‎ [8].

---

Percy Fender

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Percy Fender was the England cricket captain who never was. Something of a cricketing maverick, his face never fitted with the people who mattered and he was destined to spend his time trying to force wins out of a fairly average county team and come up with some fairly outlandish tactical theories. An unusual sort of chap, and he bore a marked resemblance to Groucho Marx! This article is currently a GA and has had a PR from Brianboulton. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-1923). Sources provided, images with unknown authors kept on Wiki.

• For the images with unclear UK authorship, you could try to upload them to Commons with Commons:template:PD-UK-unknown (after a "reasonable enquiry" searching for the author details failed - see commons template-documentation). Just a suggestion, if you want to have the images on Commons, the current solution works too. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is plainly FA material, but I make a few observations before adding my support.

• Sussex career
  • "His performances the Gentlemen" – missing a preposition, such as "with" or "for"
• Career in wartime
  • "Although commissioned as a lieutenant in the Royal Fusiliers, Fender disliked the routine of army life – not sure what the "although" means here. I'd make it more neutral: something on the lines of "Commissioned as a lieutenant in the Royal Fusiliers, Fender disliked the routine of army life"
• Appointment as Surrey captain
  • This really is nit-picking, but on my screen J. W. H. T. Douglas's first three intials are at the end of one line and his fourth is at the start of the next. Non-breaking spaces needed.

• • Or J.W.H.T. Douglas, which I think looks better. Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "regarded his selection a formality" – is this a stylistic preference or have you accidentally omitted "as"?
• Resignation and retirement
  • "Fender offered to resign as Surrey's captain, to give Jardine more experience of leadership" – this is the first mention that Jardine played under Fender for Surrey, and may come as a surprise to non-specialist readers. Perhaps you could say in the previous para "passed this information on to his Surrey colleague Douglas Jardine…"
• Captaincy
  • "he was in the wine trade, which was considered an unsuitable trade for a gentleman" – too many trades; perhaps "occupation" or "career" the second time?
• Personal life
  • "The couple had two children but Ruth died suddenly … Fender remarried in 1962, but his second wife, Susan Gordon, died in 1968." I don't think either of these "but"s is justified. I'd use a semicolon instead – much more neutral.
• References
  • Refs 1 a–m don't actually mention that the work quoted is the ODNB.

Nothing of any great moment there, but worth a look, perhaps. Tim riley (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all these. I've fixed most of them. The only one I've left is the second "but" regarding his wife: the alternatives are two semi-colons in succession or a load of choppy sentences. I think some sort of connection between the two parts needs making, and "but" is the best I can manage! Any other suggestions welcome. The ODNB problem was because I'd used the wrong template; it should be OK now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Support – a model of its kind: full but not over-full, balanced, impressively referenced and a pleasure to read. Meets all FA criteria in my opinion. Tim riley (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: I did a little copyediting at the PR stage. I've nothing really to add to my PR comments; Fender was an interesting cricketer and personality, and his story is well told here. Well done Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged for your help on this one, and for your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Not much to report so far; I've read through everything before Resignation and retirement.

• Sussex career: Don't think Sussex needs the link here, as it was linked in the previous section.
• The same is true for Lord's.
• Appointment as Surrey captain: "his first 100 wickets in a season." Feels a bit awkward, unless "first 100 wickets in a season" is actually used (wouldn't know). Maybe try "his first 100-wicket haul in a season."? Not sure if people use that phrase, though. Basically, you need more cricket knowledge than I have to find better phrasing for this part. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• All these done; I've reworded the last one, as there is no easy cricket expression to cover it! Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Batting, bowling and fielding: "While Fender's love of experimentation and attempts to surprise batsmen made him difficult to bat against, it also caused inconsistency and sometimes conceded many runs." Two problems here. First, "it" needs to be "they" since two items are discussed beforehand. Second, the "sometimes conceded many runs" doesn't work well with the structure of this sentence. "and sometimes led him to concede many runs" sounds better to me, but I'm sure you can find something better.
• Period needed before ref 139.
• The Arlott quote has "Fender was", and later in the sentence there's "he was". It's hard to describe, but this doesn't work as one sentence if you read it as a whole. I'd try going the "Arlott wrote of Fender:" route.
• Captaincy: "Fender's limited success as Test level...". "as" → "at".
• Cricket journalism: An en dash needed for the range in 1920-21. Also, the same applies for 1928-29. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, all these should now be fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Support – Very well written, couldn't find issues. Great job! Zia Khan 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as GA reviewer, good job with the article. Secret ^account 00:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- query & suggestion re. lead:

• Don't think I've seen birth and death places added to the life dates in the first sentence -- is this a trend?
• Cartoonists enjoyed caricaturing his distinctive appearance, but he was also well known outside cricket for his appearances and activities in society -- pedantry but if another word could be found for one of the "appearances"s it'd be nice, paritcularly as the instances have different meanings. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think I got both of these. The first is less an attempt to begin a trend, more of a hangover from old versions of the article! Sarastro1 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources review:

• All sources look good qualitiy and reliable
• One small format inconsistency. Compare ref 90 with 45 and 137'

Otherwise all fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it should be OK now. I don't have a page number for the Fender obituary, and I think that is the only other inconsistency. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Now that the couple little quibbles above have been dealt with, I'm confident that the FA criteria are met. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support and comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 12:06, 3 February 2013‎ [9].

---

The King and I

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Ssilvers (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... we think it meets the criteria. The King and I is indelibly associated with Yul Brynner, but he started out firmly in the shadow of leading lady Gertrude Lawrence. Even if you're unfamiliar with the musical, the songs have become such a part of the background of Western culture, that I'm sure you've heard them. Enjoy. Thanks to Brianboulton and Tim riley for most thorough peer reviews.Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree and note that the article has recently had a very helpful Peer Review. Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote 11 major musicals together between 1943 and 1959; this 1951 work was in the middle of the series. These shows presented well-written stories that explored serious social themes in a way that was revolutionary for musical theatre, clothing them in memorable and evocative musical scores and integrating dancing seamlessly with plot, songs and lavish productions. They established Broadway as the dominant creative force in musical theatre worldwide for decades to come, introducing what is referred to as the "Golden Age" of American musicals. Although The King and I did not, perhaps, push the social envelope as far as some of the team's earlier works, it does involve two stories of forbidden love, a clash of customs between East and West, and portrayals of two Victorian-age women (Anna and Tuptim) who are each alone in a foreign land and must challenge the status quo, which is supported, on the other hand, by a third interesting female character (Lady Thiang). Its depiction of these female characters and the issue of women's independence was, if not novel, at least interesting for a 1951 musical. The King and I has remained popular even after Brynner's 1985 death, despite its dated treatment of an Asian culture, and I thank Wehwalt for his hard work to showcase it so well here on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support – I contributed to the peer review, where my few, and not very troubling, concerns were fully addressed (except perhaps for Decca-v-London as that company's official US label – but that's angels on pinheads territory). This article is, in my view, as good as Wikipedia gets. It is comprehensive, balanced, fully referenced, and the prose is a pleasure to read. Loud applause to the co-noms! (They will be appalled to read that I don't much care for Rodgers and Hammerstein, but I prodigiously enjoyed and admired this article nevertheless.) – Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and the review, and we forgive you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Support – A fantastic piece of work. I have seen the show many times, most recently at the New Victoria Theatre in April last year. Finally, an excellent WP article to compliment such an excellent show! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We're glad you like it. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support – I'm quite prepared to support the promotion of this excellent article. A few thoughts:

• "The relationship between the King and Anna is marked by conflict through much of the piece, as well as by a love that neither is able to admit." – "neither can admit" perhaps?

Agree, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The musical premiered on March 29, 1951 at Broadway's St. James Theatre." – a comma after "1951" seems stylistically sound.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• As far as using "though" goes, I heard it is interchangeable with "although", though I've found the latter recommended in formal writing. Either way is alright with me.

There's formality, and then there's formality. I think for the purposes of a general-level encyclopedia article, we're fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1963, New York Times reviewer Lewis Funke said of the musical" – The New York Times reviewer...

This occurs elswhere also. You're right that the name of the paper is "The New York Times", but it seems awkward (at least in American English) to say "The New York Times" reviewer. What do you think, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is awkward. I think the shortened form of the newspaper's name is acceptable once you have italicized properly at first mention. The reader knows you got it right, and you can use shortened forms if it makes the text flow better.

• Missing closing quotation mark here: "However, Liz Smith enthused: 'The King and I is perfect'; and the Houston Chronicle wrote, of the subsequent tour, 'The King and I is the essence of musical theater, an occasion when drama, music, dance and decor combine to take the audience on an unforgettable journey."

Thanks. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "When the production reached London in 2000, however, it received uniformly positive reviews, with The Financial Times calling it" – with+noun+ing wording should probably be restructured.

Redrawn. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's about it. I'd say Meryle Secrest's quotation is the best possible conclusion to a compelling article! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added my support as my comments have been addressed. This was a great read. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. I added a few missing commas after triple dates, but the article is close to error-free. Mikado should not be linked to from within the quote from Barber in the "Critical reception" section, and "2004 – " might be more enduring than "2004 to present". Very nice job. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I don't view the "don't link within quotes" as a rigid rule, the idea is to avoid guessing what is being talked about. There's no ambiguity about The Mikado.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits and comments. I love all the punctuation fixes, but I'd rather not change "present" to a dash. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support— It's an impressive piece of research and writing, definitely of an FA-quality. Here are a few suggestions:

• consider adding proper alternative texts to the four images that are currently without them;

Bluntly, whenever I add alt text, people find it unsatisfactory so I prefer not to do it. Perhaps Ssilvers will take a crack at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alt texts have always been a pain for me as well. Hopefully Ssilvers will fix them. Cinosaur (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. Feel free to rewrite or point out if I missed any. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• the lead's second sentence has two consecutive clauses "which" and "who": "...by Margaret Landon, which derives from the memoirs of Anna Leonowens, who became governess to the children of King Mongkut of Siam in the early 1860s...". Can we reword it for a better flow, like: "...by Margaret Landon, which derives from the memoirs of Anna Leonowens, a governess to the children of King Mongkut of Siam in the early 1860s..."?

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• do we need the awkward second "who"in this sentence in the lead: "...contacted Rodgers and Hammerstein, who were initially reluctant, but who agreed to write the musical..." Can it be replaced with "then"?

Wehwalt dropped the 2nd who - looks good to me for purposes of Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• consider wikilinking the first occurrence of "King of Siam" in Historical background to Monarchy of Thailand;

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in Historical background: "at a time when the streets of Bangkok were canals..." — due to floods? Is this obvious or could use a bit more clarity?

Well, it's like Venice or Amsterdam, I guess. Wehwalt changed it to say boat transport. Let us know if you think it still needs more clarity. I'm not sure what we'll gain by delving deeper into the geographical history, but maybe something in the Bangkok article would be helpful.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the reader will understand what is meant, and that Anna could not ride through the streets of Bangkok, because they were in such a condition. Seriously, for purposes of a section which is for background purposes, I think the reader is adequately clued in on 19th century Bangkok.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• consider restructuring Historical background for a better temporal flow. The last paragraph starting with ""King Mongkut was about 57 years old in 1861..." just begs to be made the first, setting the context and rationale for his subsequent request for a British governess.

Just want to say that I particularly like this suggestion. It fits my philosophy of writing, which is to start with a simple declarative sentence from which all else builds.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt made it so. Looks good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in Creation, "...consists of episodes, showing vignettes of life at the Siamese court, along with descriptions of historical events..." — was it that some episodes in the book showed vignettes of life, or that the book as a whole illustrated vignettes by means of episodes? If the former, we don't seem to need the first comma here. If the latter, we do need the first comma, but not the second — unless, of course, the Comma Sutra is entirely lost on me...))

Whoa! Watch where you're waving that punctuation. But the changes look good to me -- Wehwalt, please check that you like the final product. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in Act 2: "The prince orders the end of the custom of kowtowing, which Anna had hated." Why the past perfect tense in the consistently present tense narrative? Should be either "which Anna hated" or "which Anna has hated";

I think just "hated" works best, unless Wehwalt feels strongly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a difficult passage. I would say let it go as it is now. It would slow things down to mention it when Anna does, in Act I.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• words "theatre" and "theater" are used interchangeably in the article's text. Consider sticking to a single spelling;

Wehwalt changed it to use "theatre" everywhere except in direct quotes. But my usual convention is to use the word "theater" to refer to a building in which a theatre work is seen. I'm happy enough with this, however. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Only one "theater" existed outside a quotation or a name, so I took that as the easier course.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in 1991 to 2002: "Renshaw pointedly ignored the printed stage directions in the script[106] in reshaping the piece into what he called..." — sorry to nitpick, but the sentence may use slight restructuring to rid it of the three recurring "in"s;

Changed the second one to "when". -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in 1991 to 2002: maybe, wikilinking "emerald Buddha" will explain its significance for the revival and Siamese setting;

Wehwalt made it so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in 1991 to 2002: wikilink the first (and only) occurence of Playbill;

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in 2004 to present: delink Variety, as it's already wikilinked once before;

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in Adaptations: " It featured "Shall We Dance" and "The Small House of Uncle Thomas" ballet, featuring Kikuchi as Eliza" — repetitive "feature";

Good idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in Recordings: wikilink "LP technology" to LP record;

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• in Critical reception: "John Barber called the work "this treacle-bin [[Mikado]]", and declared that only one of the cast" — per WP:LINKSTYLE, "items within quotations should not generally be linked".

See Wehwalt's comment above. I can see it either way, but I think Wehwalt is right that the link is helpful to readers here - some people will know the reference, but to others, it might make the quote very obscure without a link. More discussion welcome. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, they are. We'll work through these and post any comments in response.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All done except: On alt text, see above. On quoted Mikado see my comment to Finetooth above. Very helpful and insightful, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a pleasure reading the article, even with an eye for imperfections. Changed to "Support". Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments and support. I responded to each point above before realizing that I was late for this train. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we are in need of an image review at this point, if anyone looking at this page who isn't Ssilvers or myself would be so kind.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Mongkut caption needs neither colon nor period
• File:King~I~OBP.jpeg should explicitly identify the copyright holder and original publication date, and the rationale seems to be missing a couple of the items from Wikipedia:FUR#Necessary_components
• File:King_Mongkut_and_Prince_Chulalongkorn.jpg needs US PD tag and source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you. I've done the first two and found and uploaded another image in place of the third one, of a stereoscopic image. I cropped it but for some reason it didn't upload that way. I'll play with it later. I think it's better than the image we had.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with that as iPhoto is being difficult. But I have asked Connormah to do a better job on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I like both images, as they show Chulalongkorn as a small boy, perhaps before Anna arrived in Siam, and as a teenager. The difference in dress of the king and heir, with Western shoes, sword and military medals, suggests a westernizing of court dress during this period. I added the PD-US tag. The dead source should not be a problem, as this 150-year-old image in formal, military dress, is a posed photo-op for publication, not a private photo. The image is used here. here is a similar image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the stereoscopic image (once cropped) as it shows a much more natural view of monarch and (part of) family and allows the reader to compare what they are wearing with that in a production. I suspect that many people consult these articles to get a quick learn in preparation for seeing a show.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, or other image folks, can you justify including File:Yul Brynner Samantha Eggar Anna and the King 1972.JPG <---- this image near the Adaptations section, where we discuss the TV series? Note the licensing information given andthe "back" of the image link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Nitpicks

• Ref 17 and several others have a comma after the ext. link marker, which is OK, but I note that other refs have a full stop in this place. This ought to be standardised throughout.

All commas now, except in book refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 37: Internet Broadway Database should not be italicised

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 58: Ditto

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 60: "Playbill" not italicised. See 37, 78 et al

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 71: Quote marks open

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 79: publisher should not be italicised

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 81: Title not in quotes. There are others, e.g. 103, 110, 111, 123, 124

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 86: Overitalics - date and retrieval date

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 87 looks to have a different format from the rest

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 89: I'm sure this shoild be Companion not companion

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 99: Incomplate format. The souvenir program would have had a publisher

The producers of the tour were the publishers. Wehwalt, did the R&H Org produce this tour? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it as I review the programs on Thursday. I don't presently have anything one way or the other. I think "publisher" is a bit of a stretch for a printed program, but I'll see what I can do. It looks like there are Playbills extant from the Broadway portions of the tour.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. According to Capua, it was Mitch Leigh, I've inserted that and modified the text to indicate he both produced and directed. Directing Yul Brynner must have been ... interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 113: lacks retrieval date

Added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 114: Ditto

Added, although the text does not show up unless you mouse over it. Wehwalt is there a fix for that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 152: Quote marks open

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• There do not appear to be citations from Block, Bloom & Vlastnik or the Rodgers autobiography.

Block is used in footnote 10. Bloom tidbits now added. Wehwalt,should we remove Rodgers, put it under "Further reading" or add something from it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll further reading it as soon as I'm sure I won't edit conflict you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

General comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on these today and tomorrow and would be grateful for Ssilver's assistance with the ones which require broad checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comments so far, Brian! Wehwalt, I took care of most of them, but I left you one or two questions above, and of course check my changes to see if you have agree and/or have better changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: No further comments on the general content which I reviewed in depth during the PR process and has been improved by further tweaking here. The outstanding source/citation issues, above, are trivial. A first-class article by an established premier league team. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments both at PR and here! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Suggest replacing Brynner's picture with one depicting his role in that musical. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a problem. Since we have the free image, it's hard to justify a fair use one. I hope to be going to a performing arts library later in the week, perhaps I will happen upon something PD. this page seems very promising if I can spend some time going through the physical programs and seeing if they lack copyright notices. I'm confident the ones from the original run won't have a copyright notice as a Playbill I have for Me and Juliet, which was later, lacks one and I used the cover in that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We have some now, and more are available if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Support (provisional): I've made a few minor edits myself; here are some further suggestions. This is an excellent and well-written article.

• A general note on citations: normally the short form is in the format (to take an example) "Morley 1981, p. 191." (including the year, and a period at the end). See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations.

You don't need a date unless there is more than one Morley book. You'll see that the guideline permits "author-page referencing". -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a period at the end is still called for, I believe. And looking further, some of the standard citations (not the short ones) end with periods and others don't. They all should. Omnedon (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a consistency issue -- either they all should, or none should. None of our refs end with a period, except if it is a complete sentence. You'll see that the ones that end with {subscription required} have a period before the {subscription required}, but I was thinking that we could remove those periods. What do you think, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph of "Historical background", should a colon (:) precede "$100 per month", instead of a dash?

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• In "Creation", fourth paragraph, perhaps replace the comma before "Chee-Chee" with the word "entitled"? Otherwise it's a nested set of qualifications that seems slightly awkward.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of "Creation", a question: does the term "lyric" refer to the entire set of words for a song? A quick dictionary check suggests this should be "lyrics", but I may be mistaken.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also in the last paragraph, ", before suddenly stopping" probably does not need the comma.

On consideration, I've deleted the whole clause – I know what we were trying to say, but I don't think it matters, and I'm using the KISS principle. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

More to come as I have time. Omnedon (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
First off, what a fantastic article. Learning heavily to support, but three very minor suggestions for you to consider. If you don't like them or don't agree with them, then fair enough, but at least have a think about them:

• It's a bit nit-picky, but I notice that in three places you have put the image to the left straight under a title. Although I don't mind it (and use the same placement myself from time to time), it does go against WP:IMAGELOCATION. I'm not saying to change the location, but at least be sure you're happy with the location and justified in having the images where they are.

I understood that this rule had been abandoned, but I see that it still seems to recommend not putting left images directly under a heading. Can Wehwalt, Sandy, BrianBoulton or others knowledgable about this comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I treat it as a guideline. The idea is to prevent confusion about where the text of the section starts, as I understand it. However, it is often the best solution, so like SchroCat, it's something to be considered, but more to make sure you are doing it properly than as a proscriptive rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless the programming has changed, my recollection was that the rule was "no left placement in level three headers (===heading===)or below". It's OK under a main section heading (==heading==) but it screws things up on certain types of readers if you do it for the lesser ones. Not sure if that rule still applies or not. Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Refs 110 – The "Internet Broadway database" should be the "Internet Broadway Database". You also need to be consistent with linking it or not, or at least only the first occurrence (refs 37 and 38 are linked, the others are not)

I agree, but I think you're looking at an old version. I think it's fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My fault - written on one day and posted the next without me checking what had happened in the interim! - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 144 – Caps not needed

Fixed, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside from that, I have no issues at all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - All good. Congrats on what is a very, very good article indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of however: see here and here for discussions of the overuse of however. There are 11 uses in this version; please review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have cut it down to three. Looks ok now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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. Graham Colm (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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