Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Political career of John C. Breckinridge

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I started this article from scratch after realizing the John C. Breckinridge article wouldn't comfortably accommodate all there was to say about the man. I hope to eventually form a featured topic with John C. Breckinridge, Political career of John C. Breckinridge, John C. Breckinridge's military service in the American Civil War (under construction), and the as-yet non-existent John C. Breckinridge's escape and exile from the United States. The article has had a peer review, a a thorough review by Wehwalt, and just passed a GA review. I think it is ready for the next step to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments - mainly on the lead:

• I'm not sure about your comment in the nom statement on accommodating "all there was to say about the man". This seems a somewhat excessive aim, more appropriate to a full-length biography than an encyclopedia article.
  • Badly stated on my part, I guess. I think when you read the article, you'll understand what I mean. This doesn't cover his extensive military career, his long exile from the U.S., or his early life, and yet it is still a longish article unto itself. No way to accurately summarize his life in one, appropriately long article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The most headline-grabbing features of Breckinridge's career – his election as US vice president at the age of 35, and his presidential campaign in 1860 – should be in the first lead paragraph. That way, readers who know little or nothing about him are more likely to be hooked. At present the initial paragraph is perhaps too dull to excite interest.
  • I usually prefer chronological order over interest because I feel like it makes the lead less repetitive. Nevertheless, I've attempted a rewrite to accommodate this feedback. What do you think? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The second lead paragraph begins "Considering his re-election unlikely in 1854..." without saying what he was seeking reelection to.
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The wording "Despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern states, Breckinridge lost the election to Lincoln..." is misleading. It implies that the election was close; Breckinridge's was a regional candidacy with virtually no support outside the Deep South. There was never a prospect that he would win.
  • Well, I think the sources indicate he got more support outside the south than did any of the other regional candidates, but the point about it not being a close race is well-taken. Davis extensively speculates on ways certain states could have broken a different way if candidates had dropped out, united, etc. and concludes that – outside of the wildly extreme – there were really no scenarios that didn't end with a win for Lincoln. Reworded to dispel the notion of a close race. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Though he sympathized with the Southern cause, in the Senate, Breckinridge futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states." The comma after "Senate" needs removal to preserve your meaning. And a double split infinitive ("Breckinridge futilely worked to peacefully reunite") makes exceptionally ugly and awkward prose.
  • I think I fixed all of these. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is just a start; I've only managed to look at the lead so far. I will try to read more later and hopefully, provide more commentary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I always appreciate your insightful feedback. Looking forward to the rest of your review. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I still think the biographical sections should come first; his political views are less interesting to the reader and you may lose people before you ever get to the "good stuff".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I really kind of wrestled with this at the beginning, and again when you brought it up in your review, but it seems like understanding his philosophy is foundational to understanding his actions throughout his career. Otherwise, the motivations for those actions may be misinterpreted. Still, I understand your point and would like for other reviewers to give their opinions as well. I'm not totally averse to making the change if consensus dictates. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More comments: I am giving this more detailed attention than I usually do at FAC, because Peer Review, where I'd have probably picked it up, is not working well at present. Here are my comments on the next few sections:

Formative years

• "Bullock told Breckinridge that by the time they opened their practice in Burlington, Iowa, 'you were two-thirds of a Democrat'" - presumably this comment was made at some later point; this should be clarified, e.g. "Bullock later told..."
  • Date added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Problems here: "Breckinridge's brother-in-law wrote that, upon learning that he had "become loco-foco",[note 1] his uncle William said "I felt as I would have done if I head heard that my daughter had been dishonored." I assume "head" is a typo, but I still can't sort out the meaning clearly. The "he" and "his" are unclear, and the whole sentence construction needs rethinking"
  • Yes, I really struggled with how to construct this sentence, but the quote is too illustrative not to use. I've tried to make the sentence clearer. See if it is better now.

• • Yes, it's clearer now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Visiting Kentucky later that year, he met and married Mary Cyrene Burch, ending his time in Iowa." The pronoun needs defining. Also, beginning the sentence and its secondary clause with participles ("Visiting...ending") is problematic. I suggest: "While visiting...which ended..."
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Views on slavery: preamble

• I would change the "and" in the first line to "although"
  • No problem with that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• What is meant by "slavery protections"?
  • Laws and practices protecting the institution of slavery and the "property" of slaveowners. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Moderate reputation

• "some charged that Breckinridge was an abolitionist". Apart from the vagueness of "some", "charged" sounds like accusation of a crime. Perhaps "regarded Breckenridge as" or similar formulation?
  • This issue was raised in the peer review. The vagueness of "some" unfortunately can't be helped; the source gives the subject only a passing, non-specific mention. As for the "charged" language, my original wording was "believed", but the peer reviewer pointed out, quite rightly, that slavery was a political "wedge issue", and that opponents could have charged Breckinridge with being an abolitionist without actually believing that he was. That was probably the case (on both sides) in his congressional re-election bid against Robert Letcher, where both candidates charged that the other was an abolitionist, despite little evidence that either was. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Ultimately" - meaning...when? End of life?
  • Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• A date for the Kansas-Nebraska act would be helpful
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Later views

• What is the difference between the state legislature and the "Assembly"?
  • There is no difference. The Kentucky legislature is called the "General Assembly". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "After losing the election to Abraham Lincoln..." I would omit the words "to Abraham Lincoln", since he was way behind Douglas, too, on the popular vote.
  • Yes, but he was second to Lincoln in electoral votes, which are ultimately the only ones that matter. Just ask Al Gore. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Well, I'm not wholly convinced by that analogy, but I won't push the matter. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky House of Representatives

• I recommend you make this a level-3 subsection of "Early political career", to avoid the present exceedingly brief main section
  • I was thinking I had made it so. That was my intent. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "When the House convened..." Give a date (in fact, this whole subsection is woefully short of dates)
  • Added. The whole section encompasses a period of time from October 1849 to March 1850. I don't think the months of most specific actions during that time are all that significant. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Congress's ability legislate emancipation..." Word missing
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• March 4 definitely needs a year
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

First term

• "despite Breckinridge's deference" - is there another way of putting this, since "deference" suggests "grovelling"
  • Having trouble coming up with an appropriate synonym. "Yield" is the only thing that comes to mind, but it doesn't really fit here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I'd probably recast the sentence: "Boyd was elected, and despite Breckinridge's gesture, assigned him to the lightly-regarded Foreign Affairs Committee." Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
      • That'll work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "a more active role" - maybe just "an active role", unless he was notably inactive previously
  • He was, in fact, notably inactive previously. Davis talks about how newly elected legislators usually clamored for the floor to talk about pretty much anything because they wanted to show that they were "doing something" and thus worthy of re-election. Breckinridge did not speak on the House floor for the first time until March 1852, three months into his first session, and Davis mentioned that his more senior peers respected that. All this didn't seem particularly noteworthy for the article, though. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Link Fugitive Slave Law
  • It is linked on first mention (last paragraph under "Later views"). Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "he supported repairing" → "he supported the repair of..." The number of ...ings is bothersome; there are 5 in the following sentence.
  • Changed "repairing". The others are all in the same sentence and used for parallelism. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "when the legislature adjourned its session" - which session?
  • I intended the first session of his term, but on re-reading, the session didn't adjourn; he was just absent for part of it. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

More to follow: Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My final comments

Second term - election

• The long blue link: "buy votes or pay Breckinridge supporters not to vote" is a bit distracting, and I think unnecessary. The described activity is very obviously electoral fraud.
  • Yeah, I debated on whether to include that or not. Removed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In the second session..." Clarify (second section of the 33rd Congress?)
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

US vice president

• What was the nature of the "contemporary political convention" that Breckinridge defied during the campaign?
  • The convention, apparently, was that the candidates stayed home and made no speeches during the campaign, letting others do their speaking for them. It was seen as a sign of "ambition", which was frowned upon, to advocate your own election. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• On the matter of the White House "hostess", perhaps you should explain to the reader that Buchanan was a bachelor, and that the hostess ran the house. That doesn't mitigate the disrespect to the VP, but it would help explain the somewhat ambiguous term "hostess".
  • I tried to do this succinctly in-line in previous iterations of the article, without success. I've added an explanatory note. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also, maybe a word to explain the vice president's role as presiding officer in the Senate. This would help understanding of statements such as "Five tie-breaking votes provided a means of expressing his views".
  • I had hoped the quote about his intent to preside fairly would communicate that, but I've added another sentence to make it explicit. Do you think that sentence needs a cite? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The Senate's move from the Old Senate Chamber to a more spacious one on January 4, 1859, provided another opportunity." - another opportunity for what?
  • To express his views, a reference back to the sentence about the tie-breaking votes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Presidential election of 1860

• Specify Douglas's 1858 Senate reelection bid
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "After Douglas supporters voted to replace Alabama and Louisiana's walk-out delegates..." Two things: what are "walk-out delegates", and why did one candidate's supporters have the power to do this?
  • "Walk-out delegates" were the delegates who walked out of the previous convention. Douglas's supporters had the power to do this because they were in the majority (in both conventions, actually). They just didn't have the two-thirds majority needed to nominate in the first convention. (I think the delegates to the second convention accepted a simple majority threshhold.) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Wry note: Earlier, you rejected my quibble about Breckinridge not losing the election "to Lincoln". Now you seem to be accepting my position, since your wording implies he was not even running against Lincoln! Seriously, though, the word "effectively" might usefully be inserted between "election" and "pitted".
  • Well, until the GA review, the sentence noted that this observation is credited to Lowell H. Harrison, but the GA reviewer thought it was the prevailing view of all historians and that citing a specific one was unnecessary. I think the suggestion about "effectively" is a good one. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• What is the purpose of redlinking the words "committee of thirteen members"? Doesn't suggest a potential article title.
  • I took it from List of defunct United States congressional committees, although I copied the link incorrectly, which I have fixed. I think it could justify at least a stub article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Senate

• "He also voted against a resolution to remove the names of the senators from seceded states from the Senate roll." A brief note of which states had seceded and when, would be helpful.
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Confederate Secretary of War

• "some time" is one word (unlike "sometimes", which has a different meaning)
  • A typo, I guess. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I find the term "youngest-ever Confederate cabinet member" a trifle absurd, since the Confederacy cabinet lasted barely five years. I would remove the "ever", if not delete this unimportant information.
  • It's not that absurd if you consider that there were a total of 19 people (if our wiki-categorization is correct) who served in the Confederate cabinet in those five years, five in Breckinridge's position alone. I've reworded to avoid "ever". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "...John Archibald Campbell, who had opposed Breckinridge's nomination, believing he would focus on a select few bureaus and ignore the rest". What is meant by "bureaus" in this context?
  • Bureaus of the War Department. Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "By late February, Breckinridge concluded..." Either replace "By" by "In", or amend to "had concluded"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• The sudden reference to "President Andrew Johnson" without explanation might confuse some readers. Suggest a parenthetical "(who had assumed the presidency on Lincoln's assassination on April 15)"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "...overtaken by forces under Lieutenant Colonel Andrew K. Campbell". Specify "Union forces..."
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally, this is an impressive article; most of the above points are routine fixes that can be easily made (or in some cases refuted). My one general criticism, a fairly mild one, is a tendency towards overdetailing. Trivial points such as Breckinridge's opposition to funds for a sculpture of George Washington in a toga, the nicknaming of his son, the draw-rigging non-event, and a few other instances, could be removed without any detriment to the article; indeed, such details make reading of the article harder than it should be. That might be just my personal preference, but you might reflect on it. I look forward to supporting the article after you have responded to my specific points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this was a sub-article, I indulged in details more than I usually would. I'd be interested to hear the views of other reviewers on what information, if any, they feel is too trivial to include. The only one I'd probably fight for is the son's nickname; if someone were to find a reference to Owen in one source and John Witherspoon in another, it needs to be clear that they are the same child. Would you mind to weigh in on Wehwalt's suggestion above about the order of the political philosphy relative to the political biography? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wehwalt has a point, and if this was the main biographical article for Breckinridge I would entirely agree. In this case, given the article's specific focus, the issue is less clear. I personally found it quite helpful, when following his career, to have some knowledge of his beliefs and how they evolved, but others may feel differently and this is not, for me, a sticking point. I don't think the article's eventual promotion should hinge on this point, but if it does, I'll go along with the change if you so decide. Brianboulton (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't think he would have insisted upon it as a condition of promotion; I just wanted another reviewer's perspective. It sounds like you read it pretty much as I intended, as a guide to his thinking for later reference, with only as many allusions to later events as necessary to keep the reader oriented. That tells me that I wasn't way out in left field with my organization, at least. (Not that I thought Wehwalt was implying that.) Like you, I can see the benefits of doing it either way, so I'm just trying to see what most folks find most helpful. Anything else needed to secure your support? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I have given this article a lot of review attention and I think my points have been suitably addressed. In a few cases, had I been the author I may have done things differently, but so what? The article is a product of much research, gives a comprehensive account of an interesting political career and, in my view, is fully deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:John-C.-Breckinridge-circa-1850.jpg: page?
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:LinnBoyd.jpg: source says Linn, description says Lynn - which is correct?
  • "Linn" is what I see most commonly, but I think both have been used, depending on which work you consult. I've changed "Lynn" to "Linn".
• File:RPLetcher.jpg: first source link is dead, and it's possible (though unlikely) that date of death was less than 100 years ago (since creator is unknown)
  • I tried to dig up some information on the Charlotte Letcher Collection to see when it was first exhibited, but no luck. I assume this refers to Robert Letcher's second wife, since her name was Charlotte and they had no children. He and his first wife also had no children. If so, she died in 1879, which would strongly suggest that the work was first "published" prior to 1923. I can neither verify this nor that the author died more than 100 years ago, but both are pretty likely, in my opinion. If neither of these are satisfactory, then I guess FfD it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:ElectoralCollege1860.svg: source?
  • Looks like an original work to me. The author (JWB (talk · contribs)) looks like he or she is still semi-active. Perhaps we can contact him/her to clarify any specific concerns. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:John_C._Breckinridge_statue_Lexington_KY.jpg: who was the creator of the statue? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. At some point, I hope to do a bit more research on it, and I'll add that info if I find it. In the meantime, I know it was first published before 1923, so it's definitely PD. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't mean to intrude, but I did a little copy editing as I saw fit. Just a quick scan: all in all looks good to me but I wonder if the article is not a little over-reliant on just two major sources (the Davis and the Heck), once you strip out articles and encyclopaedia entries. I know from editing the KFC page that sometimes major sources just aren't available, but is this definitely the case here? Plurality of reference is superior to duality. Farrtj (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I suspect there are many works that reference Breckinridge in some capacity, but considering that Davis' biography is over 600 pages, I doubt that many of them cover significant new territory. Davis' biography also won the 1973 Jules F. Landry Award for Southern History and garnered Davis the first of two nominations for the Pulitzer Prize, so I suspect it's pretty complete. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As to the "charged" formulation, I've got an idea. Although Davis as the standard source uses it, it should be allowable, I think, for Wikipedia editors to de-charge emotional content in words used in the source, although great care must be exercised not to introduce unwarranted re-interpretations. So "believed" or "regarded" are out of the question, as I've previously pointed out, since those words introduce distinctly new meanings that are unfounded in any source. But, what about a formulation as "sought to represent him as an abolitionist"? If the word "charged" has a too strong connotation in present day English as "accused of a crime", then such a substitution might be in order. But, as I see it, to be the judge of that (i.e, the subtleties in the meaning of "charged"), you'd have to be a native speaker, I think, so I'll leave it to other editors to reach a verdict.Arildnordby (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"sought to represent him as an abolitionist" seems a little wordy, but "represented him as" or "claimed he was" or something to that effect might work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said, I'll leave this issue (if it really is an issue) for native speakers. A formulation like "alleged he was.." includes, perhaps, the rather shaky foundation upon which the allegation rested?Arildnordby (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Alleged" works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I cannot be one of the three reviewers to OK this article to FA status. First off, I'm too new here, and need to build up sufficient experience. Secondly, I think that to FA this particular article, a reviewer ought to have quite a bit of US history knowledge, which I have not. So, I'll just leave incidental notes on points that strike me as unclear, rather than taking on the role as reviewer.Arildnordby (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Totally understandable. In the limited circumstances under which I review FACs, I like to have at least a basic working knowledge of the subject. Your comments are welcome here, regardless of whether you register a !vote. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Even after the peer review, I had my concerns about this article but a lot of the rough spots seem to be smoothed out. Have not examined images. A few remaining things:

Early influences:

• Perhaps it would be wide to summarize his college career in a sentence, since you mention both Centre and Transylvania.

• Good suggestion. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• U.S. House of Representatives
• "using the money to buy votes or pay Breckinridge supporters not to vote." It might be worth mentioning whether the secret ballot was then in use.

• I'm not entirely sure about this. I believe it was viva voce, but I can't cite that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Breckinridge – a delegate to the national convention and a presidential elector " Still not happy about this. Suggest "designated as a presidential elector" as Breckinridge doesn't get to be one if the Whigs take Kentucky.

• I can live with that. It's a somewhat complicated issue to sum up concisely. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Douglas wrote to Robert Toombs that he would support his enemy Alexander H. Stephens" Whose enemy? Toombs's? Any ambiguity can be removed by adding after "enemy" and fellow Georgian"

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Lincoln's insistence on emancipation" I hope you are not stating this as a fact, but as what Breck was saying. Lincoln expressed more moderate views as candidate.

• Yes. This is a summation of Breckinridge's address. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Governor Magoffin refused to endorse the resolution, preventing its enforcement." Not that there was any way to enforce it, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Quite so. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• The format of the Richard Nelson Current entry in the bibliography does not conform to the standard otherwise used (surname first)
• Citations to that source should be given to author/editor, not to book title (ref 32).

Otherwise all sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if editors got the same treatment as authors. All fixed now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Nice article. I like the way you broke out his views on slavery, since it was the biggest issue of the day. I have only a few questions:

• Does Heck write specifically that Breckinridge could have been removed from office for dueling? It goes against our modern understanding of states' limits on federal offices (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton,) but 19th-century folks may have thought differently on the matter.
• The first sentence in "U.S. vice president": I assume you mean Powell and Boyd were potential nominees for president? Or vice president? It's unclear.
• Where you convert $50 to present-day equivalent, is there a source? There was once a template for that. It may still exist.
• In "U.S. Senate," you call Montgomery Blair a Virginian. Is that right? I've always though of his as a Marylander, but I could be mistaken.
• That's all. Looking forward to the rest of the Breckinridge series! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:43, 25 May 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) 23:44, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Woolly mammoth

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it now covers all aspects of this species, it has been copy edited, and is a core subject under palaeontology and extinction. Lister 2007 is extensively used, because it is the best synthesis of mammoth research. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John

I see instances of both UK and US English spellings in the article. That's an automatic fail for me, on prose. Before I go to the trouble of making further comments, should it be in UK English? --John (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, should be UK, the US versions must be remnants from the few old parts that are left from before I expanded it, I'll go through it now and fix what I find. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the things I could find[3] (mainly "ized" to "ised"), is that what you had in mind? Some of it was from other articles that I had merged in here without double checking, seems to have missed the copy editor as well. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I was mainly concerned with "analyze" which is very rare in British English; the other -ize spellings would have been fine. There are a couple of other wordings that I think are infelicitous. I will either just edit them and bring it here to review, or point-by-point it here, depending on how much time I have tomorrow. It's a really nice article and I tend towards supporting, mainly on prose and structure. --John (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to sorting anything out. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here goes.

• Lead paragraph
  • "known to Europeans in the 1600s": 1600s or 17th century? MoS allows either these days, but I prefer the latter

I prefer it too, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "wool varied through black and brown to blond or ginger." "Through" in this use is an Americanism. British English would use "from".

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • frost bite -> frostbite

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "An isolated population" -> "Isolated populations" (as we are talking about two separate populations)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Saint Paul Island (Alaska); fix link

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "It has been proposed the species could be recreated through cloning or artificial insemination, but this method is as yet infeasible due to the degraded state of the remaining genetic material." Couple of problems here; first, artificial insemination sounds pretty off-the-wall; I don't have the reference you use to support this but as the article points out, frozen sperm only stays viable for decades, and that's under lab conditions. There seems no likelihood that millennia-old frozen sperm could work. Why mention it at all in the lead? The second problem is grammatical; if we have to have it in the lead, we'd need to say "these methods" as there are two different ones. I'd also like to see the ethical problems with recreating the mammoth mentioned in the lead, but maybe that's just me.

These two methods are often mentioned in the (popular) literature, and it appears Japanese researchers would rather try insemination than actual cloning. But yeah, maybe too much for the lead. Fixed the other issues. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "until roughly 4,000 years ago" doesn't need "roughly"; no-one will assume we mean exactly that long ago. --John (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come. --John (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing things up so far. It looks like it will be tonight or even tomorrow night before I can finish this. Sorry. --John (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I have other stuff to do today as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I am sorry for the delay in finishing this review. --John (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Taxonomy
  • "remains of modern elephants that had been brought to Europe during the Roman Empire, for example the war elephants of Hannibal the Great and Pyrrhus of Epirus, or animals that had simply wandered north" Roman Empire -> Roman Republic (I think), and lose the simply. It wouldn't have been that simple for an elephant to "wander" across the Mediterranean, even though they are renowned as great swimmers.
  • "While he discussed the question of whether or not the remains were from elephants, he drew no conclusions" -> "He discussed the question of whether or not the remains were from elephants, but drew no conclusions"
  • "Most significantly, he argued this species had gone extinct and no longer existed, a concept that was not widely accepted at the time.[6]" Lose "Most significantly", unless it can directly be drawn from the reference, to which I do not have access.

Fixed all of the above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Etymology
  • "Following Cuvier's identification, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach gave the woolly mammoth its scientific name in 1799, Elephas primigenius, ..." -> "gave the woolly mammoth its scientific name, Elephas primigenius, in 1799 ..." More logical flow
  • "It was not until 1828 that Joshua Brookes recognised the species was distinct enough to warrant a new genus" -> "In 1828 Joshua Brookes recognised the species was distinct enough to warrant a new genus"
  • "during the early 1600s" -> "during the early 17th century"
  • "Thomas Jefferson, who famously had a keen interest in palaeontology, is partially responsible for transforming the word mammoth from a noun describing the prehistoric elephant to an adjective describing anything of surprisingly large size." -> Lose "famously". I was not aware that he was famous for that, and nor will most readers be.

Fixed all of above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Evolution
  • "...around the Tethys Sea area." -> "...around the Tethys Sea."
  • Lose "aforementioned" please.
  • "Columbian mammoth, M. columbi, also evolved from a population of M. trogontherii that had entered North America" Lose "also"
  • "only experienced a limited loss of genetic variation" -> "only experienced a slight loss of genetic variation" or maybe "minor". The antonym of "limited " is "unlimited", not "large" or "significant"

Fixed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come. --John (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking good, thanks for the edits. I will finish this tonight or tomorrow. More likely the latter. My friend who I haven't seen for months just arrived and I don't want to be anti-social. --John (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. All above issues have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the interests of efficiency, I made the rest of the edits myself. Please check and let me know if you approve of this or not. I would like to take one further look later today and then I will support. --John (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I followed while you edited, so I've checked them already, looks good, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Further round of copy-edits here. Two other users made edits as well in that diff. --John (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, but why was the following info removed? "Up to 25% of the tusk was within the sockets". FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That was User:WereSpielChequers. We have "About a quarter of the length was inside the sockets." already so we don't need "Up to 25% of the tusk was within the sockets ..." as well. It was a good catch I thought. --John (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Good catch indeed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Sourcing and completeness look good as well, though I haven't examined them in detail. --John (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another question frm me. Is "Yuka" the same as "the Yukagir mammoth"? If so we need to expain that, prefereably the first time we mention it. --John (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Yukagir is an adult male, Yuka is a juvenile. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Maybe worth a wee note to clarify; if I could be confused, so could others. Also, why are there quote marks around the names? What are we quoting? --John (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Age now specified at first mention of both. As for quotes, it's because they're merely informal nicknames. Should they be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to flag up through punctuation that these nicknames are informal ones. Scare quotes has "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused." --John (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there another way to show that they're informal in a less obnoxious way? FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am really not sure, and I am humbled because I consider myself an MoS expert. I wonder if we could reduce the number of instances, as it is the repetition and the punctuation together which are slightly triggering my distaste here. Let me think some more; I wouldn't oppose over this anyway but if there's a way of making it better we should do so. --John (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

How about italics? Or 'this'? If none of it works, I'll just remove the quote marks. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jimfbleak

Support Comments from Jim Just nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• eastern/ East Eurasia — capitalisation seems arbitrary

Lower case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Genetic studies, frostbite, molars nuclear genome sequence, DNA , morphologies, lactic acid — link at first occurence

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• 6 tonnes (6,000 kg). — both are metric

Removed kg. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Its ears and tail — "wool" was the last subject mentioned

"The" instead of "its"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• but this is yet infeasible — missing word?

Added "method". FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are a few overlinks, behemoth, Alaska, both extant elephants, Pleistocene, Taimyr

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Check "itself" isn't redundant in each occurrence

Removed all but one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• a moment in time — not exactly a moment...

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• A 2010 study confirmed these relationships, — another sentence separated from its original subject

Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Varying colours in mammals are usually a form of camouflage linked to survival — so you can't see the mammoths because of their colour...?

Removed, wasn't exactly relevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Each major line represents a year, whereas weekly — "and" rather than "whereas"

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• its weight 15 times — I think you mean 15-fold

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Prior to this, Neanderthals had coexisted with mammoths during the Middle Paleolithic and up to that time — ???

To Upper Palaeolithic. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• 35 and 11.500 years — 35,000 is more plausible

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Formatting error in last ref?

Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Responded to all issues, not sure if they are fixed satisfactorily. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I mad two minor edits. I note you have also sorted out the AE/BE confusion, so I'm happy to support now, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for edits! FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from GermanJoe

Image check - mostly all OK, sources and authors provided. Some images need checking (all points Done):

• File:MammothVsMastodon.jpg - has no evidence, that the photoshopped elements are copyright-free. Actually the original uploader on English Wiki removed one such image from another related article due to copyright concerns.

In those cases, the photo elements are so highly modified and their original context unrecognisable that I think "de minimis"[4] would apply. But I can ask over at Commons if you think not. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A minor element of a copyrighted work would still be copyrighted (dunno, if there's a lower limit), but it's better to raise this question at Commons. A completely modelled mammoth or mastodon is not "minor" imo. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask on Commons. As for the technique, its basically just photo collage, but the resulting "models" are original, only the fur texture is taken from images of animals. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thread: [5] FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK based on the current arguments, i'd give it a day and we can close that. GermanJoe (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Status changed, all images OK per Commons discussion on usage of trivial elements. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Ice_age_fauna_of_northern_Spain_-_Mauricio_Antón.jpg - the first slideshow link is dead (but not absolutely necessary). Link could be removed, if you don't find a replacement.

It didn't show up for me the first time, but did the second time. Could you try again and see what happens?FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops - it helps to disable AdBlock ... My bad.GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Woolly_mammoths.jpg - needs license tags.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• All "Charles R. Knight" images - are the noted dates date of creation or publication? Can you clarify, where those images were first published (needed for PD-1923 and PD-US)? (Done) GermanJoe (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

They're museum murals which were made public these dates, I have the dates from a book about Charles R. Knight. should I add citations for the dates? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest to insert something like "published in YYYY, see {bibliographical info}" to the date fields of all Knight images. I'd AGF, that the dates are correct, but it's best to have this info immediately available for future questions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add info to the description boxes on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Darkwarriorblake

• Comments: I found the article a very interesting read, long but comprehensive, but none of the web based sources are archived, making them all a time bomb, and many if not all of the publisher/work are unlinked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The DOIs, PMIDs and JSTORs are all links. Clicking on them leads to either articles or paywalls with abstracts. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake It's not normal to archive real-life, as opposed to web-only sources, because they can't disappear. It's usual only to have a url link to a publication if it has free full text, otherwise it's misleading and a bit spammy to link to a paywall, especially as the doi or equivalent does that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as the sources are robust. Support Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Axl

The first two paragraphs in the lead section mention "eastern Eurasia". Is this the same as "Asia"? Or "Asia and eastern Europe"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the same as the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, as in Europe and Asia together. Is it too vague? FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "Eurasia" is less familiar than "Europe" and "Asia". I am hoping to simplify the phrase. If "Asia" could be used instead of "eastern Eurasia", that would be ideal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced where it made sense to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 2: "African elephants diverged from an earlier common ancestor 6.6–8.8 Mya." This appears to be the first instance of the word "Mya", yet the phrase "million years ago" was used four times earlier in the subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 3: " At the same time, the crowns of the teeth became longer and the skulls become taller from top to bottom and shorter from back to front over time to accommodate this." Why should a skull that is shorter from back to front be better at accommodating longer teeth? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was to compensate for the increased weight of the skull, I've added this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The syntax seems a little clumsy; I shall think about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, was a bit hard to cram in. Any suggestion is appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How about two sentences: "The crowns of the teeth lengthened and the skulls became taller from top to bottom to accommodate this. At the same time, the skulls became shorter from front to back to minimise the weight." Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need "from top to bottom " and "from front to back"? I wish there was a more elegant way to express this. --John (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There are technical terms that most readers wouldn't understand. I'll think of something. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. --John (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually "from top to bottom" isn't really needed, because that is what "taller" means. I think that we still need "from front to back" (or an equivalent phrase) because "shorter" does not normally mean that. The closest regular word that I can think of is "shallower", but that doesn't really fit, and would still need the qualifier. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work. --John (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I removed "from top to bottom". I'll look how the source phrases the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lister 2007 does say exactly "shorter from front to back". FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't think of a better phrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the subsection "Wool" is poorly named. I believe that "wool" refers to the fur of domesticated animals that is used to make clothing for humans. As such, the woolly mammoth does not have wool. (Indeed the name "woolly mammoth" is a misnomer.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, nice OR, but wrong. My Chambers starts "The fleece of sheep, goats, yaks etc", then goes on to describe it as a modified type of hair, and only then gets on to subsidiary meanings such as use as fabric or to describe curly human hair. On your logic, ancestral species of sheep and goats that became extinct before man didn't have wool either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that it is OR for me to say that woolly mammoths didn't have wool. I don't actually have a reference that says that. It is based on my reading of definitions of "wool". (If it was called the "hairy mammoth", no-one would claim that it has wool.) However I'm not asking for that statement to be added to the article. Rather, I am hoping that descriptions of "wool" are changed to "fur" or "hair". The issue of whether the ancestors of modern sheep had wool is beyond the remit of most dictionaries and isn't something that I would argue about. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this, maybe some more opinions could be nice? FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

1) What do the sources say? 2) The fact that the article is entitled "Woolly mammoth" predisposes me to thinking this is the best word to use. --John (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The source uses various words, including fur, hair, coat, and underwool refers to something present on living animals, not something produced by humans. But maybe "coat" would be better as a title, as it covers all sorts of hair, not just the woolly covering? FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. "Coat" seems best to me, and go with the sources when doing the detailed description of the structure of the coat. Very nice point, Axl. --John (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course I would be happy with "coat". Let's wait and see what Jimfbleak thinks. Hopefully we can reach a consensus (even unanimous?) decision. I still hope that all reference to "wool" will be expunged. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The change has been made. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I was hoping to see Jimfbleak's reaction first. I suppose that if he (or another editor) objects, we can reconsider the matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really taking a stance on that issue, what convinced me was that "wool" doesn't include for example the hair on the tail, which is also discussed in the section, so coat is better, as the scope of the term is wider (includes all sorts of hair). FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On a related issue, wouldn't "tawny" be a better word than "blond"? I have a feeling (no evidence, just a feeling) that "blond" relates mainly to humans. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's wording from the press covering of that paper (which I've replaced with the actual paper as source), but not in the paper itself, so I'll change it to light coloured and dark coloured. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Light-coloured" might be better than "blond". --John (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Description", subsection "Wool", paragraph 2, I have added wikilinks for "dominance (genetics)" and "recessive trait". However I am unhappy with the use of the term "inactive gene" in the latter part of the paragraph. I wonder if the paragraph would be better with "dominant" and "recessive" throughout, with "fully active" and "partially active" in parentheses at the first instances? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A technical point: alleles can be dominant or recessive, not genes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the wording, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a minor adjustment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 1: "the haemoglobin of the woolly mammoth was adapted to the cold, with three mutations to improve oxygen delivery around the body and prevent freezing." I was initially sceptical of the last part of the statement so I checked the reference. Can I suggest that this reference might be regarded as more reliable and authoritative than The Independent's article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Both sources are already used for the same paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't realise that that reference was being used for the very next sentence. In which case, why is the original paper being used for one statement, while The Independent's report of that paper is used for another? I suggest that the original paper is a better source than The Independent for this purpose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Before I worked on it, only the news article was used, so when I added the actual paper to source the second sentence, I just let the old source be, as a kind of backup. I can remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be better without The Independent's article as a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "The most common of these diseases was osteoarthritis, found in 2% of specimens. One specimen from Switzerland had several fused vertebrae as a result of this condition. The "Yukagir Mammoth" had suffered from ankylosing spondylitis in two vertebrae." In humans, it is rare for spinal osteoarthritis to cause ankylosis, but I am prepared to accept the statement about the Swiss specimen. On the other hand, I am sceptical about the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis in the Yukagir Mammoth. How do they make a diagnosis of ank spond from woolly mammoth remains? On the basis of only two affected vertebrae? The statement about the Swiss specimen indicates that the presence of ankylosis alone is insufficient to confirm a diagnosis of ank spond. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really a pathology buff, but I'll give the sources an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, since my knowledge is lacking in that field, here is the relevant part of the 2006 paper describing the Yukagir mammoth:

"The Yukagir Mammoth had backbone/spine problems. Thoracic vertebrae IV and V showed abnormal growth possibly as a result of auto-immune reaction to an inflammation somewhere else in the body. Only the thornshaped extremities of the two subsequent thoracic vertebrae (thoracic vertebrae VI and VII, No. 7885 and No. 7886) have been retrieved; these were naturally cut off just above the neural canal and were strongly deformed, showing some pus channels. The available vertebrae before and after these pathologically-modified specimens were in good condition. Dr. Erwin Kompanje of the Erasmus Medical Center and the Natural History Museum in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, diagnosed a form of Spondylarthropathy (also known as (Ankylosing) Spondylitis or Rheumatoid spondylitis) in the 4th and 5th thoracic vertebrae (fig. 9). Unfortunately, the pelvis bone and the sacrum bone are missing. Generally, this disease shows most clearly in the joint between these two bones. Spondylarthropathy includes a group of inflammatory diseases comprising Reiter’s syndrome, reactive arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and arthritis associated with inflammatory bowel disease. The bony outgrowths found on the vertebrae of affected individuals are called syndesmophytes (Francois et al., 1995). These are slim, bony outgrowths, parallel to the vertebral column, which replace the outer parts of the annulus fibrosus (part of the intervertebral disc) and the shorter and longer perivertebral ligaments, thus leading to an intervertebral bridge by means of complex processes involving ossification. The syndesmophytes can be distinguished from the vertical and chunky osteophytes (bone spurs) in degenerative vertebral disease, and the often bizarre new bone formation associated with primary bacterial infections. These abnormal bony outgrowths on two thoracic vertebrae (IV and V) of the Yukagir Mammoth resemble the syndesmophytes usually found in Spondylarthropathy in man and other mammals (Rothschild, 1994; Kompanje, 1999; Kompanje et al., 2000) A diagnosis of Reactive spondylarthropathy, most probably associated with inflammatory bowel disease seems plausible in this case. These inflammations would have caused pain, especially in the early stages of abnormal bone growth but this was most likely not related to death. The event or condition triggering this growth might have occurred several years earlier. It will be interesting to see if Daniel Fisher finds signs of this event in the growth of the tusk, where a daily history of life is stored as variations in structural and compositional properties." FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. The presence of "pus channels" in thoracic vertebrae VI and VII is a feature of osteomyelitis. The statement "Dr. Erwin Kompanje... diagnosed a form of Spondylarthropathy (also known as (Ankylosing) Spondylitis or Rheumatoid spondylitis) in the 4th and 5th thoracic vertebrae" seems to imply that ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid "spondylitis" are the same disease. (The capitalisation is rather random.) This is certainly not true. Ank spond and rheumatoid arthritis have different clinical features, different autoimmune & HLA associations, and are treated differently. Spinal disease is typical of ank spond, but is rare in rheumatoid disease. It is unclear if the source also implies that "spondyloarthropathy" is the same as ank spond and rheumatoid spondylitis. The source subsequently states "A diagnosis of Reactive spondylarthropathy, most probably associated with inflammatory bowel disease seems plausible in this case." This diagnosis is different again from ank spond and rheumatoid disease.

Given that the source lists at least three different diseases for the same clinical features, I don't think that this can be relied upon. We certainly can't pick one as our label. I am happy to accept that spondylitis was present. I suggest that we change the article's latter sentence to "The "Yukagir mammoth" suffered from spondylitis." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, is the change I've made now enough to fix that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Palaeobiology", paragraph 3, "Yukagir mammoth" has a lower case "m" for "mammoth". Paragraph 4 uses a capital "M". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Decapitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Woolly mammoths sustained themselves on plant food, mainly grass and sedges, which were supplanted with herbaceous plants, flowering plants, shrubs, mosses, and tree matter." Perhaps "supplemented" rather than "supplanted"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "Parasitic flies and protozoans were identified in the gut of the calf "Dima"." Do parasitic flies really live in the gut? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Lister only states "Microscopic studies also revealed parasitic flies and protozoa in Dima's gut." Perhaps their larvae? Not sure what his source is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

After some digging around, I found this paper. I am happy to leave the current statement in the article as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Isotope analysis has showed that woolly mammoths preferred hay-like grass... An isotopic study showed that woolly mammoths fed mainly on C3 plants." This is duplication of information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "The "Yukagir mammoth" had ingested plant matter that contained spores of dung fungus, showing that woolly mammoths fertilised the plants of their environment." Does the presence of dung fungus spores really show that woolly mammoths fertilised plants? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is ambiguous, I'll change it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 3: "The tusks were also used for obtaining food in other ways, since not all of their range was covered in snow." What other ways? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Elaborated, is it ok? Maybe not so elegant. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the last part of the sentence is relevant. Couldn't the tusks have been used to dig up plants and strip bark in areas that were covered in snow? Perhaps just delete the last part of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A ten-year-old would have doubled its height and increased its weight 15-fold." What does this mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be since birth, but it's a bit ambiguous. Here's the relevant text taken from Google Books, what do you think?[6] FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree—it looks like it probably means from birth to age 10, but it isn't entirely clear. In any case, I'm not sure how useful this information is. Are people really interested in the weight and height compared to birth? Do people know know much a ten-year-old human child's weight & height are compared to the birth values? Of their own children? Add to this the ambiguity about the statement and I think it should be removed from the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, will do. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1, there is something peculiar about the timing and duration of the sets of teeth. The second set of molars erupted at 12–18 months and lasted for an unspecified length of time. The sixth set were in use from age 30. This leaves a period of about 29 years for the second, third, fourth & fifth sets. Of this, the third set occupied 10 years, leaving 19 years for the second, fourth & fifth sets. Is this right? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what the source says. I've tweaked the part, but the meaning is the same... The timing for modern elephants is a bit off in relation.[7] Perhaps I should check if other sources agree? FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This slightly less serious book gives a somewhat different estimate: [8] However, it uses an older reference, so I'm not sure if it's more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have verified that the current text is accurate, so I guess that's okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A woolly mammoth could probably reach the age of 60, like living elephants of the same size." Perhaps "modern elephants" rather than "living elephants"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 2: "This feature indicates that male woolly mammoths also entered "musth", during which bull elephants become very aggressive and violent." "Aggressive and violent" seem to be redundant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2 mentions the "Bering land bridge" and "Beringia". I added a wikilink. It would be better to use a single consistent term. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put Beringia in parenthesis the first time, so readers will know the term, ok? FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The term in parentheses should be the one that isn't used in the rest of the text. Neither Beringia nor Bering land bridge are used in the rest of the article, so there isn't really any need to include the alternative name. I recommend using the term "Bering land bridge" in both places, with the first instance wikilinked to "Beringia". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2: "A 2008 genetic study showed that some of the woolly mammoths that entered North America through Beringia from Eurasia migrated back and replaced the former population shortly before the entire species went extinct." This statement is confusing. Which direction was the migration? Which population was replaced? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed,is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Prior to this, Neanderthals had coexisted with mammoths during the Middle Palaeolithic and up to the Upper Palaeolithic." Does "up to the Upper Palaeolithic" include the Upper Palaeolithic? If so, just say "and the Upper Palaeolithic". If not, delete "and up to the Upper Palaeolithic". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Evidence for such coexistence was not acknowledged until the 19th century." Perhaps "recognised" rather than "acknowledged"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "William Buckland published his discovery of the Red Lady of Paviland skeleton in 1823, which was found in a cave alongside woolly mammoth bones, but he denied that these were contemporaries." Perhaps "he mistakenly denied"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 2: "Today, more than five hundred depictions of woolly mammoths are known, in media ranging from carvings and cave paintings located in 46 caves in Russia, France and Spain to sculptures and engravings made from different materials." Are "carvings" different from "engravings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed the sentence, is it clearer? Here, carvings are on 3D objects, engravings are on walls. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The meaning is now clear. However you changed the positions of "carvings" and "engravings", which affects the meaning of the next sentence. Previously, engravings were part of portable art. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a result of me trying to condense the text, engravings are in fact mentioned for both types, so I'll add it both places. Also elaborated a bit, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm back to the original question—what is the difference between "carvings" and "engravings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The source says "three dimensional carvings", should I add that? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As that is what the source says, I suppose that would be best. Although I wonder if the original word, "sculptures", might be okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, sculpture would imply that it had been sculpted, when it has been carved from objects... Does the word sculpture include more than that? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, "sculpture" includes carvings, but if you prefer to say "three-dimensional carvings", that would be okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, then I'll say sculpture instead, as I wrote initially. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 2: "Woolly mammoth ivory was used to create art objects and jewels." I'm not comfortable with this use of the word "jewels". I suppose that in the broadest meaning of the word, these objects could be considered jewels. However it doesn't seem to add any extra information. Perhaps delete "and jewels"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 3 contains several statements of the type "having been ___ed" (some sort of past perfect form?). I wonder if a copy-editor could read through the paragraph and improve the flow? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can change it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Although woolly mammoths survived an even greater loss of habitat at the end of the Saale glaciation 125,000 years ago, it is likely that, at the end of the last Ice Age, humans hunted the remaining populations to extinction." I'm not sure why the word "Although" is used here. Also, what is the relationship between the Saale glaciation and the last Ice Age? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed although, and added a link to Quaternary glaciation (the last Ice Age). The Saale glaciation was a period within the last ice age. Should this be specified? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you could mention the time of the end of the last ice age, that would be helpful. Also, after reading Wikipedia's article on "Ice age", I don't think that "Ice Age" should be capitalized. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed ice age. Is what I've added about the last ice age what you had in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still not clear when the end of the last ice age was in relation to the Saale glaciation. If you could add the time of the end of the last age (how many thousands of years ago), that would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The last ice age (Quaternary glaciation) is still in effect. The Saale glaciation is one of many within it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What does this statement mean: "it is likely that humans hunted the remaining populations to extinction, at the end of the last ice age."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be the Last glacial period, I'll replace. Many sources seem to mix up all these terms for ice age periods. It is quite complicated. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Should "Last" have a capital "L"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Studies of a 11,300–11,000 year old trackway in southwestern Canada...." Should this be "an 11,300–11,000 year old trackway"? (I'm not sure.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good question. The source doesn't use that exact phrase, so can't double check. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have changed this to "an". If anyone objects, I would be happy to discuss further. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In "Frozen specimens", can I suggest that positions of the pictures of the "Adams mammoth" are swapped? The picture drawn prior to excavation seems to be more rudimentary. Also, the statement that the skeleton's tusks are "reversed" confused me at first—I was expecting "reversed" tusks to be pointing downwards. It wasn't until I read the text that I realised that the left–right position is reversed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 1: "Most specimens have partially decayed prior to discovery, due to exposure or to being scavenged by predators." I don't think that is the correct use of the word "decayed", nor the phrase "scavenged by predators". Perhaps change the word "decayed" to "degraded"? Perhaps delete "by predators"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "Its head was exposed, and the flesh had been devoured by predators." Should this be "scavengers" rather than "predators"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "One of its shoulder blades was broken, indicating that it had fallen into a crevasse." There are causes of a broken shoulder blade other than falling into a crevasse. How about "One of its shoulder blades was broken due to falling into a crevasse."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

According to a different source, there is uncertainty on whether the break was caused by the fall, or if it happened after it had died. Therefore the cautious language. I have reworded it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 6: "In 1997, a Dolgan family named Jarkov discovered a piece of mammoth tusk protruding from the tundra of the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia, Russia." I don't think that the family name Jarkov is relevant. I'm not convinced that the Dolgan people are relevant either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 7: "By cutting a section through the second premolar and analysing its growth lines, they found that the animal had died at the age of one month." I wasn't aware that mammoths had premolar teeth. The "Dentition" subsection makes no mention of these. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "They called it "Yuka"." This sentence is rather short. Perhaps integrate the information into the first sentence of the paragraph? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "Palaeontologists think it is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Unless there is a controversy where non-palaeontologists dispute the statement, there is no need to state that "palaeontologists think" this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed all of the above. The "frozen specimens" section is the weakest section in my opinion, it is the only one (apart from "cryptozoology") I didn't write from scratch, but where I retained a lot of existing material. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is the first frozen mammoth that shows evidence of human predation." The source states "There are some odd things. What we need to do is find out if this was human interference near the time of death or was it something that happened much later?" This statement does not imply human predation, and even scavenging by humans is questionable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, at the time I thought "predation" encompassed a bit more than it does, changed. Also, it was already mentioned under exploitation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is thought to be the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Why not "It is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered."? Also, the best preserved specimen doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. Which one is the best preserved? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it, was a bit subjective. There are juveniles that are better preserved thanany adults, and the only adult with a near complete head has an incomplete body, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 1: "The first is cloning, which would involve removing the genetic material of the egg cell of a female elephant, and replacing it with nuclei cells from woolly mammoth tissue." "Replacing it with nuclei cells"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the proposed change? I'm not sure I follow. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My question is: what are "nuclei cells"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "cell nuclei", ok? FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The relevance of the nuclei is that they contain genetic material. Also, there is an awkward juxtaposition of a (singular) egg and (plural) nuclei. How about this: "The first is cloning, which would involve removal of the DNA-containing nucleus of the egg cell of a female elephant, and replacement with a nucleus from woolly mammoth tissue." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will replace. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 1: "The resulting calf would have the genes of the woolly mammoth, although its foetal environment would be different." I am somewhat uncomfortable with the spelling of the word "foetal". I accept that the article uses British English and the word "foetal" is often used in (lay) English. The letter "o" was mistakenly added to "fetus" and this hypercorrection has now become commonplace in British English. However medical and scientific texts still retain the Latin spelling "fetus". This article straddles the boundary of scientific and generic text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just change it all to fetus/fetal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a potentially controversial change so I would be happy to discuss further if necessary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem for me personally, so unless someone else chimes in, it's fine now for me. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 2: "After several generations of cross-breeding these hybrids, an almost pure woolly mammoth would be produced." Is that really true? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, that's the claim at least. Should I make the language more cautious? FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if that's what the source says, I suppose that it's okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 3: "As the woolly mammoth genome has been mapped, a complete strand of DNA may be synthesised in the future, using the DNA of other organisms." Is the DNA of other organisms really required? Perhaps delete that part of the sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess someone confused it with Jurassic Park. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Cultural significance", paragraph 1: "The first woolly mammoth ivory from Siberia was brought to London in 1611." Should this be "The first woolly mammoth ivory brought to London was in 1611 from Siberia."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not, because other mammoth remains had been found in Europe before this point. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does the source say? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"The first fossil ivory known to reach western Europe was a tuk purchased from Samoyeds in Siberia and brought to London in 1611." So I can see that it should be clarified this was the firstivory to reach western Europe, but it had been brought elsewhere in Europe before, I'll add that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (For your information, the original statement had quite a different meaning. Both my suggestion and the current statement are supported by the source.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Cultural significance", paragraph 2: "Local dealers estimate that there are 10 million mammoths still frozen in Siberia, and conservationists have suggested that this could help save the living species of elephants from extinction." Is this through money raised from the sale of mammoth ivory? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, as explained in the next sentence, it is because mammoth ivory could replace elephant ivory in the trade. Does it need elaboration of some sort? FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the current text is fine. I just wondered if the money raised might be significant, Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I recall there's some sort of toll for the collectors, but it is paid to Russian authorities, and doesn't benefit elephants directly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Cultural significance", subsection "Cryptozoology", paragraph 1: "Gallon added that the fur-trapper had not heard of mammoths, and that he had talked about the "elephants" as forest animals, at a time when they were seen as living on the tundra and snow." In what sense were they "seen as living on the tundra and snow"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed, outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Cultural significance", subsection "Cryptozoology", paragraph 2: "In the late 19th century, there were persistent rumours about surviving mammoths hiding in Alaska." "Hiding"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from FutureTrillionaire

• Comment - I recommend connecting the paragraph that starts with "In 2012, a juvenile was..." and the one that starts with "Another mammoth discovery was..." The content seems to be related, and connecting them would fix the problem of having stubby paragraphs.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, it was actually like this originally, but was changed during copy editing, so a welcome change for me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Since short citations are already being used (Lister), all citations that cite different pages from the same work should be cited using short citations for consistency. The citations for Sloane's article (currently FN 2 and 3) should be changed to short citations. I haven't checked all the citations, but any that cite different pages from a same source should be changed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Sloan citations are all from different works. And no other source is cited from different pages. In any case, specific page (short) citations are usually only required for books, not scientific papers. My experience from previous FACS, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's still two citations for the Guthrie's 2004 Nature paper (currently FN 23 and 72). These should be combined with a refname.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good catch, I thought the cite doi template would automatically merge, bit I've now done it manually. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the rest of the citations, and didn't find any significant issue, except that the 1929 Tolmachoff article is cited twice, each citation citing different pages. If what FunkMonk says about short citations not needed for journals is true, I suppose this is not a problem. However, FN 104 (2nd Tolmachoff citation) has a huge page range (11-74). I spot-checked the source. It looks like the info is just from page 11. However, I don't see Iran mentioned anywhere in the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll check it out and merge/remove uncited stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, good catch, seems to have been another case where I had not added cite doi all places where it was possible. As for Iran (probably added by an IP), no need to be so specific, so just wrote "Asia". FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice. However, the citation for "Between 1692 and 1806, only four descriptions of frozen mammoths were published in Europe. None of the remains of those five were recovered, and no complete skeleton was recovered during that time" got replaced with page 11 of Tolmachoff's article. The problem is page 11 does not support that statement. I believe the original citation had pages 21-23. I recommend changing the page range of the combined ref from "11" to "11, 21-23".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Made it 11-23. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As far as I can see, this article is well-sourced, well-written and comprehensive. Nice job.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Ettrig

This article seems to be thoroughly reviewed and supported by every reviewer. It should be approved now. One superficial comment though. The intro is very long. I suggest the following exclusions.

The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) was a species of mammoth, the common name for the extinct elephant genus Mammuthus. The woolly mammoth was one of the last in a line of mammoth species, beginning with Mammuthus subplanifrons in the early Pliocene. M. primigenius diverged from the steppe mammoth, M. trogontherii, about 200,000 years ago in eastern Asia. Genetic studies have shown that its closest extant relative is the Asian elephant.

The appearance and behaviour of this species are among the best studied of any prehistoric animal due to the discovery of frozen carcasses in Siberia and Alaska, as well as skeletons, teeth, stomach contents and dung. Their depiction from life in prehistoric cave paintings has also helped scientists to reconstruct their appearance. Mammoth remains had long been known in Asia before they became known to Europeans in the 17th century. The origin of these remains was long a matter of debate, and often explained as being remains of legendary creatures. The animal was only identified as an extinct species of elephant by Georges Cuvier in 1796.

--Ettrig (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Trimmed, though I think the Cuvier part was an important inclusion there. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 2: Year range needs ndash not hyphen

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 4 gives page not found

Link has been dead for a while. I'll replace if I can find alternate sources. But as far as I understand, dead links are still considered verifiable?[9] FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived version of the link from 27 September 2007 is at http://web.archive.org/web/20070927013323/http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherFossils/mammuthus.php , if you want to use it (with archiveurl= and archivedate= params). GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 12: page range needs ndash not hyphen (there are others - please check)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 65 requires a pp. not p.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 77: requires a page reference

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 80: requires pp. not p.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 81: requires page reference and should have oclc

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 90: another case of pp.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 94: publisher is BBC News rather than "The BBC"

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 101 should have access date

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 102: Publisher is not The Daily Telegraph newspaper, but the Telegraph online.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 111 needs subscription template

What is that? FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Added one (it's just an info template for site links to mark sites with required subscription). GermanJoe (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 113: How does this qualify as a high-quality, reliable source?

Well, it is hosted by Tacoma Public Library[10], so it isn't unreliable as such, but I see what you mean. Could be nice to know the original publication venue (article is from 1960), but I don't know what it is. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of internet research on Henry C Morgan. He appears to be quite respected as a local historian, and has published a number of books. On that acccount I think we can accept his essay as reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look fine. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Pls address dablink for Lausanne Conference. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Changed, there is no appropriate article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 25 May 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) 23:37, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

Middle Ages

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC); User:Johnbod; User:Eric Corbett

Well, this has been a labor of love. I'd like to nominate the vital article Middle Ages for featured article status because after almost two years of work, I believe it meets all the requirements of that status - it's comprehensive, focused, well written and probably the best short introduction to the very large topic on the web. When I first started working on it - it looked like this. 900 some edits later it's grown a bit but it's lost a lot of junk along the way. It IS long - 14,300+ words, but it's hard to condense it much more without losing the comprehensiveness - it's a very complex topic. But it's not THAT big ... there are a good number of other FAs that exceed it's length (158,502 bytes - putting it about 28th on Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length - below Byzantine Empire (which covers about the same time frame..)) I've had a lot of help with this - Johnbod wrote the art and architecture sections, which I would suck at, and I've had copyediting help from John and Malleus. Malleus, as usual, has gone way beyond the call of duty and I think has copyedited the whole thing three times, at least.

I present to you, one of the main historical periods, and arguably the formative one for the current world, Middle Ages. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Driveby

• is there any way to avoid "period is a period" in the first sentence?
• I think there needs to be another paragraph in the lead talking of the age as a whole. There are three paras, one each for every subdivision, but what sets the Middle Ages as a whole apart from the preceding and succeeding ages? What are the common characteristics of the Age? You can include a sentence or two from the Modern image sentence as well.122.172.168.44 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There isn't really a "common" theme to the entire period though. We're talking over a thousand years of history - you can't even say it's feudalism or manorialism, as they really aren't throughout the period. You can't say it's "depopulation" because the high middle ages are marked by rising pops. You can't say it's rising pops, because the later middle ages are a period of falling pops. You can't say it's a period of invasions, because that's not the case in the later period. You can't say it's a period of little learning, because parts are marked by lots of learning. You can't say it's the rise of centralized government, because the early period is marked by the distentigration of governments. There are actually four paras - if there had been some uniting characteristic I'd have included it in the first paragraph. FOr that matter, I don't think you could summarize Ancient history or Modern history that way either. The "Defining characteristic" of the entire period is that it's between two other periods. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Ealdgyth, isn't explaining that there in fact aren't any "common characteristics of the Age" due to, as you say, the term being used to refer to a substantial period of history, just as valid as saying there are? I'm sure it's a common misconception that when people think of The Middle Ages, they think x, y, and z. I think it would be very useful to explain in the article what you've explained above - why the term is probably not so useful as it is so vague.--Coin945 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, but that's OR ... it's my distillation from not only studying but also years of reading the subject. The question that was asked isn't one that is asked and answered by historians, so I can't insert it into the article because there are no sources for it beyond my opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As for the other - we could use "era" if you like, but I'm not totally adverse to doubling the phrasing like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    I've recast the "period ... period" thingie, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But I think some thing from Modern misconceptions should be there. That first sentence, for example, is an excellent encapsulation of what people think.
• Couple more things:

• Can we shorten that to "The period is subdivided into the Early, the High, and the Late Middle Ages."?
• Why are the one-paragraph summaries of the three Ages in the lead so differently sized? Did the Late MA cover a shorter period than the other two?122.172.170.48 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the Early MA was 450-1000 (550 years), the High was 1000-1300 (300 years), and the Late was 1300-1500 (200 years). Those are rough approximations, yes. It's more dictated by the length of the body text on each. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from P. S. Burton A very impressive article. You have really tackled a vital subject for the encyclopaedia. So far, I have only one comment. There appears to be some inconsistency in how the locations are given for the works cited. For example, some entries gives the location as "Oxford, UK" while others just says "London" without the "UK". P. S. Burton (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  I'd prefer to dump all the locations, but I'll leave that decision to Ealdgyth. 21:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  I generally use the "UK" or state when the location is not blindingly obvious - thus I leave off "NY" from "New York" and "UK" from London, but otherwise, I generally give the information. Same deal as with Wikipedia articles - We have London not London, United Kingdom, and New York not New York, New York. (although I'm sure there are redirects... ) And I did enough academic publishing that it's ingrained in me to give locations. It's also handy to judge reliablity of sources - if you run across something published in Pocatello, Idaho and it's not related to horses, you need to investigate that source a bit better... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  OK. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• There also appears to be some inconsistency between the use of "XXth century" and "XXth-century". Especially in image captions. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  I have not the slightest idea which is correct ... Malleus??? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article is correct, because there are two different uses; as an adjective—"an 11th-century vase"—and as a simple noun "vase from the 11th century". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers at WP:CENTURY does not actually deal with this, though someone who thinks it does is busy removing all hyphens from articles. I don't have strong views but no longer use them myself; there may be inconsistency in the article? Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  No, there isn't. The article is perfectly consistent. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  Elsewhere on that page: "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting."122.172.168.44 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please check capitalisation of compass points. I am not sure whether the current mixture of "Western Europe" and "western Europe" is correct. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ARGH. I whacked on those for ages... looking again. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I am not a native speaker myself, but what about "Slavic peoples settled in central and eastern Europe", "In eastern Europe, Byzantium had revived its fortunes" and "Mongols first shattered the Kievan Rus' principalities and then invaded eastern Europe"? Should any of these also be changed? P. S. Burton (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Got those, thanks for catching those! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• I also think that you should double-check the capitalisation of "emperor" and "king" per WP:JOBTITLES. P. S. Burton (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ran through and got all I could see. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: Considering the scope and size of the article, there will always be points of contention about what to dis/include, how much attention to give certain subject etc. Considering all this, the article does a fine job of representing a significant epoch in European history. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Comments from MasterOfHisOwnDomain My hat off to everyone who has contributed to such a fine and worthy article. A real achievement. But a few things:

• • • Comments archived to talk page with this diff Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Low-impact driveby comment by Curly Turkey

You know, you wouldn't need to have all those {{nowrap}}s transcluded if you used  . You seem to be using it only to keep the enumerated part of kings' etc. names, like "Emperor Thumbuphisbum XIV". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A single {{nowrap}} requires fewer characters than two  's. But yeah, it's pointless for strings with a single space. Praemonitus (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Commments Support (User:Hchc2009)

• • • Comments moved to talk page with this diff Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• That's about it from me - cracking article! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Images and captions are now fine (comments moved to talk). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - maps. The Carolingian division maps in "Breakup of the Carolingian Empire" have an error:

• The map of 870 (after Meerssen) shows Louis II in grey in Germany and Louis the German in yellow in Italy. The two realms and rulers are mixed up - Louis II (in grey) was still in Italy after 870 and Louis the German (in yellow) in Germany.
• A minor suggestion, but i would color the Carolingian Italian realm (and not Lotharingia) in the second and third map in dark violet similar to Middle Francia in the first map. Emperor Louis II was the eldest son and inherited Italy and the prestigious title of Emperor (and Lotharingia quickly lost any independent power after the division). GermanJoe (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have the software to do such changes ... can you suggest someone to help out with this? I'm a photographer, not a graphic designer (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I and User:P. S. Burton changed them (source: Timothy Reuter, "Germany in the Early Middle Ages"). Please check, if all is OK (need to refresh browser cache). GermanJoe (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

One note I corrected a few American spellings in this a Euro-centric article. Might want to check and make sure spelling is consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I found the following variations (Centralised, recognised, canonised, organized, emphasized, centralized, criticized, colonized, reorganized, specialized, mobilized and specialized). But perhaps the article uses Oxford spelling. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that British English also uses -ized often. So I reverted my changes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

On another note: Not a big deal but shouldn't the lead image be of something that the readers will instantly recognize as medieval, like a castle or knight's armor? LittleJerry (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

See the lengthy discussion on the talk page. Some people expect an image essentially from the last 150 years of this 1,000 yr + period, but the discussion supports this choice. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1: I've read down to "Church and monasticism" so far. It's looking like something of a masterpiece to me at the moment. I can't fault it for content, and my comments are minor prose ones. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • • Archived comments to talk page with this diff Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: Having read to the end, I am happy to support. This is an outstanding piece of work, and a credit to all those involved. Aside from a few minor quibbles, I had and have no issues. I'm pretty familiar with the first two thirds of this period, and just a little less so with the third and I think it covers the whole period in impressive depth and thoroughness. The prose is top-notch. Great stuff. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support (Wehwalt) Excellent and comprehensive, a huge undertaking done well. This is not a field in which I am that knowledgeable beyond the basics, so most of this will be prose and formatting issues. A few quibbles, as you might expect me to do:

• • • • archived resolved comments to talk page with this diff Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

PedroPVZ

• I respect the impressive work done here, really impressed actually. I think Portugal is consistently overlooked in the article, or arbitrarily placed in Spain, that redirects to the modern country. Also I still fail to see why the lead pic is the lead picture. So sentences also sound a bit POV especially in Modern misconceptions.

• "The basic Frankish silver coin was the denarius or denier, while the Anglo-Saxon version was called a penny. From these areas, the denier or penny spread throughout Europe during the centuries from 700 to 1000." dont know if it is true, I've doubts, but which countries use the Anglo-saxon penny?

The Germans etc used the pfennig, and there was the Swedish penning, but I'm not sure how much these drew from Anglo-Saxon rather than Carolingian example. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Muslims didnt controlled all the Iberian Peninsula. Their legacy in Northern Portugal and Galicia is not a proved fact. In fact, it has been consistently disproved.---Pedro (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It says "By 714, Islamic forces controlled much of the peninsula, a region they called Al-Andalus" which seems reasonable. Portugal as such did not exist at this point. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62 Having just gotten back on the wiki after a frantic period of real-life shenaniganry, I am delighted to see such an ambitious effort here at FAC. Kudos and thanks go to the nominators for their efforts thus far. Some nitpicks from the later sections of the article:

• "the climatic change of the slow transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age" The change of the transition? Seems a bit redundant to me.

Now reads "The causes of the Great Famine included the slow transition from the Medieval Warm Period...." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "These troubles were followed in 1347 by the Black Death, a disease that spread throughout Europe during 1348, 1349, and 1350." Not sure why four consecutive years are spelled out here. How about: "These troubles were followed by the Black Death, a disease that spread throughout Europe during the late 1340s."

Went with "disease that spread throughout Europe during the following three years." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the trauma of the plague led to an increased piety throughout Europe, which manifested itself in ... the scapegoating of the Jews." I think you may want to go back to the source and make sure that this is actually what it says. The connection here seems a bit dubious to me.

To understand it, you'd have to have been a medieval peasant. Davies states "The psychological trauma ran deep. Though the CHurch as an institution was weakened, popular religosity increased. Charity foundations proliferated. Intense piety came into fashion: people felt that god's wrath must be placated. In Germany huge companies of flgellants flourished until suppressed on orders fro Avignon. Communal scapegoats were sought. In some places lepers were picked on; elsewhere the Jews were charged with poisoning the water. In September 1348 a trial of Jews at Chillon was supported by evidence extracted by torture. It was the signal for wholesale pogroms: in Basle, all the Jews were penned into wooden buildings and burned alive; similar scenes occurred in Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, and Dresden. Two thousand Jews were massacred in Strasbourg; in Mains as many as 12,000." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "throughout the rest of the 14th century; it continued to strike Europe throughout the rest of the Middle Ages." Repetitive phrasing. I suggest replacing one "throughout the rest of the" with "later in the", or even cutting out the second clause altogether.

• It continued to come back quite frequently, however. It was repetative, and it's important to note that it reappears throughout the rest of the period. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but does the same piece of phrasing need to be used twice in one sentence? Surely there must be alternatives to "throughout the rest of the". What's wrong with "later in the"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Throughout implies more than once during the period... "later in" implies only once. Let's try "Conditions were further unsettled by the return of the plague throughout the rest of the 14th century; it continued to strike Europe periodically during the rest of the Middle Ages." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Peasants in Western Europe mostly managed to..." It's not clear to me what "mostly managed" means. Most of the peasants managed to do this? Or the peasants were able to change most of their owed work, but not all of it?

• Now reads "Most peasants in Western Europe managed to change the work they had previously owed to their landlords into cash rents." which is hopefully clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "At first, the English ... won the battles of Crécy and Poitiers, captured the city of Calais and won control of much of France." The introductory phrase "at first" is usually used when describing something that was true but later changed. I don't see how that applies here. The French did not time travel to go back and change the results of the battles. I suggest dropping "at first".

• I've gone with "Early in the war the English under ..." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In the early 15th century, France once more teetered on the brink of dissolving" I'm not a fan of the colloquial "teetered on the brink", as it is unlikely to be understood by non-native English speakers. How about "came close to dissolving" instead?

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In modern-day Germany, the Empire continued" I hovered over "Empire" expecting the link to go to "German Empire" or something similar, and I was very surprised when it said "Holy Roman Empire" instead. This seems to be a Easter Egg link.

• It's the correct link, however. HRE lasts until Napoleon. The "German Empire" is actually Bismarkian, when Germany finally united in 1871 (I may have the date wrongish). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to suggest that the link was incorrect. What I meant to say was that it is unclear where the link goes until one actually clicks on it. I would suggest spelling out "Holy Roman Empire" in its entirety to avoid confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• But it's not called the "Holy Roman Empire" until later in its history. In this period, it's just "the Empire" or (sometimes) "the German Empire". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This is a legacy from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when scholars negatively contrasted their intellectual cultures with those medieval period." Missing words near the end? Should probably say "with those of the medieval period".

• Fixed from above. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Also, contrary to common belief, David Lindberg writes, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church..." " I think it would be very helpful to give a specific example of this rather than relying on common knowledge. The first name that pops into my head is Galileo, but he's not from the Middle Ages, is he...?

• Yea, he's 1600s. There really isn't an "example" ... so many folks think Galileo was medieval that that's the example they'll give. The whole period is full of popular misconceptions. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "One common misconception ... still very common" Is it common?

• Yes. It's still often taught in grade schools here in the states, even. I had to ... err... get medieval on my son's teacher one year when she tried to teach them that in social studies class. It wasn't pretty, but I won. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Graham Colm

• This is an engaging whistle stop tour of a very long period of history and a thoroughly well researched contribution. I thought the prose was spoiled a little by several "with" expressions where a simple past tense might have sufficed. Here's few that examples (probably most of them):
• "with old pilgrimage sites such as Rome, Jerusalem, and Compostela seeing renewed visitation"
• "with some towns in Italy having more than one such enterprise"
• "with one estimate giving a literacy rate of 10 percent of males and 1 percent of females in 1500"
• "with more expensive engravings supplying a wealthier market with a variety of images."
• "with his brother Robert I becoming king for 922–923"

  I think I got all those, but I'll take a look through later and see if there are any others I've missed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This one I found odd for other reasons

• • In the late 13th century new land and sea routes were pioneered with the Far East"

    Changed to "In the late 13th century new land and sea routes to the Far East were pioneered ...", which is what I think was meant. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added my support. A few wrinkles remain, but a steam iron will not be required. Graham Colm (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Any remaining wrinkles are down to me not being careful enough when reading through the article, but hopefully we're getting there. Eric Corbett 22:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Partial comments from Espresso Addict As a complete ignoramus on the topic, so far I've found the article pretty readable and comprehensible, and well illustrated -- bravo!

• I agree the lead image feels atypical. Is there mileage in trying a composite of three images, representing early, middle & late periods?

I disagree. This is a beautiful image, which is perfect for this article. Please do not change it. Graham Colm (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Throughout, there is occasional use of -ise as well as -ize endings. I know some words must use -ise in UK English, but others seem mistaken (eg proselytise is spelled both ways). Also need standardisation on use of em rule vs spaced en rule for parenthetical dashes.
  • I'll leave this for Malleus - he's the expert on British spelling. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

    I think we're consistent now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• In the lead, I got a bit confused over the number of different names for periods, especially whether "Classical" is the same as "Antiquity".
  • Standardized on Antiquity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Development of the concept: Should "mediaeval" have an ae ligature?
  • It is about half and half with or without, and since it's easier to type without... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Start and end dates: What is "Romance-speaking"? Can it at least be linked here? (Actually linked where defined under New societies section.)
  • I've linked it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Later Roman Empire, para 1: can "curial" be defined as well as linked? How does it relate to "western Roman elites" under New societies, para. 1?
  • Now reads "decline in numbers of the curial, or landowning, class" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Later Roman Empire, para 2: "did not resolve the problems it was facing: excessive taxation, a declining birthrate, and pressures on its frontiers, among others." -- slightly unclear what "among others" refers to (frontiers or problems); can this be rephrased?
  • Actually, it means that there were other, less important, problems. Suggestions on how best to word this welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Later Roman Empire, para 3: where (roughly) is Thracia? Possibly also clarify Gaul, though probably better known.
  • It's in the Balkans - which I added. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Later Roman Empire, para 4: "emperor of the west" is there a reason this is sometimes capitalised?
  • When it refers to the title, it should be capitalized. Malleus? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

    I think it's correct that it's not capitalised as it's referring to a job title, not to any specific emperor, but there was a following "Emperor of the West" which I've switched to lower case for consistency. I also wouldn't have capitalised "Empire", but that's another story". Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• New societies, para 1: "military strongmen" -- strongmen seems informal?
  • It's the general term used by the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto: what is the difference between kingdoms and polities?
  • A polity is any political state. A kingdom is a type of polity. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto: why did the supply of slaves weaken? Is weaken the correct word?
  • Weakened is correct and the reasons why are probably a bit too complex to go into in an introductory/overview article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Byzantine survival, para 1: can Hagia Sophia be defined in the text?
  • Not easily. It's a big church that had a ton of influence throughout the rest of history and is now a huge mosque in Istanbul. At some point, I have to allow the links to speak for themselves and not clutter the text with explanations for everything. It's clear from the context that it's a building - if you want to know what, that's what the link is for. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Byzantine survival, para 2: "It began small" seems informal?
  • Really? I don't think I need to use "big" words just to use big words, because, then will you be asking me to define every big word? Sorry, if that's a bit cranky, but this is an overview and I can't be defining every single thing that's linked or the article would be twice the size it currently is. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Rise of Islam, para 1: repetition of 632 date for death of Muhammad.
  • Removed second mention. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto: "Islamic forces conquered much of the Eastern Empire and Persia ... and the Iberian Peninsula" -- bit confusing, as Iberian Peninsula is in the west.
  • Yes, well, the whole sentence is "After his death, Islamic forces conquered much of the Eastern Empire and Persia, starting with Syria in 634–635 and reaching Egypt in 640–641, Persia between 637 and 642, North Africa in the later 7th century and the Iberian Peninsula in 711." which makes it pretty obvious that they swept along the north part of Africa to the Iberian Peninsula. The map should help make it clear also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Trade and economy, para 1: "African products are no longer found in Western Europe" tense? Is this referring to archaeological finds?
  • Yes. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto: why is pottery complex?
  • I do not know why archaeologists consider pottery complex, they do, however. I would assume that simple goods are those that do not get any change, such as foods or salt. More complex products would be those that need more work to make or to ship. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, As a traded product, pottery is much more complex than basic commodities, if only because you have find designs that distant markets like. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Church and monasticism, para 2: "The register, or archived copies of the letters, of Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) survives, and of those more than 850 letters, the vast majority were concerned with affairs in Italy or Constantinople." -- seems a complex sentence for a simple idea.
  • Well, I could say "The register of Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) survives with the vast majority were concerned with affairs in Italy or Constantinople." but I'm pretty sure someone would want to know what a register was and how many letters there were... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"The vast majority of over 850 archived copies of letters from Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) concerned affairs in Italy or Constantinople." -loses several words and 4 commas! Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The three sections about Carolingian empire probably should be combined, possibly with lower level section headings. The end of Breakup of the Carolingian Empire section seems to refer to wider events, and perhaps should be relocated.
  • The Carolingian empire embraced most of Western Europe - it's breakup impacted all of Western Europe. We've already got a pretty complex TOC, I'd rather not get any smaller subheadings. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Carolingian Europe, para 2: "Carloman's minor son" -- I assume this means son who had yet to reach his majority, but it sounds as if there was a major son as well.
  • Changed to "young" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Breakup of the Carolingian Empire: the map legend refers to the Treaty of Meerssen which doesn't appear in the text.
  • I wasn't aware that everything mentioned in a caption must be referred to in the text, but I've removed the treaty mentions. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it does in fact. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Military and technological developments, para 1: "cataphract-type soldiers" -- can you define this in the text?
  • Now reads "The creation of heavily-armoured cataphract-type soldiers as cavalry was an important feature..." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

    Actually it now reads "heavily armoured", as there's no adjective after an adverb. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Will try to read the remainder later. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's exciting to see an article like this at FAC.

• Should the "Medieval" in the opening line be capitalised?

I think so, as a defined period, like Early Modern Period or "the Neolithic". Not when used as a adjective. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency as to whether it's "romance laguages" or "Romance languages". Also, you link at the second mention, but not the first.

should all be "R" in my book Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, now fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In Anglo-Saxon society the lack of many child rulers meant a lesser role for women as queen mothers, but this was compensated for by the increased role played by abbesses of monasteries." I don't understand what is being said here.

It's a bit fiddly, but in A-S society inheritance of the crown by the next male (let alone female) heir was usually not automatic, & boys tended to get shoved aside by their uncles etc. So no queen mothers in a regent-type role. But top-drawer ladies could be very powerful as abbesses of a distinctive A-S type of paired convents and monasteries *(we must have a link for these), where the abbess was usually top dog. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "By the end of the 7th century, under the impact of the Muslim conquests, African products are no longer found in Western Europe." Why suddenly into present tense?

Because it's talking about modern archeology. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The 7th century was a tumultuous period of civil wars between Austrasia and Neustria." How can they be civil wars if they're between different kingdoms? Or did both kingdoms experience separate civil wars? Am I misunderstanding something here?

Perhaps best cut, but they were still sort of supposed to be part of the same Frankish polity. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've cut the "civil" here. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• There seems to be some inconsistency with whether you refer to areas as (for instance) "present-day Wales and Scotland" or "France".

Is this bad though? Does it destroy the prose or make things unclear? Sometimes I think we pursue "consistency" too much at the price of prose or clarity. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which limited the usefulness of cavalry as shock troops, but it was still possible for cavalry to use shock tactics in battle, especially when the saddle was built up in front and behind to allow greater support to the rider." This is going to be unclear to people not familiar with the subject matter

One of those areas where I can only go into so much detail before we bog things down. If I don't mention this, though, I'm not being complete. Suggestions on any "short" additions that could clarify? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Linking shock troops and possibly clarifying why they weren't useful as them would help. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Linked now and reads "During the early invasion period, the stirrup had not been introduced into warfare, which limited the usefulness of cavalry as shock troops because it was not possible to put the full force of the horse and rider behind blows struck by the rider." and I cut the bit about the saddle being built up as unneeded detail. Better? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Much clearer. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the end of the section on the Early Middle Ages, you have a picture depicting naval warfare- however, naval technology/naval warfare are not mentioned in the prose

Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've read half-way down the article, and it's looking great so far. I'll be sure to finish the review later. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Continuing my reading-

• "In central and northern Italy and in Flanders, the rise of towns that were, to a degree, self-governing, stimulated economic growth and created an environment for new types of trade associations." Something up with the commas in this sentence.

  I don't think we need to be tripping over any of those commas except for the one after Flanders. Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a non-English word, should "Reconquista" be italicised?
  • It is now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Is Gesta Regum worth a redlink?
  • Right now Gesta Regum Anglorum is a redirect to William of Malmesbury, so I avoided using it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd be inclined to say that Anselm of Canterbury is worth a mention when you discuss scholasticism. He's been called the founder of the movement, and, while it's not my area of philosophy, he's the second name I'd give after Aquinas.
  • For weight on this, I've leaned heavily on Barber's coverage of intellectual life in his Two Cities - Abelard gets four pages, Anselm gets about one (it's split over two pages, but coverage is about one page - this doesn't count his coverage in the political sections where he's discussed in his role as Rufus' Archbishop of Canterbury). Aquinas gets four or so pages also. It's pretty clear that Barber (who's writing an overview of the High Middle Ages as a textbook for college) thinks Anselm is a bit less important than the other two. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• "when scholars negatively contrasted their intellectual cultures with those of the medieval period." They're positively contrasting their cultures, surely?
  • Try "This is a legacy from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when scholars contrasted their intellectual cultures with those of the medieval period, to the detriment of the Middle Ages." which hopefully makes things clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well written- seems to be a fantastic summary. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support everything seems in order from my two specialties (sources and images) --Guerillero | My Talk 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I started to object, writing I have a concern over the name/scope of this. This is an article about history of Europe during Middle Ages, not the Middle Ages. The lead even acknowledges this, stating "In European history, the Middle Ages, or Medieval period, lasted from the 5th to the 15th century." Look at the structure, it is a chronological history of Europe during Middle Ages. Where's the section on economy of Middle Ages? Culture and society? Granted, Middle Ages is a historical topic, but history also includes the fields of economic history, changes in social norms, and so on. Then I looked at the article again and realized it does cover those topics quite well :) This lives me with a some comments which prevents me from supporting:
• concerns over linking. The first time word "Poland" is mentioned, it is not linked; it is linked only on its third use (to Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569)). Please add a link to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) on the first appearance. Lithuania is mentioned only once, linked to Lithuania, whereas the Grand Duchy of Lithuania would likely be more appropriate.
  • I"ve linked to Poland in the Early Middle Ages for the first mention, and Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) on the second mention, which covers a broader spectrum of Polish history, I think. Also fits better into the chronological sectioning. Linked to the Grand Duchy. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• moving on, the article links a number of "state name in the Middle Ages" articles, but not Poland in the Middle Ages. Please add that, and see if there are any others missing.
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also recommend changing the link to German history to Germany in the Middle Ages, even if it is just a redirect now I am sure eventually it will be a full article
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• While the article usually does good job with the main/further info templates, I am not happy with the "see also: Wars of Scottish Independence" in one of the sections. It seems much more minor than the other links of that level. Surely it could be incorporated as a sentence? Oh, I'd also suggest converting the other see also templates to main or further.
  • I actually prefer "see also" rather than further and have changed them accordingly. Also removed the Scottish bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree re Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article wouldn't benefit from a brief overview what was going on elsewhere in the world at that time?

Gulp! Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think so, honestly. The actual interactions between Europe and the Far East or Africa are pretty minimal - they mainly relate to the actual Middle East rather than the Far East. It's a pretty insular period. And the poor article is already huge! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please ping me for talk if my response would be urgently needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I shall deal with the rest of these (which are generally quite useful) tomorrow sometime. I've got a plant sale to go to wayyyyy too early in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Support now. Nice work, to say the least :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from the Duke of Waltham: I see I'm not too late to the party... Huge article, and it took me a while to find the time to read it properly, though you have little reason to care about that because I do not intend to support: I reiterate my view that, until I have submitted a FAC of my own, I cannot in good conscience vote on one. What I can do is provide yet another pair of eyes to comb through the prose, and I have found a few issues, which generally range from minor to negligible. (Actually, they turned out to be far more numerous than I expected, so apologies for posting this exhaustive list of minutiae so late in the process.) I have already made several minor style corrections—with this edit—so please don't think that I have brought up every stray comma, dash and hyphen here.

The article itself was beautiful—I simply cannot praise it enough. I was particularly excited to read the introduction, as I always am with high-quality, broad-scope articles; indeed, I find that few experiences in Wikipedia can be compared with reading a well-written lead on an important, well-known subject. (My vote of confidence for the impressive lead image, by the way.)

So, here we go:

• Although the map shows that the Balkans belong to the Eastern Roman Empire, the text does not actually mention in which half Valens was emperor.
• "with tribal items often modelled on Roman objects" – "noun plus -ing" phrasing ("being" implied), avoidable with "and tribal items were often modelled on Roman objects". This would entail a change in tense, but it doesn't look problematic to me in this case.

  Done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• punctuation detail: in "The Burgundians settled in Gaul, and after an earlier realm was destroyed by the Huns in 436, formed a new kingdom", wouldn't the "and" be best placed before the comma (thus treating the commas like dashes in this sentence), or is it purely a matter of preference?

  The problem I think is with the second comma, so I've slightly rejigged that and the following sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "futher complication" is found twice in the same paragraph; replacing the second instance with "another complication" would be a mild remedy for this repetition. (There is also the similar "further compilation" in the previous paragraph, so a more extensive change might be desirable.)

  Changed the second occurrence to "an additional complication", and "further compilation" to "another compilation". Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with the aristocratic culture focusing on great feasts held in halls" – "noun plus -ing" was declared fixed but is still there. Perhaps "and the aristocratic culture now focused on great feasts held in halls" would be acceptable, although someone might find a better phrasing.

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  And very elegantly, too, I should say. Question: am I supposed to start striking bullets now? They are only comments, after all; I am not requiring anyone to address them. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  I really don't know to be honest, but it seems like make-work to me and I rarely bother. If there's something I or Ealdgyth or Johnbod claim is fixed but you don't agree that it has been then just say so. The default for me is that if you don't object then it's fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable. Waltham, The Duke of 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• "a pattern of large, contiguous blocks of land were the norm" – a pattern "was"; there is also much repetition of "patterns", although that probably can't be helped

  Changed to "... large contiguous blocks of land were the norm", which also gets rid of one of the "pattern"s. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "These differences allowed for a wide variety of peasant societies with some being dominated by aristocratic landholders and others having a great deal of autonomy." – "noun plus -ing" again; "some of which were dominated ... while others had" would solve the problem, I hope, satisfactorily

  Changed to "... some dominated by aristocratic landholders and others having a great deal of autonomy". Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Officially, they were tolerated, if subject to conversion efforts, and at times..." – lots of commas; the removal of the first would make for a more unified sentence

  Done. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Umayyad descendants took over the Iberian Peninsula, the Aghlabids control of North Africa, and the Tulunids became rulers of Egypt." – "assumed control"? ("took control" would be repetitive)
• "Franks traded timber, furs, swords and slaves in return for silks..." – I have added a few missing serial commas on my own, but I'm not sure whether the missing one here would introduce any ambiguity, so I've left it alone.

  I'd say a serial comma there would be unnecessarily fussy and intrusive. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "African goods stopped being imported into Europe, first disappearing from the interior of Europe" – I don't believe replacing the second instance of "Europe" with "continent" would create any ambiguity.

  I don't think we need either "Europe" or "continent", as the context tells us what it's the interior of, so I've dropped "of Europe". Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The replacement of goods from long-range trade with local products was a trend throughout the old Roman lands that happened in the Early Middle Ages." – just a thought: if the emphasis is intended to be geographical rather than temporal (also judging from the next sentence), why not switch the "throughout" and "that happened" clauses? The latter's position in the end makes it look a bit tacked on.
• "the western branch becoming the Roman Catholic Church and the eastern branch becoming the Orthodox Church" – no "with", but still "noun plus -ing"; I don't know whether "became" or "would become" is more appropriate, which is exactly the ambiguity supplied by this construct

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Charles, more often known as Charles the Great or Charlemagne, in 774 embarked upon a programme..." – Perhaps the year would be better off after the verb?

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Italy was drawn into the Ottonian sphere by the late 10th century, after a period of instability, with Otto III (r. 996–1002) spending much of his later reign in Italy." – here the potential for ambiguity of the "noun plus -ing" construction becomes apparent, as Tony might remark: does Otto spend much of his later reign in Italy because it was drawn into the Ottonian sphere, or is it the reverse? The dates suggest the former, but not every reader will make this inference.

  Changed to "By the late 10th century Italy had been drawn into the Ottonian sphere after a period of instability; Otto III (r. 996–1002) spent much of his later reign in the kingdom." Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Monks were also the authors of new works, including history, theology, and other subjects, written by authors such as Bede (d. 735), a native of northern England who wrote in the late 7th and early 8th century." – This sentence is a bit circular (monks were the authors of new works, written by authors); my personal preference would be for something like "...subjects; one such author was Bede...", though I don't claim it would be optimal.
• "The period saw an increase in literacy, developments in the arts, architecture and jurisprudence, as well as liturgical and scriptural studies." – a minor point about this sentence's structure: if the period saw developments in liturgical and scriptural studies, rather than simply their existence (or coming into existence), then an "and" would seem appropriate after "literacy", and probably an "in" before "liturgical". If not, perhaps that ought to be made clearer.
• "...and finds such as the Anglo-Saxon burial at Sutton Hoo and the hoards of Gourdon from Merovingian France, Guarrazar from Visigothic Spain and Nagyszentmiklos near Byzantine territory." – there's something unusual about this double "and" structure; is it a literary flourish or an error? Malleus?

Not a literary flourish, & not exactly an error that I can see. Sutton Hoo is a burial, but the others are just hoards so they need their own list. Would "and hoards such as those of ..." help? Any suggestions welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I failed to notice the use of "hoards", which made me think there was something wrong with the sentence. I no longer think any change is needed here. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, increasing the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops." – I know it was at another reviewer's suggestion that this sentence was changed, but I don't believe the result is grammatically sound... I am struggling with coming up with alternatives, though; my best idea is the implicitly self-referential "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, with its associated/resulting increase to the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops."

  Changed to "... which increased the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops". Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with more of them in the regions of Southern Europe than in the north" – "noun and -ing" ("being" implied); perhaps I am overreacting, but wouldn't "most of whom were in Southern Europe" be more elegant? Or is it a misrepresentation of the source? (Actually, whether my suggestion is adopted or not, "the regions of" seems superfluous, unless a singular "region" is intended, meaning "in the general area".)
• "Women in the Middle Ages were officially required to be subordinate to some male, whether their father, husband, or other kinsmen." – I think "kinsman" would be preferable over the plural, which implies that they might be subordinate to more than one male

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the rise of towns that were, to a degree, self-governing, stimulated..." – I am not sure about the comma after "self-governing"

  Neither was I. Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Tens of thousands of people from all levels of society mobilised across Europe, and captured Jerusalem in 1099." – I find that comma unhelpful.

  So do I, removed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note "Y" seems a bit out of place, considering the earlier introduction to the military orders.
• "Although the Templars and Hospitallers took part in the Spanish crusades, Spanish military religious orders were also founded similar to the Templars and Hospitallers; most had become part of..." – Can't we avoid the repetition of the two orders' names here? Perhaps something like "...crusades, they also found imitators in newly founded Spanish military religious orders, most of which had become..."

  Changed to "... similar Spanish military religious orders were founded

• "Along with the still dominant heavy cavalry" – hyphenate "still dominant"?

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gunpowder was known in Europe by the mid-13th century with a recorded use in European warfare by the English against the Scots in 1304" – "noun and (implied) -ing"; the simple way out is by use of a semi-colon, and I think a shift to the active voice would improve the result: "...by the mid-13th century; a recorded use in European warfare was by the English against the Scots in 1304, although they used it merely as an explosive and not as a weapon.")
• "Metalwork continued to be the most prestigious form of art, with Limoges enamel an option for reliquaries and crosses." – again the surreptitious form of "noun and -ing", the conversion of which to the past tense seems to reveal some sort of omission. Was Limoges enamel a popular option for reliquaries and crosses, was it restricted to these applications, or was it simply the most notable type of metalwork in this period?

Yes; no but they are probably the most numerous survivals; ho-hum arguably (but I'm not trying to argue so). Not entirely sure I see the problem here; obviously I'm trying to cram a complex picture into a short phrase. Is "popular option" any help? One could add to or qualify "reliquaries and crosses" I suppose, at the risk of padding. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Simply mentioning that Limoges enamel was an option (one of many) poses the question of why this specific method is mentioned here; indeed, it seems to assume that the method is familiar to the general reader, who would therefore be aware of its importance. On the other hand, saying that the method was popular or otherwise notable makes it clear to the reader why it is mentioned in the passage. Side-stepping the grammar issue at the same time, one could write "Metalwork continued to be the most prestigious form of art, and Limoges enamel was a popular option for reliquaries and crosses." If it was really popular, one might place more emphasis and use a semi-colon, followed by "Limoges enamel, in particular, was a popular option for reliquaries and crosses." Other options might be available; I am not the expert on either the subject or the capabilities of the English language, to be honest. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone with "with Limoges enamel a popular and relatively affordable option for objects such as reliquaries and crosses" - the cheapness was a key element in its popularity. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Its inclusion makes more sense now, thanks. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...the Cistercians. The Cistercians..." and in the same paragraph "...laymen. Laymen...", as well as "...monks. Monks..." (higher in the article), would ideally be avoided, though I realise this might not be possible in some cases. I have no helpful suggestions this time.

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I favour the use of "former" and "latter" but I am loath to introduce them into articles because I don't know to what extent people may find them confusing, so I am happy to be validated in this case. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which resulted in the average annual temperature for Europe declining during the 14th century" – "noun and -ing"; I propose "...in the decline of the average annual temperature for Europe during..."

  Changed to "... which resulted in a declining average annual temperature for Europe during the 14th century ..." Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Most peasants in Western Europe ... by the end of the period." – These two sentences might beneficially be joined with a semi-colon.

  Maybe the text has been changed since your comment, but I can't find that in the current article. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's in the "Society and economy" sub-section. (No time to log in.) 2.85.9.226 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Still can't find it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I can't see how, unless you included the ellipsis in the search. Here are the two sentences in full: "Most peasants in Western Europe managed to change the work they had previously owed to their landlords into cash rents.[260] The percentage of serfs amongst the peasantry declined from a high of 90 to closer to 50 per cent by the end of the period.[160]" Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...governments. Governments also attempted to legislate a return to the economic conditions existing prior to the Black Death, partly at the urging of landlords." – Apart from the repetition of "governments", the "also" doesn't seem entirely justified by the context. I am thinking of something along the lines of "For their part, governments attempted to legislate a return..."

  Rewritten. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Kings profited from warfare by gaining land and extended royal legislation throughout their kingdoms." – I am not sure I understood the second part of this sentence perfectly. The kings gained from having their laws take effect across a greater part of their realms?
• In the second paragraph of "State resurgence" we have "at the end of the Wars ... the Wars had ... the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War. The early Hundred Years' War..."; perhaps alternating the two terms would improve the paragraph a little?
• "...ecclesiastical officials convened in Constance in 1414, and in 1415 the council deposed..." – It's just a personal preference, but "in the following year" seems quite natural here.

  It does, changed as per your suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "although subject to a crusade being called against it" – "noun and -ing"; I thought simply removing "being called" would do the trick, but "although the target of a crusade" seems even better.

  I agree, changed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with legal codes being promulgated in countries..." – the same; I recommend the use of the past tense after "and"

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Would a serial comma before "and Giovanni Boccaccio" be confusing?

  It would, because it would imply that only Boccaccio was in Italy, not Dante or Petrarch. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "After his death, exploration continued; Bartolomeu Dias..." – wouldn't a full colon be better here?

  I don't think so, as what follows the semicolon is a full sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  That's interesting; I hadn't realised colons were best-used to introduce sentence fragments. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm, take your time... I am not objecting, after all, so you don't actually need to adopt any of my suggestions. I do intend to return for follow-up comments, though, should they be required. Waltham, The Duke of 04:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: the lead says that "the Carolingian Empire endured until the 9th century, when it succumbed to the pressures of invasion", but the article seems to place more importance on the various civil wars that weakened and divided the empire. I realise there isn't much room for manoeuvres in the lead, but the emphasis on this point doesn't seem entirely consistent with that given in the article. Perhaps I'm missing something. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reworked to "the Carolingian Empire endured until the 9th century, when it succumbed to the pressures of internal civil wars combined with external invasions—Vikings from the north, Magyars from the east, and Saracens from the south." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Kudos for taking on such a huge topic; the article has markedly improved, and you've managed to keep it relatively concise. I don't have time to read through it thoroughly, but I found myself missing a reference to the influence of the Islamic world on medieval science. Could you add a sentence or two to "Rise of Islam" or "Intellectual life", possibly drawing on the sources in Science in the Middle Ages or Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe? Lesgles (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've roughly covered topics in the amount they are covered in a number of overview histories - the best place to delve into the whole concept of whether or not Islamic learning influenced medieval European science is probably in those more specialized articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that there already is something about the influences - "Among the results of the Greek and Islamic influence on this period in European history was the replacement of Roman numerals with the decimal positional number system and the invention of algebra, which allowed more advanced mathematics. Astronomy advanced following the translation of Ptolemy's Almagest from Greek into Latin in the late 12th century. Medicine was also studied, especially in southern Italy, where Islamic medicine influenced the school at Salerno." is right there in intellectual life. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't see those sentences, and that somewhat resolves my worry that Islam might come across as no more than a conquering antagonist. I would be even happier, though if there were a brief mention of Averroes and Aristotle, of translations from Arabic, or the cultural life of Al-Andalus. From your sources, for instance, see Davies pp. 253–54, 349 or Oxford History of Medieval Europe, pp. 194–95. That's up to you, though. Lesgles (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

More comments

• The small second-para of New societies features "kingdom" eight times.
  • Whacked a few out. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• The (r. 1189–1199) and (d. 1085) things hamper readability and elegance of the prose, and should be used sparingly; i.e. when they add to the readers' understanding. Right now they are used everywhere a ruler is named, even when doing so is redundant. Example: "Louis the Pious (r. 814–840), was still alive by 813. Just before Charlemagne died in 814, he crowned Louis as his successor. Louis's reign of 26 years"—here the bracketed reign is clearly redundant to the text that follows.
  • I prefer to retain the consistency of almost always using the dates. It helps to anchor the chronology and avoids us having to put dates in the prose nearly as much. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• 1111–1125 → 1111–25 per WP:MOSYEAR (throughout).
  • I leave MOS issues to Malleus/Eric. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    The MoS does seem to weakly recommend that style for 4-digit date ranges in the same century, so I've been through and changed all the occurrences I found. Eric Corbett 17:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is that timeline necessary? It is uncited (not all the dates in it are backed up by the prose/references), contradictory to the text (which gives a range of dates for end of the MA, none of which is the 1450 of the timeline), unnecessary (the MA are divided into three, you don't need a timeline for three ages) and kinda ugly (large vertical white space created + the text on the image looks pixelated and clunky).
  • Removed. (I've wanted to do that for ages, but since no one but me seemed to mind it, I kept it) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Missionary efforts to Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms there. Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian kingdoms gained power and territory in the course of the 9th and 10th centuries"—can these near-identical sentences be combined?

  I've changed that to "Missionary efforts to Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, which gained power and territory.". Eric Corbett 22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the Moravians, Bulgars, Bohemians, Poles, Magyars, and Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'. These conversions contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'"—is the repetition of the identical-sounding peoples and kingdoms avoidable?
  • Not really, I don't think. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Several common English words are overlinked in Technology and military.
  • Since they are discussed as developments, I think in this case linking the specific articles where further details of their development history are given is worthwhile. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of these are minor comments, but I hope you especially consider the second point. The bracketed date ranges have a jarring appearance, and introduce an unnecessary level of detail for such a broad article.122.172.22.100 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agriculture and food There seems to be too little about this considering that most of the population were peasant farmers, not clergy or warriors. As examples of summary coverage of these topics, see Agriculture and Food in Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. Warden (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is some coverage at various points, especially the para beginning "The development of a three-field rotation system for planting crops...". As those links show, there isn't much happening in medieval agricultural practice beyond the slow tweaking of Roman techniques, at least until right at the end. Medieval historians are, or used to be, obsessional about land tenure & agricultural economics & all that, which the article rightly treats pretty swiftly, but what and how things were grown receives relatively little attention. Perhaps a few points could be added. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• • In general - those subjects aren't covered in general treatments of the middle ages. I've based my coverage on the relative weight of coverage in works that are generalist in nature and aimed at the non-historian reader. It *IS* an overview article, after all. If I add agriculture and food (and agriculture is covered under technological developments) then I'd need to add things about fashion, and where does it end? Food is entirely too regional in coverage - what English peasants ate in the late Middle Ages was vastly different than what the Slavic peoples ate during the early Middle Ages. We just can't generalize that well and it's not usually covered. Even the works I've consulted on peasant life don't cover food in much detail - it's generally two or three pages in 400 page works. That tells me that it'd be undue weight to cover food here. I'm more than happy to link to any relevant articles like I've linked to the various fashion articles, but that is probably about all we can do.
  • I think a lot of people have this image of the medieval peasants as being the same throughout the period and throughout the continent. This isn't the case - the entire period of the Middle Ages is one of "decline" and then "growth" - it was constantly in flux. I've hoped to get that across in this article - but at times it seems like everyone wants to add their own little "pet idea" without really looking at the big picture of the way the sources cover things or how the current state of scholarship is. I do have plans to write an Agriculture in the Middle Ages article sometime - but I don't feel that the coverage in this article is out of line with what the coverage in the generalist sources are. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• More about fashion would be good too — I especially like the detail about the development of buttons during the period. The article currently seems to say nothing about sumptuary law, which was developed during the period to restrain the middle class. Such laws governed not only clothing but food too. Note that social history is emphasised in education now and so we should give due weight to this. Warden (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Look. I'm going to repeat myself. This is an overview article. We can't possibly cover every single subject that happened during the Middle Ages. We're already pushing the limits on word count here... I'm trying to keep it within what the major secondary sources cover in overview articles. (As an aside - using the term "middle class" for the Middle Ages is a bit of an anachronism - it implies that there existed something like a modern middle class, which isn't the case. Nor are sumptuary laws "developed" in the Middle Ages - they existed long before this period.) The article is 14,500 or so words. There are going to have to be points that are referred to in just links and seealsos - and I've used the secondary sources to select what needs to be covered in more depth and what needs to go into subarticles. Singman's Daily Life in Medieval Europe (which I've used extensively to base my coverage of social history and daily life) doesn't mention sumptuary laws at all. And the coverage of food and drink is very small compared to the rest of the coverage. Likewise for agriculture. Wickham's work on the Early Middle Ages devotes about the same percentage of space to social history as I've devoted here ... discussing all the layers of society and how they changed and briefly touching on the changes that occurred in the period. Likewise for Barber's Two Cities, which I use for the High Middle Ages. I've spread things out a bit more on sources for the Late Middle Ages - there isn't one really standout book covering the whole period as a complete overview. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes sumptuary laws are notoriously held to have been pretty ineffective at all times and places, and the Middle Ages is no exception, even things like the Jewish hat and badge laws were very patchily observed as far as we can tell. The development of distinct clerical dress (by freezing Late Antique styles) and the beginning of the distinct and unusual Western habit of rapidly changing fashions in the late 14th century are probably what one would want to mention if there was space, but really I agree there isn't, and some articles are linked to. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  That idea of rapidly changing fashion might be worth a sentence though. Eric Corbett 14:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I could distill one from the (mostly my) first 2 paras at [[12]] if desired. Benton (already used) has a few pages on late medieval fashion, without making this point though, and she does take sumptuary laws rather more seriously than specialists do. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• We might make more space by combing out some of the redundancy which seems to arise from the division into Early/High/Late periods. For example, the technology sections keeps banging on about crossbows and the word is used 8 times altogether. The words wheat, grain, corn or bread do not appear in the article. Warden (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

• "into Antiquity, Medieval, and Modern periods": Just a nitpick, but I don't recall seeing anyone write "in the Antiquity period" before (just "in A[a]ntiquity") ... perhaps I'm off base on this. One workaround, if you like: "after Antiquity and before the Modern period" - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• There are some judgment calls to make on "Middle Ages were" vs. "Middle Ages is/was"; since the meaning varies, it's not necessary to be consistent, but it's slightly jarring that it seems to alternate between singular and plural from one mention to the next.

  I only found one was/were issue at the end of the lead, which is now fixed. Eric Corbett 22:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "into Antiquity, Medieval, and Modern periods" vs. "antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern period": consistency
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• "the war with Sassanid Persia": A little better (per WP:EGG) would be "the war with Sassanid Persia" or "the war with Sassanid Persia"
  • I detest the habit of linking "the" - it looks utterly stupid. And we need to retain the link to Sassanid Persia, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The army doubled in size, and reforms resulted in a new emphasis on cavalry and smaller units instead of the infantry legion as the main tactical unit.": The army doubled in size, and cavalry and smaller units replaced the infantry legion as the main tactical unit.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• "While the Visigoths were invading": Delete this part; the previous sentence establishes this (more or less)
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The Eastern Roman Empire, often referred to as the "Byzantine Empire" after": I'd take the quotes off. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- A few dup links may be justified in an article this length, pls just review and ensure that's the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through and whacked a bunch of dup links. The ones remaining are long separated from their first mention and/or are not "commonly" known. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 25 May 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) 13:37, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

Gagak Item

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, despite its length, I am certain it meets the criteria. Gagak Item, a 1938 film, has been essentially forgotten by the media; very little seems to have survived. What is here is the result of extensive pouring over sources and providing context adequate for the average reader. As such, this article is easily the most detailed look at the film available. I'd like to thank all of the editors who gave a non-formal peer review at the talk page: Wehwalt, Sarastro1, Cassianto, and SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Given the limited information available from what appears to be an extensive search of the sources, I think this is a rather nice little article in a rather unusual area (unusual for me, at least). Although short, this is well-written, covers what does seem to be available and is not padded out with superfluous information to make it bigger or more complex. My few concerns were dealt with at PR and I rather like this interesting piece. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Schro! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Generally following SchroCat; I was also one of the peer reviewers. Well done given the limited material.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support from Cryptic C62. The brevity of the article is a bit unusual for a FA, but WP:WIAFA says that an article should be comprehensive, not long. I will accept the nominator's sourcing efforts in good faith unless someone can demonstrate that there are gaps in coverage. That said, here are some nitpicks. I made a few minor suggestions, which the nominator promptly addressed. These can now be found on the talk page. Good work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Just an interesting case, this is currently 200 characters longer than the shortest FA I know about, Miss Meyers. There seem to be a few FAs of similar length, but not many — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment So, nothing more is available on the plot?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the note on plot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I commented on the talk page before this FAC. I think this article is comprehensive, albeit short! But I have no problems with its length, and I think the prose is clear and tight, which such a short article needs to be. Good work, and another interesting film article. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Great things come in small packages; ever true with this fine piece of work. Congratulations! -- Cassianto^Talk 12:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-1996,PD-IDOld-Art30). Sources and publication details provided (authors unknown).

• Applying Indonesian copyright for URAA calculation, see Commons-discussion. OK. GermanJoe (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• As the delegates are looking for a source check (it's been a while for me, since April 2012), rest assured that I will provide scans/photographs of the relevant offline source. All others are accessible online. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review None of the sources cited are in English. Two are published books, one is the Film Indonesia website, and the rest are from contemporary newspapers or magazines. As far as I can judge they are all satisfactory. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support A nice, short article. --JDC808 ♫ 04:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 24 May 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) 10:25, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

Jack Hobbs

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack Hobbs is generally rated among the top cricketers of all time, and was something of a pioneer in terms of batting technique and in establishing professional cricket as a respected occupation. He scored more first-class runs than anyone is ever going to again, was lauded wherever he played and was successful into his mid-40s at the top level. And all the while being a thoroughly nice chap, about whom no-one had a bad word to say. This article is currently a GA, and had a very thorough PR. It is quite long, but Hobbs had a very long, eventful career and I believe the length to be justified. All comments welcomed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers (and happily learned a thing or two during the process). All my minor quibbles were thoroughly dealt with there. This is, as the nominator says, a long article, but in my view it is the right length. There is no padding, no digression. The nature of the subject requires this length. The referencing is wide ranging and thorough, the proportions of the article well judged, the prose a pleasure to read; I am confident that this article meets the FA criteria. – Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments and for your help at the PR. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images as peer reviewer. I gave fairly extensive comments at the PR and further suggestions on that page have only led to improvements. Striking, quite easy to follow. Length is not an issue as the article is all meat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and earlier comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Check the link in ref 52 (I get "redirect loop")

• Not for the first time this week, the re-organised MCC website has really messed up articles! That page is no more, but managed to find some other refs to replace it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also check ref 300 (I get "address not found")

• And another major organisation re-organises... But searching for a replacement ref (this is the Hall of Fame thing) I realised that no-one, except for a couple of newspapers in India and Pakistan, paid any attention to this, including the British press, the ECB and Cricinfo. And now the ICC don't seem to refer to it on their own site. I could ref that he was in the HoF, but such sparse coverage, plus the rather more prestigious accolades he received, makes me think it is rather a waste of time including it at all. So I've cut it completely. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's a minor format glitch in ref 312.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look fine. A fuller review comment will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I spent a fair time on the peer review. I've just read the article again, and can find nothing further to say other than praise. Once again, well done, and keep up the good work. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and the kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by SchroCat (talk)

Apologies for not being able to return for the PR, although you had some magnificent help there—and from much better editors than I. A few minor comments from me:

Overall

• This is a long article, but I found it pleasantly easy to read with no overly detailed areas, so well done on getting the difficult balance right there.
• Money. You add his salary, benefit receipts etc from time to time. I appreciate that not everyone is a fan of modern day equivalents, but perhaps footnotes to give some frame of reference? (I'm not pushing this as a "must-do", but it's certainly something to think about)

• There are useful comparisons in the "Family life" section, which give a good indication as to Hobbs's relatively affluent lifestyle. Calculated present-day equivalents are, in my view, best left out; there is no consensus as to their usefulness, and they often lead to arguments. The ifs and buts render such equivalents almost useless to the general reader. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• What Brian said. I'd really prefer to avoid direct inflationary comparisons, and I could find no other data to compare except that in the Family life section. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem at all: as long as you've considered it and decided against it on solid grounds, then I'm happy with it. I understand the points on both sides regarding this one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

First-class cricketer

• Gentlemen v Players: "he was unsuccessful in both games". This leaves me itching to see what he did! Perhaps a note?

• Clarified that he scored few runs. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominance in South Africa

• Perhaps a link to University of Oxford, piped or otherwise?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Partnership with Sutcliffe

• Wife? When did that happen? There's no previous reference to him being married: perhaps a brief passing mention at the appropriate time, possibly (in addition to the more full section I see at the bottom of the article)?

• I've wrestled a bit with his wife! Adding her at the time of his marriage rather interrupts the flow and bloats the section. But she needs to be mentioned here as part of the events prior to the tour. So I've named her here but would prefer to otherwise confine her to the family section. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reputation and legacy

• "In 1963, Neville Cardus chose him as one of the best six cricketers of the past 100 years, to mark Wisden's centenary": past 100 years could be taken ambiguously, perhaps "the previous 100 years"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

• 1: should Wisden be in italics?

• Yup. Done now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• 276: You list The Guardian as being published in London: I think it was still in based in Manchester in 1963 (with the move that followed in '64)

• Didn't realise that! I assumed it moved when it stopped being the Manchester Guardian. Great catch. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• 277: Date of retrieval isn't needed for news reports, even if acquired from an online source: you have the date and page, which is sufficient.

• I prefer to do so when including a url. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

All rather minor and only a couple of them being something that should be done: the remainder are more in the line of suggestions to think through. Aside from that, excellent work on a getting such a fine article crafted from such a large subject. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

All good and I've moved to a support on this - an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- I had my pennies worth at the peer review, and was more than happy with the responses. The article has only improved since then. It is well illustrated, thorough in its research, and the prose is excellent. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and kind comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I made my few measly comments at PR and have nothing more to add, other than that this is another in a long line of supurb cricket bios that is definitely worthy of the FA star. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Good work on the article, got nothing to comment on. Zia Khan 23:14, 22 May 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) 10:24, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

Banksia dentata

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is on par with the other 23 Banksia featured articles. I was expanding it for DYK and enjoyed writing about it so kept going. It benefitted from a thorough GA review by J Milburn. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim the usual nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest links for genetic, tessellated, monotypic, cladistic, diarrhea.

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Obovate" is linked twice in Description, and the " Flora of Australia " twice in Placement

repeated links delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• species of tree in the plant genus Banksia.—"plant" is redundant, no animal trees

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The cylindrical yellow flower spikes, known as inflorescences (x2) — I'm always wary of "known as", perhaps The cylindrical yellow inflorescences (flower spikes)

hmm, why? parenthesized and de-known... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Initially covered in reddish hair that disappears— the Cheshire Cat springs to mind. Fall off? Wear away?

aaah "wears away" is good.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• wavy (undulate) —odd to use an technical word to explain a common one, instead of the other way round

switched Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Newly-opened flower spikes smell like corn—does this mean sweetcorn? Perhaps a link would help

hmm, not thrilled on this one, seems a pretty obvious term? Is there any other corn...? Sweet corn seems the most appropriate destination I agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1.5–2 cm long, 0.4–0.8 cm high and 0.5–0.8 cm wide. —I don't like the conversion policy, but you have converted similar lengths later in the same paragraph. Also a switch between cm and mm for similar lengths seems inconsistent

only left the smallest ones in mm now. converting mm ones seems silly. all others now have conversions Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• as far south as Katherine Gorge and into Queensland, where it is found on the Cape York Peninsula to as far south as Cooktown—possible to avoid repeat of "as far south"?

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is the only Banksia species not endemic to Australia—any indication whether human agency was involved?

I am pretty well 100% sure all sources and authorities assume not, though none explicitly say this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• common blossom bat (Syconycteris australis) —for consistency, I'd either lose this binomial or add for the glider.

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was introduced into the United Kingdom in 1822. —"It" has become detached from its intended subject.

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose corn was pretty obvious, although in the UK it's often used more widely to refer to any cereal. Anyway, all done, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Suggest columns for footnotes

mitosed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Where is Brunsvigae?

it's Braunschweig.....i.e. Brunswick... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• FN8: doubled period

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Be consistent on when you specify country - you've got "London" and later "London, United Kingdom", "Paris, France" but just "Leipzig"...

aligned Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• How does Salkin fit with WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

It is a Thesis for a Masters of Science awarded in 1979. It contains a large amount of fieldwork which is invaluable. Some of the conclusions have been superceded and are expressed as his rather than general ones, if used. It was vetted at the time and has been used as a citation in other peer reviewed publications (it's a specialised field so doesn't appear much....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• FN27: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Support nicely written, I made one small tweak, otherwise I'm happy with the prose. ϢereSpielChequers 20:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

thx for the support - tweak looks good - can't believe I left that "not" there....hmmmm..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492 (as part of WP:Indonesia)

Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk; image check already conducted

• Support on prose and images. Looks fairly solid now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth - It reads well and I found it difficult to find anything much to quibble about.

• Now Supporting on the basis of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• I favour conversion measurements that reflect the accuracy of the original. Thus "up to 13 cm" should convert to 5 rather than 5.1 in.

I must admit I was tempted to do that from the outset...rounded Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• In other parts of the article you have rounded conversions where appropriate but you have failed to provide some imperial measure equivalents in the last paragraph of the "Description" section.

Both are in mm and getting to ranges where measuring in inches looks a bit silly I thought Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The first sentence in "Taxonomy" has two "by"s which makes it a bit awkward. It is also too long and convoluted in my opinion.

trimme bit that was a bit general and obiovus anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Others from the same region ..." - Other what?

names - done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence starting "On Melville Island ..." in the Distribution section is also too long and convoluted.

I'd split it with a semicolon - do you think a period and proper split is better? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...in the transition from rainforest to open climate..." - Is "rainforest" a type of climate then?

oops, meant habitat. changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The lead section states it is rarely cultivated but the Cultivation section does not.

removed offending sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That looks good. Changed my comments to support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 18 May 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) 10:11, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

Norman Cob

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is another French draft horse breed, but one with a slightly happier history, as after the event of mechanization it found another use besides being bred for the meat market. Another collaboration between myself and User:Tsaag Valren, the wonderful French editor who took this article to featured status on the French WP, with additional help from numerous others. I look forward to your comments! (Oh, and this is a WikiCup article.) Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Dana boomer. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (Wikimanche CC 3.0, own work, PD-age). Sources and authors provided.

• File:RaceNormande.jpg - added US-tag, OK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, GermanJoe! Your image expertise is, as always, much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I did the GA review for this. At the time I thought it also met the FA criteria, and having reviewed the subsequent fairly minor changes, I'm happy to support this now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jim! Your GA review definitely helped in the last push to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - looks well-written and comprehensive at first read, just some minor issues and questions:

• wiki-links => do you link once in lead and once more in main text, or only once? Some terms are linked twice ("Thoroughbred", the breed colors, ...), some only in lead ("breed", "conformation", "Selle Francais", ...). It would be more consistent to use one style throughout.

• Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• history sub-headers => "20th century" overlaps with the next section "1950 - 2000"

• Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This stud and the [Haras du Pin] ..." - red-link?

• Done, and tweaked the formatting of this sentence in general a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• 20th century "The arrival of automobiles coincided with a split in the breed." => Why are automobiles mentioned here? Is there any causal connection?

• GermanJoe, in general, the arrival of the internal combustion engine meant that horses were often at the losing end of the deal; in this context, they were not needed as carriage horses any more, so the body type split between the horses still useful for riding (lighter, more agile) and horse still suitable for farm work (heavier, slower). I'll let Dana address the issue further, but that's the connection. --Montanabw

• Added a bit to clarify that an increase in cars meant a decrease in carriage horses. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "[At this point], a distinction ..." - redundant in a chronological text.

• Removed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Laurens St. Martin" - notable enough for a red-link?

• I don't think so? He doesn't have an article on the French WP, and I haven't seen any notable treatment of him in the sources to which I have access. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• 2000 and today "There are fairs held for the breed at Lessay and Gavray, in [la Manche]." => the link points to "la Manche" aka the English Channel. Should it point to "Manche" (the department)?

• Yes, it would be correct to link it there. However, it doesn't need to be linked, given that Manche is already linked a paragraph up. My mistake. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Uses ""Some Norman Cobs are bred for the meat market ..." => any numbers available for meat usage vs. other usages? From the article i get the impression, meat usage is rare, but that remains a bit vague.

• I haven't seen any numbers, but I've dropped a note to the French user who has worked on this article with me, to see if any of her sources can give us more specifics. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• citation => the article uses "p." for page ranges, not "pp." (?).

• Done, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Notes and References => check ISBN-formatting, all should be ISBN13 hyphenated - http://pcn.loc.gov/isbncnvt.html is a good tool for ISBN conversions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the discussion that requires ISBNs to be ISBN13 hyphenated. Could you please point it out to me? Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the additional comments. I believe I have replied to everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• ISBNs are detailed at WP:ISBN, which strangely is not a policy or a guideline (my bad, thought it was one). As the text mentions, ISBN13 is standard since 2007. I'll do another final read before supporting. GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support after another readthrough, nice work. Comprehensive (as far as a layman can tell) and well-sourced. I formatted the remaining ISBNs, aside from using the newest standard it just looks a bit cleaner that way. GermanJoe (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review and support, GermanJoe! Thanks also for changing the ISBNs - I really was going to change them, I just hadn't had a chance to yet... Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've probably edited too much on this article to be a neutral reviewer, though I didn't do much to help the GA/FA run. But it is nicely done and support from Wikiproject Equine! Montanabw^(talk) 15:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• L'Harmattan or Éditions L'Harmattan?

• WorldCat has both: the first book and the second book. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Syndicat national des éleveurs et utilisateurs de chevaux Cob Normand" or "Syndicat National des Éleveurs et Utilisateurs de chevaux Cob Normand"?

• The first. I think I've standardized this. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Cheval or Cheval magazine?

• That one might be two different magazines, cheval is French for "horse" and a quick web search turned up multiple horsey publications in French titled Cheval - whatever. No URL for the '"Cheval one. Hmm...Dana? Is this Le Cheval, Journal du Cheval,... something else? --Montanabw

• No, they're supposed to both be Cheval magazine. I just missed a word. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is "Cheval magazine" --Tsaag Valren (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• FN37: italicization, capitalization

• I think I fixed that one, but let us know if I failed to do so. The article title is copied precisely as written at the URL, the citeweb template is probably why the publication title isn't italicized, I tried switching it to "work" but it still didn't italicize. I'll let Dana see if there is anything else to be done, but if you have any thoughts here, i'm sure we are both willing to see what we can do. --Montanabw

• I had used the wrong cite template. It should now be fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• France Agricole Éditions or Editions? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• The former. I think I have now standardized this. Thank you for the review, Nikki! Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• France Agricole éditions (we say "les éditions de la France agricole", too) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I read through the article and didn't spot any problems. Overall, the FA criteria appear to be met comfortably. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Giants! Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 14 May 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) 10:06, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [17].

---

Manta ray

Nominator(s): LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because it gained GA status earlier this month and has since undergone a peer review and we think it is of a high enough standard to qualify. One would have thought that this enormous fish, with a wingspan of up to 8 metres, would be extensively studied. In fact it is difficult to research because it lives much of its life in mid-ocean and when spotted, tends to swim off into the distance and not be seen again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Drive by I'll review this in detail later this week, but just glancing I noticed a couple of obvious points Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some web refs don't have a publisher

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some on-line versions of real journals have retrieval dates, not needed (assuming ref 1 is a journal, couldn't get it to open Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Length in the lead is metric-only, needs Imperial conversion for the poor benighted yanks 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Looks pretty good, some queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• references: #3 first letter of manta is lower case, unlike others, looks odd. #12 Binomial should be Roman text #43 George??
• 2001 study of mitochondrial DNA in 2001. — overdated

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• occur together sympatry. — missing word(s)?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• They have flattened bodies — "horizontally" would clarify

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• to demonstrate this — that illustrate this may be better

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• eats 13% of its body weight — about may be advisable, unless every manta does exactly this

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• You refer to remoras at least twice in contexts suggesting they are harmful, is that a fact?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• An individual manta may revisit...[34] They....

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• 6.3-million-gallon — metric?

Not know how to convert. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's 23848 cubic metres, assuming they are US gallons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean I don't know how to convert with the template. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not mandatory to use the template, I never do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• third has recently — this will date, give the year

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not knowing about their gentle nature — Is this verifiable? Films have been known to distort the facts even when they are known (shock horror!)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'd put the Culture items in chronological order

That doesn't make sense to me. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not actionable as part of this review, but I'd suggest archiving some of the web-only sites to avoid future linkrot

Although only the conversion, which I've converted, needs fixing, I'll wait to see what transpires with Yzx's more knowledgeable analysis before I go any further. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be on track again, and I have no outstanding issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Yzx

*The subfamily is Mobulinae, not Mobulidae

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*There should be distribution maps for each species, or one map that shows the range of both

There are none available. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

An option is to find a map for M. birostris that predates the taxonomic revision, and use it with a note.

Why? The reef manta's range is within the oceanic manta's range anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Genus synonyms should be given

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A search at the Catalog of Fishes turns up more.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*The early view that "black" and "white" mantas -- there's no previous context to indicate what this means

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still not very clear, because you haven't yet introduced the notion that mantas have color morphs. It's also confusing because right after that sentence you start talking about how mantas can be divided into two species.

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Color morph should be linked somewhere

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant in that sentence since it's the first place it comes up in the article, i.e. "...some argued that the black color morph was a different species from the mostly white morph." -- Yzx (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*The first paragraph under "Evolutionary history" doesn't seem relevant. It should be rewritten to focus on manta biogeography and how geological changes have affected it

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no mention that mantas are descended from stingrays

• What do you mean by "descended"? Do you mean that there's no mention of mantas being included in the suborder Myliobatoidei? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Body proportions (length vs width) would be helpful

The article does already give the proportion of how length/width proportions and the sources only give exact measurements for width (disc). LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no description of what the teeth or dermal denticles look like, although both are mentioned in the article

Yes there is. In the third paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*Information on coloration is interrupted by the paragraph on physiology

The first two paragraphs are meant to give information on general appearance and physiology while the third is meant to discusses differences between the species. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but it disrupts the flow of the section because you go from talking about external appearance, to physiology and anatomy, back to external appearance. I recommend putting the 1st and 3rd paragraphs together under "description" and have a separate section for anatomy/physiology.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Information in "Lifecycle" section conflates M. alfredi and M. birostris, e.g. data on maturation size, which is certainly different for the two species. It needs to be rewritten to make clear what info applies to which species, and which info applies to both

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Now only the Mozambique maturation size is assigned to species. If the Indonesian figure is for M. alfredi, this should be stated.

Looking at the refs, I'm still seeing passages cited to a study of one species being implied as common to both. Are there no additional sources that can be added?

This is difficult since the studies were done before the species classification split. See Cwmhiraeth's comment below. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The IUCN gives reproductive details for each species separately. -- Yzx (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant that maturation size should be specified for both species since they differ. Here, I've collected the data from the IUCN:

Location	alfredi male	alfredi female	birostris male	birostris female
Mozambique	~3 m	"slightly under" 4 m	4 m	"well over" 4 m
Maldives	2.5 m	3 m
Hawaii	2.8 m	3.4 m
Indonesia			3.8 m	4.1 m

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

*"Cephalic fin"/"cephalic lobe" are used inconsistently

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*Why are threats/conservation grouped with distribution? The two topics have little to do with each other

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that the threats come before conservation, since one is a response to the other.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no mention of where manta catches come from (commercial vs artisanal fisheries, directed fishing vs bycatch, types of gear, etc)

Yes it does. It mentions both directed fisheries and bycatches. LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The only direct mention of bycatch I see is in the passage about Ecuador regulations, where it doesn't make sense because the fact that mantas are caught incidentally hasn't been introduced. The concept of bycatch should be linked explicitly to the discussion of net entanglements, because it's such a major concept in marine conservation. There's also no direct mention of how they're caught (harpoons? fishing line? nets?)

The article states "Similarly, mantas are often entangled in gill nets designed for smaller fish, often resulting in suffocation and death". That sounds like bycatching to me. Added capturing methods. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bycatch should be referenced or linked under "Threats", or otherwise when readers encounter the term under "Status" they won't know what it means.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no mention of other economic uses besides gill rakers (e.g. meat, skin, liver oil)

• I don't believe there are any Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*The "Culture" section reads like a list of trivia. I'm not certain the fact that it's appeared in movies (which are cited to the movies themselves, a warning sign to me), etc is notable unless discussed in secondary sources

• Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The same notability concerns goes for the music (cited to album listings) and the car (whose source doesn't support the statement given). Is there no secondary source that states something like "the manta ray has inspired movies, music, etc"?

No, removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no mention of the origin of manta rays being called "devilfish", or of the associated folklore

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's actually an interesting history behind the public perception of manta rays changing from dangerous to harmless (Peter Benchley's involved!)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have more nitpicky comments but I'll hold off on those for now. As a general note, I'd be careful about taking information gathered from one species and applying it to both. -- Yzx (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the points you raise are a bit difficult to deal with. It was only in about 2009 that there was some agreement that there were 2 species, M. alfredi and M. birostris. It is therefore unclear in earlier papers which species was being described and as large parts of their ranges overlap and it is not possible to stop them and examine them in detail, it is still partly guesswork as to which species is being observed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some more comments:

*IUCN status should not be used for genus-level articles or above. Only species (and populations within species) are given IUCN assessments

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*The type species and authority should be given

Redundant. The readers get the idea by reading the 3rd paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The type species is a fundamental taxonomic aspect of a genus, and it's the original name combination associated with the genus. You can't figure out what that is from the paragraph.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be the original combination. I've fixed it myself. -- Yzx (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*In the intro, size should be given for each species individually

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*There is information available about the evolution and phylogeny of mantas, both about how the two species relate to each other, and about how the genus relates to other rays

Added in cladogram made by Sasata. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

*It used to be thought that batoids evolved from sharks, but molecular studies have shown that instead they share a common ancestor with the sharks -- the evolutionary origin of rays is a contentious subject, and the accuracy of this statement depends on how one defines "shark". There's no need to bring it up in this article

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Mantas evolved from bottom-dwelling stingrays and lost their stinging brabs while their pectrol fins became more wing-like -- only one of the mantas has lost its sting. Also, pectoral fin is misspelled

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Studies in the oceans around Japan in 2010 -- "published" in 2010, not performed

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

*Maximum weights should be separate for the two species because they differ in maximum size

Weights were given before the species classification split. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I would phrase it like "the largest known manta weighed..." rather than "Mantas reach a...", so as to avoid implying both species

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*The fish's gill arches have palates of pinkish-brown spongy tissue -- I think you mean "pallet", as in a strip or band of something. "Palate" is a specific anatomical structure not related to gills

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still there

Oops, fixed now. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*The source given for mating behavior ([18]) does not seem correct since it doesn't talk about mantas specifically.

• The source given discusses the mating procedures in cartilaginous fish, a group which includes manta, and is correct for the sentence that immediately precedes it. I have added an extra reference for the earlier sentences in the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

*the developing embryos feed on the egg yolks -- "feed" is not exactly right since the embryos aren't using their mouths to eat them (this is a specific behavior called oophagy)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood; I meant that the manta isn't oophagous, so it should be "the embryos absorb the yolk" or something similar

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*feed on milky secretions -- the term for this is histotrophy and again, they're not eating it. The histotroph is delivered directly into the gut through the spiracles

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*In 2011, mantas became strictly protected in international waters thanks to their recent inclusion -- was this inclusion in 2011? If so, then "recent" is redundant

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*When was M. alfredi assessed by the IUCN?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

-- Yzx (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Article looks pretty good on comprehensiveness and accuracy. Since there's been a recent copyedit I'll go through it again for prose. -- Yzx (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Prose comments:

• Comma usage needs to be sorted throughout the article:

• The standard convention is there to be one behind the penultimate item in a list. For example, behind while the smaller, M. alredi, and behind entanglement in fishing nets, etc

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are commas missing where there should be, for example behind The scientific naming of mantas has had a convoluted history, Their large mouths are rectangular and face forward, Courtship is difficult to observe in this fast-swimming fish

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are extra commas where there shouldn't, for example larger M. birostris, found throughout tropical, subtropical and warm temperate oceans

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some long sentences would benefit from commas separating the phrases, for example in The denticles have multiple cusps and overlap in M. birostris while those of M. alfredi are evenly spaced and lack cusps.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• which they imbibe through their open mouths -- "imbibe" seems like the wrong word; that's used for drinking

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Vulnerable" is used both as in a specific sense (Both species are listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature) and a general sense (but are more vulnerable closer to shore) -- recommend capitalizing or quoting the IUCN status to distinguish, or using different words when it's the general sense

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• which originally meant a type of trap shaped like a blanket, traditionally used to catch rays -- comma overuse in this sentence, suggest "a type of blanket-shaped trap traditionally used to catch rays"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• cartilaginous fish with tough cartilage -- "cartilaginous" is redundant

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence about the author of the genus is sandwiched between the sentences about the authors of the two species. If the intention is to be chronological, then more context needs to be added about the taxonomic history (e.g. "the manta was first described as ___ by ___. Then ___ placed it in the new genus Manta, etc)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Prince Alfred's manta ray -- this common name has not appeared before and the reader won't know what you're talking about

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both it and M. birostris occur in sympatry -- The "both" should be removed, or you should say what they're both sympatric with

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Although some small teeth have been found, few fossilized skeletons of manta rays have been discovered -- I don't understand the use of "although" here

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• one from the Oligocene in South Carolina and two in North Carolina from the Miocene and Pliocene -- parallel examples should be worded the same way

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The source given for color morphs (ref 10) doesn't mention color morphs. Also, a white color morph is different from an albino

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• charcoal-colored ventral outlines on the fins -- pectoral fins?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• rete mirabiles may serve to warm the brain -- "serve to keep the brain warm". Subtle distinction, but the rete doesn't generate heat, it functions to conserve metabolic heat

Fixed. The source suggests it warms the brain so that what I'm going with. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• presses his ventral side against hers -- does the male turn upside-down, or no? This varies among rays

I don't know. Cwheairth has the source. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• He then inserts his claspers -- cartilaginous fish typically use only one clasper during mating, should check

See above. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• In Indonesia, M. birostris males appear to mature at 3.75 m (12 ft) while female -- "male" and "female" should agree in number

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the Maldives, male M. alfredi mature at a width of 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) while female mature at 3 m (9.8 ft) -- the way this sentence is constructed, the singular "female" doesn't work; try phrasing with "respectively" instead

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Female mantas mature appear to mature at 8–10 years -- extra "mature"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• the same adult female has been seen since 1989, implying that manta rays can live for fifty years or longer -- the numbers don't add up: mature at 10 yrs + 24 yrs since 1989 = age of 35 yrs

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Colons should be used in Swimming behavior in mantas differs across habitats; and These leaps come in three forms

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Individuals in a group may make aerial jumps in succession -- each individual in the group jumps in turn, or a single individual makes a series of jumps?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fish that have been fitted with radio transmitters have traveled as far as 1,000 km (620 mi) from where they were caught -- since this seems to be tracking data, is that 1000 km a straight-line distance?

Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• overexploitation -- link overfishing

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• has recently entered traditional Chinese medicine practices -- it's not exactly traditional if it's recent

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• By way of comparison -- just "by comparison" would be sufficient

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• or death if the wound is severe enough -- suggest "which may lead to death if the wound is severe enough"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• by disrupting ecological relationships and through the transmission of diseases -- suggest "increasing disease transmission"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall the prose is fair, albeit somewhat choppy with lots of short sentences. As I mentioned, better use of commas would improve its readability. -- Yzx (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing to support now. There are still some comma usage improvements/prose streamlining that can be made, but not enough to oppose on. I appreciate the nominators' diligence. -- Yzx (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
• File:MantarayMocheLMC.jpg - OK (copyright check and cleanup done). GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relation to humans", subsection "Aquariums", paragraph 2: "The birth of the first manta ray in captivity took place there in 2007." An edit by Lfstevens has left the statement ambiguous. It is unclear if the manta ray was the first ever captive manta ray, or if its birth was the first birth in captivity. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comments reading through now: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Their slow reproductive rate amplifies these threats. - "amplifies" sounds weird used like this, yet I agree it is a good fit. : "Potentiates" is more logical but less accessible. "Worsens" simple but does not quite carry the sense of it....I can't really think of a better word so not a deal-breaker per se.

• I have changed "amplifies" to "augments" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't like that. "Augment" is usually used in a context of a good thing, which this definitely isn't. What about "exacerbates"? -- Yzx (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I like "exacerbates" too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Physical appearance and anatomy - "Physical" is redundant here - what other types of appearance are there....?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Manta rays have many common names including Atlantic manta, Pacific manta and devilfish. The name "manta" is Spanish for cloak or blanket, a type of blanket-shaped trap traditionally used to catch rays.[3] The name "devilfish" derives from the horn-shaped cephalic fins that give the ray an "evil" appearance - the first sentence is partly redundant (as devilfish and manta are explained in the next two sentences) - if the geographic names don't correspond to species..were they originally names for forms or what? I think they may be best removed or else moved to after the two sentences on meaning. This para is a bit slim - surely there are some other vernacular names or bits to add to it?

Fixed and I do not see a problem with a slim opening paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The skin is covered in mucus which protects it from infection - has this been studied? Is it just a barrier or does it have antibiotic properties?

Source does not say but it does not appear to be unusual for fish or other vertebrates according to the main article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

FAir enough - I don't know much about marine biology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks alright otherwise - I agree with Yzx's note about some sentences being on the short side. I will have another read through later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• support - was looking for some glaringly short sentences and failed to find any deal-breakers left prosewise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Postscript - I am wondering whether the material on mythology/folklore/pop culture is a bit slim - I would have thought there was more out there. I did see this but some better sourcing would be in order maybe as I can't find else about it. Not a deal-breaker as alot of this material is debated..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that reference qualifies as a reliable source and I couldn't find another. "Manta Rays in Popular Culture" is pretty wishy-washy and not much help either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

agree, which is why this isn't a deal-breaker for my support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LittleJerry has asked me to spotcheck the references so here goes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Sepkoski: A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. The hyperlink doesn't seem to be working at the moment. Perhaps the website is down.

I replaced it. LittleJerry (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Dean: The evolution of cranial design, diet, and feeding mechanisms in batoid fishes. Due to my Wikipedia skin setting, I am not able to view the phylogeny tree. The second statement is supported by the source.

6. Froese: Family Myliobatidae – Eagle and manta rays. The source does not mention superorder Batoidea. The rest of the information is verified in the source.

Added cite that supports Batodiea.

13. ITIS: Manta birostris (Walbaum, 1792). The source mentions the surname (Walbaum) but does not state the full name (Johann Julius Walbaum).

Well Johann Julius Walbaum seems to be the only Walbum would was a taxonomist and the source is meant to confirm his authority on the species, not his full name. LittleJerry (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the source is supposed to able to verify the information in the text. In this case, that includes his full name and the source does not do that. I found this reference which includes his full name and indicates his interest in the taxonomy of fish, although it doesn't actually mention birostris. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

When in taxonomic doubt, try the original source. Here's Walbaum's Petri Artedi sueci genera piscium, where the species was described. His full name's on the cover, and birostris is on page 535. -- Yzx (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine, removed the first and middle name. The original source cannot be used for the statement "The specific name birostris is ascribed to Walbaum (1792) by some authorities". LittleJerry (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Here, the entry from Catalog of Fishes that describes the attribution to both Donndorff and Walbaum, with relevant citations. Seems silly to remove an obviously true fact like the guy's name. -- Yzx (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

20. Cicimurri: Late Oligocene sharks and rays from the Chandler Bridge Formation. The information is verified in the source.

25. Ari: Encephalization and brain organization of mobulid rays. This information is verified in the source. (Interestingly, I also discovered in the source that Manta birostris has the largest brain size of any fish.)

28. Marshall: Reproductive ecology of the reef manta ray Manta alfredi in southern Mozambique. I only have access to the abstract so I am unable to verify the first statement. The second statement is verified in the abstract.

31. Marshall: Biology and Population Ecology of Manta Birostris in Southern Mozambique. This PhD thesis requires a University of Queensland login to download, so I am not able to verify the statements. The first statement, from "Biology", subsection "Lifecycle", paragraph 2 is: "In southern Africa M. birostris matures at 4 m (13 ft) while females reach maturity slightly over that." Does the first half of the sentence refer to males?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

38. Manta Trust: Manta fisheries. With the first statement, the source describes the meat as "grainy" or "sandy" rather than "tough". The second statement is verified in the source although the source actually mentions more places than listed in the statement.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

43. Convention on Migratory Species: COP10 Outcome. The source verifies the statement.

48. Georgia Aquarium: About Nandi. The source indicates that mantas are rare in captivity, but doesn't actually say that this is due to their size. (This is arguably self-evident.) More importantly, this source could be used as a reference for the subsequent statements that are actually about Nandi. The source used for those statements is said to be the homepage of Henry F. Mollet, although the information in the source was collected by Filipe Pereira. While the information in the source looks plausible, I am not convinced that it should be regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

References 48 & 49 are actually the same source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Conservation issues", subsection "Status", paragraph 2 uses the same reference throughout. Rather than repeating the inline citation every sentence or two, would it be reasonable to use a single citation at the end of the paragraph? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Pls check dup links and see if any are really necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate links removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 25 May 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) 09:06, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [19].

---

23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because because it has recently undergone a successful MILHIST A Class review and has had some incremental improvements through that process and since. It was the sister division of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (an article which is now FA). In the confusion and desperation that ruled the Balkans in late 1944 and 1945, this division never reached more than brigade size, but elements of it fought the Red Army in southern Hungary in late 1944. It was disbanded when its Bosnian Muslim members mutinied, realising that their German sponsors would leave them to the tender mercies of the Yugoslav Partisans and Russians. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and I also did the GAN review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Flag_of_Albania_1946.svg: source link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• it isn't used in this article? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's in the navbox at the bottom. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Crap. Do I have to check the templates that are added as well? I'll get on to it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I wish ppl would just stay at their url... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• It's not a deal breaker, but generally statements made in the lede don't need to be cited unless they're not backed up in the main body.
• This reads as if Himmler was going to put two corps of two divisions in Bosnia and another two corps in Albania: His plan was to form two corps of two divisions each in both the Bosnian region of the Independent State of Croatia and in Albania.
• No duplicate links.
• No DABs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Sturm, have removed the citations from the lead and checked that all points were included in the main body and cited. Also clarified the plan only involved two corps. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Cautious Support

• "Formed on 19 June 1944, the division did not reach full divisional strength and never saw action as a formation, but elements of the division fought briefly in southern Hungary in early October 1944.[4][5] The division was formally dissolved on 31 October 1944" It seems there are too many successive use of the word "division" in this segment. Can this be tweaked?

• Done.

• "...expulsions and forced religious conversions against the Serb population living within the borders of the new state." Serb is an ethnicity; so is it a specific religious sub-group of Serbs that were forced to religious conversion? Conversion from what to what religion? (I have no background knowledge).

• Clarified. It is complex, but I think the wordings makes the essential aspects clearer now.

• "Despite Pavelić's assurances of equality with the Croats, many Muslims quickly became dissatisfied with Croatian rule". Again, Croat is an ethnicity, while Muslim is a religion. So, no Croats were Muslim? And does, in this context, Muslims necessarily mean non-Croat Muslims?

• Again, complex, but I have tweaked the wording to improve clarity.

• "... fierce fighting had broken out between the Ustaše, Chetniks and Partisans in NDH territory". Partisans has a capital P. Is it name of a party?

• Partisans is overwhelmingly initially capitalised in scholarly sources on the subject.

• "... the autonomists were desperate to protect the Muslim". Who were the autonomists?

• clarified.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All of the above addressed, I believe. Let me know if you think anything else needs further tweaking. Thanks for reviewing! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, all of the issues are addressed. Regarding Partisan, I do not have any problem, but did not strike out that in case some other reviewers notice that and provide some opinion. I feel I don't have the qualification to judge this article against featured article criteria. still I'd try! To a novice of the topic like me, the article looks comprehensive, well-written, well-researched, neutral, and stable; lead is good, structure is ok. I did not do any spot check of the sources (most are probably not available online). Media and length are fine.

So, cautious support from me (cautious because of my own shortcomings: lack of any knowledge of the topic, and lack of use of professional level of English). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose (temporarily) Neutral (as of now)

Introduction

• Typos, you mix the use of Waffen-SS and Waffen SS throughout the article.

• Fixed.

• The introcution is way too short for spending a whole sentence on that the number was given to another division afterwards.

• I have put a hatnote on the article and removed the sentence from the lead.

Background

• You write the NDH authorities were led by the Ustaše militias but weren't the Ustaše militas an instrument led by the Ustaše authorities of the NDH?

• Overall the militia were ostensibly under the control of Pavelic and the regime, but in this respect, the militia led the campaign.

• Pavelics assurances of equalities should be mentioned before the Ustaše milita campaigns. Otherwise you dont have to mention that non-catholic inhabitants of the NDH were dissatisfied with it as it is clear.

• The militia campaigns started almost immediately the NDH was established, so that would not be chronologically correct.

• The Chetniks were at least during the time of their resistance against the occupation some kind of Partisans so you should specify the kind of the other Patisans. (i.e. mainly communist counterpart of the Chetniks)

• they were two distinct forces, after early 1942 they did not overlap at all.

• Were there any connections between the letter of the bosnian muslims to Hitler and the raising of the Handschar-Division? I cant see any in the article. If there were any they have to be mentioned, if not it has to be mentioned why the division was raised instead.

• I have addressed this now, let me know whether you think it is clearer?

History

• SS Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS wasnt equivalent to a Brigadier. It was the same as a Wehrmacht Major General and nowadays NATO Brigadier General.

• Not according to my sources. Appendix I to Stein (p.295), clearly states the WWII equivalents as Brigadeführer equals Generalmajor equals US "Brigadier General" (which itself was equivalent to Brigadier). The article is about WWII so there is no need to clarify that the equivalent is from WWII.

• SS Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen SS same procedure, Lieutenant General of the Wehrmacht and nowadays NATO Major General. If you write Major General inside the braces you have to explain that this is compared to todays NATO ranks.

• same as the above point.

• You write about muslim conscripts born in 1926 and 1927. Was there a conscription for german service in the NDH? And dont forget, the Waffen-SS was volunteer-based and didnt started before 1943 to press german soldiers into their lines but I never read anywhere that this also happened with foreign soldiers.

• I've clarified this in the text, they were drafted by the NDH then handed over to the Germans.

• SS-Obergruppenführer is, different from the other two, mentioned with its Wehrmacht-equivalent (Genral) instead of its NATO-rank of Lieutenant General. However you handle this, you need continuity.

• Thanks for picking this up, Stein says Obergruppenführer equals Lieutenant General. Fixed.

• Why is Đuro Grujić not linked? This points to, that there is not a single redlink within an article and is highly unlikely that this has articles for all important persons etc. Were redlinks avoided? If so, this is my main reason for my opposition.

• As I do with all articles at this level, I do a quick test of any person or event that is mentioned against WP:GNG. I was pretty sure I had done that with Grujić, and the Google Books results speak for themselves IMO. Of the 23 hits, very few are in English (I don't read Croatian) and from what I can see the key issue with him appears to be sources independent of the subject. Nearly everyone that even mentions him is a former Partisan with an agenda (like Basta), a Chetnik or Ustasha, or the source comes from the Ustasha diaspora. So I made a call and ignored him. Helmuth Raithel, Ustase militia and Hadžiefendić Legion were of course all redlinks before I created those articles.

• redlinked.

• When did Sauberzweig propose his plan to disarm the Bosnians?

• Lepre doesn't say, except that he left to see Himmler on 18 September and orders were issued by Himmler on 24 September. I added this.

• Is the IX SS Mountain Corps the same as the IX Waffen Mountain Corps of the SS (Croatian)? Same with all other times you mention a 13th SS Division etc. As the SS and the Waffen-SS were not exactly the same you have to be exact with the names.

• I am being exact, and I know the difference between the SS and the Waffen-SS. The IX Waffen Mountain Corps of the SS (Croatian) was raised with that name, but when the "corps" quickly became a mute proposition after the disbanding of the 23rd SS Division Kama, the corps was re-formed around four Germanic (non-Croatian) divisions (one panzer, one panzergrenadier and two SS cavalry), so the name was changed to IX SS Mountain Corps. However, I have ensured consistency of naming in this article to avoid confusion. As far as the 13th SS Division is concerned, what is anyone going to mix it up with? I am not aware of any SS (not-Waffen-SS) divisions being formed. It was suggested in the FAC for the 13th SS Division that I use that pattern as a shortened version of the divisional name, and this treatment is merely a continuation of that pattern. I'm not sure you understand the difference between the way the foreign (ie non-Germanic) "volunteer" division names are structured (like this one), and the Germanic ones structured like 1st SS Panzer Division. The "Waffen... of the SS" was reserved for the foreign "volunteers".

• Did the IX SS Mountain Corps leave its headquarters in Hungary on the same day it arrived in Andrijaševci?

• Lepre does not say. But given it was only 136km by road, it would certainly have been possible.

• Was the 31st SS Volunteer Grenadier Division the Division that was to be formed with the cadre of the Kama-Division? Were the muslim units really part of this division or did they only operated under Lombards command?

• The plan to form the 31st SS Division only included the German cadre, not the Bosnians. The Bosnians were to go south per the re-formation of the corps. Lombard grabbed elements of the division to use briefly, so they were under his command, but not part of his division.

• Why were the Bosnians withdrawn from Hungary?

• Per the earlier mention, the division was always supposed to operate in the NDH, but was raised in Hungary to avoid Ustashe interference. Its corps HQ had relocated to the NDH and they were supposed to follow when Lombard grabbed them. I thought that was pretty clear in the text already.

• Was the mutiny the official reason to dissolve the Kama-Division?

• Yes, I have further clarified it.

• Its inaccurate to say the 6th SS Mountain Division Nord-Regiment under Raithel fought the United States Army in the last months of the war because of the allied warfare. If they fired a single shot at a plane from Australia or the United Kingdom its not only inaccurate but wrong. You better say where they fought.

• actually they fought US formations in southern Germany. I have clarified in the text.

See also

• You have linked a variety of Waffen-SS ranks within the article, why do you extra-link Table of ranks and insignia of the Waffen-SS in this section? I cant see the special relation between this and the theme of the article.

• It doesn't need a "special link". Per WP:ALSO - the links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics - whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. None of the links are in the body of the article. Anyone reading the article may quite reasonably wonder what the other ranks in the Waffen-SS were. I don't think it is out of place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

All in all there are (for my opinion) way to many inaccuacies and missing things to support the candidacy of an article about such a sensitive topic for Featured status. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid, Bomzibar, you are quite inaccurate in quite a few of the comments you have made, and some of your pronouncements are not as black and white as you seem to believe they are. I will deal with them point by point shortly. Your English is also not the best and some of what you are saying doesn't make any sense to me and I am going to have to ask you for clarification on those points. I also assume your less than excellent grasp of English is causing you to misunderstand or fail to comprehend some passages in the article. Your redlink issue is completely wrong-headed, and I have no idea where you get the idea I have avoided redlinks or why anyone would do so. I am also very concerned from your comments and apparent assumptions on both this article and the Helmuth Raithel article that you appear to have some personal issue with Waffen-SS articles being a particularly "sensitive" topic. Insofar as any article about German forces in WWII is sensitive, this article (and the Raithel one for that matter) requires a neutral point of view and reliable published sources. I will respond in detail shortly, however, I believe your opposition to the article is based on incorrect assumptions and misunderstanding, and that what remains after I have addressed your comments will not stand up to scrutiny as a basis on which to oppose the candidature of this article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As Im not a native speaker its more than possible that I make mistakes from time to time. If anything is unclear ask and I will do my best to clarify what I meant. Its not that I have any personal issue with the Waffen-SS but I only read this article as critical as if it would be a candidate for the de:Wiki equivalent of a featured article. As for the reliable published sources, Schiffer Publishing is not a publisher which puts high academical standards at their authors and their referencing. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as Schiffer is concerned, they are patchy. As far as the Lepre book is concerned, this was discussed at some length during the FAC of the 13th SS Division article, so I will paraphrase what I said to a similar question then:

"They are obviously not a university press, and publish a wide range of books on a broad spread of topics, some scholarly, some not. Many of the military history books they publish are on obscure topics. The book itself has all the hallmarks of a scholarly text (heavily footnoted, good use of quality primary and secondary sources, detailed bibliography with all the texts you would expect, seven appendices with detailed lists from the divisional order of battle, award recipients, rank conversion chart, glossary, even an index of names of unit members mentioned in the text). It mentions it received the Rutgers University Sydney Zebel History Prize, but I think that is an undergrad rather than post-grad award... The book is cited by various historians working in the field, including in several articles in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies by historians like Mario Jareb of the Croatian Institute of History. Jareb also cited it in "The Independent State of Croatia, 1941-45" (2007) edited by Sabrina Ramet a copy of which I have. I really don't see any serious questions about its reliability unless you can point to actual concerns about lack of accuracy in this book in particular." Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have quite a few Schiffer books, some are very good and others less so. They're just like any other publisher trying to make money. In fact they're much like Motorbuch Verlag in that they focus on a few topics including the military. So you cannot impeach every book of theirs; you'll need to provide reasons why specific books should not be considered reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright seems like the book used is not of the kind I read with the author writing about the japanese military without being able to read or understand japanese and using, if, only internet sources like General.dk or even en:Wiki. I changed my oppose to temporarily to show that it is not fixed. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

According to your changes and explanations I changed my vote from Oppose to Neutral. Its possible that I change it one more time so Support. You pointed out why you dont linked Đuro Grujić (great work on the other former redlink themes though) but as you wrote in the article, he was a general and as such clearly notable. If there are no proper sources that can be used here he has to stay red for now. For the naming of units etc: I know the difference and that there were no SS divisions raised after the establishment of the Waffen-SS but the genral readers of the article will possibly not have any clue about this. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: small fixes only.

• Ref 3 needs pp. not p.
• Ref 5 ditto
• Be consistent in presentation of state names, e.g. "MD" when others are given in full.

That's all. Sources seem to be of high quality, reliable and except for the above, properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

All done, thanks Brian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:54, 22 May 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) 00:51, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [20].

---

Rudd Concession

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This article covers the Rudd Concession, one of the most important events in the history of the country today called Zimbabwe. It was a grant of mining rights by the Matabele king Lobengula that, through a series of political machinations and deceptions, became the basis for the foundation of the British South Africa Company and, ultimately, for the creation of that corner of Africa called Rhodesia.

I wrote this article from scratch over the past couple months and today (16 April) it appeared on DYK and gained GA status, the latter following a very helpful review from Khazar2 (talk · contribs), who amongst other things reviewed the prose, length and image licensing. After passing the article for GA he recommended I bring it here. I feel the article is at least close to FA status, and so have nominated it for consideration.

Note that the article is written in South African English, which is basically British English with a few extra words thrown in. Thanks, and I look forward to all your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have two long reviews promised and outstanding, so it may be a while before I can look at this article in detail. I would very much like to review it, as the subject is fascinating and, on the face of it, has been well researched. Two minor points:

• The phrasing "Starting a couple months after its enactment..." in the lead bothered me. I don't know enough about South African English to know how acceptable this wording is in formal, as distinct from colloquial expression, but "a couple months" isn't strictly grammatical, and certainly isn't pretty in any context. It's also inappropriately vague for an encyclopedia, and I recommend that you rephrase this.
• In a well-illustrated article, at least two images seem marginal: the 1835 depiction of warriors in a section describing 1880s negotiations, and the anachronistic picture of Victoria in her coronation robes (1838). I am not sure these add anything to the article.

I hope to return in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the initial comments Brian. I have altered the phrasing you pointed out to "starting in early 1889"—the vagueness is due to the fact that Lobengula didn't immediately reverse his stance on the concession, but gradually turned against it between January, when he started his enquiry, and April, when he wrote to Whitehall unequivocally disavowing it. Hopefully this is okay. Regarding the pictures I thought the 1835 warriors were okay as Matabele society did not change much over those 50 years, but I have removed it as I don't think it really adds too much in any case. I've replaced the picture of Victoria to an 1887 picture, more in context with the article. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you again. Have a great rest of the week. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to support: This is an excellent article, very thorough and comprehensive and generally well written. I made a few small edits during my readthrough, mainly punctuation fixes and minor rephrasing. I have a few suggestions for further consideration:

• "high commissioner for southern Africa" in the text, "High Commissioner for Southern Africa" in the image caption. In British English the capitalised form is most usual; In SA-English I don't know, but there should be consistency. I notice similar discrepancies with "colonial secretary" and "prime minister".

• Have gone with capitalised, think you're right —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the section "Prelude: the Moffat treaty": clarify that "He presented the treaty as one that would renew..." refers to the proposed Anglo-Matabele treaty; the last treaty mentioned is the Grobler treaty.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the "Negotiations" section: "He said that his backers were not seeking land, like the Transvaalers" - needs clarification, e.g. "He said that his backers, unlike the Transvaalers, were not seeking land..."

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would avoid over-emphatic adverbs, as in "an extremely generous price". Thus: "Rudd was offering generous terms that few competitors could hope to approach".

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "when Maund rose the subject" → "when Maund raised the subject"

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "it would not do diplomatically" → "it would not be diplomatic"

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "to interminably tolerate" is awkward prose. Just "to tolerate" would serve equally

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• You mention that the queen's reply to Lobengula satisfied the emissaries, but you don't indicate the nature of this reply.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "interminably seeking out supporters" - that word again!

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Lobengula fled Bulawayo as the whites approached, torching it as he went". I imagine he torched it when he arrived there, not "as he went".

• OK, have changed to just "torching the town". —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

When these are addressed, and subject to no problems arising from the sources review, I shall be happy to upgrade to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for the very helpful and thorough review. I'm very glad you enjoyed the article and found it interesting. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Have upgraded (I meant to do his days ago but it got overlooked - sorry!) Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! Have a great weekend —Cliftonian (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Can we translate the source info from File:Matabeleland.gif?

• I don't know German, but I have had a go at translating it with the aid of Google translate, and it seems to roughly translate as:

"Source: World Atlas Andrées, Supplement 2 to Ed in 1887, Velhagen & Klasing

Scanning and editing: User: Ulamm Jan. 2007

Internet presentation with kind permission of the publisher Cornelsen, successors of Velhagen & Klasing".

• This seems equivocal. I've replaced the map image with the 1835 warriors picture (see above), which I feel is probably an improvement anyway, as the map doesn't really add much; I will leave investigating the 1887 German Matabeleland map to somebody better acquainted with this kind of thing. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've created a new, more helpful map and added that instead. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Queen_Victoria_1887.jpg: first source link is dead, and US uses life+100 for copyright - is there another US PD tag that would apply? Same with the Leslie Ward images. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've put PD-100 on Victoria and PD-1923 on the Ward images, I hope this is what is needed as I am not much of an expert regarding copyright tags. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Top stuff and all the more impressive that you wrote this from scratch. Just one minor query -- under Agreement, there's a quote which states "...the said monthly payment of one hundred pounds..."; I take it the bit in bold is a spelling mistake? Lemonade51 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well spotted! Thanks for the support and the kind words, keep well and have a great Sunday! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley (see below) This is a most impressive piece of work. I have little doubt that I'll be adding my support in due course, but, for now, here is the first batch of very minor comments from me. Nothing to frighten the horses, and to be acted on or ignored as you think best:

• Lead
  • If I may be tediously pedantic, "verbally" means "in words"; I think that strictly you ought to say "orally" here.
    • Yes
  • "convince the British government to deem" – I recognise a losing battle when I see one, but I insist on fighting a rearguard action against the Americanism "convince to". In proper English one convinces that and persuades to. But I note your comment above that the article is in South African English, and my comments may therefore be ultra vires.
    • No, you're right
  • "amongst" – why not the plain "among"?
    • OK
  • "to meet with" – another Americanism I strive to resist: one meets with abstract things (disaster, success etc) but just meets people.
    • Yes
• Background
  • "These efforts were mostly in vain, however." – I think the sentence would be stronger without the "however". Just a thought, which ignore, natch, if you disagree.
    • Yes
  • "Cecil John Rhodes" – as in the lead, you give his middle name; I'm not used to seeing it used in mention of him, and I find it slightly distracting.
    • OK
• Prelude: the Moffat treaty
  • "Moffat, an old friend" – there is another old friend a line or so above: perhaps rephrase one or the other to avoid repetition?
    • OK, second one changed to "well-known to Lobengula"
  • "met with Paul Kruger" – as above
    • Yes
  • "Christmas Day, 25 December" – most readers, of any religion or none, will know that Christmas Day is 25 December, and unless the fact that it was Christmas Day is of some importance I'd be inclined to say either Christmas Day or 25 December, but not both.
    • Yes
  • "empowering him to personally take control" – foolish though the superstition against split infinitives is, many otherwise sensible people believe in it, and so I find it best to avoid splitting whenever conveniently possible. You could dodge the issue by saying "empowering him to take personal control".
    • OK

More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the kind comments and the suggestions so far Tim! Hope you are keeping well. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Concluding batch of comments. All so minor that I am happily adding my support, below.

• Race to Bulawayo
  • "he was suffering from cancer, which proved fatal within a few months" – is this really relevant?
    • It helps to explain why John Fry was not sent north again. Rhodes ultimately did send Ivon Fry, John's son, north as a continency, but I figured that was not really relevant.
• Negotiations
  • "incorrectly pointing south" – unclear whether he was wrong to point South or whether he purported to point south but in fact pointed some other way.
    • OK, have clarified to "incorrectly pointing south (rather than north)"
• Lobengula's embassy
  • Last para of section – as above in re split infinitives; "to publicly downplay" oughtn't to offend anyone but "to furiously declare" does rather smack one in the eye, and could easily be "to declare furiously"
    • OK
  • "not to mention their anxiety" – but you do mention it. I think I'd replace this rhetorical flourish with "in addition to" or some such
• Occupation of Mashonaland
  • "what Lord Blake describes" – as you're referring to Blake in his capacity as historian, I'd be inclined to call him "Robert Blake", which is how he appears on the title pages of his books.
    • OK
• Image captions
  • Not sure about the italics in the caption for Lobengula
    • OK
  • There's a lurking "convinced to" in the caption for the Martini-Henry rifles.
    • OK
  • Vastly impressed with the "hover mouse" gizmo for the board of directors! Very nifty.
    • Thanks! —Cliftonian (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Bibliography
  • Not sure why some books (e.g. Berlyn, Ferguson et al) get a month as well as a year of publication and others don't. Does it add anything that the reader will find useful?
    • I'm not really sure the added detail hurts anybody, but if you feel really strongly about it there is not much harm in taking them away.

That's all I find to quibble about. – Tim riley (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – the narrative of this complicated story is clearly laid out (which can't have been easy), the prose is fine, the proportions sensible, there is no hint of bias and the referencing is full and from varied sources. This article will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia's top flight. – Tim riley (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your very kind words and very helpful review, Tim! As always it has been an absolute pleasure. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments. A few suggestions, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

• "the country that became officially called Rhodesia": the country that eventually became Rhodesia

• Yes

• "to annexe": Search throughout; the verb is "annex" in both AmEng and BritEng.

• Someone else changed this and I presumed it was right, changing back

• "they agreed a peace treaty", "being agreed": most English-speakers don't understand this phrase; I recommend "negotiated a peace treaty".

• OK

• "arrived to": arrived in, or moved to

• OK

• "the cornerstone of society in Matabeleland was martial tradition": I'd prefer dialing this back just a little: "Matabeleland had a strong martial tradition".
• "ly-": See WP:HYPHEN.
• Good writing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all these! Have a great day —Cliftonian (talk) 04:40, 23 May 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) 00:48, 25 May 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 Ian Rose 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [21].

---

Madeline Montalban

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it received GA status just over a month ago, and since then has seen a number of additions, making this as comprehensive as possible. I think that it meets all the FA criteria and although it is of an obscure and esoteric subject, I think that it would make a great addition to the FA family. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: An interesting choice of subject, indeed, but possibly underprepared from a FA perspective. I am not sure how much work has been done since the GA. Based on my reading of the lead, I have a number of prose concerns:

• General: there is rather too many "ings": "immersing", "teaching", "coming", "associating" - all close together in the second paragraph. And more follow later. I also think the sentence beginning "Associating..." is far too long and convoluted, and needs splitting.
• Third paragraph: "entering into a relationship and moving to Southsea in Essex, they founded the OMS..." To avoid the impression that they did these things simultaneously, you should precede the phrase with "after..."
• Third paragraph: "they founded the OMS as a correspondence course in 1956, teaching subscribers their own magical rites through postal correspondence". The last three words are redundant - its a correspondence course. I would also recommend that "teaching" becomes "which taught", to avoid the "entering...moving...teaching sequence in a single sentence.
• Third paragraph: "Settling into St Giles, London, she became known to the press as "The Witch of St. Giles", dying of lung cancer in 1982." There is a non sequitur there, but there other problems. Beginning sentences with participles rarely works well; also, people settle "in" districts rather than into them. A possible rewording; "She settled in the St Giles district, where she became known to the press as "The Witch of St. Giles". She died of lung cancer in 1982."
• Final paragraph: Final sentence "Her life and work was mentioned in various occult texts and historical studies of esotericism during subsequent decades, with a short biography by Julia Philips being published by the Atlantis Bookshop in 2012." The "with" connector does not work well; I suggest: "Her life and work was mentioned in various occult texts and historical studies of esotericism during subsequent decades; a short biography by Julia Philips was published by the Atlantis Bookshop in 2012".

On sources, I have not carried out a full review, but I have doubts about the Sheridan Douglas Press. This seems to be part of a commercial organisation that designs and sells tarot cards, not a scholarly body. In what sense does this qualify as a high quality relable source? On a minor matter, ref 56 requires a page number.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips Brian, I have crossed out those with I have dealt with. Regarding the sourcing,the Sheridan Douglas Press is the small publishing company owned by Montalban's official successors, thereby having a direct connection to her; while certainly not being a scholarly or academic source, I would argue that it is reliable enough for usage here,precisely for this reason. It is certainly not being used to support any controversial statements. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

("Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors")—indopug (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, is that the case; my apologies! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The strikes are still there. We should at least let Brian know so he can decide whether he thinks they should be struck. Personally, I feel it would be best if the strikes were removed for now. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the strikes. Once again, my apologies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn

Comment: There still seem to be ISBN problems- the templates are automatically picking them up, now. Also, one of the Cauldron references is lacking page numbers. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated the remaining dubious ISBNs. Both new numbers are valid and point to the correct Amazon books, should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct year, as well? I'm just worried about throwing page cites off. Minor detail I know... J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point, double-checked again (one was a few months off in 2000 instead 1999). Both ISBNs now point to the edition of the article's year of publication. GermanJoe (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I am the GA reviewer.)

Sources: While some of these sources are less-than-academic, there are decent academic sources cited, which support the contention that she significant. The Douglas/Sheridan source should be used as sparingly as possible, but is potentially an acceptable primary source for uncontroversial information. The other publishers/authors seem to be respected within the community, but anything at all surprising from the more esoteric works should be treated with caution. Ultimately, this does have to be an article about a real person, and not shrouded in mystery. To that end, as with the GAC I'll be particularly critical of anything overly mysterious/making outlandish claims.

Images: The single non-free image is appropriate, with a careful rationale and solid sourcing.

General:

• "Her father, Willie Royals, was an insurance agent of unknown parentage," Who his parents were doesn't really matter- drop the mention?
• "a master tailor" Master?
• "Although her accounts remained unreliable," Odd phrase- perhaps "Although her own accounts of the initial meeting are unreliable..."
• I suspect London Life is notable, it's just that no one has gotten around to writing an article yet
• "reader how to perform their own horoscopes" Do you "perform" horoscopes?
• "She considered herself the reincarnation of King Richard III, and was a member of the Richard III Society; on one occasion, she visited the site of Richard's death at the Battle of Bosworth Field with fellow OMS members, wearing a suit of armour." The armour story sounds questionable. How certain are we about this?
• "he would continue publishing astrological prophecies in Prediction and Prediction Annual until summer 2012." How about "he continued publishing astrological prophecies in Prediction and Prediction Annual until summer 2012." Also, is the summer 2012 date the date he stopped, or just the date the author happens to know up until?
• "something she disapproved of, and their friendship subsequently "hit a stormy period and we went our own ways for several years."" How about "something she disapproved of, and their friendship subsequently "hit a stormy period" with the pair going "[their] own ways for several years.""?
• "£10,000"- is that £10,000 then? If so, this is actually a bit more than it sounds.
• "Montalban had a "mercurial personality" and could be kind of generous at one moment and fly into a violent temper the next." According to whom?
• "since its evolution" is a funny phrase

I do think this is a very strong article, and would like to see it promoted to FA status. I honestly think it's close. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've uploaded some free pictures of Crowley based on a discussion at Commons. You may consider adding File:Aleister Crowley, wickedest man in the world.jpg to the article- I appreciate it was taken a few years before Montalban met him, but it may add some visual interest to the page. If you'd rather not, that's obviously not a problem. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this, J Milburn! I have acted on your suggestions, making the necessary alterations to the article text. I have also added an image of Crowley, as I do think that it adds a little colour and aesthetic improvement to an otherwise text-heavy page. Regarding "until summer 2012", it does mean that he stopped publishing then, due to his increasing illness and resulting death. I think that the comment on the £10,000 stands, and adopts the emphasis placed on this issue by Philips in her biography; Montalban emphasised the use of magic to get rich, yet £10,000 wouldn't have even bought you a house in most of London during the 1980s. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The only other thing I could suggest is a bibliography, but I suspect this would be difficult- obviously, listing all her articles in magazines would be difficult, and I assume the pamphlets weren't strictly "published". What do you think? Would something like this be possible? J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Being perfectly honest, I don't think that that would be possible; little actual research has gone in to Montalban's life and so no one has produced a bibliography of her published work which we could then draw from. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thought so. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. I feel that this article is ready for featured status. The sources are used carefully and discriminatingly, the writing is excellent, and the article seems to be comprehensive. It remains scholarly and neutral, despite the fact that the subject matter could lend itself to a very different kind of a approach. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support This is as good as the article can get without actually turning it into a book. I don't have any criticisms to make. Shii (tock) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Provided "According to her biographer Julia Philips, Montalban had been described by her magical students as "tempestuous, generous, humorous, demanding, kind, capricious, talented, volatile, selfish, goodhearted, [and] dramatic"." is given a citation. Prose is great. ceranthor 21:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 19 May 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) 16:23, 24 May 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) [22].

---

Marie Lloyd

Nominator(s): Cassianto^Talk 09:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Marie Lloyd was an English music hall singer, comedienne and musical theatre actress during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She was perhaps best-known for her Cockney songs including "The Boy I Love is Up in the Gallery", "My Old Man (Said Follow the Van)" and "Oh Mr Porter What Shall I Do". Lloyd had a controversial act which relied heavily on innuendo and double entendre which caused mixed reviews from the theatrical press. However, she had a long and successful career, during which she became known as the "Queen of the Music Hall". Having spent the last few months researching this subject, I am now pleased to be able to bring this to FAC, and would be most greatful for any comments, thank you. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat

• Support from SchroCat (talk)
  

A couple of minor tweaks made, but feel free to revert if you disagree. I had the pleasure of reading through this at PR, and a subsequent reading post-GA brings only one question to check:

• The MacQueen-Pope quote that Lloyd was "going down hill of her own volition": does he use "down hill", or the more correct "downhill"?
  
  • He uses the more correct downhill, and not the former "down hill". That was from the fingers of an idiot I'm afraid. --Cassianto^Talk 12:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This minor query won't affect my support for what is a truly excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent reviewing skills at PR and pre-GAC. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton

• Support: This article received a lot of attention at peer review (I was one of the reviewers). This, combined with the diligent research of the primary editors, has resulted in a delightful article which I'm happy to support, subject to clearance on images and sources. I am doing the sources review now, and will post shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: A couple of minor queries:

• Refs 12 and 186 appear to be one and the same

• Combined, thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 60: does this The Era article have a title?

• Yes, now added. --Cassianto^Talk 10:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for all your hard work at peer review and here Brian. It is much appreciated. --Cassianto^Talk 10:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarastro

Comments: Read down to the end of "Drury Lane and success" so far. Looking good generally, but a few little errors in places. Also, a few other minor nit-picks. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Offstage, Lloyd had a turbulent private life that was often the subject of much press attention: she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her.": A few misgivings about this sentence. Firstly, I don't think we need "offstage" at first, as we then mention her private life. Second, it is quite long and perhaps a new sentence would be better after attention. And "she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her": seems a little inelegant. Maybe "Married three times and divorced twice, she frequently appeared in court to give evidence against two of her husbands, who had physically abused her". (And I wonder how frequently this was… But I have no better word)

• I have deleted "Offstage" as of course you were right on this point. However, your version of "Married three times and divorced twice, she frequently appeared in court to give evidence against two of her husbands, who had physically abused her", differs only very slightly from the current "she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her." It appears that just "she" is swapped around. Do you think it would be better to replace the colon with a full stop? --Cassianto^Talk 10:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• That would work. The other change in my suggested version was to tighten up the court part, but not a big issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• As per Gabe below, I fixed this. Sorry I missed this. --Cassianto^Talk 02:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is a little off-putting in the early life section to read about the Wood family and have her referred to as "Lloyd". It jars a touch. But if this is the convention in these cases, no problem, and not a big issue in any case.

• I am worried that If I used "Wood" when referencing her, then it would become confusing. Also, she was only very briefly referred to by her birth name when she was a child and was known as Lloyd. --Cassianto^Talk 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you are probably right. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• It may be better to crop the family picture to remove the text, and add a caption which states who they are, and where Lloyd is to be found in the picture.

• Done, although the caption maybe formatted incorrectly. Could you check this? --Cassianto^Talk 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me, but I'm rubbish at captions. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Should it be "well cared-for"?

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Along with her sister Alice, she helped arrange family events where the Wood children often put on performances at the family home": Perhaps "Along with her sister Alice, she arranged family events in which the Wood children performed at the family home"?

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "called the Fairy Bell troupe comprising of her brothers and sisters": I always thought it should just be "comprising" and not "comprising of". But I may be wrong.

• Grammatically, you are correct but "comprising of" IMO reads better. Still, it would be incorrect for me to use the latter so I have changed it. --Cassianto^Talk 10:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• "John secured her unpaid employment as a table singer at the Eagle tavern in Hoxton, where he was employed as a waiter.": Employment … employed.

• Changed to "employed". --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Although happy to have her performing in her spare time, her parents initially objected at her desire to commit to the stage full-time.": I think this should be "objected to".

• Reworded. "Although happy to have her performing in her spare time, her parents initially objected to her desire to commit to the stage full-time" just didn't sound right. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• We use both "Eagle tavern" and "Eagle Tavern".

• Nice spot! --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Her performances were a success, despite her singing other artists' songs without their permission,[16] a practice which brought her a threat of an injunction from one of the original performers": I think this is a bit of a runaway sentence and should be split. In addition, I don't see the connection between her success and any legal issues, so the latter would not necessarily impact the former.

• I would rather keep this. She built her early success on the back of songs composed by and for other performers and composers. Obviously that was not on as she had not bought the rights to the songs, thus earning her a warning for using them. I think this early indication that she showed blatant disregard for the rules helps shape Lloyd into what she became famous for; a rule-breaker. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "where she met her agent George Ware": Presumably not her agent at the time!

• Tweaked. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "George Belmont, the Falstaff's, proprietor, secured her an engagement": I think we have a stray comma here.

• Done.--Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and one she continued to use[d] for the rest of her career"

• Done.--Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "By the end of 1886, Lloyd was playing several halls a night[30] and was earning £100 per week. She was now financially able…": Lots of "was" going on here.

• Got rid on one. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "She was now financially able to purchase new songs from established music hall composers and writers": Financially able does not sound quite right to me.

• Swapped to "afford". --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Unlike her West End audiences, her reputation as a "blue" performer did not impress her fans in the East End.": A bit baffled here. Starting "Unlike her West End audiences" leaves me wondering what these audiences did. And why would her reputation impress them, rather than a performance. And surely if they were fans, they wouldn't need impressing.

• Oddly, her posh West End audiences loved the dirty humour, while the working class lot loathed it. Tweaked. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "working close to home for a solid two months": Why "solid"?

• Deleted. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The engagement also gave her much needed experience": I think this should be "much-needed", but I wonder do we actually need this phrase at all? Needed for what?

• Well before this performance, her engagements often only catered for relatively small audiences. This performance was notable for being one of the first shows where she played to a large audience. I have since hyphenated "much needed". --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The following year, she found herself appearing": I think just "appeared" is enough here.

• Yes, fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 11:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "more Bohemian venues": Bohemian how?

• Bohemian inasmuch that the theatres were very stylish, dripping in gold leaf and plush carpets and scenery. They were of a more grand design than she had been used to up until that point. --Cassianto^Talk 02:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Successive sentences begin "the following year", and this expression appears seven times in the article.

• Deleted one, more to follow when I come accross them. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which further exacerbated her deteriorating relationship with her husband": I don't think you can exacerbate a relationship. Perhaps "exacerbated the deterioration of her relationship"

• Done.--Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He paid her the greatest compliment": Perhaps not entirely neutral here. Reads like editorial voice.

• Fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "She received mixed reviews from her opening performance": I think "for" rather than "from".

• Done.--Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with much skill": hints at POV.

• Removed. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "she toured the northern provinces": A bit grand? Why not just the north of England? And it looks like we are calling Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester "provinces".

• Used, thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "in a scene that required her to instead climb out of bed to pray": Split infinitive! Alert! (If you are of the school which doesn't mind, please ignore this one)

• done. --Cassianto^Talk 03:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Generally: watch out for overusing "Lloyd" (and obviously, I'd never be guilty of this!). I also wonder if there is some slight over-detailing. For example, do we really need to list what seems like every song she ever sung? And perhaps one or two of Courtenay's escapades are not needed, such as that at the theatre door? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that dreaded noun/pronoun problem. I think at the moment it looks just about balanced, thanks to Tim going through it at peer review and blitzing her name. Secondly, I want to convey just how physically bad her relationship was with Courtenay. Sure, I may have over cooked it so I will go through and see what I can lose. --Cassianto^Talk 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

More comments: I've read to the end now, and have only found minor issues. This is a splendid piece of work and a very entertaining read. I'd heard of Lloyd, but knew little of her life. Just a few last suggestions, then I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lloyd's risqué songs were frequently receiving criticism from theatre reviewers": I'd prefer "…were frequently criticised by theatre reviewers", but no big deal.

• I have chosen similar. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Upon the expiry of the entertainments licence, the Licensing Committee tried to use the lyrical content of music hall songs as evidence against a renewal.": The licence of the Empire Theatre, presumably?

• No I think this was generally speaking. I have elaborated slightly. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and his calm and collected nature was a welcome antidote to the abusive and abrasive Courtenay": Editorial voice here.

• Tweaked. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Despite the marital problems, Lloyd went on an American tour with Hurley in 1908": Should this be "despite her/their marital problems"?

• Yes it should, thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• As above, I would suggest a crop of the Dillon Vanity Fair image to remove the border and wording.

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "were met at the American port by her sister Alice, who had long since been in the country": "who had long since" seems to be an odd phrase here.

• Changed to "resided in the country for many years". --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and protested at her billing position": Not too sure what this means.

• She was being egotistical I think. Back in those days (and today I think), a higher billing position is seen as being for the more important star in that particular play or performance. In this case, Lloyds was lower which she got angry about. Call it diva-like behaviour if you like. :-) --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "but she still managed to maintain her reputation": The previous paragraph suggests that her reputation was on the wane.

• redundant and removed. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In July 1919, Lloyd was again left off the cast list for that year's Royal Variety Performance": I think we could replace "that year's" with "the" as we give the year and say "again".

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "When Lloyd was mentioned for her efforts, she was compared to a "talented old aunt who must be allowed to have her turn at the piano even though all everyone really wants is jazz or go to the Picture Palace"": I think we need to say whose words these are.

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are a few more places where we list the songs she sang at a performance. I wonder how much would be lost if we cut these lists right back or even omitted some altogether. I doubt the general reader learns much from knowing that she sang a song of which the reader has probably not heard. I feel it may just help the article flow a little as the lists are a touch ponderous and I found myself skipping over them.

• I have had a heavy trim of the non-notable ones. If there are anymore, then please let me know. --Cassianto^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are there any other images of her? We just have the two at the moment, and I'm sure there must be others which are PD, as she died in 1922. For example, the Daily Mirror archive may have some more. I think it may be worth looking. (This one does not affect my support) A quick search here reveals this, this and this, for what it's worth. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have now happily added a further two images of her thanks to Crisco 1492. --Cassianto^Talk 04:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• My only other query is if there are any more contemporary opinions of her? She is largely forgotten, I suspect, although some people may remember the name. Without getting into a "in popular culture" theme, are there any modern opinions of her? If not, that isn't a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have spent a good few hours searching for this, but I have failed to find this. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: This is an excellent article. The changes are looking very good. I think all my comments have been addressed, and any that haven't do not affect my support. Well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your kind comments and excellent review are both much appreciated. On the images, I have asked Crisco 1492 to work on a couple which I have found. I agree that there should be one or two more of her, and these will hopefully be uploaded imminently. Thanks again Sarastro! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tim riley

• Support – (Sorry to barge in in the middle of Sarastro's comments. Please feel free to move my comments wherever they seem best put.) I peer reviewed this article, and all my comments were carefully and satisfactorily dealt with then. The sources of the article are wide ranging, the prose is pleasing to read, the balance and proportions are well judged. This seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Tim and for all your work at peer review. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Image review

• File:Empire_Theatre_(1896).jpg: when/where was this first published?

• I have replaced the photo, which was not possible to ascertain its original source, with an image that was released as a postcard by the Rotary Photographic Company in 1911. --Cassianto^Talk 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• File:Leicester_Square_with_the_Alhambra_formerly_the_Royal_Panopticon_ILN_1874.jpg: more information on Illustrated London News publication? Date, issue, page? Also, "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was"
  • Good old Commons! You can always rely on it to let you down. I've uploaded a fresh copy from the archives to English Wikipedia with the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag. It is at File:Leicester-square-1874-iln.jpg. Tim riley (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Tim! --Cassianto^Talk 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Laura_Ormiston_Chant.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have now uploaded a new picture which should cure all the problems. -- Cassianto^Talk 03:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• No further issues I see, thank you for the review. --Cassianto^Talk 04:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc

• My first impressions are that the article looks very tight. Well done, Cassianto. I fully intend to support after a few minor nit-picks are resolved. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

General

Biography

• This is a matter of personal preference I think, but I don't see a need for the redundant header, "Biography", since the entire article is a biography.

• I dont know why, but I like to work in subsections and find this a neat alternative than having headed sections. What do others think? --Cassianto^Talk 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree that it is a matter of personal preference, and GabeMc's point is entirely taken. But for myself I find that using the top level heading for Biography then allows you to have second level headings for Early years etc, which (to my eye) makes the page flow better. Somehow the font of the second level headers smacks you in the eye less than the top level ones. For what it's worth, my own successful FA biographies follow the layout used here, and as far as I can remember, only one editor has objected to it so far. Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's good enough for me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Awkward. - "she was showcased as a teenager by her waiter father at his pub". Is there a better way to word this to avoid the text string "her waiter father"? This strikes me as awkward. Consider: "as a teenager she was showcased by her father at his pub", or similar.

• done. --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "In 1885, she scored a success with her hit song 'The Boy I Love is Up in the Gallery'". I would avoid the phrase "she scored a success". Maybe, "she was successful", or similar.

• done. --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "Between 1891 and 1893, she was recruited by the impresario Augustus Harris to appear in the spectacular". Is the exact recruitment year unknown? This reads like she was recruited sometime during those three years, yet I get the feeling that she was recruited in 1891 and worked with Harris through 1893.

• I had a go. I didn't really want to go into too much detail here as it is only the lede after all, but I can see the vagueness of it. --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Word choice. - "fighting for better pay and conditions for performers". Is there a better word choice here for "fighting"? Perhaps "arguing" or "demonstrating", or similar.

• Yes, how about protesting? --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds great to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Linking. - "During the First World War". This should be linked on the first mention in the lead and the first mention in the article body.

• Would this be overlinking inasmuch that it is commonly used phrase and historical event? --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think so, but of course this is a very minor point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Redundancy. - "she supported other performers" is closely followed by "she supported recruitment". Maybe swap one of the "supported"s for another term of similar meaning.

• I have changed the first "supported" with "assisted". --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wordy. - "Lloyd had a turbulent private life that was often the subject of much press attention", consider: "Lloyd's turbulent private life was often the subject of much press attention", or similar.

• I think the past participle is ok. If I used "Lloyd's turbulent private life was often the subject of much press attention", then it would look like I have already spoken of it, which I haven't. I would be suddenly springing it on the reader that she had a turbulent private life, rather than introducing it such as I do here. What do others think? --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her". Consider: "and frequently found herself giving court testimony against two of her husbands who had physically abused her", or similar.

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Word choice. - "scored a late success in 1919". Maybe its just me, but I would avoid using "scorded" in this context, as it sounds a bit slangy to me.

• Changed.

• Confusing. - "which earned her a new audience". Had she lost her "old" audience?

• Swapped for "extended". --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Excess passive voice. - "during which she was taken ill on stage", consider: "during which she became ill on stage".

• Fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "during which she was taken ill on stage, dying a few days later at the age of 52." Consider: "during which she became ill on stage. She died a few days later at the age of 52", or similar.

• I have adopted your version, thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Family background and early life

• The files: File:Marie Lloyd family photo.jpg and File:Eagle Tavern in 1841.jpg are sandwiching text in the section.

• Unavoidable I think. It looks fine on my monitor (but then I use a tablet screen mostly). I would hate to lose either as both are integral to the article. --Cassianto^Talk 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Putting my oar in again, I have been advised by a Wikipedia luminary that there are so many different sizes and types of screen now used to view Wikipedia that it is not feasible to lay out a page that will suit everybody. Some users will see sandwiched images; others will see an inch or more of white space between paragraphs; the latter drives me into a gibbering frenzy, but is probably something up with which we inevitably have to put. I'll shut up now. Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your oar Tim. I don't think there is a winner here, but I would rather keep these two important images than lose one for the sake of preventing some sandwiching. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks much for your well-regarded opinion Tim. I tend to agree and appreciate the clarity with which you've explained this point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. - I've read through the article a few times now and I can't find any problems that don't come down to editorial preference. The article is well-written, well-researched and comprehensive without being overly detailed. In fact its one of the tightest FACs I've ever read. Its a fine contribution to the project, so thanks for working on such an interesting and informative piece about an important figure. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC) In progress ... more to come. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• ...and coming from the editor who brought the excellent Beatle biographies to FAC, this is certainly a compliment to be proud of. Thanks for you review and support Gabe! --Cassianto^Talk 22:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

• Support Yup, excellent effort, you have my full support.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Doc. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for the help and support! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:18, 19 May 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) 20:13, 19 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [23].

---

Prince William, Duke of Gloucester

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Prince William was second-in-line to the British throne for his lifetime. His death at the age of 11 in 1700 precipitated a succession crisis, which culminated in the co-option of the Hanoverians as the British royal family. DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comment, leaning to support: An interesting shortish article on an often-overlooked turning point in British history. I have made a few very minor adjustments to the text, and have a few issues for consideration:
• In the lead, you refer to the Bill of Rights 1689 as the basis for the Protestant line of succession after William and Mary. In the text, you merely say that parliament "recognised" the pair as king and queen, and "recognised" Anne as the heir presumptive. I think a reference to the Bill of Rights is necessary here.

• Added.

• Can you clarify the age at which Gloucester was placed with a governess? From the text it reads as if he was only three weeks old, so the term "governess" is slightly odd. And would a woman of Lady Fitzharding's status have been described as a "governess", which implies a servant?

• She was governess, just as Marlborough was governor. As Mrs Berkeley, she had been governess to Anne's earlier two daughters, and it was usual for royal children to be placed in the care of other nobles very early in life.

• Can loose phrasing like "a couple of years" be avoided?

• I've added a date from which to start but the end date is not given by the sources available to me.

• A date or year should be given for the "Horse Guards" display.

• Again, I can't pin it down from my sources beyond saying it was 1693 or 1694.

• What is the relevance of mentioning the Fenwick plot?

• It introduces the reason for Gloucester writing the loyal address to William.

• What would have been the Earl of Marlborough's duties, as Gloucester's "governor", bearing in mind the earlier appointment of the bishop?

• This is not explicit but I had assumed that the governor had overall responsibility for the household and care of the prince, while the preceptor was the chief tutor.

• "Anne was prostrate with grief, taking to her chamber unwell." Last word probably unnecessary.

• Removed.

• I would like to see a couple of sentences added to the article, at the end of the "Death" section. At present, the final sentence says no more than has been given in the lead, which gives the article an unfinished feel. I think you should add something like: "Sophia predeceased Anne by a few weeks; on the queen's death on 1 August 1714, Sophia's son George ascended the throne as the first British monarch of the House of Hanover". That way, the full consequence of Gloucester's death becomes explicit.

• Added.

I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Changes [24]. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• The above responses are fine. I have upgraded to support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Excellently done (wonder if this will be the shortest-lived person whose biography will reach FA) Just a few suggestions

Lede

• Is it really necessary to preface James, William, and Mary's names with "King" or "Queen", given the regnal numbers?

Birth and health

• "was recognised as their heir presumptive" Since you use "recognised" earlier in the sentence, would "designated" be better? Also, why "heir presumptive" rather than "heiress presumptive". I know you are precise about these things, but I'm curious.
• Is it worth mentioning the witnesses to William's birth? I'd imagine they sent along some royal officials to do so.

Education

• "local children" Not quite sure where William is right there. Kensington?
• " the Countess of Marlborough," Is it possible to refer to her as "Sarah, Countess of Marlborough", to better hint to the reader this is the same woman who becomes so influential once Anne becomes Queen?
• "he was blooded" I'd clarify what is meant here for those who are unfamiliar with the phrase.
• I seem to recall a tale (in a book about the history of the English nanny, which I no longer have) that one of William's governesses treated him very strictly, and when she died, the Queen asked him if he was sorry for her death, to which he replied "No, ma'am". If one of your sources contains that, it might be worth considering for a mention.
• Some mention of the continued unfruitful attempts of George and Anne to provide a spare for the heir might be good.

Death

• Was Anne able to attend her son's funeral?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support and review. Changes [25]. Surtsicna and I deliberately chose name forms with single clauses, to avoid breaking up sentences with too many commas. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. It's a very interesting and well written article. The reviews given above and the following improvements secured this FAC's position in my opinion. It has my full support. --Lecen (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Well written and lots of information. Love how details and explanations given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misspea213 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't know how I managed to miss such an interesting topic on the FAC list! A few thoughts-

• " William and his wife, James's elder daughter Mary, were recognised by the English and Scottish parliaments as king and queen, and as they had no children Mary's younger sister, Anne, was designated their heiress presumptive." This is a clause-packed sentence. I recommend splitting it into two?
• Are any of the odes worth redlinks? Also, unless "ode" is being used in a different way, I suspect they'd count as poems, and so be formatted in speech marks. Only "long or epic poems" would have their titles in italics.
• Why have you included but not cited the Journal of Medical Biography article?

The heraldry jargon is incomprehensible to me, but, other than that, the article was an excellent read. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you.
  • Split
  • I guess they count as "cantatas and motets". They are choral musical compositions.
  • To be honest, I don't recall. I don't have access to it now, but perhaps I did at one time. I suspect I found it useful as a confirmation of material that is already cited from elsewhere but did not find that it contained anything otherwise not covered. It seems to meet the proposed Wikipedia:Further reading but perhaps is extraneous according to actual guideline Wikipedia:Layout#Further reading.
• I have cut down the arms section a little as the description of Danish arms is covered in the linked article and is not necessary here. DrKiernan (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Interesting topic, very well written and seems comprehensive. The sourcing and images look fine. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been prmoted, 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) 16:02, 18 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [26].

---

Goblin shark

Nominator(s): Yzx (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This is one of my favorite sharks, and one of the most visited shark articles on Wikipedia. Now that there's finally decent photos of a fresh specimen available, it felt like time to make this happen. I'm nominating this article because I think it covers most of what's known (which isn't much) about this species. Yzx (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim just a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Most adults are between three and four meters (10–13 ft) long, though it

Changed to "It is usually between three and four meters (10–13 ft) long when mature, though can grow considerably larger." -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• parabolic, Gulf of Mexico—link?

Links added -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• origin of the pectoral fins—does that mean the base?

The "origin" is specifically the most anterior point of the fin base -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• pink or tan in color—in color seems redundant

Removed "in color" -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• fins margins—possessive needed

Fixed -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• After death, its coloration—its is separated from its presumed subject by an intervening sentence

Changed to "the coloration" -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given the depths at which it lives, the goblin shark poses no danger to humans—does that mean that it otherwise might be dangerous?

I suppose maybe, in the sense that any animal can be dangerous under appropriately improbable circumstances -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• jaws fetch high prices from collectors.—why? And why just jaws?

Not stated in the source, though I would presume because they're rare. As for why jaws, I guess the same reasons people collect any animal part -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• In April 2003, over a hundred goblin sharks were caught off northwestern Taiwan following a major earthquake.—Do we know why the earthquake had this presumed effect?

Nobody knows why, or even that the earthquake was related. I've added to note to make clear that there's no established causation -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 24 —retrieval date?

Added -- Yzx (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wondered if the jaws were used for traditional Chinese medicine like rhino horns etc. If we don't know, fair enough, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (CC 3.0, NOAA, PD-age), sources and authors provided.

• Just as info, non-US works generally need additional US-copyright tags (fixed one, OK) GermanJoe (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sasata.

• My suggestions below have been satisfactorily dealt with; I think the article meets the FAC criteria and am happy to support its promotion. Sasata (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Yzx (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll begin my review with results from a literature search; will add comments about the text soon. Sasata (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• anything useful in PMID 4792175?

Some of this research is covered in another source in the article -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I found this, not sure if there's anything worth including; also this if you can read French

Added a note from it -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• according to doi:10.1023/A:1006422419580, the metazoan parasite Litobothrium amsichensis has been found in the goblin shark

Already in article -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• This article doi:10.1134/S0032945209030023 reports that the shark was found on a raise (seamount) in the Vavilov Ridge in the equatorial East Atlantic. It says that the collected specimens differs from the holotype in the lack of a "well expressed spiracle" (Unless I'm missing something, spiracles aren't mentioned in this article)

Added info about occurrence on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Added note about spiracles being present -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• perhaps it should be mentioned that the holotype was captured in the Sagami Bay (according to the previous source)?

Done -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• this source doi:10.1023/A:1014392211903 says that the smallest recorded free-swimming individual was 107 cm

This is an older source -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• no mention of the extinct relative Mitsukurina lineata (Probst, 1879)? (see doi:10.1007/s13358-011-0025-4 Should we have an article for this species (and therefore have M. owstoni at the binomial, rather than as a monotypic genus?)

Note about M. lineata added. I've also removed temporal range from the taxobox as this article is about the species, not the genus

The prevalent usage for "goblin shark" is M. owstoni, not the whole genus. There may be cause for a separate article at Mitsukurina, though it's not my preference -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• From the title, this article looks similar to another one already cited by Shimada (2005), but I thought I'd mention it here just in case: Shimada, K., Seigel, J.F., 2005. The Relationship between the Tooth Size and Total Body Length in the Goblin Shark, Mitsukurina owstoni (Lamniformes: Mitsukurinidae). Journal of Fossil Research 38, 49–56.

I have no access to this article -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• the doi for Caira 1993 is 10.1007/BF00009215

Added -- Yzx (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• D. S. Jordan doesn't need to be linked thrice in the taxobox, but how about linking the synonym authorities?

I'm not the one who added the authority links, so I'm ambivalent about their inclusion. Similarly, I'm not convinced that the synonym authorities should be linked (not all of them may be sufficiently notable). I've removed the redundant links for D. S. Starr. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "on a 107 cm (42 in) long immature" measurement should be hyphenated as it is used adjectivally

I've rearranged it instead; the hyphen doesn't look right with the conversion. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• link Alan Owston

Done. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The specimen had been acquired by shipmaster and naturalist Alan Owston, who had given it to Professor Kachiki Mitsukuri at the University of Tokyo, who in turn had brought it to Jordan." why use the past perfect tense instead of the past tense?

Because these events occurred before Jordan made the description. -- Yzx (talk)

• "a tengu being a Japanese" noun+ing

I'm not sure I understand. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As the link explains, it's a suboptimal grammatical construction that is probably best avoided in professional writing.Sasata (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I could change it to "a tengu is a Japanese", but that doesn't read particularly better to me. -- Yzx (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• link taxonomic

Done. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "As the last member of an ancient lineage, retaining several "primitive" traits," the first comma seems unnecessary

The subject of the phrase is "member", not "lineage". I've modified the sentence to make this clearer. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "There are 35–53 upper and 31–62 lower tooth rows." About how many teeth are within each row?

I've not come across this information. Sources don't usually give it for sharks because it varies and is hard to count definitively (because old teeth are lost and new teeth are growing in constantly). -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• link cusp

Done. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In the Indo-Pacific, it has been found off ... Australia, and New Zealand." According to the range map, the species has been recorded off the southern and south-eastern shores of Australia, which isn't in the Indo-Pacific; neither is New Zealand.

Added "and Oceania". -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• link Madeira, California

Done. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be interested to know when the captive specimens were kept in the Japanese public aquariums.

I'm not completely sure when the Tokai University specimen was (it was in or before 1990). The Tokyo Sea Life Park one was 2007. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest adding (ed.) or (eds.) in the "editor-last" parameter of references that are book chapters. It's used in one reference (Birx 2009), but not others, so is inconsistent.

Done. Why doesn't the template do this automatically? Seems like an oversight. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• add Category:Animals described in 1898?

Done, though honestly I find that whole series of categories to be the worst kind of trivia. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I find the category useful in my own research. Sasata (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• comments - reading through now. will jot any queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You have "meters" and "m" in different places, may as well make them all the same (either unabbreviated or abbreviated - latter is slightly better due to US spelling looking odd to us foreigners...)

Don't you think it looks weird to use "m" if the numbers are written out? -- Yzx (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd leave the one which has numbers as words as is, but others I'd convert. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that would turn "m" into "meters" throughout, increasing the incidence of regional spelling. I think I prefer to keep it as is. -- Yzx (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

link Primitive (phylogenetics)?

Done. -- Yzx (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - prose is good and it looks like comprehensiveness is too. The above points are so minor and straightforward as to not uphold this really. Nice read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. -- Yzx (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks great!

• "Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences" Worth a redlink?

Added. -- Yzx (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• If there are extinct members of this genus, surely both the monotypic category should go, and Mitsukurina should be given an article of its own?

Not sure monotypy is supposed to account for extinct species, but removed the category anyway. I've made a stub for the genus and linked it. -- Yzx (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the lifespan is unknown? Do you perhaps have a source noting that the lifespan is unknown, so that it could be added to the article?

Note added. -- Yzx (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Categories for distibution?

Added some. -- Yzx (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll be happy to support once these are resolved. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Great stuff. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 15:56, 10 May 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) 15:57, 18 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [27].

---

Long-tailed Ground Roller

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am re-nominating the Long-tailed Ground Roller article because I believe it is a comprehensive overview of the species that is both well-written and well-illustrated, and that it meets the criteria. The last FAC, which took place a year ago, ended without the article’s promotion because I was forced to step away from Wikipedia for schoolwork and did not resolve the later commentary. I apologize for that, and prior to re-nominating resolved (I think) all outstanding comments from the first FAC. I've also notified every editor who commented on the first FAC to apologize and update them. I've also checked to ensure that no new research has been published and updated the dates. The Long-tailed Ground Roller is an elusive bird that is found only in a small area of Madagascar's spiny forest. It digs nesting burrows in the sand and is so unobtrusive that the locals used to believe that the species hibernated. Thank you for reviewing the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this new FAC. Actually my first comment from the previous FAC hasn't been resolved. From "Taxonomy": "In 1971, Joel Cracraft proposed a separate family for the ground rollers based on dramatic differences in behavior, plumage, and post-cranial anatomy between the groups." Is the word "dramatic" really required? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant to write you a note. I think dramatic is required as dramatic differences would be required to justify a new family. If the differences weren't dramatic, it would remain a subfamily or just another collection of genera. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there isn't any drama involved. How about "notable" or "significant" instead? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Significant works just as well. Switched. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My third comment is also unresolved. In "Description", paragraph 2, are the breeding season calls made only by the males? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I put in which genders gave what calls as the source identifies them. Some are made by males only, some are made by both genders, and some are unknown. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Description", paragraph 1: "The tail has 15 to 20 dark brown bars marking it, while the outer retrices are sky blue." Should this be "rectrices"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Description", paragraph 1: "Juveniles of both sexes are duller in plumage than the adult female." Why is the female specifically called out? There was no indication that females have different plumage brightness than males. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The juveniles resemble the female. I clarified the sentence. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Description", paragraph 2: "The use of wing-snapping to produce a sound is a rare phenomenon in birds, and only one other family in the order Coraciiformes, the todies, is known to do it." It is unclear if families in other orders use wing-snapping. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Others orders have wingsnappers. Hopefully clarified the sentence. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. That wasn't the answer that I expected. The latter part of the new statement is informative only if the reader knows how many families are in Coraciiformes. I don't think that this is helpful. Perhaps delete that part and just say that wing-snapping is rare? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to those that do know the order, and it is wikilinked in the same sentence if a reader wants to broaden their reading. I'm going to leave it in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Ecology and behavior": "The Long-tailed Ground Roller is a solitary species outside the breeding season." I don't think that "solitary species" is the right phrase. I presume that this means that individuals of the species are solitary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I would like to see clearer information about which sexes use which calls, and I don't think that the information about wing-snapping in Coraciiformes is helpful. However I am happy to ascribe this to simple editorial disagreement. Otherwise, this is an excellent article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim I supported this last time out, so not much to add this time around Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I made these minor edits, please check
• ground roller in lead second line, — not obvious that this is the same as the family linked above, I'd go for species of bird in the groundroller family Brachypteraciidae
• The breeding season coincides with the rainy season, which lasts from October to January. During the breeding season — over-seasoned
• the species lays two to four smooth, white eggs, normally two. — the female normally lays two eggs, but sometimes three or four
• This species — overused
• A bit of inconsistency with book refs. Jenkins has two short form refs (for adjacent pages, so could be made into one) and is listed as a Cited text. Jobling has two refs to pages that are miles apart, but is given two separate long form refs, not short form + Cited text.

Thank you for the review. I think I've addressed all of your concerns. Your copyedits look good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• I don't mind reviewing this again, but first, could the nominator go to FAN #1 and review my comments there and insert "done" or "not done" replies to each of my suggestions? After doing that, notify me and I'll resume the review. Go ahead and post the done/not done comments in the archive #1, not here.
• Wording "The arid spiny forests in which it lives are unprotected ..." - "not protected" seems better to me.

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wording "The Long-tailed Ground Roller was described by British banker and naturalist Walter Rothschild in 1895 as Uratelornis chimaera; ..." - Worded in an ambigous way ... I read that to mean that WR mistakenly identified it in the wrong genus. Try rewording to something like: British naturalist WR first described the LTGR in 1895, giving it the scientific name Uc; ...". Or "The first scientific description of LTGR was by brit nat WR, who gave it the scientific name Uc in 1895; ..".

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Footnotes: some end in periods, some dont. Im guessing that the templates are adding the period. In any case, it should be uniform for all citations.

Every ref that doesn't redirect you to a cited text ends in a period, and the cited texts all end in a period. As the book refs are just author date page and link to the cited texts, they are not complete and are not followed by a period. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Langrand source: uses boldface for book volume name. is that a standard? I don't recall seeing that before.

It is recommended by HBW for those citing it, but I don't think it is standard. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

[Following are Noleander comments from prior nomination which were not resolved at that time]:

• Footnote #1 in Lead seems forlorn. WP:LEAD says footnotes are optional in lead ... the cite is already in the article body, I presume? Recommend delete footnote from lead.

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Footnotes #19 and #22 have links to Ref section, but links are broken.

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tense: "The local inhabitants of Madagascar believed, as this bird is remarkably silent and difficult to see during the non-breeding season, that the Long-tailed Ground Roller hibernated in its burrows, although no evidence supports this." - strange shift from past (believed) to present (supports). Do they still believe that?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Date ambiguity: "At the turn of the twentieth century, .." - I suppose that means circa year 2000, but readers shouln't have to guess if it means 1900. Be more specific.

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: "Only one zoo, Germany's Weltvogelpark Walsrode, is known to keep ..." - "is known to" doesnt seem right for that phrase. Just say "... keeps". Any fact stated in the article "is known to" the best of the editor's ability. If you suspect other zoos may have the bird, then the article should not say "only one zoo ..."; instead write "Germany'x W W keeps ...".

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Italics vs. quotes for sounds: "of chuckling tu-tuc" is italics, but " Low "gu" notes" and other are in quotes. If there is an official bird reason for that distinction, fine, otherwise choose one or the other.

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

?? I still see tu-toc in italics in one place and quotes in another. --Noleander (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I missed them in Reproduction. Good catch, and changed to italics. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see an explanation of the name "ground roller", is it in the article? I expect to see "named ground roller because they roll on the ground ..." or something like that. If the explanation is in the ground roller article, it should be duplicated in this article for one-stop-shopping.

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• DNA-based relatives: "This position is supported by DNA evidence.[5] It has been suggested, but not widely accepted, that ground rollers are closely related to the puffbirds and jacamars." - I thought that DNA information provided pretty concrete info about how closely species were related, I'm surprised to see "it has been suggested ..".

DNA research can be extremely complex, and many studies conflict with each other, and some have proposed radical revisions that weren't supported by later analysis. This proposal is still in the hypothesis/not widely accepted process. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "This bird has been featured on several of Madagascar's stamps." - That seems rather telling, Does that mean it is considered a very prominent bird in Madagascar? Perhaps symbolic in some way? If so, the article should mention how the bird is well-recognized or admired etc within the country, and why.

I think it is featured because it is rare, endemic, and striking in appearance rather than cultural significance. None of my sources suggested any more cultural significance than what is in the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "Support" based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by Yzx

• Is the taxobox image an adult male or female?

Not sure- I would guess female based on tail length, but would hesitate to ID it for certain based on that. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• occurs in extremely low population densities -- "occurs at"

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• requires shade and a deep layer of leaves -- I assume a layer of leaves on the ground?

Yes. Clarified. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• or by waiting attentively for an opportunity -- this seems awkward/unclear

It stands there attentively and waits for an opportunity to eat something. Do you prefer the tweak?

I've been wracking my brain trying to think of a good way to say this. What about "or by remaining still and watching attentively"? -- Yzx (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That works. Switched. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Its wings are relatively weak, so the ground roller primarily uses its strong legs to run through its habitat -- the construction of this sentence seems odd; suggest "The ground roller primarily runs through its habitat on its strong legs, as its wings are relatively weak."

Switched. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why was it named chimaera?

It was named after the chimera, a mythological hodgepodge critter. The chimera also was a symbol of winter, and "kheima" means "winter season" and implies hibernation. I'm not sure if the describer thought it looked like a hodgepodge of creatures or was reaching even further back, and I think it would cross into OR without someone else claiming one or the other. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Until recently the ground rollers, Cuckoo Roller, and rollers were all placed in a single family, Coraciidae, in which each of the three groups formed a subfamily.[7][8] In 1971, Joel Cracraft proposed a separate family for the ground rollers based on significant differences in behavior, plumage, and post-cranial anatomy between the groups.[9] This position is supported by DNA evidence.[8] It has been suggested, but not widely accepted, that ground rollers are closely related to the puffbirds and jacamars. -- this whole passage is family-level information that detracts from the focus of this article; maybe reconsider whether it's necessary.

Hmmm... I'd agree if it were a species-level article, but it is also the article for Uratelornis. Hmm. I'm in favor of keeping it as it traces the movement of the genus, but if I ever get around to the other ground rollers I will definitely rethink it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not really the movement of the genus per se, since Uratelornis has always been regarded as a ground roller as far as I can tell, the ambiguity is whether the ground rollers as a whole should be classified with these other birds or not. That's what makes this info more relevant to the family than the genus to me. But I don't consider it a dealbreaker. -- Yzx (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm leaving it in for the moment, but may remove it if ground roller gets brought up to par. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The adaptations required for the ancestral Long-tailed Ground Roller to inhabit scrubland led Rothschild to create the monotypic genus Uratelornis for the species in his description. -- this should be placed with the earlier passage that talks about the publication and etymology of the genus.

Good call. Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• highly distinctive from a distance -- the qualifier seems odd. Is it not distinctive up close, too?

It is, but the silhouette is distinctive. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• though it may disperse across a broader stretch of habitat outside of the breeding season -- not clear what this means; does it relax its habitat requirements outside the breeding season?

I think it is suggesting short distance movements, that it may venture further from the territory, but insists more research is needed into the reasons. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps "range across a larger area" rather than "disperse across a broader stretch of habitat" may be more appropriate? -- Yzx (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Went with "disperse across a larger area." Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• mix of sub-arid thorn-scrub and deciduous woodland -- not clear how this relates to the following sentences: is the "spiny forest" this mix or just the thorn-scrub? Are the baobab trees the "deciduous woodland"?

Tweaked. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, the spiny forest is the "mix of sub-arid thorn-scrub and deciduous woodland"? If so, then I'd recommend "This species' prime habitat is spiny forest, a mix of..." -- Yzx (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• attentively waiting for prey -- suggest adding "to appear"

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• link rainy season

Done. Wet season is a good article too. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• use both their bill and feet -- should be "use their bills and feet"

Oops. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the height of the crescendo the bird breaks off its call and flies upwards onto the branch while producing a "ripping and crackling sound" with its wingbeats -- is this the "wing-snapping" mentioned under Description? There it's stated to be territorial, while here it's stated to be courtship.

Seddon guesses that they are courtship, and comes after HBW. Changing. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Similarly, the boo and tu-tuc calls are said to be territorial in Description and courtship in Reproduction.

Same as above, though "boo" depends on usage I think. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• wide chamber with a shallow floor -- not sure what "shallow floor" means here; does it mean it's flat?

Shallow depression. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

-- Yzx (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

One more comment:

• Calls are rarely made outside of the breeding season, though multiple territorial calls are made -- shouldn't this be "when multiple courtship calls are made"?

-- Yzx (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I want to thank you again, particularly for taking the time to reconstruct some of the sentences. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My issues have been addressed. Supporting now. -- Yzx (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. Looks good, as most of my commentary from the last FAC has been addressed. Here's some fresh nitpicks.Sasata (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• All suggestions below satisfactorily addressed; article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "These ground rollers feed primarily on invertebrates, including ants, beetles, butterflies, and worms, which it finds" fix

Good catch. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This bird is classified as Vulnerable" might want to mention who classifies it this way

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• perhaps link "protected" to protected area?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "is a reference to the ancient Greek mythological creature" capital A for ancient?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Long-tailed Ground Roller is currently placed in"

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd think that genetic analysis would be a better link for "genetic analysis" than gene, but after reading the abstract of the cited paper, it seems that molecular phylogenetics would be most suitable

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "while the ear-coverts are brown." why the hyphenation?

Something-coverts are always hyphenated in ornithological literature from my experience. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "thorn-scrub and deciduous woodland which only receives" link thorn scrub; which->that

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "during the breeding season, with the extra burrows being known as speculative burrows." suggest "during the breeding season; the extra burrows are known as speculative burrows." to remove the noun+ing construction

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• do we know what size the eggs are (I would imaging if egg-collecting is a problem for this species, someone has written this information down somewhere)?

I haven't seen that information in any of my sources. I'll try again later today, but I would have put it in if found. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No luck finding it. I'll keep an eye on the literature and put it in if I find it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• link blowgun

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• publisher & publisher location not required for journals

I'll remove if asked, but does it do any harm? Also, why is it part of the template? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No harm really, it's just superfluous (I don't think their presence in these instances would help a reader locate the cited source). Not sure why they're in the template, but there's quite a few parameters in the citation templates that are rarely used.Sasata (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good to know, those are difficult to hunt down. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• should indicate the editor(s) in Langrand 2001

In what way- they are in the Cited Text section. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just put "eds." after del Hoyo et al. (assuming they're the editors). Sasata (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Its a template, so I'm not sure how- that is just how it displays the editors. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's odd, according to the documentation, it should list "eds." I've asked here. Sasata (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll address the eggs and journals later today if I can. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

All commented on. Thanks again. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- did I miss an image review somewhere? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If it counts, last year's FAC had an image review, and the pictures haven't changed since. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check -- OK; I've checked through them again, didn't see any irregularities. -- Yzx (talk) 16:44, 11 May 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) 15:55, 18 May 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 Ian Rose 10:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [28].

---

Eurasian Blackcap

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What's not to like about a bird that can spend the winter living on Christmas cake? This attractive warbler is common and widespread in Europe, and a favourite subject for researchers, so for once I have to decide what to put in, rather than scratching around for info on obscure African swallows. I think it's comprehensive, but there is a large amount of material I haven't used if you spot an omission. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (own work, geograph project). Sources and authors provided.

• File:John_Clare.jpg - PD-art usage is OK following a WMF statement (tweaked tag accordingly).
• (optional) I am all for short captions, but you could add a little bit more context info in some of the 1-word captions. A few random suggestions: the adult female (point out the distinctive reddish-brown cap?), the eggs (maybe texture or hatching time), the chicks (1-2 weeks of feeding?). GermanJoe (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Caption expanded now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look.

• "The Blackcap breeds in much of Europe, western Asia and northwestern Africa, its preferred habitat being mature deciduous woodland." Comma splice?

tweaked with "and" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "ancient species pair" Do we have an article to link to?

Now linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "is a simple alteration between" Do you mean alternation?

Aaarrrgh, yes. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Both species have a quiet subsong" Do we have a link? Alternatively, an explanation of what a subsong is?

Added a gloss, it's a muted version of the full song Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• What does "churring" mean?

Reworded as "low trill" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In Africa, habitats include cultivation" Can "cultivation" be used as a noun to refer to "cultivated land"?

It can, and is in the source, but changed to your better wording Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "H. Parabelopolskyi" Worth a link? Why have you capitalised the specific name?

Fixed and linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Isospora ashmoonensis" Again, worth a link? Don't be scared of redlinks

linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Various orchestral instruments represent the Blackcap's song, which symbolises St Francis, in Messiaen's opera, Saint François d'Assise.[56]" Slightly clumsy sentence

I've really struggled writing this article to get this bit to both make sense and be readable. Now In Messiaen's opera, Saint François d'Assise, the orchestration is based on bird song. St Francis himself is represented by the Blackcap. Any better? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The commas aren't right in the new sentence, but I don't quite have the vocabulary to hand to explain why. You need either "In Messiaen's opera Saint François d'Assise," or "In an opera by Messiaen, Saint François d'Assise,". Alternatively, you could make the name of the opera the subject of the sentence: "In Saint François d'Assise, an opera by Messiaen,". J Milburn (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the subject as suggested. This sentence has given me more grief than all the rest of the article ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a few small fixes along the way, and I've not looked at the sources or images, but it looks great so far! J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for review, tweaks and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support based on the above fixes (delegates- while Jim and I did work on Nauru Reed Warbler together, I had nothing to do with this article). In terms of other things to put in, I'm a big fan of the culture section- some real culture, rather than unsourced lists of Family Guy trivia! If there's anything else, that would be nice- a section of poetry if we have anything written in English, for instance, would be a nice addition. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for support. I'll see if I can find anything significant in English other than Clare, but for some reason the capinera seems to be a favourite of the Italians.

Comments by Neelix

*If "Blackcap" is the most common name for the species and this article is the primary target for that term, why is this article not called "Blackcap" instead of "Eurasian Blackcap"?

Birds often have different common names, for example Canada's Common Loon = UK Great Northern Diver. For consistency, the bird project names follow the IOC world list, even though that name may not be the most used in practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

*The terms "clutch" and "interspecific competition" should be linked and, preferably, explained.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "clutch" should be linked in its first instance in the body as well as in the lead. Neelix (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

*The images require alt text.

Done, although not currently an fac requirement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

When did that requirement subside? I believe they still make it mandatory over at FL. Neelix (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

*The sentence beginning "The current genus name..." is confusing because it contains so many phrases.

Split Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

*The first instance of "Iberia" should be linked.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

*The phrase "named as the" should simply be "named the".

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

*Check the article for tense consistency and accuracy; most instances of the future tense (ex. "but will start singing in January or February") should be stated in the present, and sentences should not unnecesarily switch between tenses.

I think I've got all these Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There are still tense consistency issues, particularly with mid-sentence switches from present to future. Neelix (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had another pass Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through and fixed the remaining tense consistency issues. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

*No paragraphs should consist of a single sentence.

I'm not sure that's mos, but done anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

*Why is "leap-frog" in quotation marks?

That's how it was in the source, removed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

*The sentence beginning "The ready availability..." employs false parallelism; semicolons should be implemented or the sentence should be restructured. The string "crown raised, tail fanned and slow wingbeats" also employs false parallelism.

I'm not totally sure what this means, but rephrased now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There is still a false parallelism; see Parallelism (grammar). The phrase "particularly from bird tables" imitates a list entry. Neelix (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Even after following your link, I can't see what's wrong here. It's a list of three compensatory factors, and I can't see why it's "imitating" a list. If I made it a bulleted list, it would still make sense with no change of wording. I'd be grateful if you could fix this, since I'm clearly not seeing the problem. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is a list, and should be; there's no problem in that respect. The issue is that "particularly from bird tables" is not an entry in the list, but was grammatically treated as one. There are multiple ways of solving this issue, but I have chosen the option to implement semicolons. Please let me know if you would prefer a different solution. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

*Midsentence citations should be bundled with the corresponding end-of-sentence citations to improve flow.

That's definitely not mos or an fac requirement, in 45 FAs that's not been raised before. Nevertheless, I've been through and moved some refs where I think it improves readability without losing the connection between a fact and its ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Two of my recent FACs were required to bundle citations in this manner; an explanation of how to do so is outlined here. Citation-bundling improves readability and flow, but it is certainly up to the directors to determine whether or not such bundling is required. Neelix (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think reviewers can "require" a particular style. The only delegate requirement is that citation practice is consistent within an article. I don't like the bundled style, and I think moving several references to the end of a sentence is as far as I'm prepared to go on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had known that before I submitted some of my recent FACs; if you're right, it would have saved me a lot of unnecessary work. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the very occasional "oppose" where a reviewer's style suggestion isn't followed, but delegates ignore unreasonable style straitjackets. As long as there is some sort of logic, you just have to make sure you are consistent — and if you are not, woe betide when Nikkimaria scours your refs (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

*Commas are occasionally missing throughout the article.

I punctuate BE style, which is less comma-dense than AE. For example, Brits write "A, B and C" where a North American might have "A, B, and C". I've tweaked a couple. Any particularly ungrammatical examples left? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There are still missing commas. See, for example, "... wintering in gardens in Great Britain, and to a lesser extent Ireland, where formerly the Blackcap was just a summer visitor." Both "to a lesser extent" and "formerly" should be offset by commas. I do not believe that this is a BE/AE difference, but you are welcome to correct me on this point. Neelix (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had another pass Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

*The "Cited texts" section should be called "Bibliography" to be consistent with other articles.

"Should be" seems improbable. What other articles? All my FAs, if they use this style, have "Cited texts", so do most other bird FAs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not reviewed any of your previous FACs, but "Cited texts" is a very uncommon title for a bibliography. A Google Books search reveals just over 8 thousand hits for "Cited texts" (most of which are not headings for a bibliography), just over 8 hundred thousand hits for "Works cited", and more than 55 million hits for "Bibliography". As far as I can tell, "Bibliography" is also the most common header to use for these sections in our featured articles, but I will leave that to other reviewers to decide. Neelix (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not unusual in FAs, and I would guess that it's more common here than "Bibliography". I've seen the latter objected to at FAC because it it can be taken to mean "Further reading" rather than the source. Anyway, it's a matter of personal preference rather than Mos, so I'll stick with my usual practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Neelix (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for review and comments. I'm going to be away for a couple of days for the May Bank Holiday, but I'll deal with any outstanding issues on my return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Good fixes. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful review, prose tweaks and support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments (working my way up the FAC ladder....) I'll go thru and jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

from the rest of the genus at a date estimated at between 12 and 16 million years ago. - flows clunkily when I read it to myself...the "at between" is odd. Unfortunately an alternative doesn't spring to mind....

• I've removed "estimated at", a four-million year range should make it obvious it's an estimate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The nearest relative of the Blackcap outside the sister group is believed to be the African Hill Babbler - ummmm doesn't that mean then that Sylvia is polyphyletic....?

• It's more likely that the babbler which incorrectly placed, added which is probably incorrectly placed in its current separate genus, Pseudoalcippe Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise has buffed up rather well and on target for a shiny gold star....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by Yzx

• birds from the colder areas of its range winter in scrub or trees from northwestern Europe south to tropical Africa -- the wording is confusing, not clear whether birds are coming from NW Europe or going to it for winter.

now winter in scrub or trees in northwestern Europe, around the Mediterranean and in tropical Africa. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• as being of Least Concern -- "being of" is unnecessary.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• at a date between 12 and 16 million years ago -- "a date" is extraneous.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why give authorities for the subgenera?

Removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Blackcap is a mainly grey warbler with distinctive male and female plumages -- do you mean that the bird is distinctive, or that the male and females are distinct from each other?

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• but up to 31 g (1.1 oz) for birds preparing to migrate -- missing a verb here I think.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• neat black cap to the head -- "on the head"?

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Same for and have white edges to the tail.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The female has a reddish-brown cap, but otherwise resembles the male, although she has a slightly browner tone to the grey of the upperparts. -- this sentence is awkward with two contrasting statements, suggest "the female resembles the male, but has a reddish-brown cap and a slightly browner tone to the grey of the upperparts."

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• but taking longer to complete, than do the adults -- "do" is extraneous

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both species have a quiet subsong, a muted version of the full song, which is even more difficult to separate, and the Blackcap occasionally mimics the song of other birds,[19] the most frequently copied including the Garden Warbler and the Common Nightingale. -- suggest splitting into two sentences

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• compensatory factors include the ready availability of food, particularly from bird tables; a shorter migration distance; and the avoidance of the Alps and the Sahara Desert -- the use of semicolons here as super commas is a bit odd considering how they're used in the rest of the article. I think you can just use regular commas if you put "particularly from bird tables" in parentheses.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• and isotope analysis (which enables the wintering location to be determined), -- inappropriate comma

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mixed pairings are also genetically selected against -- "genetically" is inappropriate, since selection is acting on behavior here

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• but densities are much lower in poorer habitats such as conifer forests. -- suggest putting as separate sentence

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• mostly in towns and below 100 m (300 ft). -- should this "and" be here?

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• but occasionally at a height of up to 4.5 m (15 ft) -- the construction of this phrase doesn't match the previous one

Split into two sentences and tweaked for clarity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• average size 19.7 x 14.7 mm (0.78 x 0.58 in) -- is this the average size of a single egg?

Rearranged sentences to make this clear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• both adults sharing the duty, although only the female stays on the nest at night -- suggest putting as separate sentence

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• leaving the nest shortly before they are able to fly -- how do they leave before they can fly? Do they stay on the ground?

They clamber around the branches. Do I need to say that? It seems pretty obvious. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. -- Yzx (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• What's the age of first reproduction, if typical life expectancy is two years?

Says in first line of Breeding that it aged one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• since the Mistle Thrush, which, as its name implies, also favours that plant, tends to crush the seeds -- lots of commas makes reading disjointed

Split to two sentences and simplified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fruit is also eaten, notably, cotoneaster (41% of the fruit consumed), ivy and honeysuckle, and apple is eaten if available -- comma after "notably" is unnecessary, as is "is eaten" after apple

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• On the other hand, there is considerable variation between different clutches -- this is written as a contrast when it isn't really, since it supports the previous statement about reducing cuckoo parasitism

Remove contrast Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The habitat and open nest of the warbler -- not sure what "habitat and open nest" are referring to

Expanded to make it clear that these make it suitable as a cuckoo host Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The only blood parasites found in 132 Blackcaps -- methodological detail reads odd here, suggest "parasites found in a study of Blackcaps"

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• 45.5% of males and 22.7% of females were affected -- sentences generally shouldn't start with a numeral

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• and parasitic worms may sometimes kill their host -- this seems like a non sequitur, since you've only talked about protozoa up to this point

Separate sentence now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• the symmetry of feather growth -- symmetry on both sides of the bird, or symmetry of individual feathers?

I checked the source, and it seems to be only the latter, tweaked to make this clear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• considered that the Garden Warbler eventually became a Blackcap -- not clear what this means

Added metamorphosis. I avoided this initially because the source said that Aristotle used a different word, but I couldn't understand the distinction, so it's in now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• John Clare, in "The March Nightingale" describes the listener as believing that the rarer species has arrived prematurely: "He stops his own and thinks the nightingale/Hath of her monthly reckoning counted wrong". -- suggest putting as separate sentence

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Giovanni Verga's 1871 novel Storia di una capinera -- what is the relevance of this beyond the title? Does the bird figure into the plot in some way?

I probably wouldn't have put in in if it was only the title, but the Italian article explains that the background in the "Il titolo" section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That the background in the section...? -- Yzx (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just illiteracy, struck "that" in response above. I thought the fact that Verga took the capinera story as his inspiration, and explained why in some detail, was sufficient to include the novel and the films based on it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Which capinera story is that? Can you add more context in the article for this inspiration? -- Yzx (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I only just spotted this. I've added a brief version of the story with which Verga introduces the novel and a potted plot to show its relevance. I don't think plot summaries need references, which is just as well since I don't have the book and can't speak Italian Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Folk names for the Blackcap often refer to its most obvious plumage feature, (black-headed peggy, King Harry black cap and coal hoodie), to its song, as in the "nightingale" names above, or to its choice of nesting material (Jack Straw, hay bird, hay chat and hay Jack). -- commas and parentheses are a mess here

Split into two sentences and tidied Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• for example in Scotland and Denmark -- "for example to"?

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• such as northern Israel and the Faroes -- "such as in"

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice article. My comments are cosmetic issues for the most part. -- Yzx (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments. I hope that I've fixed all the issues. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

All looks good to me. Supporting now. -- Yzx (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:19, 15 May 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) 15:53, 18 May 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 Ian Rose 10:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [29].

---

Pennsylvania-class battleship

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been quite some time since I've been at FAC alone, but I'm finally back with an article I have been writing in my sandbox over the past year. I think it's finally ready for the big show.

The two-ship Pennsylvania class marked no large leap forward in American battleship technology; that was the preceding Nevada class. Still, their construction was slightly contentious from a political standpoint, as Senator Benjamin Tillman thought that if battleship size was going to keep increasing (it was already up 50% between 1907 and 1912), they may as well build gigantic ships rather than continuing with small steps forward. As for the careers of the two ships, Pennsylvania did nothing of great note, but I assume most FAC reviewers will recognize the name "Arizona".

To forestall certain points that I'm sure will come up, I do know that I have an atypical citation style, including the references and images. I'm a big fan of Chicago style, and this article follows that where it can; I've used a similar style twice before, and I believe both are fine under Wikipedia's guidelines. I thank you all in advance for your constructive criticism and comments that will improve the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Query Support I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.

I suspect that the Caio Duilio link is wrong, Italian battleship Caio Duilio is a more likely target.

anti-torpedo bulges, which were standard additions on all ships in this period Are you sure? All Battleships, perhaps all US surface warships, but all warships would surprise me and all ships I really doubt.ϢereSpielChequers 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, your eagle eyes are always appreciated. Both of these should be fixed now! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The redlinks for armor-piercing projectiles and deck armor can be resolved by using Armor-piercing shot and shell and deck (ship) respectively.
• Link fuel oil
• Fix 12.5 inches to the proper hyphenated form, and 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) winds (add |adj=on to the template)
• Add horsepower to infobox installed power line. Missing "×" for three-inch guns.
• Shouldn't president be capitalized in American president Woodrow Wilson
• Watch for "the ship" and "her" in the description.
• Overlinking on fiscal year, deck, dry dock and a bunch of terms in the description.
• Sank, not sunk that nearly sunk the
• What was Pennsy used as a target for; gunfire, torpedoes, what? Inquiring minds want to know!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly suggest that you trawl through book on the interwar fleet exercises to see what the ships did in them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Everything but the last two and possibly overlinking should be done. I do tend to link the items in the description again so that readers don't have to scroll elsewhere to find out what we're talking about. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm only willing to cater to the readers so much. Links in the infobox and on first use in the main body (including lede) are good enough for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm in DC at the moment, but I'm still trying to get to trawling through the (very helpful) book you linked. I didn't find anything in my books on what Pennsy was used as a target for; still looking. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Nofi's going to be an essential reference for just about any of our interwar ships at this level. Not much on destroyers, but he's pretty good at tracking cruisers and above. One of these days we should go back and add information from it to Arizona, although I'm not sure if there's really much that Stillwell's book didn't cover.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I found it at the GPO for relatively cheap; I'll probably buy it when I have a little money saved up. Stillwell was pretty thorough, but it wouldn't hurt to check. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• EN1, 25, 27, 42: don't see a References entry that would correspond to this source
• Check alphabetization of References
• Compare ENs 18 and 11
• EN20: why not use author?
• Cates: doubled period. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I still have to add Campbell, but these are all otherwise addressed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Campbell is added. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}
    • Mostly done: alphabetization for Campbell, presentation of Naval Engineers' between EN11 and 18. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Good lord, time to go back to elementary school and relearn my ABCs. Thanks Nikki. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, except for the Pennsylvania-class_battleship#Authorization and construction section, which I'll leave for whoever wants to tackle it. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dank. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:USS_Pennsylvania_1925_SLV_Green.jpg: source link redirects to search page - possible to either include direct link or catalogue number? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ach, good catch—done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox:
  • I would switch the infobox to 'show' by default.
  • Installed power missing horsepower.
  • complement uncited
  • Do you have a different citation to doublecheck the deck armor thickness? Arizona has the thickness as 5" (3" deck plus 2" splinter?)
  • Switch armor to greatest to least, from least to greatest.
  • Conning tower does not match Arizona.
  • Armament is missing number of guns per turret - e.g. 4x3 14-inch/45 caliber guns
  • Arizona had the overall length only, which is probably sufficient.
  • Similarly, Arizona's beam is cited at 97ft vs. 97 ft 6 in (29.72 m) (waterline)
  • Cruising range doesn't match, but its not cited in the Arizona article.
• I think service history should be the last section, see Kaiser-class battleship
• For the sake of summary style, I would truncate or merge the Background section into a couple of intro sentences in the Design since readers can read about the Nevada class in the class article
• The important details are in standard type battleship, which is only in the lead but not in the prose. Kirk (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I organize my ship class articles a bit differently than others, nothing too crazy. I would prefer to keep the background section, as I believe that each article should be understandable on its own, and the Nevada innovations are key in understanding the Pennsylvania design. I've added a link to the standard type, though.
  • As for the infobox problems, I will check Friedman and Conway's tomorrow—thank you for the thorough comparison, and my apologies for the late reply. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}
    • I've gone through and fixed the issues, using mostly Friedman. Thanks again! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support

• "Nevada-class battleships" probably doesn't need a link directly underneath "Main article: Nevada-class battleship".
• "completed multiple studies of a 'maximum battleship'" – why single quotes?
• "about fifteen months after" – after what?
• "22.5 knots (41.7 km/h; 25.9 mph), and 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph), and 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph)" – the first "and" can be removed.
• Except for this, it looks good. Inkbug (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • All of these should be addressed! Thank you for the review. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments - "nothing of note" - you mean to tell me the last battleship surface engagement is "nothing of note"?
  • Why did you chose to hide the infobox as the default?
  • "armor protection for the coal bunkers" - the coal bunkers were the armor protection - the way you have it worded now makes it sound like the bunkers were armored.
  • As a general point, it makes more sense to me to organize the article such that you start talking about the design process and the different technical requirements, and then to move to a description of the finalized design. Right now, you have that split with the construction and service history sections in between. It seems rather disjointed to me to talk about the design process, then the service histories, and then jump back to "The Pennsylvania-class ships were significantly larger than their predecessors, the Nevada class..."
  • Why is the photo of Pennsylvania "now-infamous"? Shouldn't it be "now-famous"? Or perhaps just "well-known"?
  • You've got several duplicate links, particularly in the description section - I'd recommend using User:Ucucha/duplinks to catch them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Well yes, but did Pennsylvania fire any shots in that battle? Nope. ;-)
    • I wanted to add more images as opposed to statistics, and placing images opposite the infobox creates a nasty sandwich.
    • Good catch, I've fixed that now.
    • I toyed with that idea, but currently we have the specifications either at the beginning or the end of battleship article. Other than that, I don't have a specific objection to moving the section.
    • Good catch again.
    • Duplicate links removed. Thanks Parsec! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:12, 15 May 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) 15:47, 18 May 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 Ian Rose 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [30].

---

The Heart of a Woman

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As part of my ongoing goal of improving articles about Maya Angelou, I am nominating this for featured article. I believe that it's pretty much ready to be an FA; I appreciate and look forward to reviewers' feedback and comments. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your last nomination was only closed six days ago. You have to wait for two weeks before nominating another article. Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's true, Graham, but I withdrew the nomination two weeks ago, and you guys didn't get around to officially closing it for a week. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-submitting; I believe the two-week waiting period has passed. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "Angelou's long-time editor, Robert Loomis said that she could rewrite any of her books by changing the order of her facts to make a different impact on the reader." - source?
• FN8: should this be Oxford University Press?
• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
• Compare FNs8 and 11
• FN19: not in Works cited
• FN33: volume? pages?
• FN39: italicization
• Ranges should consistently use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I went through and corrected all the errors/issues with the source formatting. Thanks for the catches. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment It would be better if the cover were from the first edition. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but there's not a good quality image of the first edition cover. I added "2009 trade paperback edition" to the caption. Is that enough? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC) Quite comprehensive, well written and meticulously sourced. High encyclopedic value, high educational value. Thank you for contributing to this worthwhile quality improvement project on Wikipedia. Just a minor quibble - not sure if it's appropriate to have the ISBN number in the lede or the mention of the Book Club thingy til the next sentence. — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, made changes as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. But I have some comments, most of which reflect my thorough lack of knowledge of the subject, but at least demonstrate that I read the article.
  • Who is Als?

Fixed.

• • Compared to her other books, Angelou has come a long way in her interactions with whites and people of other races Having not read the other books, I have no idea what is meant here.

I'm not sure what unclear here, but I struck the sentence because if it's unclear to you, it'll be unclear to others. It doesn't really add anything to the text, anyway, and there are already other ways to say the same thing--that Angelou developed in her interactions with races other than her own.

• • Angelou becomes more politicized and develops a new sense of Black identity Why is Black capitalised, while "white" is not?

Ok, you've just decided it for me. This question comes up every time one of Angelou's articles is reviewed. Here's the answer: [31] Since this question comes up so often, I've decided that from now on, I'm going to anticipate it and add it as a qualifier whenever I submit these articles for review. Thanks! ;)

No worries! That is a fine explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I was looking for something about when and where the book was written.

Um Hawk, are you sure you read the article? ;) The first sentence of the lead has the year in parenthesis after the book's title, and the third sentence states that it was the fourth book in her series. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead states the years the book scans. In the body, it says that the book was published in 1981 and that it was her fourth autobiography in the first sentence of the first paragraph, and the first sentence of the third paragraph states that the book opens in 1957.

I got the bit where the book was published in 1981, so it was obviously written before then. I was thinking of something along the lines of "was written in a yurt in Nepal in 1976-77, in longhand on the back of a ream of fanfold computer paper, but was not published until 1981". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha. You're closer than you'd think. Actually, Angelou does have a routine she goes through when she writes, recounted in other articles, but not here because I didn't think it fit. (See [32], final paragraph.) I can put the info here if you think best. If so, where do you think it should go? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd just lift that paragraph and drop it into the "writing" section. But it's your call. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, muchly appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All my issues have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (1 Fair-use, PD-USGov, CC, PD-not-renewed). Sources and authors provided.

• Fair-use cover image for infobox - OK. Why the 2009 cover? Would the cover of the original edition not be more authentic?
• File:Kerouac_by_Palumbo.jpg - OK (Flickr source link is down, but as the link was originally verified by a bot, it should be OK). GermanJoe (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - i'll do another thorough read later, some initial comments:

• lead "Critic Mary Jane Lupton says it has "a narrative structure unsurpassed in American autobiography", and that it is Angelou's "most introspective" []". => needs a noun here.
• "It was chosen as an Oprah's Book Club selection in 1997." => needs a specific subject, last sentence was about the title. Also, i would put this sentence at the end of the second para with other critics. It is a bit disconnected in the first para.

1st two comments addressed, thanks.

• "...[gets involved with] the US civil rights movement ..." => "supports" to avoid repetition of "involved"?

Ok, chose "becomes active in..." because it describes what happened better.

• Background "While Angelou was composing her second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name, she was concerned about how her readers would react to her disclosure that she had been a prostitute." => see WP:BLP, please double-check the source and add a citation immediately after that sentence (i am not doubting the fact, but such statements need to be especially checked).
• "According to Als, Angelou sang and performed calypso music because it was popular at the time, and not to develop as an artist." => citation needed

Next points addressed.

• Genre "Lupton compares ... dictates the book's form." => the quote is sourced, but the whole second half of this para with lots of thoughts needs a source from Lupton.

Ok. I tend to both (1) avoid overciting, and (2) go to the other extreme. Personally, I believe that references are like adjectives and adverbs; they should modify everything that goes before. I understand that people have different opinions about that, and since I also believe that you should follow the suggestions of reviewers, so I do so here. Let me know if it was adequate, please.

• Style "Hagen writes that although "frank talk seemed to be almost requisite for a commercially successful book" in the early 1980s,[38] Angelou values monogamy, fidelity, and commitment in her relationships." => Another citation should be at the end of the sentence, if Hagen made the whole statement.

Done.

Aside from such minor quibbles the article looks comprehensive and well-structured, more to follow. GermanJoe (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward to it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evanh2008 I'm going to address this section by section, starting with the lead. Many or most of my comments will be with regard to grammar, punctuation, formatting, and other prose issues.

Lead section:

• I would drop the comma after "Ghana," as it seems somewhat unnecessary. The list is not parenthetical, so there's no need to set it off from the rest of the text.
• Decide whether you want to use serial commas or not. In the list of countries you use it, but not in the list of things she did in those countries (e.g., "Cairo, and Ghana", but "gets involved with the US civil rights movement and becomes romantically involved".
• I would put a comma after "motherhood" and de-hyphenate "new-found".

Addressed the above.

Background:

• Link Maya Angelou, as it is the first mention outside the lead.
• "Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Diiie (1971)" is a non-restrictive clause, so put a comma after the date.
• Link I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and set it off using a pair of commas (this is also non-restrictive).

Last 3 items addressed.

• "states that Angelou's work" ---> "stating that Angelou's work" — I think this helps it read better and avoids an awkward pair of conjunctionless verb constructs.

Instead of correcting it your way, which I think made a run-on sentence, I relegated Mayfield's statement in a note. I think it better fits there, too.

• "genre of autobiography" ---> "autobiography genre" — I'm not terribly sure about this one, so feel free to disagree. I've just never heard "autobiography" used as a collective noun before.

I'm inclined to keep it as it is, since it emphasizes the autobiography as a genre. I could remove the word "genre", which means that it would read "...but for the autobiography as a whole". Plus, if we're treating the word like this--like the novel or non-fiction or poetry, it works, even if it's not a popular usage, which I suspect is the case Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "off-Broadway review" should be "off-Broadway revue".

Fixed.

• Does Calypso Heat Wave need to be linked?

I'd like it to be, since there's a potential for the article to be created. That is the purpose of redlinks, right?

• "her first album Miss Calypso" ---> "her first album, Miss Calypso," — Non-restrictive again.
• "Angelou eventually gave up performing for a writing career, and became a poet and writer." — This pair of clauses is redundant. I would change it to "Angelou eventually gave up performing in favor of a career as a writer and poet."

Section addressed.

Plot summary:

• I would insert a comma after "difficult for Guy".
• "prime minister Patrice Lumumba" ---> "prime minister, Patrice Lumumba".
• Remove the comma after "Godfrey Cambridge". This is not a non-restrictive clause. Same for the comma after "(SCLC)".
• "community of friends and Angelou" ---> "community of friends, and Angelou"
• "Angelou accepts a job in Liberia and she and Guy travel to Accra where he has been accepted to attend college." ---> "Angelou accepts a job in Liberia, and she and Guy travel to [the city?] Accra, where he has been accepted to attend college."

Addressed comments in section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Genre:

• "they are chronological and they contain elements of character, technique and theme." ---> "they are chronological, and they contain elements of character, technique, and theme." — Insert two serial commas.
• I'm not sure if it's in the original or not, but I would enclose the personal pronoun "I" (in "always saying I") within single quotation marks, to match the treatment of "we" in the same sentence.
• In the last sentence of this section, "a" should be "an".

Above addressed.

Style:

• "the beginning of her next one" — You probably should mention that "her next one" was All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes.

Done.

• "a technique that centralizes the two books and connects them with each other," ---> "a technique that centralizes the two books, connects them with each other," — I realize you probably worded it like this to make it clear that ref #39 cites the first two items, but it's hard to justify joining two of the items with the conjunction "and", but not the others.

Ok, my solution was to put the refs at the end of the sentence.

Themes:

• "Race is a central a theme" ---> "Race is as central a theme"

Done.

• Remove comma after "The Heart of a Woman" in the first sentence.

I've decided this sentence was too awkward, so I changed it to: "Race, like in the rest of the series, is a central theme in The Heart of a Woman.

• Should "whites" be capitalized?

No. See explanation above.

• Link "spiritual"?
• "that inspires the book's title" ---> "that inspired the book's title" — Not sure there's a good reason to use present tense here.

Done.

Critical reception and sales:

• "Critics gave The Heart of a Woman positive reviews, especially its professional qualities." ---> "Critics gave The Heart of a Woman positive reviews, praising its professional qualities."

Done.

This is a fantastic article overall, and does a great job of contextualizing the book's composition. It is comprehensive without a doubt, and I'll be happy to support once the prose issues are addressed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Forgot one thing — Note #2 ("See Angelou, p. 55.") is vague, as you cite two of Angelou's books in the footnotes (Heart of a Woman and Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now). I assume this note is in reference to the former, so I would change it to read "See Angelou (1981), p. 55."

I understand, and went ahead and changed it here and in the other Angelou (1981) refs. However, the sources were cited in that way because I never cited Journey, but only referred to it. And thanks for the review, which was very helpful, and for the kind words. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically you cite it in ref #11. I get what you're saying, though -- that it wasn't in "Works cited". Not a big deal, though, and much clearer now! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - quote usage (point Done). The article still uses a lot of quoted material, where phrases are not that critical (imo) and could be paraphrased in your own words. Rather than just complaining :), i compiled a list of examples:

• The title suggests a "lonely aching"
• "official wife to Make, who had become a political leader in exile".
• but by this time, she has "accumulated a multilayered memory"
• Angelou successfully draws upon her previous works, "unveiling the various layers hidden in earlier volumes"
• Angelou is able to "cheerfully coexist"
• she searches for her "ancestral past".
• For the first time in Angelou's autobiographies, she "begins her account of herself as a writer"
• "Long years of living and mothering"[40] and her success
• By the end of The Heart of a Woman, Angelou "finds herself increasingly alone".

None of these quotes is so special and unique to require a quote, their content is clear enough to use own words. Please check, if you can paraphrase some, if not all, of those quotes in your own words. The article is great content-wise, but depends too much on its sources original "voice". GermanJoe (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I changed some minor bugs and switched the ISBNs to 13 as actual, recommended standard. Should be good to support after a few more tweaks. GermanJoe (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what an interesting comment. But you're right; I went through and changed your examples, and will take another look through it and see what else I can paraphrase better. Thanks for the review! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from IndianBio – Hi Christine, would it be possible for you to add the year to the book notations? At present you have just the author surname and the page number, but I think the year addition is also important. Like you have two references to Lupton 1998 and 1999, both different books and hence you have used the year. But there needs to be a consistency throughout the article then. And I also believe the {{harvnb}} template is good in this case. Another point, the poem box in the Title section, can you use an em-dash before the line "The Heart of a Woman" by..... —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi IndianBio. Personally, I don't like the harvard template, so I don't use it. A reviewer has never insisted upon it up to now. I believe that I have been consistent. Every other source convention doesn't do as you say; years are included only if there are two sources with the same author, and that's what I've done here. For me, this issue is a matter of choice and preference, which is okay as long as you're consistent. Which, as I already state, I have been. Fixed m-dash. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Looks like it meets all the criteria. Very nice work, Christine! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Evan!

Support - nice work on the quotes (i tweaked some paraphrases a bit more, please check). A comprehensive and interesting article in a somewhat underrepresented area on Wiki - it meets FA standards imo. Sourcing appears sufficient, all important facts and thoughts are cited. Some final comments:

• "acts as his political wife" is paraphrased a bit awkward, but i couldn't come up with a better solution to preserve the original meaning

I feel you. I did a WP search for the phrase, and found that it comes up often in lots of articles, although there's no specific article, so much so that someone could probably create one. Although I suspect that there would be a deletion discussion. ;)

• Unrelated to this FA, but your editor seems to leave a lot of double spaces while editing - especially after references (do you use the internal Wiki editor?). Removed all extra blanks. GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:50, 14 May 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) 15:26, 18 May 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 Ian Rose 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [33].

---

Mass Effect 2

Nominator(s): Niwi3 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is the second FAC for this article. I believe it failed last time mostly due to lack of support and interest. Reviewers, please do not be afraid of this article! In my opinion, it is a very interesting article and a good read (Blade Runner influences, Great Recession, and Influenza A virus subtype H1N1). In the last FAC, one reviewer had concerns with the article's extensive use of video game jargon, but since then I've removed as much of it as I could and explained everything in an easy to understand manner. Also, I believe that Mass Effect 2 is a very unique RPG that had a notable significance in modern video game history, so it needs support. Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were satisfied and I believe the article is sufficiently complete to satisfy the FA requirement. Praemonitus (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, comments and interest. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Here are a few points that caught my eye:

• The article didn't seem to discuss the game's quest system, which usually consisted of combat missions or actions to be taken during visits to settlements. As these formed the core of the game play, I think there should be a little more information.

Done.

• I don't see any mention of the more extensive settlement locations such as Omega, nor the method for piloting the Normandy 2 around star systems and visiting locations.

I don't think it's necessary to mention Omega because it's indifferent to other settlements found in the game. Besides, the general reader does not know what "Omega" is. I added info about piloting the Normandy around planetary systems, though. If there are more issues, please let me know. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Mass Effect 2 is a sequel to the original Mass Effect and the second main game in the Mass Effect series": This ambiguous wording implies this is a sequel to the second main game in the series.

Fixed.

• "...acquires an IFF transponder necessary for safe travel through the Omega-4 Relay as well as an unconscious geth": Safe travel through an unconscious geth? Please fix the ambiguity.

Fixed.

• Added 5/6: The term "powers" could use a little more high-level explanation. All you get in the Gameplay section is the sentence, "Each class is proficient in a different set of powers and weapon types." You could explain that powers provide enhanced combat capabilities, with each power having four ranks that can be unlocked during level up. You can also mention that recruits have special powers that the player can unlock upon earning their loyalty.

Done. The special powers are mentioned in the dialogue and morality subsection. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise it's a good article. Praemonitus (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I will fix the other issues soon. Right now I'm a bit busy. Thank you for your comments, much appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. A tad dry in the writing in parts, but it seems that that's how many want their encyclopedia articles to read, which is fine; writing serious-but-catchy is hard. 2 nitpicks which I fixed in a small edit of myself, except I see that Niwi3 reverted me on one of them. First off, this is admittedly a tiny nitpick and it'd be totally fine to leave such extra detail out of the article: it's just that the article pointedly mentions that Legion is optional at the moment, and doesn't mention Grunt is optional. And yes, he is optional - what you're getting at, I suppose, is that the recruitment mission for Dr. Okeer is mandatory, but then the mission where you can (optionally) collect Legion at is mandatory too. Shepard is never forced to open Grunt's capsule and is even warned that it might be a bad idea - I'd know, since I beat the game without ever recruiting Grunt, and this can easily be sourced if you want to check. I'd say to either assume the player collects both and not mention they are technically optional, or mention that both are optional - it's weird and implies the wrong thing to only mention it for one. SnowFire (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, thank you for your support, much appreciated. I understand your point completely about Grunt, but the thing is that you must recruit him in a recruitment mission. Then it's up to you to use him. Also, saying Grunt is optional may be misleading to the general reader. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right, per User talk:SnowFire#re: Is Grunt optional or not?. Thanks :) --Niwi3 (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Nice work. SnowFire (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Object. There's one area that is missing, namely the business of DLC. The issue received some coverage, and should be covered both from the business perspective, and from the criticism it attracted from some of the fan community. See for example [34], [35], [36]. This is related to the same issue in ME3, and may be a bit difficult to untangle, but it should not be omitted. Ping me on talk if a reply is left here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You've made an interesting point, though as you said, it may be a bit difficult to untangle. I'll see what I can do. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a DLC business paragraph in the "release and DLC" section. What do you think? Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My concern is now addressed sufficiently; I support now. Good job! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and constructive criticism. --Niwi3 (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• "Console identifier removed for neutrality" (cover image): not sure what you mean by this. I think you might mean you wanted the image to be more general (ie. not console-specific), but does the cover vary at all between consoles?
• "Self taken from the PC version of Mass Effect 2" (screenshot): is it possible to be more specific about what part of the game this was taken from?
• File:Mass_Effect_2_Collector's_Edition.jpg: given purpose of use is incorrect, FUR needs reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you very much for the review, much appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Had some time and read through it today, it's all there. Some minor issues -
  • No mention of Morinth in your character list.
  • I'd describe Garrus as a vigilante. He was a security officer in the first game.
  • Your character list would work better as an actual character list.
  • Worth noting when development began. [37]
  • "On January 27, 2011, BioWare released the first details of the patch" - I don't care when the patch notes were released. When was the patch actually released?
  • I don't think File:Mass Effect 2 Collector's Edition.jpg adds anything.
  • Any indication of life time sales?
  • "Andrew Reiner, reviewer of Game Informer" - he's the reviewer of Mass Effect 2. "Andrew Reiner, writing for Game Informer", or something similar. Same for Juba. You also don't need to refer to everyone as reviewers, it's taken as said.
  • Read through the reception section, and make sure at no point you think, "who's this guy?" The one that most stuck out was "Brudvig concluded...", "The IGN review concluded..." would flow a lot better.
  • Why have you picked out IGN and Gametrailers GOTY's over the others? I'd drop them.
    • hahnchen 23:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your constructive criticism, much appreciated. I've addressed most of the issues you brought up. I've been looking for the life time sales since the GAN and I haven't found anything other than the VGChartz website, which is considered unreliable as far as I know. On the other hand, I don't think it's really necessary to include Morinth because she is not one of the main characters of the game and does not add anything meaningful to the plot subsection. Also, what do you exactly mean with a character list? Most video game articles use prose for their character subsection. Again, thank you for your time and interest. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned Morinth, because she's a possible squad member, and the only one you've omitted from the list. - hahnchen 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Character added. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 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) 15:18, 18 May 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 Ian Rose 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [38].

---

Iven Mackay

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Continuing the series of articles on Command in the South West Pacific Area during World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hawkeye7. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spot checks not done

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• FNs 20, 22 and similar should use endashes not hyphens
• FN69, 76: publisher?
• Don't use both {{cite}} and {{citation}} - stick with one
• Horner: ordering of location and publisher doesn't match other citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Shouldn't File:Iven Mackay.jpg have a PD-Art tag to satisfy US copyright?
  • No, but I have added a PD-Art tag anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• What is US copyright status of File:Lieutenant and Mrs W. H. Travers.jpg?
  • Photograph taken in 1941. Entered PD in Australia before 1996, therefore in PD in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Images are appropriately licensed.
• Why is this notable or important? Mackay recommended nineteen of his officers and men for decorations for this action.
  • It illustrates the desperate nature of the action. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • How so? There's no standard of comparison provided for a reader to judge that number against.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Did he take a degree while at Cambridge?
  • No. This was not unusual. Writing up scientists shows it to be a common pattern to study at some remote location just after getting your BSc or PhD. In 1919, there were really only four places a physicist wanted to go: Berlin (Planck), Munich (Sommerfeld), Cavendish (Rutherford) or Copenhagen (Bohr). Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Did he have any significant appointments or duties in between brigade commands?
  • There was no time between his brigade appoints. Before he took over the 2nd Division, he was on the unattached list Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure there is, between 8th and 5th Brigades, 1926-1930, is unaccounted for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (Checks the gradation list.) He was on the unattached list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Isn't this missing a "the" in front of Cabinet: but Cabinet, after consulting with Blamey--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No. Where are you? We don't say that in Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Colorado. Y'all really just say "Cabinet decided" as opposed to "the Cabinet decided"? I don't think that even the Brits drop the article when discussing the War Cabinet, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
        • You've never really answered this question to my satisfaction. Aussies don't use the article "the" when talking about actions taken by the Cabinet? Then why does a quick Google search show Australian gov't docs referring to "the Cabinet"?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I used to work in the same building as the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Check the way it the word is normally used by the National Archives or the Parliamentary Education Office. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
          • OK, that's just bizarre. I see references to the Cabinet and just plain Cabinet when I'd use the former. I guess it is an Aussie thing. Is it also true for the Kiwis?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes. They also have a Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and they do seem to use the word the same way as Aussies do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments.

• "the Battle of Hazebrouck, Battle of Amiens and at the attack on the Hindenburg Line.": nonparallel.
• "Having remained in the Militia between the wars, by the time the Second World War broke out, he was a major general.": A couple of rules of thumb here: consider whether two long introductory phrases is too much, and keep words (such as "having") reasonably close to what they refer to ("he"). So, move "he was a major general" to the middle of the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• "GOC Home Forces": General Officer Commanding (GOC) Home Forces - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks. Now that John's doing a prose review, I'll stop there and defer to him. If there are problems, ping me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Prose looks decent. Try and avoid "a number of"; zero, pi and negative nine are perfectly good numbers. --John (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. Another excellent article, and I'm glad to see you've not forgotten your SWPA general project. I made a handful of minor edits, and I have just a few queries, but nothing that would make me hesitate to support.

• becoming adjutant of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Normand MacLaurin's 26th Infantry Battalion is a long chain of links; perhaps cull some or rephrase to spread them out a bit?
• Do the sources say anything about why he didn't receive a VC? Also, wasn't there a practice at the time of awarding the DSO to near-VC recipients? Any idea if he was considered for that?
  • The practice of awarding the DSO for near-VC acts dates to a much later period. (However, he did get the DSO for it in the end.) We don't know why the VC was not granted. However, seven VCs were awarded for Lone Pine, more than for any other Australian battle, so the threshold was very high. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Cabinet, after consulting with Blamey, switched this appointment Any idea why?
  • Gavin Long doesn't say.
    • If you like, I can do some Original Research here. The relevant papers are War Cabinet Agendum - No 67/1940 - Appointment of Commanders of the 6th and 7th Divisions, 2nd AIF, which are here in Canberra. Apparently, Blamey tipped a bucket on Lavarack, whom he didn't like at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Still can't make sense of the decision though. Blamey doesn't like Lavarack, so let's send him later. What were they hoping for? Lavarack having a fatal heart attack or something? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Watch what you do with punctuation at the end of quotes; I think the MoS prefers it after the closing quote mark, but whatever you do, do it consistently (I've just made these consistent as I've been through).
  • The MOS wants the full stop in if it was inside the original quote and outside if the quote is a fragment. But it looks inconsistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this for GA a while back and have reviewed the changes made since then. I made a few minor tweaks, including one of the image licences. Otherwise I believe it all looks good. Please review my edits and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Query -- Curious about your employment of the post-nom template. Speaking as a fellow military biographer on WP I like the idea but I can't see where it's common practice to display them without commas, or so miniscule. FWIW, I've said as much to the people who like to throw them into military bios but had no response. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Check out the argument at Template talk:Post-nominals. My position is that the templates should be used as a matter of practice. When they decide what the story is, they will all change together. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Myself I think it's better to wait until a decent format is in, but this isn't the place for that discussion -- I note however that the template purports to have a parameter to increase the size of the font. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: High-quality, well-written, and well-researched article about an interesting subject whom I had never heard of before. I'll acquiescence to other reviewers regarding the format of military articles, and if the sources are adequate for this topic. Nice job bringing attention to an important Australian military figure. Prose is excellent with the feedback followed above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:16, 15 May 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) 15:14, 18 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC) [39].

---

Lynn Hill

Nominator(s): Wadewitz (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for a few months now and I believe it is ready for FAC. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments! Wadewitz (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There are loads of errors in the reference linking. Clicking majority of the of the references does not lead to the proper "cited text".--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Inline cites all work properly for me. If you are talking about external links to Google Books and such, it is not always possible to get a link to the actual page. Please list actual citations that need fixing and what needs fixing and I'll see which ones can be fixed. Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• no, not the external links. I am talking about the actual citations. For example, in the current version, citation number 7 lists Hill & Child 2002. But when I click the Hill & Child, I am not taken to the full book citation (which is listed under Cited Text). Same thing for majority of footnotes, say, for example, 47, 58, 66 and so on.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I see. I'm using Template:Sfn, but I can't see what I'm doing wrong - can you? Wadewitz (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• You should split author in last and first (1-9) (maybe author works too somehow, but splitting is a lot easier) and use authorlink, if you want to wiki-link the author. Fixed the 2 cites. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, these are working fine now.

• Great - thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Be consistent in how the "(others pictured)" notation is formatted
  • Done. Wadewitz (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• File:LynnHillBelaying.png: this is cited to a YouTube upload of an interview, but the screenshot comes from a video shown within that interview - who filmed that video? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know, unfortunately, but as FilmFest St. Anton is releasing the footage, do we not assume they have the right to do so? Wadewitz (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by comments This article appears to be very comprehensive and is well illustrated. I won't post a full review of it (as I lack the time and am totally clueless about climbing), but I have the following comments:

• Watch out for WP:PEACOCK and imprecise magazine-style wording - stuff like "Always athletic" at the start of a sentence, "Hill continues to climb and has not stopped taking on ambitious climbs", "As a result of Hill's impressive climbs in The Gunks, she was invited to climb in Europe in 1986" (foreigners can obviously climb in Europe without an invitation), "Inspired by the difficulty of these climbs and intrigued by European climbing culture", "and was given the opportunity to travel around the world to climb" (what does this mean? - was she prohibited from travelling around the world before, or could she simply not afford to do so without this sponsorship?).
  • "always athletic" - removed
  • "ambitious climbs" - this is in the lede and there needs to be a general statement that indicates she is still climbing hard stuff, albeit not competitively
  • "invited to climb" - she was invited very specifically by the French Alpine Club (this is detailed in the next sentence)
  • "European climbing culture" - yes, this is vague, but the sources don't go into depth
  • "opportunity to travel" - I assume she couldn't afford to travel before, but I don't have a source that says that explicitly, so I can't put that in the article. Wadewitz (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • 'Opportunity' is pretty vague as it doesn't imply any clear relationship between things. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Changed to "paid to". Wadewitz (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• What purpose does the material in which Hill praises her sponsor serve in the paragraph which begins with "As of 2013, Hill was a sponsored athlete"? This is pretty vacuous as she's obviously going to say nice things about the company which sponsors her.
  • What do you think about cutting the quote down just to the environmental material? That is a theme that recurs throughout the article and Hill's life. Wadewitz (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The whole thing strikes me as being gumph. She's working for the company, and is saying nice things about them as part of this relationship. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Due to her time spent climbing in Europe Hill is fluent in both French and Italian" - presumably she's fluent in these languages because she took the time to learn them, not just because she's spent time climbing mountains in the two countries. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reworded. Wadewitz (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments – It can't be. The artist formerly known as Awadewit making a triumphant return to FAC? Talk about a pleasant surprise.

• This may not be an appropriate amount of detail for the lead, but why was climbing El Capitan's Nose her greatest accomplishment? Was it because the route was difficult for women, or climbers in general? Or some other reason? Rarity of the feat?
  • Because it was the first time anyone had done it as a free climber (that is what "first free ascent" means). Do you think I should reword to make that clearer? Wadewitz (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would be helpful. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Reworded to: "...famous for making the first ascent without aid of the difficult sheer rock face of The Nose on El Capitan..." Wadewitz (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Introduction to climbing: Double period by Carl's Jr. mention needs removal.
  • Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Climbing career: The Shawangunks link here isn't necessary since we already had one in the last section.
  • Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Competitive career: This doesn't need multiple sport climbing links.
  • Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• The Nose: Same thing for big wall climbing in this section.
  • Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll review the rest when I get a chance. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is exciting to edit again!! Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • World traveler: Free climbing link here is another repeat link from earlier in the body.
    • I think that is a helpful repeat, as readers unfamiliar with the term may need it linked again. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
      • All right. It's not what I'd do, but not a big deal. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Gender politics: "in part of because women were more visible and in part because Title IX funding mandated equal access in public schools to boys and girls in athletics." Should "of" be removed from this bit?
    • Oops! Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Many book references need en dashes in the page ranges, and cites to multiple pages should be displaying as pp., not p. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I've fixed all of these. Wadewitz (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
      • One more outstanding issue before I support: some nasty red text is showing up in refs 14 and 85. I don't know what is causing this, but it's probably just a simple formatting issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Not sure if this helps, but I saw a thread on FAC talk about similar red text in several other articles at FAC. It all looks highly confusing, and even us editors who have knowledge of FA-level formatting are having trouble understanding what triggers the red. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I've fixed those! Wadewitz (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

SupportComment: I peer-reviewed this in some detail a few weeks ago, and most of my concerns were addressed there. I have no significant problems with the article, and am leaning towards supporting its promotion. Before doing so, I'd like to touch again on a couple of points I raised at the peer review:

• The impression that the article's tone might seem over-laudatory. For example, in the first few sentences we are told "She was one of the best competitive sport climbers in the world..."; then "She has been described as both one of the best female climbers in the world and one of the best climbers of all time." Three superlatives in the first three lines rather militates against the neutral tone. The latter two "bests" are moderated by "She has been described as...", but the first reads like an endorsement. I think the first "best" should be amended to "leading".
• The selective citations in the lead, which appear to be against the policy oitlined in WP:WHYCITE

Could you comment on these two aspects? Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• • The sources actually say the word "best" - multiple sources say this word, so I don't think it is too laudatory. It is not an exaggeration. The reason I am citing those statements is precisely because they will be challenged (as you have!) - they are not uncontroversial statements. Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• • I am not questioning her status as one of the best climbers. It is the unadorned statement in the first line: "She was one of the best competitive sport climbers in the world..." that is bothersome. This is the "voice of the encyclopedia"; the whole basis of encyclopaedic neutrality is that such statements are avoided. The statements beginning "She has been described as..." are fine; I am not challenging them as you suggest, merely saying that they should be cited in the main text, not in the lead. You are not citing any other lead material. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I've reworded, using the language from William Shakespeare. And I would really prefer to leave in the citations because saying someone is the "best" is definitely a controversial claim. It is not unprecedented, as the Shakespeare article demonstrates. Moreover, WP:WHYCITE states: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." I feel the policy supports this decision. Wadewitz (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I fear we will never agree on the citation issue, but I am not pressing the matter further. I think the amendment in the first line is an improvement, and the article as a whole looks in fine shape. I have upgraded to support, and hope to see it as a featured article soon (andplenty more to follow). Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

SupportComments

• Well written and an engaging read, both of which are completely unsurprising to me given Wadewitz's track record. I'm sure to support this in time, and am only holding off for the following minor comments.
• Should there be references in the lede? My understanding was that the references go into the main text; the lede, which only summarizes the main text and should not add new information, is thus automatically covered. In any case, the current state with a few scattered references seems to be inconsistent. And in stark contrast with the rest of the text, which is comprehensively and consistently supported with references. (I find the policy here somewhat inconsistent, but there it is, I suppose)
  • See the discussion above about the lead references. Wadewitz (talk)
• slightly confused about "Los Angeles Angeles" - if it's a typo, it's a typo with its own redirect page; the page itself calls them the "Los Angeles Angels", though.
  • Not a typo. Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In particular, the ability to conceptualize a series of complex movements as small, distinct ones and to thrive under pressure gave Hill a significant edge." - can't access the source, but if this is based on a direct statement of her, it should be qualified by "Hill believes" or similar.
  • Not based on a direct statement. Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "but she did not have a strong interest in any discipline" - presumably this is "discipline" in the sense of "subject"? Slightly ambiguous; Hill certainly must be a highly disciplined person.
  • Changed to "academic subject".
• "In the summers of 1976–78 and the early 1980s Hill frequently camped at Camp 4 in Yosemite Valley, becoming part of the climbing community centered there and joining the search and rescue team." - I don't see how that is borne out by the particular reference given here. The mention of Hill in the lawsuit says no more than that she was a member of the American Alpine Club, as far as I can see.

The 'h. Plaintiff LYNN HILL' section does mention the summers of 1976-78 and the search and rescue. I suspect the rest is covered in Pilgrims of the Vertical but don't have the book to check. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• General remark: There are now a number of red links, notably for climbers who do not have their own articles. Presumably, those should either be made into stubs, or the names de-wikilinked and some additional info added to the names (in the sense of "Hill climbed with Mari Gingery" being expanded to "Hill climbed with Nepalese climber Mari Gingery", if Mari Gingery should happen to be a Nepalese climber).
  • I don't have time to make articles about the people and things who deserve articles, unfortunately. There is no rule that that says there can't be any redlinks and we should keep them in to indicate where Wikipedia is incomplete. I've tried to identify people where necessary.Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Hill climbed with and became involved with climber and writer John Long" - John Long is already mentioned in the previous paragraph; if he is being described ("climber and writer"), shouldn't that have taken place in that previous paragraph?
  • Long is identified with the Stonemasters at that point, so singling him out for description didn't seem quite right. Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Hill and Long spent the winter of 1981 in Las Vegas, Nevada climbing during the day and working nights" - working as what? Is that specified somewhere?

This claims Hill was a pizza waitress. Long says 'dead-end jobs' in the ref. Presumably Climbing Free would say what he did. Do you think it is important to say? JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Climbing Free doesn't say. Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be good to mention either the pizza waitress or the dead-end jobs. For me, at least, that's useful information; not the specifics, but whether or not her jobs were climbing-related. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Added detail. Wadewitz (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Hill became a world-renowned climber in The Gunks. (Others pictured)" - others, plural? Is there a second person in the image?

Just one. 'Other' or 'another' don't sound right to me. Any better suggestions? JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We made them all consistent, too. Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Hill's competitive climbing career began in the mid-1980s, but one of her first significant accomplishments was in 1979." - I have no idea what "competitive climbing" means, not being familiar with that whole community. To make the article more accessible, it would be great if you could add an explanatory sentence.
  • Adding a sentence here is awkward since the focus is not on the competitions, but I added some more details below in the "Competitive climbing" section. Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • How about a more general "Hill started to participate in climbing competitions" or similar? That'd be less technically phrased than "competitive climbing career". Just my two cents. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Changed. Wadewitz (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• "She became the first person to free climb the 5.12d Ophir Broke in Ophir, Colorado" - again, to make the article more accessible to non-climbers, a brief interjection like "Ophir Broke in Ophir, Colorado, which has a difficulty rating of 5.12d in the Yosemite Decimal System," would have been helpful. Sure, I can click the wikilink, but that always breaks the flow of reading. Also, unless I click the wikilink, the fact that something with a .12 is apparently fiendishly difficult passes me by completely.

Doesn't the next sentence make it clear it must be very difficult? JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We've had a lot of discussion about how to make this article accessible. Unfortunately, to understand climbing grades, you simply have to read about them. We did try to put in context like "the hardest route ever climbed by a woman at that time" and "the hardest crack climb in Colorado at the time" - do these help? Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My main point is about encountering the 5.12d without any indication why it is there. That certainly breaks my reading flow. I do, in the next sentence, get the information that this particular climb is difficult, but unless I click the link, I don't see that the ".12" bit actually refers to difficulty. For all I knew before, it could have been a topographical numbering system in the park, or within Ophir Broke, or something along those lines. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. Reworded to indicate that 12d is a difficulty rating. Wadewitz (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• "she hung on the rope to gain more information about the climb" - that's not clear to me. Is this hanging on the rope during the climb, instead of climbing down again? Or is she rappelling down to scout the climb first? I have no idea how this works, and a more accessible description would be greatly appreciated.

Presumably she is lead-climbing up to a certain point, putting in a piece of gear and quickdraw, clipping her rope to this and then letting go of the rock to hang from the rope. Possibly the letting go was entirely accidental although she'd be likely to end up further away from the difficult section. Either way it would then enable her to have a rest and to study the best way to climb the problematic section. She could then either re-attach herself to the rock or get her seconder to lower her down to start the pitch again and start climbing again.

I can add in the description Jmiall gives above, but none of it is in the source, so it is a bit of a stretch. Let me know what you think. The sources presume a basic knowledge of climbing, unfortunately. Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jmiall's explanation is probably too much detail at this point. Is there a way of phrasing this less technically? From what I gather from your explanations, this is about not breaking off immediately after failing, but instead using the fact that one is already up there to scout the terrain for the next attempt. If some re-formulation along these lines is possible, that would be helpful, I think. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"rather than begin the climb again every time she fell or leaned on the rope for support, she hung on the rope in her harness to gain more information about the climb" - Current wording. Let me know how to make this clearer. I'm not really sure at this point. Wadewitz (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• "For instance, she had resisted hang-dogging, holding with the philosophy that it was cheating, but after experimenting with it during her ascent of Vandals, she found it a useful way to learn challenging climbs" - again, an in-text explanation of hang-dogging would make the reading go more smoothly. Also, how is hang-dogging different from the "she hung on the rope to gain more information" we had earlier? What is the sequence here?

There's no difference. The normal term is hangdog. This part is just restating the same point again in a section on her climbing 'philosophy' and how it changed (as general opinion did). JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - we used more general language before and more specific at this point. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

...as long as the choice of words makes it clear that this is the same. That's what's important for me as a non-climber to make the connection. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading the current version, I think a general reader would not make the connection. Could you please tie in the hang-dogging with the earlier more explicit explanation (which I think was a very accessible solution)? Markus Pössel (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Wadewitz (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "especially rappel-bolted climbing." - the two separate wikilinks don't make it clear to me what is meant here; again, a brief in-text explanation would be great.

As I understand it this just means climbs that have been bolted in the normal sport climbing way so you fix gear to the bolt rather than directly use the bolt to help you ascend. Sport climbing would make more sense to me as a link here but it has been linked more than once earlier in the article. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I was using the language from the source. Part of the problem with the links is that climbing articles are just abysmal. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important for readers like me to at least get the general idea. If the specifics of rappel-bolted climbing are crucial to make sense of this statement, they should be alluded to. If they're not, consider leaving out the phrase altogether and find some more general wording. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Now reads "especially sport climbing that required the insertion of fixed bolts into the rock". Wadewitz (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1990, at a superfinal for the World Cup Final" - what's a superfinal?

I suspect this means that there were a set of routes in the final that lots of people completed so there was then a superfinal to try to separate them. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to avoid too much detail about the intracies of the World Cup - should I add more? Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding (or taking away) just enough to not make this a stumbling stone would be good. Might the apparent analogy with playoffs, a more common term for all I can see, help? Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, none of the sources make it entirely clear what this term means. It seems at the time that the rules were rapidly changing at these competitions (during this competition, the rules changed during the competition itself), so I'm not sure that anyone actually knows (or if they do, they didn't write it down). Wadewitz (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we somehow get around this term, then? "At the competitions final climb", for instance? That doesn't use final as a noun (which would indeed lead to confusion final vs. superfinal), and should be accessible. Markus Pössel (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed to 'at the final stage of the World Cup Final' JMiall₰ 23:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In January 1990, Hill set another landmark by becoming the first woman to redpoint a consensus 5.14, Masse Critique in Cimaï, France" - an in-text explanation for red-point would be appreciated, also, how is a "consensus 5.14" different from any other 5.14?

Consensus means that several (or more) people agree with that grading. Different climbers may grade a route differently or there may not have been many people to have climbed it. The implication from reading this would be that a woman had previously redpointed a 5.14, but it was a route that was later downgraded, or a route that most climbers don't grade as 5.14.JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Added explanation for redpoint. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The redpoint explanation certainly helps. Is there a way of getting around the "consensus" bit, may be by some kind of reformulation? Markus Pössel (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not worth it - removed the word. Wadewitz (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Hill did not regard sport climbing to be real climbing" - was that a change of mind, or did she reluctantly sport-climb all the time she was doing competitions?

I don't think any of the sources say it was a change of mind. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JMiall - she seemed to always believe that sport climbing was fundamentally different than "real" climbing, or her first love, traditional climbing. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

From the source, it's unclear what exactly she's talking about: "It's a whole different thing... It's not really climbing."[40] The source is talking about "sport climbing", but the term sport climbing has changed meaning since it was introduced. From context it appears she was talking about competition sport climbing on artificial walls. I don't think from that source we can generalize to the current wording. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Asked why she was motivated to climb The Nose, Hill has said:" - the block quote layout here is a bit confusing, as the (non-indented) following paragraph is pushed to the right by the next image. Please consider re-arranging the images to make this less ambiguous.

Image moved by a paragraph.JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If we put the image on the right, the block quote won't be indented at all, so this is the best layout. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

At least in my browser, it is now properly indented. Although there's an image on the right. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are different variations of "free-climb" and "free climb", with and without dash. Please make this consistent.
  • Done. Wadewitz (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Hill repeatedly tells a story" - you're giving a single reference; if she told the story repeatedly, shouldn't that be supported by giving references to multiple retellings?
  • Added references. Wadewitz (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• "because Title IX funding mandated equal access in public schools to boys and girls in athletics" - I'm unsure about the prepositions here, and about the order of qualifiers. In order of importance, "equal access for boys and girls to athletic programs in public schools" sounds more appropriate to me.
  • Changed. Wadewitz (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "As of 2013, Hill was a sponsored athlete for the Patagonia gear and clothing company." - this shouldn't be in a section with the title "media". Should this move to "World traveler", the last of the chronological-biographical sections as far as I can see? Markus Pössel (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Media section is in chronological order too. Being a sponsored athlete for Patagonia to a large extent will mean appearing on posters or in videos for them so it isn't a terrible place to put it. Anyway I've moved it for now. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been busy with family affairs the past few days - thanks for jumping in! Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing to Support as all my comments have now been addressed. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• General:
  • YOu link a lot of the technical terms but it wouldn't hurt to have a few of them briefly explained in the text. You can gather some meaning from the context - but things like "redpoint" "pitches" and some idea of the scale of the various grades would help.
    • If you could point out specific places in the article, that would help. We've been working on this quite a bit and I know "redpoint" is already explained as are the various difficulties of various climbs. I tried quite specifically to give a lay description of how hard specific climbs are. There is no real way to explain the grades without reading the article, I'm afraid. I've added a bit for "pitch". Wadewitz (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Lead:
  • "From 1986 to 1992 Hill was one of the world's most accomplished sport climbers, winning over 30 international titles, including five victories at the Arco Rock Master." My understanding of MOS says that when you're comparing two equivalent things, you use either both ordinals or both numerals.
    • Changed to "thirty". Wadewitz (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Childhood:
  • Suggest linking "high school" for the non-American readers.
    • Done. Wadewitz (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Introduction:
  • PRobably need conversions for "1500 meters and fourth in the 3000 meters"
    • I don't think so, since that is a track competition used the world over. Wadewitz (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Not everyone is involved in track and will understand it, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Added links to the events. Wadewitz (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Climbing career:
  • "Her lead of Yellow Crack was a very dangerous ascent, her husband and climbing partner at the time.." husband? Last we heard of her love life was that she parted from Long in 1983 or so....
    • The personal life moves down to a different section. Should I add in a sentence about her meeting Ruffa here? Wadewitz (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Might make things a bit less jarring... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I couldn't find a good way to introduce him there, since that whole section is really about her climbing, so I removed the word "husband". I've revised the "Personal life" section this way. Let me know what you think. Wadewitz (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Competative career:
  • "she returned to compete in her first international climbing competition" What year?
    • Added detail. Wadewitz (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "She lost to Catherine Destivelle in a "disputed ruling" but won the following year." Which years?
    • Should be clear that she lost to CD in 1986 and won in 1987 now. Wadewitz (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "winning over 30 international titles, including five victories" as above, believe you need all ordinals or numerals here.
    • Changed. Wadewitz (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Jargon "Then, on October 14, 2005, the team of Tommy Caldwell and Beth Rodden also freed the Nose, and on October 16, 2005, Caldwell freed it in fewer than 12 hours." Freed?
    • Changed. Wadewitz (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• World traveler:
  • "For two thousand dollars, participants received..." context... lots of places have dollars as currency. Also later in the media section, same deal with the prize amounts for the TV show.
    • Added links. Wadewitz (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Personal life:
  • "Hill endorsed Barack Obama in the 2012 US election on the basis of his support for protection of national parks and wilderness areas in the USA." Two things here - personal life isn't a great fit for this and is it really relevant to her life and climbing? Is she outspoken on lots of political views or is this a one time thing?
    • She is somewhat outspoken on environmental issues. And there seemed to be no other place to put this. Let me know if you think it should be removed. Wadewitz (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It just feels very odd here. We don't discuss the fact that she's outspoken on enviromental issues - maybe if we had that detail we'd see why the endorsement is noteworthy. Right now, it just looks like trivia thrown in with no real relevance to her life/career. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I see that. Most of the other environmental stuff seems to have disappeared for one reason or another. Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Looks pretty dang good, just a few bits of jargon and some tiny quibbles before I'm totally comfortable supporting. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm expanding into new topics! Always a good challenge! Wadewitz (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Happy to support now. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Given the number of other reviews I'm involved in at the moment, and the lack of time I have for them, I'm going to post my opinion now instead of waiting. I have full confidence that the other reviewers' comments will be resolved adequately, and think that the article as a whole is good enough to meet the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- Welcome back to FAC, it is your first time here under this moniker, isn't it?

• I've seen the discussion on the wording in the lead and, though I realise you've tried to accommodate concerns, I've decided to be bold and reduce the "best"s by one. Obviously that can be discussed further but "best" without any elaboration will I think appear very subjective to the average reader.
  • People are still bold on Wikipedia! *gasp*!!
• Also in the lead, "setting records for women and men alike" reads oddly to me -- I presume it means women's records and absolute or 'open' records, is there some way we can rephrase?
  • Rephrased.
• There's quite a few duplicate links in the article, you might like to check with Ucucha's duplink script and see what you can do without. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • These are to help with the jargon and climbing grades and, in my opinion, really need to remain to facilitate ease of comprehension by non-climbers. Wadewitz (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The climbing grades I understand but linking free climb six times seems to be overdoing it; also you don't need to re-link El Capitan when you link the Nose in the same breath, nor Yosemite Valley when you're linking El Capitan immediately before -- pls review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I have delinked a few more terms but left Yosemite Valley in case readers are unfamiliar with the geography. Wadewitz (talk) 18:43, 13 May 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) 22:45, 13 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [41].

---

Hurricane Hattie

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC), User:TheAustinMan

I worked on this article earlier this year, and with assistance from User:TheAustinMan (who I have offered to help me with the FAC as a co-nominator), I believe it is ready for FAC. It's a significant historical hurricane - one of the strongest, latest hurricanes, as well as one of the deadliest in Belize. The article uses a variety of sources, so I believe it passes all of the FA criteria. Enjoy :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Image check - all OK. Sources and authors provided (added archive link for Honduras source info). GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Link check—no disambiguation links, and all external links check out with the tool. Imzadi 1979 → 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Citations:
  • There's a minor inconsistency with date formatting. Since most of the dates in the references are in the ISO style (YYYY-MM-DD), the few that have publication dates only specific to the month should be "1961-10" and not "October 1961" for consistency.
  • I would like to see a city of publication for The Evening Independent. Ditto the Times Daily. Normally it's a good practice to include the location when newspaper names omit it.
  • Not all author/reporter names are in the same format. Some are in "Name1; Name2" and some are in "Name1 and Name2". Again, consistency here is the key.
  • Otherwise, the citations look good. Imzadi 1979 → 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I synced the aforementioned material to a consistent format. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: TheAustinMan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hoping to review this soon (once I'm through all the reviews I owe people!) --Rschen7754 07:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! No hurries :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Took a look at the sources and didn't see any problems, though I'm not a formatting expert.
• Image captions that are not complete sentences should have no period.
  • Ah thanks, I removed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• $60 million in USD?
  • Yep, there's a note there that says all totals are in 1961 USD for simplicity. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• moved near and over the low - I get the feeling there's something missing...
  • An anticylone helps storms intensify, so that plus the trough allowed for outflow, a crucial ingredient to strengthening storms. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Two sentences in a row starting with "By"
  • Removed one, good catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• By late on October 30, it is estimated that Hattie attained peak winds of 160 mph (260 km/h) about 190 mi (310 km) east of the border of Mexico and British Honduras. - not the best worded
  • Yea, I removed the first part. (it is estimated) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• with gusts to 104 mph - up to?
  • Ehh, up to implies that total or lower (which is ideal for estimates and rounding). That being said, I reworded the sentence to "reached 104". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• When Hattie affected the area, most buildings in Belize City were wooden, and many of the destroyed homes were made of wood. - could be reworded to be more concise.
  • Ack, yea, I reworded. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• but all business had remained closed. - seems awkward
  • Reworded. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• along with 458,000 pounds - probably some sort of conversion needed here
  • Added! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• By a year after Hattie struck British Honduras - by the one-year anniversary?
  • Sure. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall looks pretty good, should be a support after minor fixes. --Rschen7754 08:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. It's not a road article, so hope it wasn't too bad! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support prose is good, and the article seems to be comprehensive. --Rschen7754 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Full review—I had done a cursory review of just the citations, but I'm coming back to do a full review after stumbling here from my FAC and that of my colleague.
  • Footnotes 3 and 6 have date formatting that is not consistent with the rest of the article.
    • I tweaked ref 6, but I left ref 3 the same and converted some others. Now, the format is 1961-11-01 if there is an exact date, or October 1961 when it's for the month. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Personally, this is why I don't use the ISO-style dates in references. To be consistent with them, the month/year dates should be formatted as 1961-10, which is what I had mentioned above. *shrugs* Imzadi 1979 → 22:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You might want to include a link to Portal:Belize as well.
    • Added. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm slightly confused by two subheadings in the Impact section. There is a repetition between "Southwestern Caribbean, Greater Antilles, and Florida" and "Southwestern Caribbean", but the latter of the two focuses on Central America. Maybe the second subheading should be renamed "Central America" then? Also, that first subsection mentions the northwester Caribbean so maybe it's also misnamed slightly?
    • Reformatted. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise, the article reads well, and I feel that it meets the criteria for promotion with those minor fixes. Imzadi 1979 → 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support based on the above. Yes, I'd prefer some better consistency in reference date formatting (either to purely ISO-style or spell out the dates in more "normal" formatting, but don't mix them) but that's a minor issue that shouldn't hold up promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support looks good. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support all comments I had have been addressed already. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – the article is in rather good shape and seems to cover all major aspects of the storm. As with most FACs, I have a few recommendations for further improvement:

Prose: generally cleanly written with a few rough patches that could use some tightening here and there

• which indicated that Hattie reached hurricane status → "which indicated that Hattie had reached hurricane status", as the indication occurred after Hattie's reaching hurricane status

• Done. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Early on October 29, a trough extended from Nicaragua through Florida; based on the trough and climatology for similar hurricanes, Hattie was expected to continue northward. – Is there any way this can be worded more concisely?

• I changed the first portion to "a trough that extended...' and made it shorter. That work? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• sustained winds were estimated at over 150 mph (240 km/h) – "estimated at over" sounds rather odd, imo. Later on, "potentially as strong as 200 mph (325 km/h)" doesn't seem congruent with the preceding clause it's supposed to modify.

• I moved the winds to the impact section, since it didn't feel like it was meant there. I clarified who estimated the winds, too, based on MWR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• When the Miami Weather Bureau first began issuing advisories on Hattie, the agency noted the potential for heavy rainfall in the southwestern Caribbean, which could have caused flash flooding. – Tighten to "Upon initiating advisories on Hattie, the Miami Weather Bureau noted the potential for heavy rainfall and flash flooding in the southwestern Caribbean."?

• LOVE IT!! ♥ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hurricane Hattie first posed a threat to the Yucatán Peninsula and British Honduras on October 30, when it first turned toward the area. – redundancy: "first... first"

• Ack, removed the "when" and the latter "first". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• warned of the threat for high tides → tighten to "warned of high tides"?

• I disagree, since they were warning of what could happened. "Warned of high tides" sounds like they were saying that while it was happening, which wasn't the case. There was forewarning. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the people in the capital – another example of something that could easily be tightened (e.g. "Most residents in the capital")

• Tightened. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• A hospital in the city was evacuated,[12] and a school operated as a shelter. – I don't feel "and" serves as a proper conjunction here, as those two clauses are totally unrelated.

• Moved stuff around. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• While nearing the island, the airport was closed due to tropical storm-force winds. – Watch out for dangling participles such as this one, where the participial phrase modifies the wrong noun.

• Ack, I usually remember to avoid this. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• A manager of United Press International described Belize City as "nothing but a huge pile of matchsticks,"[12] and the roads were either flooded for days or covered with mud. – Again, "and" feels out of place here, linking two unrelated bits of information.

• Sure, I split. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Heavy usage of "due to", some instances borderline erroneous, in the first part of the aftermath section.

• Which ones in particular? I think the "due to"s work where they are. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Aftermath could do with better flow. For example: "At the city's police station, workers provided fresh water and rice to storm victims. In the days after the storm, roads were flooded or otherwise impassable due to debris. Many residents throughout British Honduras donated supplies to the storm victims" → relief supplies - impassable roads - relief supplies. Earlier on, the article mentions three newspaper's inability to operate, and much later on it again covers business operations (post office). I suggest going through the section and rearranging it where appropriate.

• The big problem here was that I mention road conditions twice. I removed the second, redundant one. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Four other ships had sailed to the territory to provide assistance,[27] along with 458,000 lb (208,000 kg) of food – Why the switch to the past perfect (had sailed) here? Also, what kind of assistance other than the food?

• Source didn't say about assistance other than food. Removed "had". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• In that case, tighten to "Four other ships sailed to the territory to provide 458,000 lb (208,000 kg) of food"? Auree ^★★ 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tightened to suggested phrasing. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Mexican government sent three flights of food and medicine to the territory – "sent flights of" makes for odd wording

• Changed to "flights' worth of food". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Still unusual to me -- how about "with food"? Auree ^★★ 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removed part of the previous wording, changed to 'con comida' TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The name Hattie was retired and will never be used by an Atlantic hurricane again. – I hope that's supposed to be "used for"?

• Err, yea! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, the aftermath has several stubby, terse sentences; although brevity is important to good writing I feel as though the section could be mended into a more seamless whole.

• I merged a few sentences. Hopefully that's better now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Content: seems adequate, just a few quibbles

• There was speculation that Hattie contributed to the development of Simone, and later Tropical Storm Inga after the systems merged. – Which systems merged? Hattie and Simone or Simone and Inga? Or all three of them?

• Actually the remnants of Simone merged with some additional disturbed weather, which I have added into the article. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• although some shelters were unsafe and were destroyed in the hurricane – I feel as though this tidbit in the preparations section borders on impact

• I moved the sentence and changed the content to better reflect its position in the section. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• although the reef recovered after the storm – Do we know how long it took the reef to recover?

• The source does not give any indicator of time other than 'subsequently.' TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Source 20 also mentions something about damage to sugarcane crops, but the article doesn't reflect this

• The sentence in which ref. 20 is located notes of "several factories" damaged in the region, which would include the sugar crop factory which was damaged in the news source.

• I also recall reading about damage to the actual sugarcane crops, not just the factories. I may be wrong, though Auree ^★★ 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• There was a little bit about sugar cane crop being disrupted, which I added. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Similarly, although a minor discrepancy, source 30 gives a damage total of $62 million for British Honduras, compared to the $60 million mentioned in the article. Do you feel the source is reliable enough to go with the higher total?

• $60 million originates from the Monthly Weather Review, and the $62 million comes from a newspaper. Though the MWR is more reliable, the newspaper comes 10 years later. Since I'm not the main contributor, I'll let Hink decide. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• In 1970, the government built Belmopan as the new capital, located on higher ground – I doubt they built the city in just one year; rather, construction work was finished by then. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Changed to "As a result of the destruction in Belize City, the government proposed and later began work on a new capital, located on higher ground. Work on the new capital, Belmopan, was completed in 1970." TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do a check of the citations later on. Auree ^★★ 13:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are you still planning to perform this check, Auree? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies, there was a slight delay due to other obligations, but I have been going over the citations with User:The Austin Man off-site, and they're looking better already. We're planning on tying up any loose ends by tomorrow. For the sake of inclusion, I'll provide a brief summary of what was discussed (and resolved).Auree ^★★ 05:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• There was some confusion as to the difference between the author and publisher fields, which were being used interchangeably at the time. I've cleared this up with the editors now, and it has been fixed throughout.
• Some sources were using the wrong citation templates (i.e. cite web was used in place of both cite report and cite press release); this has now been amended.
• Minor inconsistencies in date and title formatting remained, all cleared up now.
• Some fixes to newspaper sources are still required, and source 27 needs more appropriate formatting, which will all be seen to tomorrow.
• Lastly, but most importantly, I have done spotchecks on many of the sources, and all supported their claims without close paraphrasing. Auree ^★★ 06:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tks Auree. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Despite the promotion, I would still like to add my support. Many thanks to Hurricanehink and TheAustinMan for a lovely job on such an important Central American storm! Auree ^★★ 08:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FAC), well written, meticulously referenced article. I like how the article's lede/intro section starts off with a bang and describes right away the notability of the topic discussed therein. Nice job overall. Thank you for contributing to this quality improvement project on Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 5 May 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) 08:24, 11 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [42].

---

USS Saratoga (CV-3)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This American aircraft carrier has an interesting history; laid down as a battlecruiser and converted into a carrier to meet the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, she was only one of three prewar US carriers to survive World War II. Regarded as obsolete after the war, she became a target ship and was sunk while testing atomic bombs at Bikini Atoll in 1946. Her wreck is only one of three sunken aircraft carriers that can be dived on. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago. I've tweaked it a bit since then, but I expect that some more work remains to be done. I look forward to working with reviewers to fix any problems that they may discover.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I've looked over Sturm's recent edits, and everything there looks good except:
• "New Georgia and Bougainville Campaigns": I'm concerned that a reader will take the second link to mean that there were "Bougainville Campaigns". We generally either link a proper noun, or make it clear that what we're linking isn't a proper noun, generally by lowercasing. What you had before seemed to work to me.
• "Searching American aircraft located": I'd go with "American aircraft located". - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)#Guadalcanal campaign. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Both fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Continuing. Be consistent on U.S. vs. US
• "These reports": which reports?
• "follow on airstrike": follow-on airstrike
• "New Orleans which immediately detached and ordered to Nouméa": I'd go with "New Orleans, which immediately left for Nouméa"
• "fighter operation": I was expecting "fighter operations", but maybe what you have is fine.
• "for three days, 29–31 January": on 29–31 January
• "with Carrier Air Group (Night) 53—this consisted of 53 Hellcats and 17 Avengers—[19] aboard": with the 53 Hellcats and 17 Avengers of Carrier Air Group (Night) 53 aboard.
• "36 of her aircraft were destroyed.": "Thirty-six of her aircraft were destroyed.", or "She also lost 36 aircraft."
• "Another attack two hours later further damaged her flight deck, although the aircraft bounced overboard.": I don't know what that means.
• "After the end of the war": After the war
• "in Operation Magic Carpet, the repatriation of American servicemen from the Pacific.": in Operation Magic Carpet, the repatriation of American servicemen from the European, Pacific, and Asian theaters. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Everything else looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking this over. All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN67, 68: which Lundstrom?
  • Fixed
• Compare FN1 and "Saratoga" in References
  • Fixed
• Herts includes more bibliographic info than is stated in References, but also appears to be a student paper - what makes it a high-quality reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • Deleted
• Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations
  • Done
• "Imperial Japanese Navy Page" is the section title; the site is Combinedfleet
  • Fixed
• Wadle is a master's thesis - how does it qualify under WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • He's cited [43] by multiple authors, including Nofi and Andrew Krepinevich. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support:

• You make it clear that in fleet exercises the "sinkings" and "damage" are pretend, but the 1937 exercises lack the quotation marks. Saratoga was wasn't actually damaged, was it?
  • Good catch, fixed.
• Last sentence of the third paragraph of "World War II": that use of the word "embarked" sounds funny to me. Is that just some naval jargon I'm unaware of?
  • Embarked, disembarked are often used for loading/unloading for ships and aircraft. Linked to Wiktionary.
• Those are all the questions I have. Very nice article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Glad you liked it, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, extremely detailed article and a great example of Sturm's high-quality work. After something like ten minor edits to move the images around, I'm satisfied with how it looks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Image review: most of the images were taken by the U.S. Navy = U.S. federal government = public domain. There are, however, two images that are the same (my fault, I added the second). I would have removed the second, but I'm confused as to why you shrunk the image to 775px? There's also the issue of the National Museum of Naval Aviation photos, like File:USS Saratoga (CV-3) USS Enterprise (CV-6) 1942.jpg or File:USS Saratoga (CV-3) 8 Feb 1944.jpg. While it's safe to say that these are also U.S. Navy-taken photos—I can't imagine they allowed random civilians to fly over the battle fleet during wartime to take pictures—there is no declaration of the creator on the image description pages, e.g. [44] [45]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the NMAM photos are probably personal photos, not official ones and have swapped them out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks excellent to me now, thanks Sturm. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Ed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Ucucha's script finds a few dup links, can you pls double-check if you really need them all? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, the one duplicate that remains is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 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) 06:48, 11 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [46].

---

Tripura

Nominator(s): Dwaipayan (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the previous FAC was withdrawn due to concerns over prose quality. Since then, User:Skinsmoke worked hard to improve the quality of the prose in many parts of the article. This is a small state nestled in the northeastern corner of India. Geographically marginalized, it has notable biodiversity and is making gradual progress in human development and economy, although lacking any large scale industry. Many topics on the state have no wikipedia articles, so you will find a number of red links. I believe those redlinks deserve individual articles, and so kept the red links on. Hope you enjoy the article. Regards Dwaipayan (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Minor comment: "North East India" is written in several ways in the article--as a single word, hyphenated, lower case, upper case etc. Please be uniform.—indopug (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Indopug. User:Skinsmoke suggested that modern British English would prefer North East. So, I have now changed all entries in the text to North East. However, in case of references, we have kept as they appeared in the reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comments as of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tripura&oldid=547516741

• Tripura Map - Give a footnote, that the number of districts have increased or try to find someone who may re-draw the map according to new boundaries. Should have an alt text.

• I have submitted a request for a new map. The current map has alt text. Will add a footnote.

• Footnote added by using efn template.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Updated map showing eight districts is now added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• A reliable history of the kingdom, or the residents of Tripura, is missing due to the lack of any documentation or other form of evidence. Kindly mention the period during which the data is missing, with citations.

• Commented out that sentence as I could not find citation, though I have a feeling I read it somewhere. If unable to find out the reference soon, will delete the sentence altogher.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agartala, the capital of Tripura, is the largest city. Citation please

• Nowhere could I find size data of the cities! Have changed it to "Most populous" and provided citation.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• The main political parties are the Left Front and the Indian National Congress. Until 1977, the state was governed by the Indian National Congress. The Left Front was in power from 1978 to 1988, and then again from 1993 onwards. During 1988–1993, the Congress and Tripura Upajati Juba Samiti were in a ruling coalition. Citation please

• Citations added.

• In times of peak power demand, the state has to borrow 50–60 MW electricity from the North Eastern grid of the national transmission network. Citation please

• Citation added.

• As of 2011, 255,241 hectares (985 sq mi) of land in Tripura is cultivable, of which 108,646 hectares (419 sq mi) has the potential to be covered by irrigation projects. Citation please

• The two sentences after this sentence has citation. This sentence is sourced from same reference. Since the paragragraph already has mentioned the same source twice, I though adding the same footnote after this sentence would be citation overkill.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 27 add PDF format.

• You added that. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not going into the prose issues as of now. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support All the issues raised by me has been addressed, I find no serious flaws in terms of referencing and MOS. A support from myside. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor: I can see that in infobox HDI is 0.663 and HDI is rightly linked to Human Development Index; below that it is HDI rank and it says 18th(2006) now here shouldn't it be linked to list of hdi of Indian states. Because I know it is 18th in Indian states but many people wouldn't. Thought this should be rectified. I haven't edited myself as I saw it is being reviewed for featured article candidate.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely. I just added piped link to the list. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I don't see anymore issues in this article so I support.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Formatting: some refs are formatted [16]:3–4, while others have pp. in notes. Make consistent.

• The apparent discrepancy is due to the use of Template:Rp. Use of this template is permitted "when you are referring to specific pages within a source which is cited many times in the same article."

• Not familiar with this style much. Some other reviewer who is more knowledgeable about the style should check. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Probably mention of Rabindranath Tagore and S. D. Burman is WP:UNDUE. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Removed Tagore. Reduced info on SD Burman, but retained his mention. Naming a few cultural icons that originate from a state is not unusual in state article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK, just some nitpicks and comments (mostly about captions) (Done):

• maps - OK. I have not read the entire extensive India-related background information. AGF, that the maps depict the current political situation as neutral as possible.
• captions - could be shorter and more succinct (see MOS:CAPTION). A caption should only describe the image content and very briefly establish some context with the article. All other additional information and important facts should be moved and integrated into the regular article text.

• Reduced caption text in many instances.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Agartala_(27).JPG - auto rickshaws aren't mentioned in the section. If this aspect is important enough for an image, it should be mentioned in the regular text aswell (see above, "captions").

• Caption changed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• images of living people - OK. 2 images have appropriate "personality rights" info (and are OK for India).
• File:Unakoti_group_of_bas-relief_sculptures,Tripura,India.jpg - could use a (more specific) Commons category (optional suggestion).

• Changed commons category.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

GermanJoe (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I will act on your suggestions soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

All points improved, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I'd like to see a population figure, mention of some of the major mountains rather than just the figure, and some mention of major educational institutions/landmarks.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Note Due to an unforeseen real life issue, I will be able to access Internet only intermittently for about 7-8 days. So, replying and addressing concerns here in the fac could be delayed. I am definitely going to address your point, Dr Blofeld, soon. Thanks, and regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply to Dr Blofeld Added mountain ranges, and population in the lead. I am not sure if any of the educational institutes are "famous" enough in a national level to get a mention in the lead; of course, they are important for the states. I will try to think about this. Regarding landmarks, again I am not sure what to include in the lead. Perhaps the palace in Agartala is nationally known, but not many others (unlike, say, in Hyderabad, India where many famous landmarks are there). Any advice? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd mention the Ujjayanta Palace and court.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to add in the lead about some historically significant landmarks. I do not think the court is significant enough as a landmark to add in the lead. It used to be a Bench of Guwahati High Court until a few weeks ago when it became a full-fledged High Court. The building itself is probably nothing notable (and is not mentioned in the article body). Please reconsider your suggestion on court.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments - reading through now....will jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) possibly a little more Bangladesh relations could be added but I think we are over the line now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

... but the establishment of an autonomous tribal administrative agency and other strategies have engendered peace. - "engendered" is a bit fancy, why not just "led to" or "resulted in"?

Changed that to led to. Actually it used to be something like this, and then recently I came across the word engendered in another article, and fancied it could be an appropriate word here! Apologies for that, I should have checked the usage of this word thoroughly before using it here. Thanks for pointing this out. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Although there is no evidence of lower or middle Paleolithic phase in Tripura - "phase" is a funny word to use here - maybe "settlement" or something...?

Changed to settlements.

In the Transport section, it would be good to clarify whether there is cross-border movement/roads/commerce/transport with Bangladesh - are the borders closed? Are there roads? Is there much traffic between Agartala and Bangladesh etc.

Added a paragraph on this in Transport section. Please have a look. I will try to further search on this, and if something notable come up, will certainly add. Thanks a lot for this point.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's better, but I still don't get a sense of the average person's experience - can many local people cross to and fro? Or is it pretty hard to do? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Legally, the citizens of each country need visa to go to the other country. However, there is illegal movement across the border, and, according to Indian government, illegal immigration to India from Bangladesh (the illegal immigration is more on the West Bengal side though). The border is legally closed, and free movement across it is not permitted. I do not think we will have data regarding how many people legally cross the border either way. And definitely there is no data on illegal movements. So, to answer your question here, no data on exact amount of people crossing the border (legal and illegal), but definitely it is hard to do so. Do you think the information on need of visa will be appropriate in this section of the article?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think whatever sourced information on the issue is good to add - Bangladesh surrounds the state on three sides, and giving some idea of the openness and closedness of the borders and what it is like for local people is very helpsul - are visas very expensive? do many or very few people have them? Any of the information you just wrote above, if any can be sourced would be good to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

NB: If info can't be sourced then that is fine not to include it - I suspect it is a delicate area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

NB: The source for the train info mentions border haats (whatever they are (?)) but also talks about encouraging trade between the region and Bangladesh. Any information on this or future developments would be good to add to the Economy section.

Thanks for these excellent points. We completely missed these all this time, including during peer review, GA nomination etc. I am working on finding reliable sources on these, and will add stuffs in appropriate sections soon. Bye the way, haat is a Bengali/Hindi term that usually means rural market. Sometimes the term is used in modern context of market/plaza, such as Dilli Haat.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Aaah ok, well I learnt something new today :) - look, this'll be the last thing as all else looks in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I added content in appropriate sections on trade with Bangladesh and that illegal movement across border is widespread. Please have a look. I did not add anything on "future prospects" as of now; because many future plans are declared in South Asia, and many of them remain in incubator for indefinite time. If we come across something more definite, we'll add. What is your opinion? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise looking pretty good prose-wise now. I can't see any other deficits content-wise but am not familiar with the subject matter. A nice read....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- pls review your dup links using Ucucha's script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I did review the duplicate links, and fixed several of those. Of course, kept the links in a few cases where seemed appropriate. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:19, 11 May 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) 06:53, 11 May 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 Ian Rose 10:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [47].

---

Duino Elegies

Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time rewriting this article in January and February this year. It obtained Good Article status on 15 February and I would assert that it meets the FA criteria. I look forward to your suggestions for improvement and hope for your support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by MasterOfHisDomain

Comments Support from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: Great work on a worthy subject. Rilke's elegies came up in discussions about modernism I recently had, so it's something relevant to my interests. Anyway, a few things:

• Lede: "a savage creative storm" what is the source for this? Other direct quotations are immediately proceeded by a source.

• Explanation: On a second look, the phrase comes from a translation (I'll call it a "bad" translation, but diplomatically I should say license was taken by the translator) of the 11FEB1922 letter to Andreas-Salome referenced in a biography, I should rephrase the statement to reflect the original text in which Rilke describes the rush of inspiration as a burst of creativity..."like a hurricane of the heart." Another decent translation says "hurricane of the spirit." I will rephrase this appropriately. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Done revised to original text "a boundless storm, a hurricane of the spirit", added ref to Rilke letter 11FEB1922.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Existential" needs a wikilink.

• Done linked it to Existential crisis.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Duino Castle and the first elegies: "Rilke experienced a severe psychological crisis that did not improve over the next two years." would be better just to say that it lasted for two years?

• Done revised per suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Château de Muzot and the "savage creative storm": there are two incorrectly formatted hyphens in this section.

• Done checked hyphen issues throughout the entire article, found a few more.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Again in this section, "savage creative storm" isn't proceeded by a source.— MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done (as per above)--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no further outstanding issues, I give my support to this article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by DavidinNJ

Strongly support I have reviewed this article against Wikipedia's featured article criteria, and it clearly meets the standard. I have a few very minor suggestions, but the article is excellent. Here's my review of each criteria.

1.a. well-writen: The writing is excellent. The article prose is similiar to that of a New York Times or Wall Street Journal book review.

1.b. comprehensive: The article is quite comprehensive, covering the history, legacy, themes, and symbolism of the work.

1.c. well-researched: The article has an extensive number of references from both academic and non-academic sources. The references range from contemporaries of Rainer Maria Rilke in the 1920s to present-day analyses.

1.d. neutral: The article is completely unbiased.

1.e. stable: There are no edit wars, and there has only been one edit in the last month.

2.a. lead: The lead clearly defines what Duino Elegies is, and does a fine job summarizing the information in the article.

2.b. appropriate structure: The article's structure is logical, and creates sections of an appropriate length.

2.c. consistent citations: The article has 53 citations, and formatting is generally consistent. I haven't previously seen referencing where the page number is listed in the prose next to the citation number, but if Wikipedia's Manual of Style is okay with that, then I'm okay with it. My only other comment is that some of the references do not include a period at the end.

3. media: Article contains a number of pictures with appropriate captions. All images are in the public domain.

4. length: Article has appropriately 2900 words of prose which is appropriate for article on a work of this type. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done Per 2.c. above, addressed punctuation issues in references lacking terminal periods, one note that had a period that should have been a comma.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is in all respects an excellent article. I strongly support it being named a feature article. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey

• I think the image in the lead and its caption ("Rainer Maria Rilke (1875–1926)") are odd choices. The image is from 1900—a dozen years before Rilke even began the Elegies, and 23 years before their publication. It would be nice to have a contemporary photo, and a caption that ties directly into the subject—say, the image in the "Symbolism and themes" section. Baladine Klossowska isn't even mentioned in that section, which makes placing the image there pretty random, anyways.

• Explanation: I understand your concern regarding the younger picture, but it seems when it comes to how the reading public, the book cover artists, and other writers depict Rilke, the c.1900 photograph is far more ubiquitous as the the image/appearance of Rilke that most people recognize and associate with his work, the older (late 40s) Rilke is rarely thought of. In fact, on the editions of the Elegies with a photo of Rilke on the cover, they're all of a younger Rilke (must be a push for a younger, more intensely vital poet to be writing mystically-charged poetry about "lovers"). Comparatively, on Wikipedia the first image we see the older stately Eliot whose illness delayed his completition of Four Quartets and not the 20something who wrote "Prufrock" "The Waste-Land" and "Hollow Men," and the first image we see Neruda as a fat older man and not the sleek 20something who wrote the erotically charged, youthful Veinte poemas de amor y una canción desesperada. We see the elderly frazzled Einstein and not the young man who filed patents in between thinking about the speed of light. There is one contemporary photo from c.1923, and it is further down in the article. When Rilke started the Elegies in 1912, he likely wasn't as old as he was in 1923 when depression and shortly after leukemia took their toll.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Done moving photo of BK up, adding an image of islamic angel from commons. (20MAR2013)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Done wrote longer caption for first image.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per the Displayed image size guideline, forced image sizes should be avoided. It appears every image on the page has been forced to dispaly at a different size than the default. This overrides image display size for users who have set a different size in their preferences; also, it may not be optimal for smaller screens (e.g. on people's phones). Unless you have a really good reason, it's best to drop the image size option.

• Done removed image parameters, added "upright" for two (20MAR2013)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest replacing the two dashes in "...where Rilke began writing the Duino Elegies in 1912--recounting that..." with an emdash: {{emdash}}, — and {{subst:emdash}} work.

• Done -- replaced with — (20MAR2013)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• You use {{rp}} for references pages on some inline cites, but not others. Is there a reason why? (I don't think it'll affect whether this passes or not, but personally I find lines like "...including the opening passage of the tenth elegy.^{[4]:p.225[10]:p.10}" to be an absolute eyesore).———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Explanation: I use {{rp}} for the function described at Template:Rp, to wit: "when...referring to specific pages within a source which is cited many times in the same article." The only repeated reference where I don't use it is for footnote 5 and 6 where I'm not citing pages but citing lines of poetry. I have thought about sourcing these at I.6 or I:6, II:1, II.1, but I don't see this format being used in academic sources on the subject. The template advises not to use pp. in the template, so I doubt I should use "l." or "ll." for line/lines. Other inline sites that do not use the rp template are single-use footnotes and not applicable to the purpose intended by the rp template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you ever seen {{sfn}}? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: I am not a fan of shortened footnotes--they strike me as being in turns lazy and inconvenient. Even though the Chicago format I'm used to prescribes them for subsequent citations (I tend to use "op.cit." and "loc.cit." more in on-paper writing), I find the {{rp}} achieves the efficacy I prefer...namely that footnotes be as full and informative as possible and quickly accessible without having to go elsewhere (i.e. like scrolling to another section, or flipping the back of the book). Thus I prefer the style I'm using, and I don't see any MOS issues with that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There aren't any MoS issues, and I wasn't suggesting there were. All I was saying is that it's not pretty. ("Lazy" is a strange criticism, though—I don't see what's lazy about it)Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've considered the alternatives. I just think that a full cite in a <ref name="x">(reference)</ref> and then later <ref name="x" ?>{{rp|y}} is more informative and accessible than shortened footnote. Lazy is a strange word, but generally I find that if one person does something the lazy way (in anything) it ends up causing more work for someone else (i.e. here having to scrolling up and down between sections)...more than it's often worth...that's how I feel when I see shrotened footnotes. When you can put your mouse on a footnote and have a full cite, and if used frequently have the page number right there, I find it far more effective and accessible than seeing "Harrison, 2006, 27" and having to interrupt my reading to scroll down to figure out the rest only to repeat it a few more times as I continue my reading.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not my intention to try to convince you of my own preferences if you've considered the alternatives, but I do want to point out where you've misunderstood why some of us use shortened footnotes. To be clear: laziness is not a part of it.
    1. Checking references is something a small minority of readers will ever do, and of that small minority, only a small minority will do so with any regularity. For the vast majority of readers, having inline cites at all only gets in the way of reading the article, and the more crammed together the worse. This is my reason for avoiding {{rp}} (as it's tangential to what most readers are looking for), and also my reason for using bundled footnotes—in my own articles, I've occasionally had five or more cites to a single line, which would be massively disruptive if it looked like: "An undisputed but unbelievable fact.^{[17]:225[21]:101[57]:28–31[58]:126[101]:298–301}"—especially if it were in teh middle of a paragraph.
    2. The shorter the citation in the text, the easier it is to navigate when editing. Having mutliple groups of <ref>tags multiple times in a single paragraph can be daunting and time-consuming to an editor who just wants to correct a typo.
  • I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm not trying to convince you to change your preferred citation style. I just want you to understand that your beliefs are off the mark with regards to why some of the rest of us use shortened footnotes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I completely understand where you're coming from, and it is good to remind each other of the alternatives from time to time. I would assert there isn't a citation overkill in this article that seriously interrupts flow or poses a disruption (not like the example you posted above). By way of assurance, it is something I do and will consider when I encounter such a dilemma in an article I'm working on. Reflecting on it, I think I've only used three inline cites on a fact on a rare occasion, and often two...but never five or six or more, where bundling would indubitably be appropriate. Here, I don't see it as a pressing concern. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I only pointed out things that jumped out at me with my above comments; I din't actually read the article very closely. All I knew about the Duino Elegies was that they were used in Gravity's Rainbow. I've been asked to return to it, so here's what I've found:

• The prose has an awful lot of inline quotes (especially of what people have said of the work) that I think would be better rephrased. For the most part, I don't see any reason for not rephrasing most of the quotes, and think the prose would flow better and be more concise without them.

Lead

• "conscripted military service": can military service be conscripted?

• Done - rephrased. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "he described as 'boundless storm, a hurricane of the spirit'": are we missing an article?

• Done "a" inserted.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I find following the translations inline with the original to interrupt the flow; it's also a bit too much for the lead, which is meant as a bird's-eye view of the whole article. These detials are best left to the article body or in footnotes.

• Comment - I disagree. First, the phrase "I find" is a subjective judgment. Second, the translated lines are the most well known statements from the poems, and I believe is salient to state them in the lede. Such a format is rather familiar as it is readily found in academic monographs and encyclopaedia articles. The use of inline translations is limited to a few examples throughout the entire article, and thus such minimal usage cannot be characterised as inherently being an interruption.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • My comment here was limited to its use in the lead, not in the body. The lead is meant to give a short summary of the article as a whole. "I find" the pairing of the lines with their translations in that context disproportionate and unnecessary. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• And I continue to disagree. Two lines with their original text in the lead from my subjective point of view (contrary to yours) isn't disruptive, unnecessary or disproportionate. I would assert that to sever them from the lead would be the equivalent of chopping out "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times" from an introduction to Tale of Two Cities. I do not see a need, per anything I understand of MOS and other guidelines, as to why this subjective suggestion is mandated.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm astounded at the degree of your reaction, and don't see the relation between your explanation and my concern. I see no need for two long German lines interrupting the lead. They do nothing to orient the reader to the subject; they are technical details best dealt with in the body.
  • "[T]his subjective suggestion" was never "mandated"; it was my good-faith feedback in an attempt to improve the article. If my good-faith feedback is going to be characterized as anything other than good-faith feedback, then I'll withdraw my feedback. I rarely take part in these reviews, and this kind of reaction is doing nothing to motivate me to increase my participation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just because it is offered as a suggestion does not mean I have to agree with it or be obliged to revise the article in accordance with it. I disagree with it and characterize the suggestion as subjective (i.e. your personal sense of aesthetics and flow--and both are inherently subjective). If it were an objective suggestion linked to a rule or guideline of which I am in violation, I'd be obliged to revise. But on subjective matters there is no reason why I cannot reserve the right to disagree and state my disagreement. If my disagreement hurts your feelings, I apologize, but I still disagree.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Rilke is one of the more popular, best-selling poets in the United States": if he's one of the best-selling, then I think it's redundant to add "more popular".

• Done "more popular" removed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "along with thirteenth-century Sufi mystic Rumi (1207–1273), and 20th century Lebanese-American poet Khalil Gibran (1883–1931)": ditto, too detailed for the purpose of the lead.

• Done removed informatino about Rumi and Gibran, ended sentence at "United States."--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was necessary to remove the poets themselves, but their nationalities and birth–death dates was overkill.

• Done - Restored Rumi and Gibran without the nationalities/dates.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Duino Castle and the first elegies

• "be incorporated in later elegies": not "incoporated into"?

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "conscripted into Austro-Hungarian army": link only "conscripted" to Conscription, no the whole phrase. Also, missing an article.

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "and would render him": -> "that rendered him".

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Château de Muzot and the creative hurricane

• "focus toward": -> "focus on", "turn toward", or something.

• Comment: I do not see anything wrong with that BritEng idiom except that I seem to have forgotten the "s" for "towards" --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• a thirteenth-century manor that lacked gas and electricity located near Veyras": we need a comma or something; I assume the electricity didn't need to be near Veyras

• Done comma after electricity. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "boundless storm": same missing article? Also, it's repeated later in the same paragraph.

• Done corrected both --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "focus toward completing": -> "focus on"; maybe this is fine in whatever dialect of English you speak, but it sounds unidiomatic to me.

• Comment: same situation as above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In a Google search, I find "focus toward" used overwhelming in situations where "focus" is a noun, not a verb. Is this really Brtish usage? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• focus on isn't precise. focus towards is in British usage and is more precise than focus on in contexts where there is work to be done. While you are correct in seeing it in the contexts of focus as a noun, it is very much used in other parts of speech (including phrasal verbs). One focuses on watching a movie, one can focus on his career, however one focuses towards completing a novel or a pilgrimage as the verb phrase implies a forward distance (i.e. periphrastic, gerundive, participal verb phrases) that isn't properly served by on. It is not unidiomatic, and this is another subjective suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "of the same birth.": move the period outside the quote.

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Writing ... Rilke wrote": Wredundant.

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Publication and reception

• "impotent gossip.": Move comma out of quote.

• Clarify I do not see the comma to which you are referring. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant "period". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation into English

• "Vita Sackville-West and Edward Sackville-West" -> "Vita and Edward Sackville-West"

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Grateful Dead" lyricist: why the quotes?

• Done the quotes were supposed to be the two-apostrophe italic coding. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In that case, it's incorrect. Band names are not italicized. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done. - italics removed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• "by...by...by": we can drop a few of these.

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Influence

• This section comes across as extremely anglo-heavy. Was Rilke's influence and popularity in the US so extremely more so than in Europe? I'm not familiar with the subject, but if it's so, I think an explanation would be in order; otherwise, we have comprehensiveness issues; the fact that it opens with its status in the US seems extremely odd to me.

• Comment: Rilke is probably among the top-five German language poets, but in the last few years, his popularity has exploded in the US simply because Hollywood likes quoting him to sound erudite when talking about love, angels, and all manner of things mystical. I don't know how he fares in Russia, or Africa, or China to comment on it. Most of Rilke's current sales (averaging 200,000 copies a year) are in the English and German-speaking world, largely resting on the Elegies, and Letters to a Young Poet, however, as much as I wish I could mention that, there are no reliable sources to justifiably incorporate that statistic into the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Note - I chose to move the section on translations into the "influence" section because I think it provides a more apposite/cogent introduction, especially with your concern over the section starting with "in the US."--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Auden bit takes up half the space of the section. Is it really that significant?

• Comment: What exactly is your complaint? Auden is considered by critics and scholars as being Rilke's English disciple and directly references details of Rilke's biography and writing in this particular poem (and indirectly in many others). I would venture to say that's rather significant.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Significant enough to gobble up 50% of the "Influence" section? If so, that needs an explanation.

• That is an exaggeration. It is 170 words out of 428 in the section (39%), and 55 of those 170 words are a quotation directly related to the Elegies--so minus the essential quote it's roughly 26%. I provided the explanation above--Auden is considered to be Rilke's "English disciple." To omit this information would be akin to having an article on Plato and not mentioning Aristotle.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• On aside, I'm currently reading a German book on Gadamer to add some information Rilke's influence there. I will look into adding some on Pynchon too in the next day or so.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done (13APR13) I expanded the Influence section to add discussion of the influence on Pynchon and Gadamer. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I still haven't looked at the whole thing; I may do that later. ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton

• Aside from the issue of citation styles, discussed above, there are uncited statements which appear both in the "Duino Castle and the first elegies" and the "Château de Muzot" sections. In the latter case the entire (short) first paragraph is unreferenced. FAC criterion 1c requires that these statements be cited to a source.

• Done Citations added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Legacy" section: A few thoughts.

• The subject of this article is a collection of poems; do poems leave a "legacy"? Maybe "influence" would be a more apposite section title?

• Reply: This might be a "six of one, half dozen of another" issue...I chose Legacy over Influence for subjective reasons--that I preferred the more comprehensive connotations associated with the word "Legacy" and found "Influence" to be rather tawdry/insufficient/not as comprehensive. I emphasize subjective. Let me check a thesaurus for alternatives; in the meantime do you have other apposite (great word) suggestions in addition to "influence" that I can weigh vs. "legacy"? As an anecdote: There's an old story about William F. Buckley using the word "irenic" in an interview. Upon being asked what it meant, and why he didn't just say "peaceful", Buckley responded to the effect "I preferred having an extra syllable." --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• If "legacy" is to be used, there should be some specific cultural bequest indicated. To say that Rilke became popular and that other writers were influenced by the poems does not define a legacy. As to an alternative word, I imagine my thesaurus is the same as yours, so we're probably looking at the same range of substitutes. The best I can find is probably "significance". Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done I went with "Influence" as per your suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The section looks thin. The first paragraph seems to be more about Rilke's influence generally than that of the Duino Elegies

• Done. Section expanded. See below.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• The implications of the first sentence are somewhat surprising; are Rilke, Rumi and Gibran really among the most popular and best-selling poets in the US? Is there a particular reason for bringing the other two into the example?

• Reply: I was surprised too. The three of them typically are best sellers...and it's so long after their deaths. Gibran has been popular for several decades since his writings early in early 20th c. and repeated quoting in the 20th c., Rilke was popular in the 40s due to Spender's translation, but in recent years there has been a rush of translations since it has become too easy for Hollywood and mainstream publishers to invoke profundity by quoting him on matters of love or transcendental experiences--many major presses released at least one volume translation of Rilke each year for the last several years. Comparatively, in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, the leading poets in terms of booksales were Frost and Eliot, in the later 60s, Lowell gained an edge. Both Rilke and Gibran saw marked interests during the years of the 60s and 70s and continue with the hippie generation entering academia over the last 40 years. Rumi has largely received interest in the last 10-15 years because of the musical (but not accurate) translations and ensorcelling reading performances of Coleman Barks, and as a domino effect, their penetration into film/tv/musical artists. Right now Rumi is number one--consistently beating "major" American poets (most people don't know who the current major poets are anymore). The implications are legion in publishing: (a) are Americans seeking wisdom from foreign sources (seemingly exotic) and why, (b) why not American voices? (c) Market forces vs. content: It might be because these foreign sources actually say something that has an emotional effect while most American poetry now is too academic, abstract, and there's so much of it no one really lasts in the market. There are questions to be asked, and the answers and their implications are astonishing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• The attention devoted to the Rilke reference in the Auden poem seems somewhat disproportionate in such a short section. Would it be possible to illustrate the influence of the poems on at least one more of the listed writers? Also, some indication of the manner in which the two named philosophers were influenced by the work would be useful, as part of a general process of expanding this section. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done (13APR13) I expanded the Influence section to add discussion of the influence on Pynchon and Gadamer, and earlier this week incorporated the one paragraph "translation" section as the first paragraph of the Influence section where I thought it more apposite/cogent. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check by GermanJoe

Some more information and tweaks are needed, unfortunately one some of the older photos has rather thin information about its origins (Done, issues addressed)

• File:Rainer_Maria_Rilke,_1900.jpg - PD-70 doesn't work, when the author is unknown and the photo was taken in a time, when the photographer could have lived until 1943. Do you have any more information about its possible source and original publication? Also would need US-tag, when the first issue can be sorted out.
• File:Castello_di_Duino_0904.jpg - OK (caption see below).
• File:Maison_rilke.jpg - OK (English translation of the image description would be useful).

• Done: added an English translation of the French description given to the file by the user who uploaded it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• File:Rilke_and_Klossowska_at_Chateau_Muzot_1923.jpg - OK (see below). I was able to trace that image back to an archive of the Swiss National Library, where it is stored for usage under a "Reproduktionsbewilligung" (whatever that means, no idea). Is any more information about this image and its possible source and publication available? If it was never published, it's PD-70 in the US and has the same problem as the first image. (caption see below).

• Reproduktionsbewilligung = "Permission to Reproduce/for Reproduction." Do you have a link, so I can translate anything there for more information? I will check Swiss law and practices later today regarding this question.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• The link to the Swiss archive is [[48]], if you want to look it up. GermanJoe (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• The archive dates the photo from 1922 which would make it PD in the US, if I'm not mistaken (please advise), and the usability is listed as "Uneingeschränkt" (trans. unrestricted).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• The date of publication is usually relevant, not the date of creation. After some more reading, the photo is likely part of a donation to the Swiss archive in 1951 (see this link with some interesting info and a lot of additional Rilke-related material [49]). Swiss copyright is rather weak for photographs, most photographs without original artistic content are not seen as copyrighted - Commons even has a template for this case, "PD-switzerland-photo". ==> I'll try to expand the image details a bit, but this one should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• File:Persian_angel_1555.jpg - OK (tweaked tag). (English translation of the image description would be useful).

• All it says is Anonymous, Buhara, British Museum. Buhara is actually Bukhara in Uzbekistan.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• File:Family_of_Saltimbanques.JPG - OK (not suitable for Commons, but tagged as such).
• Captions - This is probably a matter of editorial preference, but MOS:CAPTION asks for succinct and brief captions. All captions are a bit detailed, but the second and fourth image caption could definately be trimmed; the second half after "-recounting" and "The two pursued ..." could easily be integrated into the regular article text.

• WP:CAPTION does not say "brief", it says a caption can consist of a few words of description, or several sentences, that they should be succinct and informative and qualifies that succinctness is not the same as brevity. I feel the interpretation of "succinct" is unfortunately subjective. I will see about revising them, but I do not feel they violate WP:CAPTION.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. I shortened some of the captions and believe them to be in line with the goals/guidelines of WP:CAPTION.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The main issues are the first and fourth image of unclear origins, and some of the captions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have updated the Swiss image with as much information as possible, please double-check (should be OK now).
• Remaining image problems are a few summary translations (optional) and the first image with unclear origins (needs fixing and/or more info).
• captions - WP:CAPTION recommends only a few lines of caption info and to move extraneous info into the main article text. By keeping such lengthy details in the caption, you have to create some repetition in the main article text or loose valuable background information in the narrative. Anyway, maybe some other full reviewers will offer their opinion on that aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• @GermanJoe -- I've been away for the last few days, I should be able to address your remaining concerns (and those of Brianboulton above) either today or tomorrow (25/26 MARCH). Sorry for the delays.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• @GermanJoe I've been looking into this first image and I can't seem to find anything other than 18 September 1900 as its date of creation, no indication of an author, no indication of what archive it comes from, no indication of any publication before 1950 in a book, and when used by publishing companies in cover art or images in a book, and online publications of poetry magazines, etc. they all indicate the image is public domain. Is there an appopriate tag for this? I am looking to find another image that I can trace to extant paper trail leading to its determination of public domain status. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The photo was apparently printed in Horst Nalewski's "Rilke. Leben, Werk und Zeit in Texten und Bildern" ISBN 3-458-16343-3 (see amazon), published Insel Verlag, Frankfurt 1992 (in German). Maybe it contains more info about its original material, but i don't have it available (just checking via online information). GermanJoe (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just reached out to Dr. Petra Hardt, the US rights manager at Suhrkamp-Insel (the successor to Insel Verlag) in order to find out more about the image's origins/status. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Joe, I gave Insel Verlag a week to reply to my email, i called and left a message. no reply. So, I replaced the image with one of a sketch by Leonid Pasternak that's in commons and according to the commons description, PD in Russia. Is this acceptable?--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done (unclear image replaced). Issues have been addressed. My Russian is a bit rusty (aka non-existant), so i'll AGF, that the situation is as described by the uploader. Added US-specific tag. If Dr. Hardt has more information, you can always revert to the older image later. GermanJoe (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Which Russian part in particular would you like translated? I thank you for your keen attention to this article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• No translation needed, but thanks for the offer. Licenses with foreign source text (like the Russian law text) have been usually checked by several other users already, so we can assume all is in order for the common ones. On the US-side it's clearly PD-1923. GermanJoe (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

The English is ok but far from perfect. A light going-over for idiom and tone by a top copyeditor would be desirable. I have done odd touches, but more needs doing.

• Comment - Your earlier comment (since revised) that my writing "betrays many signs of being by a non-native speaker" was actually appreciated, strangely enough. I am very much an American, just lived overseas for several years and conversant in several languages which likely affect my AmE and the construction of my sentences/thoughts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lede - a total line count would be useful here. "ten elegies" could be 200 lines or 10,000. As it stands the length of the work is nowhere mentioned in the article. "After their publication and his death shortly thereafter..." 3 years is not "shortly after". "After their publication in 1923 and his death in 1926, ..." which is shorter anyway.

• Comment -- Could you elaborate on why a line count is useful? I'm not entirely clear on your reasons for it. Perhaps it's along the lines of "quality not quantity" mentality that I haven't sought to count lines--and how would I count them: in the German original? or in the English translations (which vary)? Total lines? or the line count for each elegy? What result does that accomplish in terms of improving/interrupting flow? What light do you think a line count would shine on the Elegies as a whole? Just a few question to weigh how I would/should approach the material. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Some indication of size is necessary, surely? Is there a problem? Doesn't the reader need to know if the work is 200 lines or 10,000? I have no idea. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not averse to it, the problem I encounter is that I don't know exactly the means by which I should approach inserting the material as the ends to be desired aren't entirely clear. If I had a better idea of what the reader would gain by a sentence citing line count vis-a-vis getting a comprehensive understanding of the Elegies, I'd have a better idea how to approach it. As the elegies are more free-verse open-ended meditations, this isn't as cut and dry as describing the form of a sonnet because in order to understand the form you need to know the constrains of the 14-line count, rhyme and meter. Also, which version should I count? The count varies. Also, I'm a little uncertain if my going through the book counting lines would be original research or run afoul of WP:SYN. Until a few of those uncertainties are assuaged, I can't know how to tackle it best.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There must be something you can do - the number of pages the text takes up would be minimal, but look pretty lame. Surely your sources give figures. Notes can handle any complications or ambiguities. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There is, I just have to think about it a bit. While it may seem an easy task and barely register more than a sentence or two, it isn't as easy as it looks...many follow-up questions, different angles, several counts (german vs. english translations, each individual elegy or work as a whole) complications, policy issues, etc. The sources I've referenced don't offer an analysis of line counts or scansion, they're more concerned with imagery and philosophical themes. No one really gives much attention to line counts or scansion in the modern era, unlike counting lines or syllables like they did in earlier works like the epics of Homer, a haiku, or in a Spencerian sonnet. Comparatively, there's no discussion of line counts at Little Gidding (a GA), and the other parts of Four Quartets (no line count, only mentions 40 pages in infobox), The Cantos (only mentions 120 sections, no mention of lines), at Babi Yar in poetry, or among most other modernist works...although there is a mention of it in the lede at The Waste Land (not a GA or FA) the reference only clarifies two counts (433 and 434) and is not sourced. I'm wary to proceed without clarity on the questions above--and the more I dig, the less vital it seems. After all, the overlooked question: what does mentioning a line count give to the average reader to help them understand the work besides a quickly-packaged factoid? --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: Total in German original is 859 lines (i. 95, ii. 79, iii. 85, iv. 85, v. 108, vi. 45, vii. 93, viii. 75, ix. 80, x. 114). Average 86 lines each. The count was easy, now it's just how and where to incorporate it. Suggestions? --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. How about "The poems, 859 lines long in total, were dedicated to the Princess upon their publication in 1923." - or similar. Or "just over 850 lines" or something. It could be slipped in at various points in the lead, it doesn't much matter where. As to the others, The Cantos are measured in pages surely, & some figure should be given there, in case anyone thinks of reading it in an afternoon! Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I asked the question of compliance with WP:NOR/WP:SYN at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Question for FAC: Does it violate WP:NOR/WP:SYN by counting lines of poetry? just to get another opinion on it and be sure/assuage doubts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Done. Added line count per your suggestion and added a note discussing the count. The first reply at WP:NOR talk page above indicated that if anyone can find it by opening the book, it is not OR.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done changed "shortly thereafter" to "three years later" --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's no good: "After their publication and his death three years later, the Duino Elegies were quickly recognized by critics and scholars as Rilke's most important work.[3][4]" - later than what? Also this reads as if the publication & death occured together, three years after...something. Just use the dates. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Would you prefer: "After their publication in 1923 and Rilke's death in 1926, the Duino Elegies were quickly recognized by critics and scholars as his most important work.[3][4]" ?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes (their readded) Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done revised as above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "collaborating on a translation of Dante Alighieri's La Vita Nuova" presumably into German, but better say so.

• Comment - an assumption that I have ventured to make myself, but cannot find any support for it in the sources. The sources just mention the proposed translating work, not into what language--and Rilke wrote in several (French, German and Russian) over the course of his writing career. Likewise, an aristocrat before WWI was expected to be conversant in several languages.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "the Adriatic cliffs near the castle ground..." - no! "near the castle" is best, or "in the castle's grounds" perhaps. Grounds are plural.

• Done revised. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "and only in 1920 was he motivated to focus towards completing his work on Duino Elegies." messy - and I think it should always be "the Duino Elegies".

• Done article added.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In this, however, Rilke commented that he was greatly influenced by the depiction of angels found in Islam." - in Islam, or Islamic art? I suspect the latter.

• Comment - the former, Rilke was attracted to the Islamic angels beyond their depiction in art but of their theological/eschatological dimensions as well.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Leishman and Spender write that Rilke depicted the six as about to begin..." - their first mention needs Spender's link & some introduction - "his translators" maybe. Spender is linked twice below btw.

• Done - (1) found another previous and unnecessary "according to Leishman and Spender" clause...removed. (2) The L&S line you reference, I rephrased and removed "Leishman and Spender write that"... to make the sentence more direct toward the fact without the qualification of the fact (which is made adequately by the footnote). (3) The first reference of Spender in the "influence" section is linked--I didn't think it appropriate to link his Spender's surname in the earlier, now gone, mentions that lacked his first name, and linking the earlier mentions is a moot point now that I revised that prefacing clause out of the sentence. (4) I delinked the second mention of Spender in the list of poets influenced.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wasn't "Edward" Edward Sackville-West, 5th Baron Sackville? I think so. It's Alfred Poulin, maybe worth a redlink.

• Done it is the 5th Baron. As for Poulin, I'm surprised he doesn't have an article, and I would agree worth a redlink (I had it redlinked before and vascillated on keeping it so...I will write a stub to solve that problem).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe more later. I disagree with Curly Turkey about the in-text translations, and de-quoting most quotes. Also about de-fixing images - fixed images are very normal at FAC & "upright" causes more problems than it solves. The Freedman citation style is a bit wierd but as long as the styles can be considered consistent it's ok. "sfn" style causes all sorts of problems according to many. I would leave these things as they now are. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support meets the standard, & my points covered, though I think a final prose polish would be ideal. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 4 May 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) 03:34, 11 May 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [50].

---

Gustav Holst

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC), User:Tim riley Tim riley (Talk)

Tim riley and I have overhauled this article over the past few weeks. We think we have raised it to the required standard of FAC, and are grateful to the peer reviewers who help us to get it there. We welcome further comments on prose, structure, comprehensiveness, images or indeed anything else. Holst was a much nicer man than some of his contemporary composers—Delius, the egregious Grainger, etc—yet his music is sometimes fierce and at other times withdrawn and austere (excepting That Tune from The Planets). We hope we have done all aspects of him justice in the updated article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support had my say at the peer review. Very worthy article, and you are making That Tune go through my head ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for this, and for previous review help. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- I was also active at the peer review where the issues I identified were satisfactorily addressed. Great work guys! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise, many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support --- the places I think this article could be improved are in the discussion of musical style (more score excerpts and reference to published analyses) and in the discussion of the two suites for band, which going into the literature on Holst for Wind Ensembles will show that there is considerable discussion and analysis of these pieces. But FAC is not a place to demand perfection -- it's a place to demand very very good and this article definitely passes that with room to spare. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for this support and the pertinent comment. I have added a bit more on the 1909 and 1911 band suites and on the Moorside suite. Articles don't stop developing when they reach FAC, and I am sure that Tim and I will continue to look for ways in which we can strengthen the article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I am also one who commented at PR. A couple more comments on a further read-through:

• You refer in the lead (and lower down the article) to the "First World War", but have a section title of "World War I", followed by the same phrase. My suggestion is to change the section title, but your choice, as long as the two are consistent;
  • Aargh! Brian – how say you? I prefer "the First World War" to "World War I", but will happily go with whichever you choose. Tim riley (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I have standardised to "First World War", which is my preference, too. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Is the formatting right on footnote 173? Shouldn't GH: An account of Holst's attitude to the teaching of composition, by one of his pupils appear in inverted commas, rather than italics, as it's the title?
  • Adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your decision on how you want to deal with those (if at all), but it won't alter my support for this truly excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SchroCat, for your support and the very pertinent comments. Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

My thanks also. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 8 May 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) 20:30, 8 May 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [51].

---

California State Route 75

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 09:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Time to move to the coast for a changeup from my last FAC! It's time for a beachfront highway, involving a toll bridge! Rschen7754 09:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this one at HWY ACR. I feel this article meets FA standards. TCN7JM 11:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I also reviewed this at ACR and feel it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 16:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Former toll bridge! I love CA 75. In fact I was Foursquare mayor of it until last week. ;) I'm a little surprised of Coronado Cays being deserving of a redlink, but I suppose it is more than just a neighborhood, it's a geographic feature and does warrant future treatment. One question: the southern terminus is described as being "near San Ysidro". I'm not keen on the standards of these articles, but should this read San Ysidro or San Diego? Do we usually go with the neighborhood rather than the city? --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm actually not sure, to be honest. :/ I'm leaning towards San Ysidro since the two are separated, but open to further input. --Rschen7754 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC) Very well sourced and comprehensive. Nice job, — Cirt (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- I agree entirely with the above comments and support, and recognize upon reading this article that this is a superbly referenced, comprehensively, and well-written article that meets and exceeds the FA criteria. I cannot find anything to criticise about this article and applaud the article's editor(s) for his/her(their) work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- Article well written and well referenced. Almost no errors except for one little spelling mistake but I fixed it so it is good now. The only thing is I think the article could be made even better if more pictures were added. And I loved the pictures that were included in the articel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misspea213 (talk • contribs)
• Comment – I can't let this FAC go without at least one constructive comment, which is all I found when I read the article. From Construction: "In November, funds were allocated to acquire land for the construction in the 1953-1954 state budget." An en dash is needed for the year range. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. --Rschen7754 00:24, 6 May 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) 20:34, 8 May 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [52].

---

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate is a WP:GA quality article on a book about freedom of speech rights derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book was authored by Anthony Lewis, a two-time recipient of the Pulitzer Prize who passed away recently. After being promoted to GA status, the article received a copyedit through the Guild of Copy Editors.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy ‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books ‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States ‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, User talk:Baffle gab1978 ‎, User talk:Bearian, User talk:Curly Turkey, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

---

(addressed comments by Nikkimaria moved to talk page, per permission of Nikkimaria.)

I asked Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) for permission to move her (addressed) comments to the talk page, which was okay, per above link. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check by Crisco 1492

• No comment on the prose, but here is an image check for you:

File:Jeffrey Rosen.jpg - needs cats. Quality of the image is fairly poor, but this basically looks like the results of poor lighting.

Otherwise images look fine.

You may want to merge Publication history with "reception" for a "release and reception" section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to image check

1. File:Jeffrey Rosen.jpg - Image categorization done. The image is at quite small sizing in the article space so the quality is alright here.
2. Thank you for looking over the other images.
3. Done. I've gone ahead and incorporated this suggestion, and merged the Publication history sect and the Reception sect into a sect, Release and reception.

Thank you for the image check, — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, comments stricken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: Update on image check, per comments by Neelix (talk · contribs), below, I've removed File:Jeffrey Rosen.jpg, in favor of retaining the other image in that section of former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Thanks again for the image check, — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Neelix

(Addressed issues moved to talk page) Neelix (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. I have copyedited the article for the remaining grammatical errors. - Neelix (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• (the addressed comments may be worth moving to the talk page, for readability) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Neelix (talk · contribs), for the Support! As to minor formatting issues on this FAC, I agree with Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) it makes sense to move addressed comments to the talk page, or at the very least, strikeout the text of the addressed points. — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Tony1

Suggestions:

• "the book begins by" -> "the book starts by" to avoid the b b b
• "portion" is marked; consider the unmarked "part"?
• MOS says you don't have to square-bracket the lower case when embedding a quotation within a WP sentence: "if there is ...", rather than the bumpy "[i]f there is ...". Unless there's some particular point in indicating that it's the start of a sentence rather than the start of a clause within a sentence ... I can't see it.
• Less ambiguous if "to suppress criticism and freedom of speech by citizens" were switched to "to suppress freedom of speech and criticism by citizens", but there may be a reason for not doing that.
• "Richard H. Fallon in Harvard Magazine", but "Jeffrey Rosen writing for The New York Times".
• Any way of avoiding the rep here? "Jeremy Waldron reviewed the work for The New York Review of Books" ... I can't think of one at the moment.
• "to which he devoted a chapter"—ref to his book or "this criticism? Also, was it "criticism in his book" or elsewhere?
• This is a very long lead into a quotation: "The title of the book derives from an admonition by Justice Holmes in his dissenting opinion in the 1929 case of United States v. Schwimmer that the First Amendment is particularly necessary amidst eras in U.S. history in which there is a risk of suppression of speech and dissent due to increased fear and upheaval:" Perhaps period after "Schwimmer" and "In this opinion, he ..."? "Amidst" is rather old-fashioned.

Nice to see one of our main experts in the US Supreme Court preparing a nom. Tony (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to comments by Tony1

1. Changed "begins by" to "starts by"
2. Copyedited this sentence a bit.
3. Removed the square-bracket the lower case when embedding a quotation within a WP sentence, per MOS.
4. "to suppress criticism and freedom of speech by citizens" now switched to "to suppress freedom of speech and criticism by citizens".
5. Changed to "Jeffrey Rosen in The New York Times".
6. Changed from "reviewed" to "commented", to avoid rep.
7. Added a comma to this sentence to make this clearer.
8. Broke this sentence up in two, per suggestion.
9. Removed word, "amidst", per recommendation, above.

Thanks very much to Tony1 (talk · contribs) for these helpful comments. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose comments from Crisco 1492

Last two paragraphs of the lede might be worth merging.

Any information on the actual writing of the book? I note that Neelix suggested the writer section be pulled, but if the writer had discussed how he wrote the book in the media, or had previously published work on freedom of speech, this would be relevant information.

walks the reader - non formal

the government led by President John Adams - Perhaps the federal government, under President John Adams, ...

President/president - when used as a general noun and not an honourific this should be a miniscule p

Last section tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), I'll get right on addressing these. — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also, note that MOS:ELLIPSIS recommends against having non-breaking spaces on both sides of an ellipses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. This should now be addressed, as well. — Cirt (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to prose comments by Crisco 1492

1. Done. Merged last two paragraphs of the lede.
2. Per above comments by Neelix (talk · contribs), I already removed the entire "Author" subsection. That is now gone. To then add it back would therefore unfortunately conflict with that prior recommendation by Neelix (talk · contribs). However, there is some information on the motivations of the author in the Themes section. There really wasn't a whole lot of commentary on this in secondary sources, other than what the author already said in the book itself. Therefore, that info is already contained in the Contents section.
3. Done. Removed phrase, "walks the reader".
4. Done. Implemented suggestion above by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs). Changed to "the federal government, under President John Adams, ..."
5. Done. "President/president - when used as a general noun and not an honourific this should be a miniscule p" - implemented this change directly in the article.
6. Thanks very much for all of these helpful and specific suggestions. I have directly implemented all of them where possible. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support from Crisco 1492 on prose and images. Looks good! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Noleander

(addressed comments by Noleander moved to talk page, per permission of Noleander.)

Changing to Support, based on recent improvements. Have not spot-checked sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Noleander (talk · contribs), for the Support! Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support—yeah, had another look through. Tony (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 8 May 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) 20:31, 8 May 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 GrahamColm 10:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [53].

---

God of War (video game)

See God of War (2005 video game)

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 20:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is ready. Since the last nomination's closure two weeks ago, the article has had a reorganization and edits to the prose. In the second nomination, the article received an extensive source review (nothing has changed in regards to sources). All previous reviewers have been notified of this nomination and I encourage new reviewers to have a look. --JDC808 ♫ 20:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support per original support in Archive 2. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as per Archive 2. Hope the article should be ready. — Hounder4 13:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Although, I'm not sure if my vote still counts. I think a delegate at the previous FAC brought some issues regarding canvassing.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the issue was I had only contacted those who supported. This time, I have contacted everyone who reviewed, which I stated in the opening paragraph of the nomination. --JDC808 ♫ 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — Please add Alt text to the images. — DivaKnockouts 18:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. --JDC808 ♫ 20:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support — DivaKnockouts 21:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --JDC808 ♫ 21:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC). I must say, I especially liked how the article is accessible and easily readable for readers who are not familiar with the material. In particular, the lede/intro section is written quite well indeed. I was able to quickly understand the nature of the game and its plot and feel like I had enough background to follow along with more detailed plot descriptions and analysis later in the article. I know this grounding for the reader with context and background material is not always easily accomplished, but in this case it was done well. In addition, the article is meticulously sourced and cited appropriately throughout. It provides broad coverage of its subject matter and a significant amount of Reception from a good smattering of secondary sources. One hopes that the quality of this article might serve to encourage readers to learn more and educate themselves about the actual history the storyline is based on. Thank you for your contributions to quality improvement of this article on Wikipedia. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --JDC808 ♫ 06:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support More than passes the bar. Well referenced (spot check is successful), nicely written, and handles POV matters quite well. A slight note: I really think it should include a small sentence in reception about the "other side's" opinion on the QTE, since it really was the rebirth of that mechanic in this genre and some weren't so happy about it (undue weight would dictate a small mention). Yes, it is kind of nitpick... Ryan Norton 07:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reread the reviews currently there (I don't remember them mentioning much of it) and I'll check some others. --JDC808 ♫ 17:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Indeed. I've read this countless times and I still think it's ready. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. --JDC808 ♫ 17:49, 6 May 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) 20:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a pleasant birthday present. --JDC808 ♫ 20:52, 8 May 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 GrahamColm 10:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [54].

---

Boletus luridus

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) & Sasata (talk · contribs) 07:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sasata and I have buffed this mushroom to the point where we think it is FA-quality or very near. Four eyes are better than two so hopefully we've found most issues already. Anyway, let us know about others and have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• NB: A wikicup nomination.

SupportComments Copyediting now, looks very good. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• The description mentions "tubes"; whereas most of the parts of the fungus are wikilinked, this isn't. Is there an appropriate target?

I've linked to Hymenophore for the time being. realistically there'd be something like Lamella (mycology)...or maybe Lamella (mycology) should be merged into hymenophore, which should be expanded whatever we do (a 5x DYK I can sense....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• 2-3 pores per millimeter has no imperial equivalent, whereas everything else does. For the sake of consistency I think some workable imperial measure should be put in, even if it is "per eighth of an inch" or something similar. Although I think it is fair to give up on the imperial equivalents once you start talking about micrometres...

• We generally don't include conversions for measurements than are about less then half a centimeter, as it often difficult to get the sig fig input to consistently match the output. For example, a measurement range of 6–7 millimeters (1 sig fig input) translates to an actual value of 0.24–0.28 in, but at the desired 1 sig fig output, becomes 0.2–0.3, introducing a significant rounding error. The closest reasonable fractional equivalent would be 3/64ths of an inch, but even that introduces some conversion error (=1.19 mm). Sasata (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• cystidia are dark brown in Melzer's wasn't immediately clear to me and left me thinking "Melzer's what?" - perhaps use the full "Melzer's reagent"?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've redlinked 4-keto-α-carotene but wouldn't know if an appropriate target exists.

• I'm not sure if this derivative of alpha-carotene is noteworthy enough to deserve its own article, but I'll investigate to make sure. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting article, particularly the mycorrhizal association with trees. I expect to support once the above quibbles have been dealt with. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Support from Jim Very little I could see to fault, just a couple of observations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• and will likely be fragmented — AE usage?

• Changed likely to probably. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• The predilection of insects for this mushroom — Does the fungus gain anything from this, such as nutrients from excreta and rotting insect corpses?

• Not in this case. There are some carnivorous fungi, but this isn't one of them. The human gets the benefit of extra protein when they eat the mushroom :-) Thanks for your support. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-old-100, Mushroom Observer CC 3.0), sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Prose is wonderful.

Comments

• are oval to somewhat fuse-shaped - Worded awkwardly. Just oval might be fine.

I've linked it to Fusiform as the source uses "subfusiform" which carries an idea of (I guess) lozenge-shaped. I agree balancing accuracy and smooth english can be challenging at times... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• North America, it can be confused with the poisonous B. pulcherrimus, though this species has a fatter stalk and deeper red pores.[42] - Assume this refers to B. luridis. Not sure though.

this refers to pulcherrimus - clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• B. luridus may occur in parks near a single tree, though it will not be found in acidic soils.[31] - is not found

Using the present tense "is" looks a bit odd after using a subjunctive construction "may" ...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources check out; they are consistent in format and are reliable. Source 38 is a little bizarre, citing information from across two different groups of pages, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with it. ceranthor 23:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but might be cumbersome using individual page inlines unless we're using a lot of pages.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 5 May 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) 20:32, 8 May 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 GrahamColm 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [55].

---

Creek Turnpike

Nominator(s): —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've intended for this article to be my next FA since 2008, when its sister turnpike, the Chickasaw, was promoted. I've had the sources around since then, but never really got around to working on it until this year. I think it's ready now, especially after the thorough reviews that have been given at WP:HWY's A-Class review process.

A couple notes about issues that might come up:

• There are a few Tulsa World references that are missing page numbers. These are articles that I didn't collect from the online database at my college in 2008; while that database (which I no longer have access to) had page numbers available, the Tulsa World website does not, so I have no way of looking these up. (References which are known to be missing the page number have an HTML comment in the source. If there is no HTML comment, please let me know, as it means I probably overlooked that ref.)
• At both the GAN review and the ACR, it was asked why the article states that the eastern extension was "scheduled" to open on August 16, and not that it actually opened that date. That is because the Tulsa World only ran an article before it opened, which is the source cited. Afterward the only coverage of it was a few photos, the captions of which didn't contain an opening date.

I hope you find this article meets the FAC criteria, and it is my pleasure to submit it for your consideration. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Creek Turnpike and believe it meets the FA criteria. --Rschen7754 22:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - a detailed check was already done during ACR, so just one nitpick: (Done)

• File:Creek_Turnpike_path.png - you should specify which base map you used (if any) and what sources you used to gather the additional map content (other maps just list such data sources below the image summary). GermanJoe (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Added. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Spotcheck/review - I spotchecked this article at ACR, and after a few minor fixes, it seemed to be fine with verifiability and plagiarism. I also reviewed this at GAN, where I looked over it as thoroughly as I would an ACR because I had known Scott5114 was going to take the article to ACR (as mentioned in the review). I feel the article meets the FA criteria, so I will support. TCN7JM 12:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 13:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support—I also reviewed the article at ACR, and I also feel that it warrants promotion in this forum. Imzadi 1979 → 17:01, 17 April 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) 20:32, 8 May 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 GrahamColm 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [56].

---

Japanese battleship Yamashiro

Nominator(s): Dank, Sturmvogel 66

The big battleship-on-battleship fights are the images that seem to stick in peoples' minds ... that's kind of the point of all that weaponry and armor ... but because battleships cost so much, navies have usually been very reluctant to risk them. In 1944, with its back to the wall, the Imperial Japanese Navy did risk it all ... with dramatic results, in the case of Yamashiro. See for yourself. This FAC completes the Fusō-class battleship trilogy. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a WikiCup nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comments: nice article. Support @ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Images: File:Japanese battleships Yamashiro, Fuso and Haruna.jpg isn't a work of the U.S. Navy, but as an NHHC photograph it is in the public domain in the United States. File:Yamashiro and Kaga.jpg and File:Surigao straight.jpg are licensed correctly. All images are licensed correctly.
    • It's not a photo taken by a Navy employee, but it is one that the Navy acquired somehow. So which exact tag is appropriate?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I've used PD-US and added a link to the NHHC's PD declaration. PD-because could work as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "other four operable 14-inch guns until almost 04:00" - does this mean other four operable turrets? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No, her aft turrets had had their magazines flooded earlier. Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ed, glad you liked it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Are Naval Institute and Naval Institute Press the same entity?
  • Name changed over time. Names as given in the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Parshall & Tully: should specify DC. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for checking these out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support [Caveat: This reviewer is a WikiCup contestant]

• Length overall, beam, standard load dispacment, and maximum speed as-built are different in the infobox and in the design section.
  • Good catches.
• " the ship was equipped to operate three floatplanes, although no hangar was provided." -- So where then were the planes stored?
  • Out in the open. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• "but after two to four torpedo hits and two more near the starboard engine room," -- torpedoes? The previous graph says there was a ceasefire order on both sides.
  • Agreed, I liked my wording better, a reviewer asked for that change in a previous FAC, I'll change it. - Dank (push to talk)
• There's some kind of access issue with an external link.
  • It was working recently, let's see if it comes back. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Suggest but don't require alt text. Other than that, the images appear to be properly licensed, I see no problems with article stability and neutrality, and refs all look good. Will await responses. —Ed!^(talk) 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Great. Now I'm just waiting to see about the link and if it comes back. Since it's an external link and not a ref, I'd take it out, but that's up to you guys. —Ed!^(talk) 21:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It's gone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Comments:

• Description - is the "deep load" term used in the second paragraph the same as the "full load" term used and linked in the first paragraph?
  • Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Armament, "the elevation of the main guns was increased to +43 degrees," Maybe "maximum elevation"? I'm assuming they didn't just stay locked it at 43 degrees all the time.
  • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Armament, "from 27,800 to 35,450 yards (25,400 to 32,420 m)." All of the other conversions have meters first.
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Armament, "The configuration of the AA guns varied significantly". Varied significantly between what? Between ships? Over time?
  • The latter, clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Armor, "The ship's waterline armor belt was 305 to 229 millimeters (12 to 9 in) thick;" Why largest to smallest? In the next sentence, it's smallest to largest - best to keep consistent.
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Armor, "while the casemates of the 152 mm guns were protected by 152 mm armor plates." The plating was exactly the same thickness as the size of the guns? Was this a coincidence or planned for some reason?
  • AFAIK, it was just coincidence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Construction and service - are all of the captains red linked in this section notable enough to have articles at some point?
  • Yes, they all became admirals.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Is there any information on the ship after it sank? Was there any attempt to raise it? How deep is the water it's in? Is it a dive site? A memorial (with over 1,600 sailors dead)? I see there are coordinates for the wreck in the External links section, so we know where it is...
  • Various people have claimed to have discovered the wreck, and , but nothing's been confirmed in the dozen years since, so I've deleted the coordinates as should have happened earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Is there any way that a sentence to this end could be added to the end of the article? Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall, looks quite good. Once the above are addressed, I will be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review; always good to have someone from outside the project to check things over for unclear jargon, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks great, and thanks for the quick responses. Changed to support, above. Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 5 May 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) 20:33, 8 May 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 Ian Rose 10:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [57].

---

Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is a combination of classical music and military history: a concert during the Siege of Leningrad, supported by a Soviet military action. It's a great and touching story, and I hope you all enjoy "the symphony of heroes". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the lead:

• First sentence gives insufficient context. Under siege from whom, and in what conflict?
• You should also identify the city, which for the past 22 years has been called St Petersburg. Young readers won't necessarily know this
• Dmitri or Dmitry?
• "both the performers" suggests there were only two of them - "both" should be omitted. And I would specify "physical" condition
• "...while the broadcast of the performance was ongoing" is ugly phrasing, followed by a repetition of "broadcast" and an inderterminate "it". Perhaps "throughout the duration of the performance", followed by "The symphony was broadcast..."
• "one of the most important performances of the war" - perhaps qualify: "concert performances" or "artistic performances", maybe? And regarded as such by whom - military historians? music scholars? Give a brief indication.

Great subject; not I think a great symphony musically (that thumping ostinato!), but redeemed by its circumstances. I will add more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything so far, looking forward to more. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional prose comments: I've not finished reading through, but I have picked up some prose concerns (a few others I've fixed myself):

• Why is the French spelling of "première" in the English Wikipedia?

• Because it's also an English spelling, preferred by the OED among others. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strictly, it is a French word, the English spelling of which is "premiere", though the use of the French form is accepted in English prose. Probably the best argument for it is that the grave accent indicates the proper pronunciation of the word. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The hiatus in musical broadcasts was quickly ended by Andrei Zhdanov, a Soviet politician involved in the defence of Leningrad, to allow for the première and provide a boost in morale for the city". I think this needs to read: "to allow preparations for the premiere"
• Why is "dystrophy" in quotes?

• It doesn't appear to match the definition of that term as we currently use it, but that's the word used by the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is not clear which source uses the word. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Salisbury book. Added a footnote Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "hot bricks were used for radiant heat" would read better as "hot bricks were used to radiate heat", and the parenthetical note following can probably be dispensed with. It's the second such in the paragraph.
• "while rehearsals were ongoing" is an unnecessarily awkward and passive-voice way of saying "during rehearsals"
• "Posters went up around the city requesting all Leningrad musicians to report to the Radio Committee to be incorporated into the orchestra." I think: "for incorporation into the orchestra".
• "A concert of Tchaikovsky excerpts was held on 5 April". This is surprising - just three days after Zagorsky and Babushkin's announcement. Do we know what forces were gathered to perform this concert?

• Gathering of musicians and start of rehearsals predated the announcement, so while the source does not clarify, I would assume the same ensemble that performed the Shostakovich (although perhaps without some of the supplementary military performers). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Musicians were also made to copy out their individual parts by hand from the score (although some sources suggest a team of copyists was employed). There are two opposing assertions here. Your wording gives priority to the first statement, when surely the true position is "Although some sources suggest a team of copyists was employed, according to other sources musicians were made to copy out their individual parts by hand from the score". Also, the parentheses ar unnecessary.
• "Members of the military orchestra" - first mention of this group. Were they being incorporated into the orchestra for the performance?
• "one oboist was asked for a cat in exchange for a repair". Can you amplify?
• "dressed like cabbages" requires some explanation.
• "noted for the emotions raised" should surely be "notable for the emotions raised"

Will continue later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Final comments

• "Practices were moved to the Philharmonic Hall in June, and in late July rehearsals were increased to 5–6 hours a day". I assume "practices" means rehearsals - in music the word is normally associated with learning to play an instrument. I recommend: "Rehearsals were moved to the Philharmonic Hall in June, and in late July were increased to 5–6 hours a day".
• I imagine Hitler planned to celebrate the fall of the city, not the expected fall, so I'd delete that word
• We have "began", "begun", "began" in a single line. This is avoidable, e.g. "since rehearsals had begun" → "since the start of rehearsals".
• "The blockade was broken in early 1943 and eventually ended in 1944." Probably "breached" rather than "broken", and "eventually" is unnecessary
• "But there was no official recognition..." Beginning the sentence with "But" is slightly POV-ish
• "in 1945 it largely stopped being performed outside of the Soviet Union". I don't think you mean just "in 1945", rather "from 1945". The word "of" is redundant.
• "The veracity of Volkov's account, which claims to be rooted..." - it is Volkov's claim, rather than the account's claim, so "The veracity of Volkov's account, which he claims is rooted..."
• "repurposed for propaganda purposes" Ugly repetition

Strong story, generally convincingly told. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; they should all be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Really interesting, just a couple of niggles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• orchestra was only able to perform the symphony all the way through — you have used "perform" in the previous sentence, but more to the point it implies an audience. "played"?
• The symphony received its broadcast première in Europe by — radio premier I assume, it was broadcast by loudspeakers in Leningrad, which is in Europe.

• Changed to radio for clarity, but that performance predated the Leningrad concert. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm surprised neither the Kuibyshev or Moscow performances were on radio, especially as the latter involved a radio orchestra. Are you sure of that, since they predate the London broadcast, and would be the European premiere. Or did you mean western Europe?

• I haven't found a reliable source that discusses the broadcast of either of the Russian performances, but as a few blogs have said the first was broadcast and the London concert was the Western première, I've changed this to Western Europe. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• The première in North America — I'm not sure why this is particularly significant as opposed to the first performance in any continent outside Europe

• Of course it was that too, but in the era Europe and North America were almost always the only continents considered in discussing classical performances - I'd prefer leaving it as-is for that reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• References should be in numerical order, couple of instances where they are not (:

• Thanks for your comments - except where noted they should be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've no further queries, and I can't think of anything that needs adding (mainly because I have zero knowledge of the music) changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

I had the great pleasure to watch the article grow from DYK to PR, remembering the emotions on the first reading. I have minor wording questions, and please tell me if it's my lack of English:

• In the opening sentence, I find the linked "Second Word War" at the end of the sentence surprising. I would move it right behind 1942.
• "for the piece's world première to be performed" sounds a bit complicated, - do we need "the piece's" after the article is about just that?
• I am not enthusiastic about the term "world première" anyway.

• Any alternatives? I'm not sure what else could replace that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I use simply "premiere", you would say "première", - if that seems not strong enough I would add world, but only first time.
• ps: I see you did that already, reading my mind? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "but because of the siege that group – and later Shostakovich himself – was evacuated from the city" - after "and", the singular "was" sounds strange, - it's probably correct, but the sentence could perhaps be phrased without the detour to Shostakovich while we still don't know the verb.
• "play the symphony all the way through on one occasion before the concert" - I had to read it a second time to understand. The later wording "only once" seems clearer than "on one occasion".
• I smiled when I read in "Reception": "The première made Eliasberg a "hero of the city". He married Nina Bronnikova ..." - that's possibly not intended ;)

General: I could imagine a bit more of the emotion raised in the article to appear in the lead. Great Peace music - thanks for the phrase, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done all except the one noted, though I could use more feedback on the lead. Thanks for commenting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for changes! I will think about the lead, but have a few other things on my mind. You might stress that in this case, the "world p" was less significant than this later performance or the other way round, this of special significance. - In "Reception", I felt a bit uneasy about the term "music critiques" when the reported importance is other than the music itself, but can't quite word that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• a bit more:

• "the orchestra was able to play the symphony all the way through only once before the concert, and musicians frequently collapsed during rehearsals." - I would mention the first last, sort of chronological, that "once" was like the last rehearsal.
• "featuring the surviving musicians", - how about "featuring surviving musicians", or something about them playing, - I guess not all surviving could make it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support(?) ... beautiful article, thank you for all that work. — Ched :  ?  06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Great work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The article needs to be linked to more.122.172.168.44 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. One more—you should add to the Shostakovich template (and add the template to this article) to increase its visibility further. (the article doesn't show up even if you google "shostakovich leningrad symphony no 7")122.172.170.48 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (US-Gov, CC 3.0, own work). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 10 (Reid 2011) needs page references
• Likewise ref 37 (Dimbleby 2010)
• "History in an Hour" does not sound too convincing as a high-quality historical source. Rupert Colley, who edits the series, does not appear to be a historian or a musician; I would have thought that sufficient mainstream histories have covered this event to render this source unnecessary.

One further point: it is not always possible from the text to see which citations are supporting what information. For example, the penultimate para of the Performance section ends with a string of 4 citations. Otherwise, sources and cite formats all OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

– and an afterthought; probably the YouTube link to the Toscanini performance, currently in ref 7, should be listed as an "Extenal link", since the link is not actually used as a source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly done. The Dimbleby is an ebook without pagination or place numbers - should be possible to verify by searching the quote. I've reduced the number of citations to the Colley source, but it's actually an excerpt from a book published by a reputable press, so I think it's okay. Nikkimaria (talk)

A new, unpaginated Reid ref (No. 26) has appeared. As to the Dimbleby ebook. I presume it is arranged in chapters or similar divisions, so it should be possible to give at least some closer indication of the source's location. The link to the Toscanini performance now seems to have disappeared altogether, replaced in the External links by a documentary about "Shostakovich versus Stalin". Is there a reason for this? I thought the Toscanini link was great, and would like to see it listed in the External links. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, all done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: All my issues dealt with appropriately. I look forward to seeing the article promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Support with comments

Quite happy with this, just a few minor formatting comments:

Preparation

*"...It was also considered an important political act because of its potential value as propaganda?"

• "...held on 5 April."[26][18][27] -- Ref order

Performance

• "The performance received an hour-long standing ovation, with Eliasberg being given a symbolic bouquet of Leningrad-grown flowers by a young girl."[22][11] -- again here.

Reception and legacy

• "Is there a reason why refs [11] and [41] are repeated? In the event of there being no other ref given in between, I think we only need to give these references once for that portion of text.

References

• We are missing two page numbers on refs [26] and [36].

Done except for the first - I'm not sure what you're looking for? It was considered an important political objective, prior to the concert. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, now I'm confused. It appears that you have adopted my suggestion. My query was only to check if there was a word missing, which in this case looked like "was". -- Cassianto^Talk 01:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I misunderstood. Fixed accidentally! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Congratulations on a fine article. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Excellent article on a subject I love dearly. I do not see anything outstanding major or minor that runs afoul of the criteria, or that remains in need of a copyedit or revision. On a matter of orthographical preference regarding an above comment, I disagree with Brianboulton's criticism of the use of "première" and agree with Nikkimaria. Exceptional work, and deserving of FA promotion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read, you will see I did not criticise, merely requested a justification, which I got and accepted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I was the GA reviewer for this article, and it has improved enormously from an already high standard. Reading through a couple of times, I found no prose issues, and I think the context is explained extremely well. A very interesting piece of work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: Nice work Nikki.PumpkinSky talk 12:43, 5 May 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) 08:15, 6 May 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 Ian Rose 10:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [58].

---

Norman Selfe

Nominator(s): Wittylama 09:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am renominating Norman Selfe for FA status after the first nomination was recently closed due to lack of commentary. I have been encouraged by the closer to relist it. This is my first [potentially] FA class article. From the original nomination statement:

Norman Selfe is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a fascinating character who clearly cared deeply about providing access to practical education to everyone. I'm sure he would have been a Wikipedian if he were alive today! The unusual thing about how this article is that the original content on which it is based comes from an original research essay in the Dictionary of Sydney which I imported as it is CC-By-SA licensed. Therefore, for many of the facts both the source content and the direction of the reference is the same thing - unusual but not against the rules if done correctly (which I've had checked in three prior peer reviews). Wittylama 09:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Unusual but not against the rules if done correctly"; well indeed. Have you checked all the references or just imported them unexamined from your source? Some of these sources would be pretty hared to check. What's the rationale for the image use? It looks somewhat eccentric with apparently random image sizes all over the article. Why is "velocipede" capitalised? The prose quality looks a little choppy; what's been your approach to copyediting? I am leaning towards opposing at this stage. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• For all the references that I have been unable to personally view I have indicated this in the footnote by noting it is "...cited in Freyne (2009)" - the author of the Dictionary of Sydney article. This approach was reviewed and approved of by the reviewers during the Good Article Review (done by user:James086), during the peer review (done by user:Brianboulton) and in the good article review of Florence Violet McKenzie (done by user:Grandiose) which uses the same system.
• I've de-capitalised "velocipede" now.
• The image choice is almost entirely on the basis of what is available - there isn't that much of his stuff that is digitised! I've removed the forced image size for the picture of Gilligaloola (the house). This means there's now only one picture that is larger than "thumb" - the drawing of his proposal for remodelling "The Rocks" area of Sydney. I've kept that one large because it is so detailed and wouldn't be clear at the thumbnail size. Otherwise, there are no other "random image sizes".
• My approach to copyediting has been to ask lots of people to go over it with a fine comb - including all the previous reviewers :-) Wittylama 10:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Image check - mostly all OK (sources and authors provided, PD-age). 1 issue and some comments:

• File:The_Katoomba_Colliery_Scenic_Railway.jpg - fails PD-70 (Phillips, the photographer, died 1944 according to a google search - if i got the correct "Phillips"). Also needs US-copyright tag (PD-1923, PD-old-100, ...) - needs fix or removal.

• I think the Template:PD-1996[59] would be applicable in this case. Is that right? Wittylama 10:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• • ✔ Done Yes, that's right, I've already applied it (edit conflict). --99of9 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Commons images need to be PD in their country of origin and the US, both PD-claims should be established with appropriate tags (added tags for all but the Phillips photo - OK).

• Thanks for adding those. Wittylama 10:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Gilligaloola" - that caption could use a bit more detail, so the image is clear on its own. What's the Gilligaloola?

• Updated and expanded the caption. Wittylama 10:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• quotebox "Letter to the editor, Sydney Morning Herald," - per quoting policy quotes should be limited to their necessary minimum. This letter provides some nice background, so it's a great addition. But the second half starting with "..., they were well justified in being proud ..." adds little encyclopedic information (it's merely a subjective personal observation of the author). Suggest to trim the quote up until "contraption, ...".

• Done. Although, the extra text did give a primary-source reference for the fact that his sister was Maybanke Anderson which is pretty neat, but that's not needing extra proof I suppose. Wittylama 10:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked quote usage within the article text, just images and the stand-alone quotebox. GermanJoe (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - all above points have been adressed, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments on reference formatting:

• ISBN-10s should be replaced with ISBN-13s whenever possible.

• I've replaced nine ISBN 10's with ISBN 13's. That should be all of them. Wittylama 07:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• ISBNs need to follow page numbers, unlike in ref 2 and others.

• I've placed the page numbers outside the 'cite book' template so that when I later use the 'short footnote' template I can specify a different page number (otherwise I'd be writing out the whole reference each time. Can you tell me a better way of doing this? Wittylama 07:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wittylama asked me to fiddle around with this. Pages are now within the template, and short footnotes still work. Is this ok by everyone? --99of9 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page number ranges are not used consistently; compare ref 4 and 20. Pick one style and stick with it.

• Do you mean the way they're before or after the ISBN (which I think is the same issue addressed by the previous bullet point) or do you mean something else? Wittylama 07:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, Squeamish means that either you say (24–25 and 88–89), or (24–5 and 88–9), but not (24–25 and 88–9). I prefer the former because then there's no inconsistency when they span the decade. --99of9 (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, and I also prefer verbose page number ranges, but that's a matter of editorial discretion as long as its standardized. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've Changed refs 20, 40, 47 to match the style of the rest of the article now. Wittylama 05:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Publication location is inconsistent for books. It's optional, but all-or-nothing. You usually have it, but see ref 20, maybe others.

• Fixed ref.20 and looked for others but I believe that's the only one that was missing. Wittylama 07:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 2 also lacks the ISBN present in the Bibliography.

• Fixed, with ISBN 13. Wittylama 07:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Something is wrong with ref 24. I suspect that's actually a journal article (in Minutes of proceedings of the Engineering Association of New South Wales), but the reference isn't formatted that way at all.
• Refs 37/38 lack page numbers.

• These references are both to the first volume (respectively the fourth and sixth edition) of a journal - in 1902. The journal is not digitsed that far back (the earliest available online is 1994 (volume 80)[60] (that link may not work without an academic subscription, not sure). When you go back to the first edition they didn't specifically number the pages - it was quite a small publication too. I could go and count the pages manually if you think it's necessary - but I don't think adding page numbers would make it any easier for a hypothetical reader to go and hunt out the original if they wanted. Wittylama 08:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• No need to count. A lack of pagination is a perfectly good reason for a lack of page numbers. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 63 is available in the print publication of the cited journal, published in 1988: 73 (4): 243–246.

• Thank you for spotting that - I've put it in now. Wittylama 08:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 64 has a double period after the author.

• Fixed. Wittylama 07:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

With all that said, the elephant in the room is the "cited in" references. I don't like them for an FAC article, at least not like this. There are times I'd be okay with this. For example, if you really needed to include material verbatim from a very obscure (or even no longer extant) source, itself quoted in some intermediate publication. But here, some of these sources that you're referencing by indirection are ... just sources. I don't see anything special about Mandelson (1972). It's just a chapter in a book. In fact, you lean on that source fairly heavily, but you give it one of those "cited in" citations. Basically, there's just way too much of this. Either the intermediate source is the one with the important voice, in which case that's where the referencing should point, or the original voices are the important ones, in which case you do need to try to get access at least to the ones that are published and distributed by conventional methods. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Liam, Mandelson is available at Usyd. If you like I can borrow and bring a copy to the workshop next Friday. --99of9 (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I will go through and address the footnoting comments one-by-one after the Easter holiday I have now gone through and fixed all bar one of the bullet points. 99of9, if you could borrow Mandelson so I can cite it directly that would be fantastic. Actually 99of9, I can get it from the UNSW library I'm pretty sure earlier in the week, so no need to worry :-) Wittylama 00:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I now have this book in my hands, so I can personally confirm the page refs for each of the citations - therefore I'm removing the "cited in Freyne" section of this footnote. However, there are also a variety of other references that this book points to many of which might now be available to be found digitised online (especially via the Trove newspaper service). So, I will be mining it some more over the coming week for some extra refs some of which may end up being "cited in Mandelson". It is quite clear that this, being volume 2 of a 3 volume set (with copious primary source references) is THE source and is therefore understandable why Freyne cited it so much herself. Wittylama 08:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone through the chapter now and added a few more primary sources that Mandelson refers to which I could find digitised in Trove. Most notably, I've been able to add the Sydney Morning Herald obituary article and cite it a half-dozen times through the article now. Wittylama 13:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Did his wife Emily Anne also go by the name Irene? "Family Notices". The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954). NSW: National Library of Australia. 6 October 1886. p. 1. Retrieved 28 March 2013. --99of9 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well... I don't know what that is about! I'll have a look into it next week.... Wittylama 08:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Having read this more closely now, I understand what's happened. The structure of the birth notice is written oddly to our eyes, but what it is saying that Emily Ann had a daughter (stillborn) called Irene. I've added this into the personal life section now (diff). Well found, if sad, reference though! None of the other biographies have picked this up. Wittylama 14:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• ✔ Done. Ah, you're right the structure is strange, but it's even stranger than you thought. "Irene, Ashfield" turns out to mean the house called "Irene" in Ashfield (see for example the next entry which has "Public School, Marulan" in the same context). I've cross-checked with another source (in my edit summary) that says the Selfe's lived in a house called "Irene" on Church St while Amesbury was being built. --99of9 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• PS I wouldn't have found it (and nor did the biographers) if the NLA hadn't digitized Australia's newspapers. Another small win for their program. --99of9 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• You are indeed correct sir! Do you think it's worthwhile inserting something about the house named Irene in the paragraph that describes Amesbury? Or, is it too minor a point? It might also disrupt the chronology somewhat. Wittylama 23:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• If you can work it in smoothly, great, but I wouldn't insist. --99of9 (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very interesting article on an interesting person, and I have the following comments:

• What's an 'urban visionary'?, and 'outspoken advocate of technical education' seems a bit too much like WP:PEACOCK wording (it's not like advocates of VET have ever been a persecuted group!)

• Changed to "urban planner" (although I worry that this might be construed to mean he had formal qualifications as such). I would argue that 'outspoken advocate' is the best way of describing him - as he clearly was an advocate who got in trouble for his advocacy. I disagree that advocates of vocational education haven't been persecuted - especially at the time the prevailing mood was for more 'elite' and 'progressive' education such as provided by the classical education of the new University - Selfe's advocacy was staunchly against that. Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough (the only time I've worked in VET I was surrounded by people who were pretty convinced over it's superiority to all other forms of education) Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed - and I too have grown up around people involved in TAFE so I know what you mean! But have a look at the blockquote in the "Reformer" subsection (from Mandelson) - I think that well illustrates the point about how he was a stubborn figure who was contemptuous of "liberal arts" and anyone who didn't love Technical education as much as he did. It's a longstanding fight - especially in Australia with our tall-poppy syndrome culture. Wittylama 23:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Selfe went on to design many bridges, docks, boats, and precision machinery, as well as bringing new refrigeration, hydraulic, electrical and transport systems to Sydney" - reads awkwardly (especially the first half)

• Rewritten as "Selfe designed many bridges, docks, boats, and much precision machinery for the city. He also introduced new refrigeration, hydraulic, electrical and transport systems." Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "They initially resided in the nearby Rocks district in a house that had previously been occupied by Mary Reibey, a former convict who became Australia's first businesswoman" - this doesn't seem very relevant

• It was notable enough a fact for the biography of norman's sister maybanke anderson to mention at least. It's an obscure fact, yes, but it does show the interesting connections of the city at the time. Reiby is a very important figure of the day and still appears on our $20 notes. Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The brothers were already earning a reputation for invention" - when was this?

• During this period while living in the rocks, all together as a family. I think the time period is clear by the placement in that specific paragraph and also by the quotebox about the velocipede associated with it. Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• The tense sounds a bit odd - I'd suggest changing this to 'The brothers earned a reputation for innovation during their youth, and were the first to construct a velocipede in the country" Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Changed. Wittylama 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• "One of the reasons they emigrated to the colony of New South Wales was to enable him and his brother Harry to undertake engineering apprenticeships without having to pay the heavy premium required by large firms in London." - suggest moving this so that it flows on from the family's arrival in Australia

• Moved the sentence higher up in the paragraph. Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The decades following Selfe's arrival in Australia were watershed years in the development of refrigeration technology, and Selfe was closely involved " - try to avoid repeating the person's name in a sentence (eg, the second 'Selfe' can be replaced with 'he')

• Done. Wittylama 05:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "On his return in 1886 from an overseas trip" - mention here that he spent two years in the US and UK (and can you say why he undertook this trip? Was he a tourist, or was it for professional development?)

• This was explained lower down in the postcard section (subsection about the harbour bridge). I've now moved it up here. Wittylama 05:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In the late 1890s he employed William Dixson as an engineer, whose collection of Australiana manuscripts and pictures was donated to the State Library of New South Wales upon his death in 1952" - what's the relevance of Dixson's non-engineering work here?

• This isn't addressed yet. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry - I did respond initially, but it appears I forgot to press "save" on the edit. The point in mentioning Dixson is trying to tie into the fact that Norman's own papers are now held in the same library that his former employee helped to create. Also, its part of situating Selfe in the historical context of being an influential person person in his day who all the influential people of the following generation knew. Is there a better way of phrasing this? Wittylama 23:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Dixson's role in creating the library doesn't really come out here - perhaps say this more explicitly in the article? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've workshopped that a bit with Awadewit in a similar comment further down - should be ok now. Wittylama 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• That looks good, but it needs a citation Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done diff. Wittylama 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Several of the sentences in the para which begins with "Selfe designed the hulls or the machinery for some" start with 'He'

• Done. Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "He presented these schemes to the Royal Commission on City and Suburban Railways in 1890; but nothing resulted from this Royal Commission" - bit repetitive

• Replaced with "...but nothing but nothing was to come of it...". Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Selfe strongly opposed the government's taking control of technical education which had been underway since 1883 when the government first declared its intent" - this is a bit unclear

• Changed to "Selfe strongly opposed the government's taking control of technical education, which had been underway since the government first declared its intention to do so in 1883." Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Selfe did not win friends by being critical of two powerful institutions: the newly formed Department of Public Instruction and the University of Sydney.[58] In 1889, the government abolished the Board of Technical Education and transferred its responsibilities to the Technical Education Branch of the Department of Public Instruction" - both facts have been previously noted in the article Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've merged the duplication of these facts together to make what I think is now a better flow. (diff). Wittylama 23:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments are now largely addressed, though please see the above note about a citation being needed to cover the State Library of NSW connection. As this should be really easy to reference I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Support This is a well-written, well-structured, well-referenced article. I think this is an interesting test case for how we use other CC-licensed material. While I think it is ideal that an editor checks every piece of information before adding it to the encyclopedia, that is also not conducive to Wikipedia's mission of distributing free content and improving knowledge on every topic. If importing CC-by content allows us to better cover topics that would not otherwise be covered, we should do so.

• They initially resided in the nearby Rocks district in a house that had previously been occupied by Mary Reibey, a former convict who became Australia's first businesswoman. - I'm not sure this fact is relevant, as it doesn't link to anything Selfe did.

• As mentioned in comments to Nick-D: It was notable enough a fact for the biography of norman's sister maybanke anderson to mention at least. It's an obscure fact, yes, but it does show the interesting connections of the city at the time. Reiby is a very important figure of the day and still appears on our $20 notes. Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the late 1890s he employed William Dixson as an engineer, whose collection of Australiana manuscripts and pictures was donated to the State Library of New South Wales upon his death in 1952. - I'm not sure the info about his manuscripts is important - this is not an article about Dixson.

• The point is trying to tie into the fact that Norman's own papers are now held in the same library that his former employee helped to found. Is there a better way of phrasing this? Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • How about saying just that! Wadewitz (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I've made this change. What do you think? Wittylama 10:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, better. Wadewitz (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Among the collection of items in the Mitchell library of the State Library of New South Wales relating to Norman Selfe – photographs, articles, plans, diagrams, letters and newspaper clippings – there is also a large collection of postcards featuring bridges from across the world.[30] Some have affectionate notes to Selfe from friends and relatives, sent from Japan, Italy, New Zealand, and Switzerland. Others are blank, perhaps collected on his own travels through America, Britain and continental Europe in 1884–85, visiting engineering works and technical education facilities, searching for new ideas to take back to Sydney. - This seems out of place in the "Bridge" section - is there a better place to put it?

• I've removed some of the speculative commentary, but this does belong in this section - as these are the proof that he undertook as good an "international survey" as could be done in the day for what the best practices in contemporary bridge design were. Wittylama 05:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• To me, the reason it seems out of place is because it is focusing on the library rather than bridge. Perhaps rewording it in terms of the bridge or putting it as part of an image caption could fix the problem. Wadewitz (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've now written this to address this point. Better? Wittylama 10:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Wadewitz (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The "Reformer" section seems to give too much weight to lesser activities, such as just supporting. I'm wondering if this material could be cut down.

• I think the issue is more to do with the section heading - since this is not so much about his personal reforms, but his ongoing political involement in later life, and recent historians' views of him. Can you think of a better way to phrase the heading or different place to put this section? I think it works well at this point (and this level of sub-heading) but am open to suggestions. Wittylama 05:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll keep thinking about this. Nothing is coming to me at the moment.Wadewitz (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just reading about all Selfe did made me feel tired! Wadewitz (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe "Warwick, Bland Street, Ashfield" also means the name of the building is Warwick, not necessarily the school name. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is the case. There was a death there a few years prior: "Family Notices". The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954). NSW: National Library of Australia. 4 March 1914. p. 12. Retrieved 9 April 2013. --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, would seem to be the case. I've adjusted the syntax now. Wittylama 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been well over a week since the last comment, and a fair bit longer since the last issue was raised that needed addressing. I believe I've addressed all the comments that have been made so far - please tell me if I've missed something. Wittylama 01:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

SupportComment - the article feels comprehensive, well-written and sourced, close to FA. Some long listings of his works read a bit uhm listy, but that probably can't be avoided. A few points for improvements and some questions: (all points Done)

• Family "They initially resided in the nearby Rocks district in a house [that had previously been occupied by Mary Reibey, a former convict who became Australia's first businesswoman]" => How is that relevant for Selfe? Did Selfe and Reibey have any connection or influence on each other?

This has been asked by other reviewers - see above. The reason this is here is to demonstrate the interconnectedness of the colony at the time, and the interesting historical coincidence. I've amended the text to emphasise that, as was also for the Selfe family, this was the "first house" of a new arrival who later became famous (diff). Wittylama 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Inventor "for [one of the] first refrigerating machines. [One of these] machines was installed in Sydney's first ice-works, behind the Royal Hotel in George Street – [one of the] earliest commercial refrigeration plants in the world." => Repetitive structure, possible to rephrase a bit?

I've made a somewhat cosmetic change to the sentence to remove the re-use of "first" and change the structure. (diff). Wittylama 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "....to break the "capricious monopoly"" => Did Lilley use that phrase? Why not just monopoly without quote?

It is the subheading of the newspaper article describing the event - too exciting a quote not to use :-) I've rephrased it to clarify that it's not Lilley's words. It comes from the newspaper article which is footnoted at the end of that sentence. Wittylama 12:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Historian "Selfe was interested in Australian history at a time when few others were." => A bit emotional, could we just state a plain fact, like since when was he interested in history? Or what sparked his interest? Is there any information about his personal connection between "engineer" and "historian"?

I've simply removed the sentence - you're right it's a bit superfluous to say he's interested in the topic. Wittylama 13:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Teacher "A desperate need in the colony for skilled labour ..." => some background would be nice here for non-Australians, why was the need so urgent then?

I've adjusted the sentence to identify the rapidly increasing population as the main cause (though this also implies a rapid growth of the city and industrialisation at the time etc.). Wittylama 12:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• citations => page numbers, check p. versus pp. usage, article has several p. for ranges and pp. for single pages.

Fixed a whole bunch of these now (diffs). Should be all consistent. Wittylama 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• article structure => i was wondering about the lack of a "legacy" section and the inclusion of such information into several separate sections. See for example "Inventor and engineer" the end of 3rd para (collection of Australiana and papers), "Sydney Harbour Bridge" 3rd para (postcard collection) and "teacher" 2nd para (award) aswell as his future influence on educational reforms (not what he did, but what others did following his ideas). The details are present, but interwoven into his biographical narrative. Could you explain, why this aspect isn't covered in a separate section?

I'd prefer not to create a specific legacy section as, in my opinion, his legacy really is so wide and in so many areas of the city that the whole article is kind-of a list of his legacies! It would greatly truncate the main article to remove things that could be considered "legacies" from their historical/topic contexts and put them all together at the bottom. Also, since this article has already been reworked quite a lot over several peer-reviews, I suspect that to make such a large change would introduce more problems than it purports to solve. Wittylama 12:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, no problem. GermanJoe (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Most are minor issues - the legacy point is more out of curiosity, as most other biographical articles use a legacy section. Maybe his legacy would be easier to describe in one section rather than splitted up. GermanJoe (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed to support. All nitpicky points have been addressed, great work with the article as a whole. GermanJoe (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

He first obtained international recognition via his designs for the first refrigeration system... but we don't have a picture of those designs? Any reason? (I know I've heard you talk of these designs, so I've probably just forgotten what you said). --99of9 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There IS a digitised image - it's on the Dictionary of Sydney, from the SLNSW collection here. However... this is behind Google's image zooming software and I can't extract it, and the image is not available on the SLNSW catalogue website - it's just "in a box" (probably Series 7) in the Selfe family papers (hence why I can't link to it directly). I could add it as a footnote but the image has no further metadata than the library catalogue number... Wittylama 02:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

JJC Bradfield... I prefer puntuated J. J. C. Bradfield unless there's a reason not to. --99of9 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've linked it as J.J. Bradfield now as the proposed name you listed was a redlink (I've since created it) which is more a more commonly known name. Wittylama 02:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Support I've had a thorough read now. I made a few edits which you might like to check. I'm happy to say that I can't suggest much more, so am happy for this to be featured. --99of9 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Checked all the edits - thanks for those (nonbreaking spaces etc.). Cheers Wittylama 02:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- This appears ready to promote but, before that, I've taken the liberty of placing the quote box on the left and alternating the image placement -- obviously it's hard to get a perfect arrangement that covers all screen types but the previous placement did look particularly cluttered on my 14-inch widescreen. Let me know how it appears to you now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy with the readjusted image placements :-) Wittylama 02:09, 6 May 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) 08:06, 6 May 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [61].

---

USS Kearsarge (BB-5)

Nominator(s): Inkbug (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently successfully completed a MILHIST A-Class review, and I believe it meets the guidelines. Inkbug (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

• Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks
  • Removed Inkbug (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Try to avoid sandwiching text between images, or stacking images
  • I removed two images that were not contributing to the article – I hope it is better now. Inkbug (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Removed. Inkbug (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:Kearsarge_double_turret.jpg: is Revista Kosmos an author or a publication? Page number? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I cropped it from File:Kosmos esquadra americana 4.jpg, which seems to be a scan from the 12 January 1908 issue of Revista Kosmos. I hope the description page is clearer now, but I don't have a page number or any other data. Inkbug (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed, so I'm lending my support. Good work. Praemonitus (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: it's a good article and I only found a few points of concern:

• If this article is about a U.S. military vessel should, shouldn't it use U.S. date format per WP:STRONGNAT?
  • A number of other US battleship articles also use this format (USS Indiana (BB-1), USS Massachusetts (BB-2), USS Nevada (BB-36)). Inkbug (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That seems wrong, but I won't make any further issue of the point. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:STRONGNAT says "articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage.", but WP:Milhist tends to be more flexible than that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Good enough. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• "...until being relieved by Maine on 31 March..." of 1905 or 1906?
  • Clarified. Inkbug (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• "She [was] recommissioned on 23 June 1915...": missing a 'was'?
  • Added Inkbug (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• It would be more complete to show information about the various other Captains (such as Commander Joseph Newton Hemphill, who apparently took over the Captaincy in 1902).
  • I found four of the commanders, but couldn't find sources for the remainder. (William M. Folger, 1900–; Joseph Newton Hemphill, 1902–1904; Herbert Winslow, 1907–1909; Louis Rudolph De Steiguer, 1916–1917.) I'll mark this one off as not being addressable at the present. Praemonitus (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added in the commanders until (and including) the Great White Fleet. Do you have a source for de Steiguer? Inkbug (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at USS Kearsarge (BB-5)#Service history. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The Kearsarge-class battleships were built as coast defense ships. vs. the source The earlier classes (Kearsarge, Illinois and Maine) had been designed principally for coastal defense. The US had a strategic mission since 1890 for larger ocean-going battleships and Kearsarge woudn't be confused with smaller Coastal defence ships built by other nations. I think paraphrasing 'designed principally for coastal defense' is one option; Congress called the Illinois class 'seagoing coastline battle ships' which reflected the pre-dreadnaughts mission and design compromises (big guns & armor vs short range & low freeboard).
  • Changed. Inkbug (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• The important bits of the first sentence of the lead should be in the prose. Clarify that the ship was named shortly after the sloop foundered and was lost.
  • Done. Inkbug (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Mention the low freeboard/poor seagoing characteristic issues somewhere - most of the guns were unusable in heavy seas.
  • Done. Inkbug (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Infobox
  • Propulsion: add the number of boilers; Installed Power: delete boilers and use shaft instead of propeller as well as in the prose (or 'propeller shaft' which is what I think Scheina used)
    • I don't understand. In the infobox the engines, boilers, and propellers are mentioned in the Propulsion field, not the power field. In addition, Reilly & Scheina used propellers, not propeller shafts. Inkbug (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • See Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide — boilers belongs in power, along with horsepower. Shafts or propeller shafts is preferred to propellers because some ships, early destroyers in particular, had more than one propeller per shaft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Done – thanks for the clarification. Inkbug (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Armament - I would use 'primary' instead of 'Mains' if you are going to use 'Secondary'. Kirk (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. Inkbug (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - good work! Kirk (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: very well-researched. While it's short, given the topic (a battleship that didn't serve much in the one war it was commissioned for), I don't see a problem with it. Images: there are probably too many images for this article. Do we need a low-quality file like File:Kearsarge double turret.jpg, or an indistinct thumbnail like File:SMY Hohenzollern-II.jpg? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I removed File:SMY Hohenzollern-II.jpg. File:Kearsarge double turret.jpg was requested in the GA review. If any one has a better quality image for the double turret, I'll be happy to replace it. Inkbug (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no free line drawing that can be substituted? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • What about [62] or [63]? Inkbug (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The first is copyrighted (it's from Friedman's US Battleships), but the second would be good, even more so if you cropped and used the high-quality image on the LOC site. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Replaced. I hope I got the licensing correct. Thanks for all the help! Inkbug (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
            • I tweaked the licensing, but it looks good now! Nice work. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• What's the armed guard?
  • That is the term used by the DANFS. It could be a mistake (a confusion with the WWII Armed Guard?), as I didn't see anything in a Google search. Inkbug (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly certain that there was a WWI equivalent, but I'm not certain about the exact name. Capitalize the name and we'll call it even.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. Inkbug (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete the "an" in Cape Cruz, Cuba, an accidental ignition
  • Done. Inkbug (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Only provide a conversion on first use in the main body. You've got two conversions for 5 inch, although I haven't checked for others.
  • Removed. Inkbug (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know how Albertson phrased his claim about Kearsarge being the longest-serving battleship, but the Iowa-class ships each broke that number, AFAIK. Anybody else know more details?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I assume that it's on active service? The Iowas were around longer, but much of that time was spent in the reserves. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • True, but Kearsarge wasn't a battleship for that entire time. That's why I think that we need the exact text of the quote to see if it's been surpassed by the Iowas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Albertson writes ... longest term of uninterrupted service of any American battleship. However, I agree that the Iowa-class ships served longer, so I removed the line. Inkbug (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Probably the best thing to do in this case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- Inkbug, is this your first FAC? If so, welcome! As is usual for new nominaees, I'd like to see a reviewer perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Also can someone let me know that they've stepped through the infobox and that all the data not cited there is cited somewhere in the main body? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is my first FAC, and I'm happy that people like it. Thanks everyone for the reviews! Inkbug (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ian, I checked the infobox facts were cited. Kirk (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks Kirk. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks and niggles

• If not converting a number between zero and nine, spell them out unless you have two numbers adjacent that will likely confuse the reader. 12 16-inch guns is bad and should be rendered as twelve 16-inch guns or vice versa.
  • Done. Inkbug (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• No issues with Reilly & Scheina and Friedman.
• Unfortunately, there's a fair amount of close paraphrasing from DANFS although some of that's sourced to other publications.
  • Kearsarge became flagship of the North Atlantic Squadron,[15] sailing down the Atlantic seaboard and in the Caribbean Sea
  • On 26 July she returned to Bar Harbor, Maine,[22] and resumed duties as flagship of the North Atlantic Squadron
  • She next sailed to Phaleron Bay, Greece, where she celebrated the Fourth of July with King
  • Kearsarge remained flagship of the North Atlantic Fleet until being relieved by Maine on 31 March 1905,[30] but continued operations with the fleet
  • On 13 April 1906, during target practice off Cape Cruz, Cuba, an accidental ignition of the gunpowder in a 13-inch gun killed two officers and eight men.
  • She trained Massachusetts and Maine state naval militia until the United States entered World War I, and then trained thousands of armed guard crews as well as naval engineers along the East Coast from Boston, Massachusetts, to Pensacola, Florida.
  • embarked United States Naval Academy midshipmen for training in the West Indies.[16] The midshipmen were disembarked at Annapolis, Maryland, on 29 August,[16] and Kearsarge proceeded to the Philadelphia Navy Yard, where she decommissioned on either 10 May[16][53][54] or 18 May 1920[10][9] for conversion to a crane ship.
  • In 1945, the crane ship was towed to the San Francisco Naval Shipyard where she assisted in the construction of Hornet, Boxer, and re-construction of Saratoga.
    • Fixed (I hope). Sorry for the delay, Inkbug (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • All of these have been reworded. I've tightened and tweaked your wording; feel free to revert anything you don't agree with. One of the best ways to deal with DANFS is to throw out a lot of the extraneous details as they're often not really essential.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks! Inkbug (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'll further note that several of the changes I asked for have not been yet been made. Shame on me for not confirming that they'd been made before switching to support.
  • Can you please give examples? I went through all of the above comments and I didn't see any I didn't address. Inkbug (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Cuba, an accidental
    • Armed guard is not capitalized--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I fixed those a few days ago. Are you looking at an old revision? Inkbug (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, that's just bizarre because I saw that you'd deleted the redundant conversions and removed the bit about the longest-serving battleship and you did them all at once. My apologies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• See WP:PARAPHRASE for guidance on how to avoid close paraphrasing. Eliminating or moving a single clause or word is generally not enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks for that spotcheck, Storm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Having a hard time spotting any problems with the article at this point. Looks good to go. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 30 April 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) 06:54, 5 May 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [64].

---

Ezra Meeker

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. Ezra Meeker was a legend in his own time: gifted with almost 98 years of life, he traveled the Oregon Trail as a young father, rose to wealth as the "Hop King of the World", lost it all thanks to hop aphids and an economic collapse, and as an old man, to promote the almost forgotten Trail, journeyed over it repeatedly in his final two decades, met several presidents, and was amazingly active right up to his death just short of his 98th birthday. Who else would run for office at age 93, drive an ox team in a Wild West Show at age 94, and appear before a Senate committee at age 95? Come and marvel with me at the life of Ezra Meeker. My thanks to the peer reviewers and to Dennis Larsen, Meeker scholar, who has been a great help with this article. Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Findagrave is not a high-quality RS
• FN22: suggest link or catalogue number, if available; same with FN102
• FN31: should use endash; same with 2nd EL
• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I will get to work on the others, but that Findagrave page is reliable in that it is maintained by Dennis Larsen, a Meeker scholar. I inserted a hidden note in the article to that effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of either link or catalog number for fn 22 and 102. You go to the reference desk in the Tacoma Public Library and ask for the clippings file on Ezra Meeker. The others are done. Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Image review:

File:Hop king barn.jpg: Author: One of Ezra's minions, no doubt: good for a laugh, but not quite encyclopedic.

File:Meeker around 1880.jpeg: Needs categories:

File:Meeker in Omaha.jpg could use a wee bit of cropping to avoid the black space

File:Meeker and Teddy.jpg this too. Also, it needs categories

File:Meeker airplane 1921.jpg needs categories

File:Pioneer Park.jpg needs categories

• Otherwise look okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've done those things, though I consider them outside the FA criteria. Note that Commons no longer has categories on the upload page, or if it is, it's not where it used to be. That makes things more difficult on me as an uploader.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Out of the criteria, perhaps, but worth doing? I should think so. The first one, at the very least, is a matter of tone (which is part of the FA criteria). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• In any event, as I noted, I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Prose review by Crisco 1492

Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• The commemorative half dollars were struck in small numbers in most years of the 1930s; after collectors complained about the lengthy series and high prices, Congress ended the series in 1939. - Not particularly relevant to the text before or after it.

I've moved it to the start of the next paragraph. I think it has to be said, somewhere in the section, and there's no perfect place for it.

• Why not with your discussion of the coins? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because of the ugly story of the marketing of that half dollar. Most sources pardon Meeker and blame the OTMA. I feel better having it in the aftermath section.

• I'll wait until I get to that section then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I still think it would work:

The piece was designed by Laura Gardin Fraser and her husband, James Earle Fraser (who had designed the Buffalo nickel). Six million coins were authorized, and a beginning was made by the striking of 48,000 for the Association at the Philadelphia Mint; when those quickly sold, 100,000 more were coined at the San Francisco Mint. Meeker was less successful in selling the later issue, and many remained unsold. Although the Bureau of the Mint struck more in 1928, these remained impounded due to the inability to sell the earlier issue. After Meeker's death the commemorative half dollars were struck in small numbers in most years of the 1930s. The series was ended in 1939, after collectors complained about the lengthy series and high prices.

I looked at it both ways. Part of the reason I'd like to keep it this way is OR I've done on the OTMA and am developing into an off-wiki article. The way things were done under Meeker was very different from under Driggs.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds interesting... alright, I'll scratch this but leave the suggestion up. It appears the other reviewers so far haven't had an issue, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Leaning support on prose and images. Looks good to me! BTW, if you have a chance you can check for a copyright notice on the statue. If it doesn't have one it would be PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not in Puyallup at present. I may be in Seattle in September, if so I will probably make another trip there. I suppose I could query Mr. Larsen, but it seems a better route to check copyright renewals for 1953 and 1954. As the sculptor was dead by then, I consider it unlikely that he renewed it. Thanks for the helpful comments; could you move addressed comments to the talk page please?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That would be a good way to go at it. All addressed comments moved to talk. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I first encountered Ezra in the article about the doomed half dollar, and was pleased to make his further acquaintance. I peer-reviewed the Ezra article in detail, and did a little copyediting. Probably some further tweaking will occur during this FAC, but I have no doubt that the article meets the FA criteria. This account of a varied and often tumultuous life is full of interest, and is of some historical importance. It will make a great main page feature. Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and your kind words. I'm sure the article will survive. Meeker, after all, survived most things.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Superb work, simply superb. And so interesting!PumpkinSky talk 01:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 1 May 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) 18:42, 1 May 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [65].

---

Nauru Reed Warbler

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk), Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The only bird species endemic to the tiny island nation of Nauru. Though a lot of sources spend much time saying how little the species has been studied, Jim and I have been able to round up a fair amount of information, much of which has only been published comparatively recently. I picked up the article as a stub, received an excellent GA review from FunkMonk, and then recruited Jim for help pushing it the extra mile. Two quick clerical notes: I'm waiting on a photograph which may or may not be forthcoming, and the "further reading" articles are not cited in the main body because they are made up of specialist information about collections and historical observations, rather than general interest information about the species itself. I'll do my best to respond to comments quickly. Thanks for reading! J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments This article looks fantastic, particularly for a species that has generated limited research. I've given a quick copyedit; please make sure I didn't mess anything up and/or botch a British English difference. I've left a few nitpicks below.

• In the second paragraph of taxonomy and systematics, you say that two authors formerly considered the Nauru Reed Warbler to be a subspecies. Have both authors published later works that include it as a distinct species, or is the formally to imply that this is considered an outdated view?

Removed formerly, since next para clearly gives current thinking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• In The Handbook of Birds of the World's Volume 11, p. 628 states that an additional common name for the species is the "Nauru/Pleasant Warbler." I have never seen a bird name with a "/" in it before and was wondering if you knew what it was talking about.

I assume they mean additional names Nauru or Pleasant Warbler. I'll add these as synonyms (done) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good call, and seems consistent with rest of the entries. I moved the information to the synonyms section as it doesn't seem to be a commonly-used alternate name and I think it would be unweighty to leave in the lede. I also recited the encyclopedia go give credit to the author; please check that it is right and I didn't mess up ref consistency. Looks good otherwise, and changing to support. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked it, thanks. Nauru was originally sometimes called Pleasant Island, though, as far as I can tell, the name is no longer used. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph of Description most of the species lose the "reed" part of their name. Why is that, and if Nauru Warbler is an acceptable synonym why is it not listed as such in the Taxonomy section?

• aberration, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph of Distribution and habitat there is a quote that is not immediately followed by a citation.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• What is A. Pearson's (behavior and ecology) first name?

• Don't know, he appears always to be referred to by his initials, and only with regard to his Nauru book. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing such a fantastic article, and good luck. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And thanks again for your review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (map, own work, ARM). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for image review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - a nice, comprehensive article very close to FA (i learn alot about passerines here on Wiki). Just some prose nitpicks and questions for clarification:

• Lead "...all of which evolved from one of several [radiations] of the genus across the Pacific." => It's clear in context, but is "radiations" used as a common term or has it a taxonomic meaning? Link possible?

Well, a bit of both; I've linked to adaptive radiation, but the basic meaning is what you would expect. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Taxonomy "In 1881, he reported on species he had observed, including a reed-warbler he initially identified as the Carolinian Reed Warbler, although in 1883, he described it as a new species, Calamoherpe rehsei." => I am not sure how, but this sentence could be improved. It doesn't flow well with lots of sub-clauses and small tidbits of information.

Now "His 1881 report included a warbler he initially identified as the Carolinian Reed Warbler. By 1883 he considered it to be a new species, Calamoherpe rehsei" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• "[It is probable that] the first part of the name may have been thought in error to mean "sharp-pointed", referring to the angular head shape typical of this genus." => Could be trimmed a bit. The first qualifier adds little, the view is described as error anyway.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Image caption "...though the two [are] sometimes considered conspecific." => Past tense? Lead and main text describe this view as outdated, albeit only some years ago.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Distribution "It [] also [commonly] observed ..." => Missing word. Also you have "common" here 4 times in close proximity.

Added "is", used synonyms for "common" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The extinction of the annañ may have been due to loss of swampy habitats ..." - If the annan is a Nauru Reed Warbler, what's the connection with swamps here? The article describes its habitat as rocky scrubland and patches of forest.

Good catch, the source actually says this, despite getting the habitat right. I've just left the safe bet of cats as the reason for extinction Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The nests are bound to upright stems in a way typical of warblers." => An image would be great to illustrate that (optional of course).

Good idea, my collaborator is the image guru, but I've added a nest image for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Status "Nauru Reed Warblers were observed to be common on the island, and [were observed to be flourishing] in the scrubland left by mining." => Simply "flourish" (or an ellipsis) to avoid the awkward repetition.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• "For conservation purposes, [the IUCN recommends] regular surveys of the population and the establishment of a monitoring programme, through training of people local to the species's range. Further, [they recommend] raising conservation awareness by increasing the profile of the bird." => Singular - plural shift, also repetition recommends ... recommend. GermanJoe (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As suggested, and generally tightened those two sentences Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for review and comments, all done. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Joe, and well done Jim on beating me to it! J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - just a few remaining nitpicks and 1 check, not withholding support:

Thanks for your review and your support! J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Taxonomy "The generic name Calamoherpe is now recognised as a synonym of Acrocephalus,[3] leading to the currently recognised binomial name" => change one "recognized"?
  • Changed one. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Distribution "sedentary" => a link would be nice for the zoological usage, but there seems to be no fitting article (?).
  • How annoying. I've added a definition in the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "However, it is possible that populations of the Nauru Reed Warbler existed on other islands until comparatively recently. ..." - Can you check, if all 6 sentences of this description are covered by the following ref 14? Could use a source, if not.
  • Some of it came from the page before. I've added another note. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Notes => short Spennemann citations need year similar to other refs (or don't add years to authors with only 1 listed book). GermanJoe (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for support from me too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• comments - taking a look now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• support (moral or otherwise) - looked through and tried to find tweaks or nitpicks and failed - looks all good on prose and comprehensiveness. All teh pacific colonisation stuff is fascinating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by Yzx

• I found the phylogenetics confusing. ...the Nauru Reed Warbler forms a clade with the other Micronesian reed warblers—the Australian Reed Warbler, the Bokikokiko and the Marquesan Reed Warbler. Yet its closest relative is a subspecies of the Nightingale Reed Warbler, which is not listed as part of the above clade? Or is it? And if it isn't, does that mean it's in one of the two Polynesian clades? But the intro says that it's found on a neighboring island? And so is the Carolinian Reed Warbler, but that isn't listed in the above Micronesian clade either? I think adding in a cladogram would be greatly helpful.

I've rewritten to try to make it clearer. The Pagan bird appears not to be a Nightingale Reed Warbler, and because of multiple colonisations, birds on neighbouring islands aren't necessarily related. There are so many species and ssp that a cladogram would be very complex Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just another issue: the Nauru Reed Warbler forms a clade with the other Micronesian reed warblers... The remaining Polynesian species... -- the paragraph implies that these four are the only Micronesian species, and all the others are Polynesian. But the Carolinian Reed Warbler and the Nightingale Reed Warbler are also found in Micronesia. -- Yzx (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the article describes clades at different levels, and I've not done a very good job distinguishing them. I've now removed Melanesian, and just listed the closest relatives. The higher-level groupings are interesting, but not really relevant to this article other than as evidence of the multiple colonisations in the next para. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The first part of the name may have been thought in error to mean "sharp-pointed", referring to the angular head shape typical of this genus. -- I'm not sure what this means. Is the "first part of the name" the akros? And why is this important?

Clarified and expanded. It's only to explain the current meaningless "topmost head", whereas "sharp-pointed head" would have been much more logical Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• A 2009 phylogenic study of the family Acrocephalidae did not include analysis of the species, and as recently as 2010 its relation with other members of the genus was described as unknown. -- "analysis of" and "described as" seem unnecessary

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The warblers colonized Hawaii first and then Polynesia? Where were they coming from?

I've added "from Asia". Can't be any more precise than that since there were several waves, all of unknown origin (Hawaii, Guam, and the two invasions of the reast of the Pacific islands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Nauru Reed Warbler nests are made up of woven grasses and twigs, and are cup-shaped -- this reads awkward, suggest "...nests are cup-shaped and woven from grasses and twigs."

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• ornithologist A. Pearson suggests -- "suggested"?

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The clutch size is unclear, with between two and three eggs reported. -- why is it unclear? The size seems to be 2-3

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Buden reports -- inconsistent tense again

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Australian nightingale" (Willie Wagtail) -- why the quotes for an idiosyncratic common name? Is the phrasing of the original source important?

Remove the nightingale, used modern name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• close to the floor -- do you mean "ground"?

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• BirdLife International previously estimated that there were between 10,000 and 20,000 Nauru Reed Warblers, but, based on Buden's estimate of 5,000,[7] this has been revised down to 3,000 mature individuals -- concrete dates here would be helpful

Added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice article. Just nitpicks for the most part except for the phylogeny. -- Yzx (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for review, these are my revisions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Supporting now. -- Yzx (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:24, 26 April 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) 18:43, 1 May 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [66].

---

SMS Prinzregent Luitpold

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Another one of my German battleships - this is the last member of the Kaiser class to grace the illustrious FAC page, so hopefully she can join her sister ships and advance another step toward turning the GT into an FT. I wrote this article a couple of years ago, it passed GA in January 2011, and a MILHIST ACR in August last year - hopefully not too much dust has gathered while it's waited for me to have the free time to put it up for FAC. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article meets the criteria for Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Link diesel engine, steam turbine, turret, Amrun Bank, Behncke
• Having the description after the construction, and before the service history is a bit jarring to me. Wouldn't moving the construction section into the service history make it flow better?
• Move horsepower and boilers to installed power line in infobox. Why are the types of armor bolded? They should all probably be linked.
• This is awkward: Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet. Admiral von Ingenohl
• Tell the reader what type of ship Blücher was.
• What make sure to add states to publisher locations. What country are Oxford and Barnsley in?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Should all be taken care of, thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
• Gröner: is this a translated work or is it German-language? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ed fixed the page ranges, and yes, Gröner is a translated work. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, I have no concerns; it's Parsec's usual top-notch work. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Lead:
  • "commissioned into the fleet" - I presume the German High Seas Fleet? Can we linkie? Oh, I see we link in the next paragraph, any reason why? Could we say "navy" instead?
    • "navy" sounds fine to me.
• Construction:
  • "instead, three of the five turrets were mounted on the centerline, with two of them arranged in a superfiring pair aft" ... confused here - is that two of the three or the OTHER two that are left after the three mounted on the centerline? I gather from the next sentence that it's the first option, but a bit more clarity might help here.
    • Does specifying the location of the 3rd centerline turret make it clearer?
  • "torpedo tubes, all mounted in the hull." forward, midships, aft? Or spread out?
    • Should be clarified now.
• Service history:
  • "The ship again went..." But we haven't said it went to Kiel Week before this..
    • Must have been a typo - good catch.
  • Linkage for "sortie"?
    • linkaged.
  • "portions of the Grand Fleet" - I presume the Grand Fleet was British? Linkage? Oh, wait, you link it a bit further down, should be at first mention.
    • Fixed.
• Battle of Jutland:
  • "under the command of David Beatty." Surely he was an admiral of some sort, shouldn't he get his rank given like the Germans have been?
    • Added.
  • "In the course of the battle, Prinzregent Luitpold fired one-hundred and sixty-nine 30.5 cm shells and one-hundred and six 15 cm rounds." Any reason you used ordinals here instead of numerals?
    • I was under the impression that using two sets of numerals was bad practice (since 169 30.5 cm could be somewhat hard to read, for instance).
      • Works for me. I was more curious than anything else... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Fate:
  • "and their crews were reduced to 200 officers and men." Is that per ship? I'm pretty sure it can't be for the entire fleet...
    • Yeah, per ship - clarified now.
• Looks very good, just a few spots where I was unsure of some stuff. Be happy to support when these are taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ealdgyth, your reviews are always spot on. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Happy to support on prose and comprehensibility to the non-military person. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 28 April 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) 18:43, 1 May 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 GrahamColm 10:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [67].

---

Ancient Egyptian deities

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A mind-bogglingly complicated group of beings. Egyptologists have devoted intense effort to understanding the Egyptians' surreal and subtle beliefs about their gods. This article is sourced entirely to the work of those professionals, and I believe it conveys their insights about as well as an article of this length can do. A. Parrot (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK, sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I read through it and found it be articulately written, sourced and a fascinating read. I remember learning about Ancient Egypt in school and the religious beliefs were just made to sound obscure, I don't think the teachers knew anything about it. This, however, is a gentle introduction to the topic which offers an easy to understand overview of the topic. --Andrew 20:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support I peer reviewed the article and (most unusually) found nothing to quibble at. I know a little about the topic and I am struck by how well the nominator has compressed and organised an unwieldy and sometimes seemingly self-contradictory series of beliefs into a cohesive and comprehensible whole. I don't see how an article of this title could be better done than this. It clearly meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with some comments. I agree with both reviews above, & this is clearly at FA standard already. Beyond that:

As most people mainly encounter the subject via museum visits, I'd like to see a little more relating the article to what they are likely to encounter there. Based on my limited understanding of the topic, I'd like to see the following points worked in (where correct):

no discussion of the uses of small figurines. The very brief mention of popular prayer could be expanded on, with examples.

I expanded the information about prayer a little, and I included mention of the figurines of gods that were given as offerings. I don't know where else you might want to mention figurines. Part of the problem with the "worship" section is that worship of the gods encompasses most of ancient Egyptian religious practice, and I don't want this article to feel like a repetition of ancient Egyptian religion itself. There really should be a popular religion in ancient Egypt article to cover the unofficial side of the religion in depth, but it probably won't exist until I write it, which will not be soon. A. Parrot (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

not mentioned that the main cult images in temples were very small, and none are known to survive.

There are several artifacts from various eras that may have been cult statues (like this, this, this (Silver Horus 2nd screen, and the crocodile statuette in this article), but none are known for certain to have been cult statues. Maybe I can put that in a note.

My sources list some sizes of particular cult statue candidates (and the dimensions of the shrines that would have held cult statues, in Teeter's case) but they don't specify a range of sizes. All the dimensions Teeter lists are less than 1.5 meters, although I know of at least one set of shrines whose statues may have been well over life size. I might say the statues were "generally less than life size", but would that veer over the original research line? A. Parrot (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The very large statues of deities always (?) in fact represented the pharoah as the deity.

One of my sources says statues of gods were given the same facial features as statues of the reigning king. It doesn't say anything about the ideology behind that convention, although the connection between divinity and kingship is obviously involved somehow. I lean against including that fact unless I can say what it means. A. Parrot (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Stevenson Smith, revised Simpson, says this somewhere I think, but you can never find anything again in that book. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A bit more on Egyptian deities in the wider Roman Empire, especially Isis, would be good. That Isis had a temple in London is worth mentioning. There should be an illustration of a Graeco-Roman style deity (my own favourite is this Jupiter Ammon, but an Isis might be better). The Egyptian pantheon never entirely escaped their homeland in the way Buddhism & later world religions did, but as with their Hindu equivalents their spread is an important aspect of them that it is easy to underplay, encouraged by the way modern academic specialization works.

I added a little more about Isis & co., and about Thoth, who went his own strange way outside Egypt. Because of the academic specialization you mention, I'd have to add other sources to the list to say much more. But the Isis article itself is my next project, so Wikipedia's coverage of the Egyptian gods outside Egypt should improve soon (assuming I finish rewriting the article before all its complications drive me mad). As for an image, I lean toward the Jupiter-Ammon, because it helps to show that it wasn't all about Isis and Serapis, and because the best Greco-Roman images of Isis on Commons are full-length statues that would dangle past the article's end. A. Parrot (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. Maybe you can come back after Isis & add a little more. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Some more specific information, and dates, on the decline of worship in the Christian period, as for example at Navigium Isidis.

See my responses to Casliber below. A. Parrot (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: looks very good and prosewise I couldn't find anything to tweak. Agree with Johnbod about mention of Egyptian deities in Roman Empire, and of their decline in Christian period. Not sure how we can discuss aspects of what one sees in a museum though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I just had in mind a bit more on the typical physical aspects & usage of images of the gods. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think what Johnbod means is that if this article can give a bit more information on the types of artwork that depicted gods, then it can be more useful background for the artifacts depicting gods that people will see in museums (the main place they're likely to see Egyptian artifacts), even if this article isn't about museum-going or Egyptian artwork per se. (catches breath) I'm working on addressing his comments right now.

But dates for the decline of Egyptian religion, beyond what's already given in the article, are difficult to pin down partly because the scholarship is in flux. Theodosius' anti-pagan decrees can be dated, but scholars now believe they had little practical effect, at least on Egypt. Different temple cults ceased to function at different times, depending on when their money ran out or when they caught the ire of the fanatical anti-pagan monks who raised riots and attacked temples. Philae is generally agreed to have been the last place to have a functioning temple cult, but whereas its end was traditionally dated to the 530s based on a passage in Procopius, a 2008 book has challenged that date and moved the cult's end back by 80 years. This argument is definitely changing the debate (e.g., it's accepted by the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology article on Philae), but whether it's universally accepted, I don't know. Plus, temples were probably venerated for decades after their cults ceased, and fragmentary practices in private and household religion continued even longer. (I have access to a scholarly paper that points out a magical spell invoking Isis and Horus in the eighth century, and I don't know whether that's the last known invocation of an Egyptian deity.) And adding those details to this article would mean bringing in other sources solely for that purpose. So I'm not sure what to do about that; suggestions would be appreciated. A. Parrot (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok - I think maybe a sentence added that dating the decline is unclear would be good - adding a note on philae is good and the example you give of the 8th C magical spell is fascinating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences and a note to the article, trying to say compactly what I just said here. See what you think. A. Parrot (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very happy with that. I think it helps close/conclude the article nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Me too Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 28 April 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) 18:44, 1 May 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 GrahamColm 10:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [68].

---

Fort Yellowstone

Nominator(s): MONGO 16:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC) User:Mike Cline

Interesting storyline about the U.S. Army management of the worlds first national park, Yellowstone. Article covers history of the construction of the various buildings, their uses then and now as well as the role the army played in setting precedents that were mostly adopted intact by the National Park Service when that agency was created. 90 percent of the research and text here is due to User:Mike Cline, so should the article be promoted, he deserves the credit...both he and I will be able to address issues as they're brought to our attention. Fort Yellowstone is currently a Good Article since January and has had a recent Peer Review here and some "Pre-FAC issues" were resolved a week ago.MONGO 16:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: Thank you for addressing my concerns. Praemonitus (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment about the article.--MONGO 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I found a few issues:

• "In By 1883, under the leadership of Senator George Vest, the U.S. Congress had resisted a decade of efforts by concessionaires, railroad and mining interests to commercialize and privatize park lands. The Sundry Civil Appropriations Bill of 1883 allowed the Interior Department to transfer control of the park to the War Department, thereby protecting Yellowstone from schemes to commercialize the park.": This description is missing an element. First Congress proposes the bill, then it resists the commercial interests, and finally it is passed.
  • Not as simple as that. Between 1872 and 1886, the Department of the Interior was pretty much incompetent in protecting the park and officials pretty much complicit in allowing, supporting, encouraging and participating in schemes to commercialize the park in enumerable ways. Dozens of bills went sent to congress over the years and Vest was a leader in thwarting these efforts. Additionally, Vest was instrumental in getting Interior Department decisions that would have harmed the park overturned. It came to a head in the Sundry Bill of 1883 when Vest was able to get authority to transfer control of the park to War from Interior. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Is the current text supposed to communicate this? Because it doesn't. All I see are two seemingly disconnected statements. Praemonitus (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      • What if read as modified above? The point here is that the 1883 bill set the stage for eventual Army control. A stage that needed setting, because for the previous decade a lot of bad stuff was happening. The details of that bad stuff aren't really relevant to this article, but without connecting the two ideas in some way, there appear no rationale for the the 1883 Sundry bill language. ?? --Mike Cline (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
        • It helps, but it still needs some language to tie the two statements together. How does that look? Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I've gone and added some nuances to help bridge these issues.--MONGO 16:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In August 1886, Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan sent Company M, 1st U.S. Cavalry" to Yellowstone park where they "established Camp Sheridan"

  User:WereSpielChequers beat me to that.--MONGO 16:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The most significant building constructed in 1895 was the U.S. Commissioner's jail and office and U.S. Marshal's residence (Bldg 49).": something of a run-on sentence that seemed to imply multiple buildings. Perhaps: "...1895 provided an office and jail for the U.S. Commissioner and a residence for the U.S. Marshall"?

  Adjusted this somewhat differently than proposed...didn't want it to look like the U.S. Commissioner was in jail himself.--MONGO 16:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• "...was required to maintain a high level of training related to cavalry skills, they required...": too many uses of 'required' here. The first is the cause, the second is the consequence.

  Tweaked this to make it easier to follow.--MONGO 16:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1918, then Director...": I don't see a need for a 'then' here. The time frame is already established.

  Removed and adjusted for flow.--MONGO 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise it seems like a decent article. Praemonitus (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Does the map in the lead represent the buildings as of now? As of 1913?

  This is how the buildings were built...the buildings in black were built by the army and are still in use...not sure about the grey ones.--MONGO 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:FortYellowstoneMap-2.jpg credits the Yellowstone Association as the author, while the licensing says it was a Park Service employee - which is correct?

  It appears to be a scan of a brochure page, probably published jointly by the NPS and the Yellowstone Association as part of their tour guide. I'm not sure what tag it should have.--MONGO 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  I asked an admin at Commons to adjust the image license accordingly.--MONGO 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:FortYellowstone1895FJHaynes.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  Adjusted.--MONGO 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: Most of my concerns not raised below were raised by other and have been addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments and support!--MONGO 03:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw: I have not worked on this article, so I will begin a review and hope to be able to support the FAC. More to come over the next couple of days. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• On an initial review, this article is a bit too image-heavy. The gallery in particular is too much. The photo in that group by F. J. Haynes is worth keeping, partly due to the significance of Haynes, and for its standalone historic value, but I am of the view that the others in the gallery should either replace lesser-quality images elsewhere in the article or be tossed. A few of the other images should be spread out a bit, as on my computer, there are a couple spots where the text was sandwiched between right and left-justified images. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  Will try and decide which images should remain and if so where...might take a couple days.--MONGO 02:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Support now PumpkinSky talk 13:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!--MONGO 03:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Comments by PumpkinSky: I don't mind the images in the horizontal line, but if those could be centered left to right, that'd be nice. More of a concern to me is all the ones on the right side, from Commissioner's Office to Soldier Station as there are so many they mess up the alignment of the article text, at least on my screen. A couple of those should be cut. I have no issues with prose and once Nikki's image issues are fixed and this photo alignment, I'll support. PumpkinSky talk 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above to Montanabw, will get the images reduced/repositioned in a day or two.--MONGO 02:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Montanabw and PumpkinSky...I removed the galley, placing 2 images from it elsewhere...also repositioned other images at left hand alignment trying to jog them through the article and prevent text squeezing (something I detest as well)...I use IE8 at 1024X700ish resolution...and don't see any issues. How about on your systems? Does this look better now?--MONGO 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Just a few comments from me, since others are working on the prose review you'll need: - Dank (push to talk)

• "as administrative offices, residences for National Park Service employees and as a museum and visitor center": nonparallel series
• "Beyond the immediate confines of the fort, cabins were constructed for use by small detachments of army personnel while on patrol throughout the park.": Cabins were constructed throughout the park for use by small patrols of army personnel.
• "Campaign hat": lowercase
• "privatize park lands including those managed by the Department of the Interior. The poorly funded Department of the Interior was unable to prevent degradation of the park ...": There are several ways around the repetition. I think simply dropping the first "including ... Interior" works, since the second sentence will imply that Interior had some kind of oversight role, but if you'd rather keep it, don't repeat "Department of the Interior". - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• "newly-formed": no hyphen per WP:HYPHEN. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  Dank...I think I have corrected/adjusted these points. It might still need some cleanup on the Department of Interior issue. I was thinking about whether to just call it the Interior Department or add a (DOI) after the first mention and abbreviate it thereafter. I'm not afan of too many abbreviations since one could say we should just do that with Fort Yellowstone and call it FY. Thoughts?--MONGO 01:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  I wouldn't abbreviate Interior Department either. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Went and changed it simply to Interior Department...and did a number of other adjustments for wording flow, and adjusted capitalization issues per MOS.--MONGO 15:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment reading through, but seeing white space after the "1911–1913" section on my monitor. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Me too and on two different monitors. Looks like you need to cut the 1911-1913 section photo or add another paragraph to it. PumpkinSky talk 10:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Loosing images can be a painful process. Some suggestions though its up to the main editors; force size the images at around 200px, or pair them similar to the lead images here, or reorganise the whole section with less headers. Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • HI Ceoil...appreciate your copyedits...on my system, I'm not seeing any whitespace at all, and I didn't see any before, so I can't fix something I can't see. I already removed several images and removed the gallery and moved a few around to try and eliminate this issue that must be going on, but as I stated, I don't have this visible on my system. Neither on my setup, which is IE8 1024X768 resolution or on my blackberry am I seeing any whitespace. I might look at it on a friends laptop to see if I can notice this issue.--MONGO 15:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Now, I see the year 1891 heading is in the middle of the page...maybe as you have mentioned, we can eliminate the various headings and combine the sections into two major building perods, which are distinct mainly due to the type of material used. The earlier stage was mostly wood framed while the latter was mostly from quarried sandstone? Let me know and I can take care of that and see how it looks then.--MONGO 15:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, IMO the "U.S. Commissioner's office" is the least essential of these pics, visually, and could prob go. That said, I dont want this FAC to get bogged down on image placement, and will leave it to you on this, enough is said now. Overall Im impressed with the article, which seems comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Let me read though a bit more. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...it was removed...I also did some left/right jogging of the images to even out the possible crowding issues. MOS recommends right alignment of images at beginning of sections and I usually adhere to this, but there have been FA's that don't follow that MOS. I also replaced one image with a better one from Commons that shows the current NPS HQ.--MONGO 18:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now gone and condensed the years into two construction periods...let me know how that looks.--MONGO 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks, and more importantly, flows, much better now. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• FAC people what is still needed for this to get promoted? PumpkinSky talk 13:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  based on my last FAC, about two weeks...  ;-P Though sometimes a kind and gentle ping to the powers that be can help. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 1 May 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) 18:44, 1 May 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 GrahamColm 14:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC) [69].

---

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This article has been years in the making; it uses tidbits of research collected from nearly 200 articles on individual state highways in Michigan in addition to books and articles about the state highway system itself. May 13, 2013, will mark the centennial of the state's highway system, and although time is short, I am optimistic that this article can be reviewed in time to be promoted and run as a TFA for that anniversary. Imzadi 1979 → 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I plan to review this article in the next few days, as I did not get to it at the A-Class review. --Rschen7754 18:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• U.S. and then US right in the first sentence.
• I don't get the feeling that "size" is the right word here.
• These may be remnants of decommissioned highways that are still under state control or segments left over from realignment projects. - This sentence gives me pause. If it was decommissioned then how can it still be under state control?

Usage

• Michigan highways are properly referred to using the M and never as Route n or Highway n, but as M-n. - bit of a bold statement to not be sourced. Perhaps saying that the DOT refers to them with the M might cover it.
  • I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the way this is phrased - maybe "are referred to by the DOT"? --Rschen7754 08:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Numerical duplication

• In fact - needs comma after

Highway systems

• In addition - needs comma after.
• New paragraph - not sure why we need "roughly"

County roads

• There exists - can we make this active? actually seeing a lot of passive in the entire section.
• They - starting two sentences in a row.

19th century

• Native-American - why the hyphen?
• What are location streets?
• Maps of the territory where - were?
• The paragraph starting with "Townships" should probably be split.
• The first roads were corduroy roads. To build these, logs of all sizes were placed across the road. - please combine
• the state was prohibited from being "a part to, or interested in, any work of internal improvement". - is this what you're referring to in the lead? If so it needs to be a bit more specific.
• The inflation citations should not have the primary citations after them - the other ones should be moved to before the parentheses.
• Able-bodied men residing in a local road district were expected to pay his road taxes by performing 30 days of labor on the roads in his district. - agreement issues
• Only 1,179 miles (1,897 km) of the 5,082 miles (8,179 km) of plank roads authorized by the state were ever built by 89 of the 202 chartered plank road companies. - not exactly sure what you're getting at here
• national president - of what?

More later. --Rschen7754 08:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes made for the above. Please me know if anything still needs updates or tweaks. Imzadi 1979 → 10:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Early 20th century

• Need comma after (MSHD) as that's an appositive.
• Comma after Instead
• When was the concrete roadway on M-1 laid?
• improved (200 miles - stray (
• jurisdiction - why not say state?

Will continue a bit later. --Rschen7754 08:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mid-20th century

• Image spacing could be a bit better - getting some text compression on my 20 inch monitor.
• Where those revenues - whereas?
• and he worked -> and worked?
• Also check for duplicate links - User:Ucucha/duplinks.js is helpful.
• He was also opposed to the idea because the state had three east–west freeways under planning or construction. - comes off as choppy.
• post war -> post-war? --Rschen7754 11:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Late 20th century

• During the 1960s or 1970s -> and?
• Additionally, both The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press opposed the project. - again a bit choppy
• led by then-Chairman Carl Levin - need comma after
• stated the project, "will cause - but no comma there
• Reference/inflation ordering again

Future

• Lots of "project" - try rewording

Overall this article is very well-researched; it just needs a few minor issues fixed before I can support. --Rschen7754 11:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support issues resolved; I checked mainly prose, though the article is well-researched and appears to be comprehensive. --Rschen7754 12:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I applied fixes for everything. Let me know if the first paragraph of the "Usage" section is better. I'm unsure what to do about the image placement; the text looks ok on my monitor. Imzadi 1979 → 12:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I did review this at A-Class, and I think it meets the featured article criteria. Therefore, I support its promotion. TCN7JM 19:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 23:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I did an image review at ACR [70]. –Fredddie™ 23:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I stumbled here from my FAC, so I thought I'd review it. Go road and hurricane articles! The two FA's that most people are sick of :P

• Do you have a measurement of overall miles as of 2013?
  • No, unfortunately I don't. I'm hoping MDOT would release a revised figure at some point, but they haven't. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "under a mile (1.6 km)" - this is awkward if it's under a mile. Why not give the exact measurement so the km isn't so exact?
  • I swapped in a little more precise figure, however there is actually an unsigned highway downtown Detroit (Business Spur I-375) that's shorter at around 882 feet, but I'll stick with the rounded figure of 3/4 mile from M-212, which is signed. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps a dumb question, but is there any official (Michigan gov't) stance on "an M-" versus "a M"? I see the article uses "an M-", but I figured I'd ask.
  • Every MDOT document that I've seen that even comes close dodges this by using "I-, US, or M-" as their description of the state highway system, never singling out the individual letters. I just stuck with what sounds best and used "an". Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The freeway between Flint and Standish carries both the I-75 and US 23 designations for around 75 miles (121 km) as just one example of the phenomenon." I'd put from "as just one example" at the beginning of the sentence and add a comma. Otherwise it's a bit of a runon.
  • Implemented your suggestion. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Any reason you don't say how much money the federal government provides in aid for roads each year? The current "third" is ambiguous.
  • The report didn't specify the amount, leaving it ambiguous, so I had to do the same. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "that criss-crossed the state" - is the "criss" portion needed?
  • Dropped. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "These trails were pathways no wider than approximately 12–18 inches (30–46 cm) permitting single-file traffic." - I think a comma is needed after cm)
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "this provision took ended" - unless I'm misreading, the "took" isn't needed
  • That was a stray word left over from a previous revision; thanks for catching it. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "state highway commission and state highway system" - surely there's some way to rewrite that to avoid saying "state highway" twice?
  • How's "commission and system for state highways" work for you? Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Michigan was the first state to complete a border-to-border Interstate Highway in 1960 with the completion of I-94]." - since 94 connects with Canada, does that count? Also, what's with the bracket? Something missing?
  • Bracket dropped, but this is where that claim gets a little sticky. The part of I-94 from Detroit to Port Huron was originally going to be I-77, so when I-94 was "finished" in 1960, it only ran from New Buffalo to Detroit and didn't reach Canada. I've run into similar claims, but unlike those, the I-94 claim keeps getting repeated by official sources. (I-75 was "finished in the state" in 1970, but the reporter that said so in his article overlooked the fact that between Bay City and Grayling, I-75 was using the US 10 and US 27 freeways as a temporary routing while M-76 was still being converted for the permanent I-75.) Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All in all pretty good, as to be expected from a Michigan road article :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you, I do try to keep the level of quality up on my home state's highway articles. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick change, all of your changes work well :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – content represents a good mix of conceptual overview and specific examples of each aspect and anomaly discussed. I did a little bit of copyediting on the article recently, but made no major changes, and I think it's a fine article at this point. Juliancolton (talk) 03:34, 30 April 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) 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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