Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 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 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Sega v. Accolade

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been hesitant to try and nominate this for FA status, mostly because in six years on Wikipedia I've never written an FA before. Nonetheless, this is a fantastic article that I've completely redone in the last two months or so, with a little WP:TNT and the help of some great references, including the court opinion itself. After a successful GA review, I added in quite a bit more to gain more depth and more thoroughly cover the case. I believe it's ready for this. I'm sure, however, that it will need a few tweaks per the suggestions of reviewers, in which case I welcome all of the feedback that I can get, so that by the end of this article's candidacy, it is fully ready to be promoted to FA status. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The summary of the case itself and of the ruling both appear comprehensive and well presented. I feel the impact section, however, may be lacking. Since this was a truly landmark case in this field, I would imagine there has been more analysis of the case in legal scholarship. If there really is nothing else, that's fine, but three law review articles appears a bit sparse to me. Also, I am not sure that stating the case had little impact on the participants is accurate. I would have to do a little digging to be sure, but if memory serves, the legal fees and development delays caused by the injunctions were the primary reasons that Accolade nearly went under in 1994 and ultimately ended up under a new management team. Indrian (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, I spoke too soon: There is an important part of the story missing. The 9th Circuit ruling established the legal test for determining whether copyright law is violated by reverse engineering, but did not reach a decision on whether or not Accolade violated the law. Accolade and Sega then settled the case in April 1993. While the financial terms were not announced, both sides agreed to pay their own legal costs and Accolade agreed to become a licensee. This part of the story needs to be added to the article. Note, this also directly contradicts the claim in the article that the verdict had little effect since Accolade became a licensee anyway, because the verdict directly led to the settlement, of which the license agreement was one component. Indrian (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Huh. I find it intriguing that the Kent book I utilized hadn't mentioned that, because it had otherwise given a fairly thorough account. I'm sure I can find some more legal scholarly papers; the biggest problem I've had is that since I'm no longer in college, I don't have easy access to a resource like JSTOR, etc. or some other source of papers. There's only so far you can go with Google Scholar, but I will do my best. As for the missing note on the settlement, I'm surprised that didn't come up either. This will be added to the article and I will find the sources to make that happen. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Kent's book is a mixed blessing. His block quotes are wonderful, but his prose is riddled with errors. I have a couple of newspaper article sources that I can use to add the info about the settlement and about Accolade's financial trouble, though I may not get around to it until tomorrow. After checking my files, I made it seem a little more dire than it was; basically, they lost several hundred thousand dollars on $45 million in sales because the company basically ceased operations for five months while they were defending the suit. After that, the board made some changes by bringing in former FAO Schwartz CEO Peter Harris to replace Miller and securing an investment and distribution deal with Warner. Indrian (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Right. Fortunately it appears at least the 1UP article had some info about the settlement (and 1UP.com is considered reliable per WP:VG/S). I've added in a separate section for the settlement, and expanded on it with some quotes. The next couple of days may be difficult for me to make changes; I work a rotating schedule with 12-hour days, but I will continue to chug away at this. I've managed to find a couple more articles for development on the impact section; there appears, however, to be so many more at HeinOnline that I don't have access to. If you have some newspaper articles, that would be absolutely fantastic, and I think a barnstar might be in order if you are able to help ;) Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry, did not mean to vanish on you for a few days. I should be able to add some info this evening from those newspaper articles I mentioned. I see you are continuing to improve the article as well. I believe we will be able to whip this into shape; you already had it most of the way there before the FAC. Indrian (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok, I fleshed out and made some corrections to the sections regarding the court ruling and the settlement. I still need to add some info on the impact of the case on Accolade and polish some other small things here and there. I know we are about to exceed the usual FAC time frame, but I think by the end of the weekend we can probably have this article whipped into shape. Indrian (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
          • That would be quite nice. I'm going to be working all weekend, but I'll try to keep touching up as well. I still think it's unusual I couldn't find more about the settlement itself in my research, but that's why Wikipedia is a collaboration project. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, anybody out there? No supports, comments, oppositions, nothing in the last few weeks? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Have gone over the article with a fine tooth comb, and don't see anything wrong with it. References are good, lead sums up the article very well, all points of the case seem to be covered in a concise and neutral fashion, grammar and spelling (as far as I can see) are impeccable. First-class work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I keep meaning to add a little more about the financial impact of the case on Accolade, but real life keeps getting in the way. I will add it eventually. Even without that, however, the article does a good job now of describing the flow of the case through the courts, the reasoning of the court's decision, and the impact of the case on copyright law. Well done. Indrian (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you caught the comment in the first paragraph of the "Appeal to the Ninth Circuit" section, but I do have a quote from Alan Miller on how much of a hit Accolade took overall in terms of this case. The Kent book was quite helpful on that; perhaps just that part of the sentence ought to be moved down to the Settlement section. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did see that, and I concur it should be moved down. What I am going to add -- with sourcing -- is how the company essentially shut down for a few months because of the injunction and legal battle, suffered a loss, and brought in Peter Harris as its new CEO to attract new venture funding. I think the article works without this, hence the support vote, but it is relevant when discussing the impact of the case. Indrian (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. I went ahead and moved that part of the quote down. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Well-written, covers all the points and does a good job explaining a complex subject. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- A belated welcome for your first FAC, Red Phoenix. Just quickly, image and source reviews are required and, as this is your first time here, a spotcheck of sources as well; I've left requests for these at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it's been a long time coming. Excited for the upcoming reviews to help hash everything out; I'm sure everything is in order and any concerns can be easily addressed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Image review

Sega Genesis III, which incorporated the TMSS. - No need for a period, as this is not a full sentence.

The Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals Building, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Pasadena, California. - No need for a period as this is not a full sentence.

Otherwise peachy. Two PD (one PD-text logo, one PD-USGov), two self (one by Evan Amos, whose work I'm well aware of and can generally spot a mile away, the other from an editor I am unfamiliar with but who checks all the right boxes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Both of the unnecessary periods have been removed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, images are all good. Just need a source review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• And source spotchecks. Thanks Crisco, once again just like with the FLC for List of Sega 32X games, you're awesome :P Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Right, and the spotchecks. *blush* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Source and spot check

• refs 1a to 1r are all fine
  • Awesome, thanks. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Checking refs 4a to 4q was more difficult than it should have been because of the lack of page numbers in the citation. The only indication given in the citation of where to find the info is the chapter name; the chapter goes from p. 364 to 396. All the facts are backed up in the source, with no close paraphrase. I hope the page numbers will be added, and for convenience I add them here.

a – p. 382

b – p. 381

c – p. 383

d – p. 382

e – p. 383

f – p. 383

g – p. 383

h – p. 384

i – p. 384

j – p. 385

k – p. 386

l – p. 386

m – p. 387

n – p. 387

o – p. 388

p – p. 386

q – p. 388

• • Thank you, I'll get that straightened around. I have the ebook version of the Kent book, so page numbers vary and wouldn't have been accurate (hence the use of the chapter title). Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• I can't check refs 10, 13 and 14 because they require a password. I think a {{subscription}} tag should be added to them.
  • I'll see if I can do that. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• I wondered about the source for refs 15a and b. Does it meet the standards of WP:RS?
  • It most certainly does. Check out WP:VG/S; 1UP.com is considered a reliable source by WikiProject Video games. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Random check of three other online citations showed them as fine.

Nothing to do with this source check, but I think "The court did not buy the argument" rather too slangy for comfort in an encyclopedia article. Otherwise I congratulate the authors of the article for so clearly explaining the facts of a complicated case in terms that a layman like me can understand. Tim riley (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• • That should be a quick fix. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

All remaining comments have been addressed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments (2) -- Tks Crisco and Tim for those checks. Red, only thing now that jumps out at me is that the second para under Appeal to the Ninth Circuit should, like all others, end with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:33, 21 July 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) 11:42, 21 July 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 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Benjamin Britten

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) and Brianboulton (talk)

Mindful of the approaching centenary of Britten's birth on 22 November, User:Sjones23 set the ball rolling on getting the article to FA standard. For one reason or another I have written most of the new stuff, with a very substantial input from User:Brianboulton who has agreed to co-nominate. Britten the man was prickly and not always the most loyal of friends; his sexual inclinations have aroused hostility and suspicion. But his music is widely regarded as among the most important and durable of the 20th century. Building on the earlier work of several prominent Wikipedians, and with the help of some very thorough peer reviewers, we have, we believe, got the article to a level that does him justice. – Tim riley (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Now added to FAC. Bencherlite^Talk 12:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Support had my say at the peer review, concerns answered, congrats on a fine article, no need to hide it by not transcluding! Don't be bashful.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Many thanks for this article. I am not an enthusiast for all of Britten's output, but the article gives a very clear and fair portrait of his life, times and music and how they interacted. (And as I'm presently a long way from England it also stirred home thoughts from abroad, but of course I haven't allowed that to influence me). I am thoroughy satisfied that you have tackled the tricky issues you mention in your introduction here, as well as making clear Britten's unique contributions as both an English composer and his influence on his contemporaries. I am scrabbling for any nits to pick - the only query I can dredge up is about his honours in the lede (OM/CH); I think in other articles (e.g.Edward Elgar) these are in <small>, but I don't know if this is a WP rule or not. Congratulations to all involved; this is I believe an authoritative and balanced centenary contribution.--Smerus (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally convinced myself after venturing into the labyrinth of the MoS that there is no rule either way on this point, or if there is I'm blest if I can find it. Happy to follow majority opinion on this point. Tim riley (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You do sometimes find post-noms in small font (and without commas) on WP but as a military history enthusiast who regularly deals with these, I've seen no indication in the real world that they should be anything other than in regular font, and separated by commas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Most of my suggestions in the PR were incorporated. If this was my article it would have a short infobox and references separate from the body, but I respect different style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much to Wehwalt, Smerus and Gerda for this support. And to Bencherlite for spotting my idiotic omission and remedying it. Tim riley (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: With the qualification that I am no musical expert (and that my critical faculties are currently scrambled by some rather disturbing events at Nottingham over the weekend), I had my say at the PR where my minor points were answered and I think this article comfortably meets the FA criteria. Excellent work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarastro. Input from non-specialists is particularly valuable: it can highlight one's cosy assumptions and lazy shorthand. (The next test of your nerves will be within not many yards of a Britten blue plaque in St John's Wood High Street, BTW.) Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed at Peer Review, and I am pleased that the article has improved even further since then. This is a well-written, comprehensive biography, and I support its promotion! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ss, for that. Particularly pleased to have support from outside these islands, from Wehwalt, Gerda and you. A different perspective is of great value, I think. Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - on prose and comprehensiveness. Just minor formatting issues.

• A dab link which needs addressing.
  • I'd seen that, via the dablink tool, but I don't know what to do about it. I don't think I should remove the hatnote, but equally I don't think I ought to remove Benjamin Britten from the page with the list of Brittens. Suggestions gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Mozart is first wikilinked under 'Pianist and conductor', but his name is first mentioned under 'Operas' -- first line of sixth paragraph.
  • Indeed. Now moved up. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 93 and 102 should have their publications italicised.
  • Now done. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 154 and 198 have some formatting errors.
  • Amended. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Date for Ref 221 is different to one given in the article. I take it that 2012 is the copyright year?
  • It is – at the bottom right of the linked page. But it would be better to use the date at the top, and I have changed accordingly. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Publish date of Ref 235 (the Observer article) is incorrect. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Now corrected. Thank you for your support and for your keen-eyed spotting of these errors. You have plainly put in quite a bit of time and effort opening links such as those you mention at ref 221 and 235, for which I am very grateful. – Tim riley (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat. I was another happy camper from PR and thought it was excellent then. The subsequent alterations have only improved matters. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Support — I bumped into this last night and was awestruck by its quality and comprehensiveness. I can see no issues whatsoever. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Most grateful for these supportive comments. Thank you to SchroCat and Cassianto. Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add my thanks to Tim's, for the above supports and for prior help during the peer review. I rather feel that I am basking in reflected glory; with 80 percent of the work done by Tim, my contributions have been very modest. I have worked successfully with Tim in the past, and I am more than happy to be associated with this article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- Riley and Boulton on the same music bio? There oughta be a law! Seriously, I tweaked a link and punctuation (see also comment above), and would like to see the duplicate links reviewed (some may be justified by the length of the article but pls double-check with Ucucha's script). Other than that, it looks to me like Lemonade has performed a source review so I think we're probably just waiting on an image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Riley and Boulton working together is surely a threat to the continuity of the space-time continuum and the stability of the universe!Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 07:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeat links: this was raised a day or so ago, and I explained our thinking here. I've used the excellent duplicate link checking gizmo and I think we have stuck firmly to those precepts. For the image review I'd knock on User:Ruhrfisch's door, but I can't this time because Ruhrfisch researched and contributed the solo image of Britten and the picture of Pears, for which I am hugely grateful. – Tim riley (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I pressed some species of wrong button earlier today (editing wrong version of page, I think) and mucked up various recent changes to the article. Apologies! I think order is now restored. So sorry. Tim riley (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No prob! As far as the dup links go, no issue with that rationale, and as for the image check, I'll just post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing your requested Koala source review, by way of penance. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Image review

File:Benjamin Britten, London Records 1968 publicity photo.png - Any reason this isn't jpg? Jpg displays much better in situ. Copyright is fine.

File:The Scallop, Maggi Hambling, Aldeburgh.jpg - Copyright is fine (FOP allowed in the UK), although a FOP tag would be nice

File:Lowestoft-1903.jpg - Wouldn't {{PD-anon-1923}} apply here (and thus allow it to be on Commons)? Copyright is fine.

File:Frank-bridge-1921.jpg is fine

File:AudenVanVechten1939.jpg is fine

File:Peter-grimes-the-borough-1812.jpg is certainly fine

File:Benjamin Britten memorial window ... - geograph.org.uk - 1131630.jpg is fine, though an FOP template would be nice

File:RIAN archive 25562 Mstislav Rostropovich and Benjamin Britten after a concert.jpg is fine

File:Peter Pears publicity photo 1971 crop.png looks fine, though I again question the png.

Wouldn't the musical arrangement of A Birthday Hansel still be copyrighted (and thus there be issues with the performances included here?)

File:Courbet - Paul Verlaine.jpg not needed for copyright, but a date would be nice

File:Carjat Arthur Rimbaud 1872 n2.jpg should be PD-100

File:William Blake by Thomas Phillips.jpg is fine

File:Wilfred Owen plate from Poems (1920).jpg is fine

File:Igor Stravinsky LOC 32392u.jpg is fine (and quite beautiful)

File:Fotothek df roe-neg 0002792 002 Portrait Dmitri Dmitrijewitsch Schostakowitchs im Publikum der Bachfeier.jpg is fine

File:John-Ireland-1919.jpg - Any author credited?

File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg is fine

• Mostly good, though some small issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I am less than adept, however hard I try, with WP's image rules. The only images I uploaded (I think) were

(i) John Ireland: though the drawing is signed I can't decipher the name, and the source publication doesn't expand; the name looks like Jeremiah Goatbum, and I suspect it may be William Rothenstein, who drew many British musicians around that time, but who knows?; and

(ii) the Illustrated London News 1903 picture of Lowestoft, for which I chose the best template I knew, but am perfectly happy to be overruled by someone who knows what he or she is talking about.

On the copyright of the sound files and the music on them I defer to the judgment of any Wikipedian who knows the rules. It's nice to have a sound file, but this piece is (hush!) not perhaps essential Britten, and if it has to go, then so be it. Ought I to be doing anything about the other images in the light of these comments? – Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• For Ireland, I'd suggest writing something like "signed but illegible". The UK's laws on anonymous works, assuming due effort at finding the creator bore no fruit, is PD 70 years after publication (which this file quite comfortably fits). I can do the nit-pick taggings, but the music...

From what I understand, there are at least three copyrightable parts of most musical recording: the music (its rhythm, arrangement, etc.; the interactions between strings and percussion, etc.), the lyrics (not a problem for this work by Britten, assuming no substantial changes, but the reason why someone singing "Kiss Me" without any backing would still not be able to upload the file as free), and the performance proper (as there are generally individual takes on things, impromptu additions, and whatnot). These files (I think) fulfill two of the criteria for freeness: the lyrics should be PD, and the person who gave the performance released it under a free license. However, Britten died too recently for the underlying musical structure to be public domain in the US or UK, and the person who gives a performance/makes a recording does not own copyright over the underlying musical structure (and thus cannot give it away). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment: You have conflicting dates for A Birthday Hansel (1975/6) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment it may be but is wholly to the point. Thank you, and now fixed. (Written 1975 – at the request of the Queen to celebrate her mother's birthday; premiered – usual dating point – in Jan 1976.) – Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting in a tangle with indentations: please feel free to rearrange ad lib.

• Ireland: done, and thank you for offering to amend the template
• Sound files: your comments seem to me to say we should blitz it forthwith. If so, can I ask you to do the deed so far as Benjamin Britten is concerned? Assuming – which I do – that you are right, ought the files to remain uploaded anywhere in the Wiki-empire? Heigh ho! Why is nothing simple? – Tim riley (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's the essential point, yes. A couple choice sections of a recording would be nice, but they'd have to be FU. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No prospect of that, at the moment, I fear. Have removed the sound files from this article, and over to you for their continued presence in Wikiland. Tim riley (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Have nominated for deletion. Images are satisfactory now. Thank you for responding so quickly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead image - versions

PNG -v- JPG: On my screen the PNG version looks better. The JPG has more black and white contrast, but there is more detail and (if this makes any sense) three-dimensional effect in the PNG. Whichever version we decide on I am exceedingly glad to have it. This is just my two penn'orth and I leave the experts to decide among themselves. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• In situ, for me, comparing the the jpg and the png, the png looks much blurrier. At full size there shouldn't be much of a difference (I think)), but flicking between the two in the article makes the blurriness of the png really stick out. I think the only flaw with the jpg is that the highlights in the background show up a bit more, but since you can actually see Britten's eyes I think its a fair trade. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the Dr.

• Lead -"establishing himself as one of the leading 20th-century composers in the genre." repetition of 20th century from above, I'd probably say "one of the leading composers of his era in the genre".
  • I think a paragraph break and five sentences is probably enough to make the plain version unexceptionable. Tim riley (talk)
• "He took a great interest " he displayed a great interest?
  • More usual say "I take an interest" than "I display an interest", surely?
• "He often composed with particular performers in mind. His most frequent and important muse was his personal and professional partner" The repetition of he and his with the short sentence seems to grate with me a little, can you reword this slightly or merge sentences? I'd probably write it as "His most frequent and important muse was his personal and professional partner, and he often composed with particular performers in mind such as the tenor Peter Pears, Janet Baker, Dennis Brain, Julian Bream, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Mstislav Rostropovich." Improves the flow I think.
  • But leaves us with the same number of hes and hises. The longer sentence goes on a bit, I'd say.
• "He was responsible for the creation of Snape Maltings concert hall" I'd probably word is as "he was responsible for the establishment of Snape Maltings concert hall in xx. I think a date here would help the reader as to what time period it was that he did this.
  • Yes. Good. Will do.
    • Now done. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Education -

• "When he was seven" At the age of seven?
  • Either is fine. No obvious advantage in the latter. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The younger sister" The? Misses Astle's sister? Should be "her" if referring to Astle.
  • No – it's "Misses" plural, not some strange singular possessive. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "in later life he said that he remained grateful for the excellence of her teaching" In later life he expressed gratitude towards her excellence as a tutor? Just a suggestion.
  • Doesn't seem noticeably preferable. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "the young Britten was outraged at the severe corporal punishments frequently handed out", that one raised a chuckle, can't think who that reminds me of hmm... A little confused though as this seems to contradict what you then say "he himself rarely fell foul of Sewell, a mathematician, in which subject Britten was a star pupil."
  • There was a harsh regime at the school. Britten disapproved of it even though he himself was rarely the victim of it. Which is what the sentence says. Can redraw if wanted, but it seems to have passed muster so far. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "In any spare time " any? In his spare time?
  • Yes. I think I may have absorbed the "any" from one of the sources, but it isn't needed. Will remove.
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Public school -

• "and he was shocked at the prevalence of bullying," This article shows uncanny similarities to wikipedia forums! (And later on "inclined to suspect technical brilliance of being superficial and insincere" hehe) Seems a little wordy though, "He did not enjoy his time there. He hated being separated from his family, most particularly from his mother; he despised the music master; and he was shocked at the prevalence of bullying, though he was not the target of it." I'd probably write it as "Britten loathed boarding school; not only was he separated from his family, but he despised the music master and was shocked at the prevalence of bullying, although never affected by it himself."
  • Jingling repetition of bullying/bullied puts me off.

Reworded, better?Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 09:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

But doesn't include the "esp from his mother" bit, which is very much to the point and needs emphasising. Add that, and the two versions are equally wordy. Tim riley (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Britten was at the RCM from 1930 to 1933, studying composition with Ireland and piano with Arthur Benjamin." "Britten studied composition with Ireland and piano with Arthur Benjamin at the RCM from 1930 to 1933" I'd write it as.
  • College first then teachers seems more logical to me. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Early professional life -

• Coal Face and Night Mail, you might mention that they were documentary films and put the years of the films in brackets to help the reader.
  • OK
    • Now done. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• I dislike the word "huge", monumental importance?
  • I try to follow the old precept, "Prefer the short word to the long". Not always good advice, but right here, I think.
• "In the same year " I had to double check the year again looked back, perhaps say "Later in 1937".
  • Good. Will do.
    • Amended. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

America 1939–42 -

• Link British embassy in Washington?
  • Is anyone likely to click on it? I avoid pointless links whenever I can.

I could say the same about conscientious objectors, Home Secretary, and many others that you've linked in the article!

Fair point. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Return to England

• "always generous in encouraging new talent" I don't generous is the right word here. I'd use the word zealous.
  • His generosity is well documented. I don't know that I have seen it described as "zealous"
• "Britten had grown away from him, and Auden became one of the composer's so-called "corpses" – former intimates from whom he completely cut off contact once they had outlived their usefulness to him or offended him in some way." Maybe "Britten had grown distant from Auden, who became became one of the composer's so-called "corpses", former intimates he severed all contacts with once they had outgrown their usefulness to him or had offended him in some way."
  • Don't see how that is an improvement. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Peter Grimes opened in June 1945 and was hailed by public and critics" the public and critics?
  • I forget the technical term for this, but it is a normal construction, such as "he was hailed by friend and enemy alike." Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Dismayed by the in-fighting among the company ". "Dismayed by belligerence within the company?
  • But does "belligerence" convey the same internecine destructiveness as "in-fighting"? Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "going on to found what was to become the English Opera Group." Perhaps a date of when it did become a group of that name, that would clarify it better I think. You could say the date later on where you say "Britten and his associates set up the English Opera Group".
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Instruments of the Orchestra. - date of film in brackets as earlier in the article please
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "while on tour in the new work " in the new work seems strange to me, "while on tour performing the new work" perhaps?
  • The existing version seems natural to me, but happy to change if others prefer TP's version. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Aldeburgh -

• "New works by Britten featured in almost every Festival" not sure the festival needs to be capitalized. If I'm referring say to the Reading Festival I'll refer to it as "I'm going to the festival" rather than "I'm going to The Festival", just a suggestion, not sure you'll agree.
  • We inherited this capitalisation from previous editors. I agree with you (I read The Guardian which is notorious for lower-casing everything in sight) but I didn't feel justified in changing more than necessary in earlier contributors' excellent work purely on the grounds of my personal preference. (There are a few turns of phrase I'm not wild about, too, that I have left untampered with.) As "Festival" has survived PR and all the above reviews without challenge I'm inclined to leave it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Afterthought: I've checked the MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Institutions) and you and I are right. So I have demoted plain Festivals to lower case. Thank you for that nudge. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "but from 1949 to 1951 he had his only private pupil" Not sure "had" is the right word, he didn't give birth to him LOL! Perhaps he "taught his only private pupil".
  • I didn't like "had" when I wrote it, and I don't like it now, but "taught" seems not quite right either. Any other suggestions gratefully entertained. Tim riley (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Later: I think I've solved this little point. Now redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Covent Garden is linked, I thought I'd already seen it linked earlier in the article, can you check?
  • See here for our rationale for repeating links. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Boys -

• I think "Britten was attracted to young boys – what Auden called "thin-as-a-board juveniles – sexless and innocent" definitely needs a citation as it's a rather serious claim!
  • The citation after the following sentence covers it, but point taken, and I have added another in closer proximity to the quote. Tim riley (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Operas -

• Strauss has already been linked, perhaps intentionally as you say above?
  • Just so. Tim riley (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Legacy -

• "In the decade after Britten's death, his standing as a composer in Britain was to some extent overshadowed by that of the still-living Tippett. " I think this needs a citation as it comes across as a little OR.
  • Added citation for Tippett's rise and Britten's (relative) fall. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Honours -

• "State hours" Typo?
  • Good grief! How many pairs of eyes other than mine have looked straight through my typo? Thank you very much for spotting it. Now corrected. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Just as the converted hayloft designed and built by H. T. Cadbury-Brown in 1958 was described by Britten as a "magnificent work", this article is truly a "magnificent work", and if it means anything to the authors I think he'd have said the same thing about this article and would have been highly impressed. This is truly superb work fellas, very impressed at how well you've constructed this, even for men of your superlative abilities. I've made a number of suggestions above, you might not agree with some if indeed many of them, but I hope that you at least find some good points and find my input constructive. I'll entrust you to make the changes you feel are necessary and address my points, knowing your never-ending quest for improvement, and am very pleased to support this fine piece of writing on an important composer.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 09:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks, TP, for your input. As you will see, I have disagreed with many points, but gladly embraced others, to the benefit of the article. Your generous (but not zealous!) expression of support is gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"always generous in encouraging new talent" still doesn't quire strike a chord with me, but we all have our own peculiarities, wouldn't want to alarm the diplomats in Washington...Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 12:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks TP for your thoughtful input. I am entirely happy with Tim's responses. As to your generous praise, please note that 90% of the work was Tim's. I feel something of an interloper here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Behave, BB! Your contributions, made at my request with indecently short notice, are extensive and exceedingly valuable. Not to mention your running repairs to my own additions. While you're here, have you got a better ref than the one I have put in for Tippett's temporary eclipse of Britten? And would you have a swift shufti at Lemonade's point about the circular disambiguation ref? Insoluble, I suspect, but worth checking. – Tim riley (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• • On the matter of Tippett v Britten, all that I wrote in that paragraph up to "the final years of the 20th century" is covered by the Carpenter citation. I don't have the Steinberg source so don't know what it says; if it reinforces the point, by all means leave it in. On the dablink, I'd ditch the hatnote. I think its 99.9% certain that anyone coming to this page wants the Ben article, not something about motor-bikes or odd bods. If they search for "Britten" they will go to the dab page, not here. If you feel for some altruistic reason that some redirect instruction is needed, than you could replace the benighted template with a handmade hatnote: "Britten" redirects here. For other uses, see disambiguation page. But whether it's worth the bother...I don't know. I'll go along with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. Only 10% contribution you say? Mmm, perhaps then your collaboration isn't quite enough to disrupt the space-time continuum and make the universe implode. Phew, that was a close call! Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Have taken the hat off. Unwise in this heat, but nothing venture, nothing win. If anyone gets aerated we can use the other BB suggestion as, er, Plan B. Tim riley (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - this article satisfies FA criteria. I have contributed to the addition of the early and later life section back in late 2012 and expanded a little bit on the music section. Other than that, I think this article looks good. Keep up the good work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:47, 21 July 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) 07:15, 21 July 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 00:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

Anne, Queen of Great Britain

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Giving this a second go after a minor expansion. DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since the first time I reviewed this for FAC. I had to click on the "improved diff", and I read all the "green" changes (additions) in full, but not all the red changes. I found no problems since the last review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Important topic- happy to offer a review.

• The first paragraph isn't quite right for me, and that's surely the most important in the article. Saying she ascended to the throne on 8 March before saying she was a Queen of England is a little jarring, for me.

• Lead amended.

• "It was her last journey outside England." So she never visited Scotland or Ireland as Queen? Believable, but I'm just double-checking!

• That's correct. It was not particularly unusual. The next monarch to visit Scotland was George IV. I would suspect that Irish visits were even rarer.

• Does one "suffer a stillbirth" in the same way someone may "suffer a stroke"? Same with "suffer a miscarriage".
  • Butting in ... it's in the dictionaries, and I believe it's fine. - Dank (push to talk)
• "She justified herself by saying that "she was used to play and never loved to do anything that looked like an affected constraint."" I don't follow- who's the "she" Ann refers to? [Looking again, I understand now- you're not quoting her. That's not immediately clear, though! Perhaps something like "She justified herself by saying that, in the words of John Smith, "..."."

• Amended.

• "I was much affected by this sight ..."[93] Are you perhaps missing a full-stop here?

• The full quote continues "affected by this sight, and the more when she had occasion to mention her people of Scotland, which she did frequently to the Duke."

• Perhaps there should be a full stop after you close the quote? J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Occasional Conformity Bill" Worth a redlink?

• I've created a redirect.

• "She was the last British sovereign to veto a parliamentary bill, although her action was barely commented upon at the time.[142]" Maybe this is a myth, but didn't Victoria veto something about punishing lesbians?

• Internet chatter seems to think it's a myth created for a demonstration in New Zealand in 1977.

• "the Marquis de Guiscard" - Worth a redlink?

• Stubbed.

• "By July, Anne had lost confidence in Harley, saying "that he neglected all business; that he was seldom to be understood; that when he did explain himself, she could not depend upon the truth of what he said; that he never came to her at the time she appointed; that he often came drunk; [and] last, to crown all, he behaved himself towards her with ill manner, indecency and disrespect."" Again, I assumed these were Anne's own words, and it threw me when I realised that they weren't.

• Amended.

• "Contemporary chronicler Narcissus Luttrell did not specify a gender," Sex, not gender.
  • "gender" is in the dictionaries in this sense; it used to be that it was preferred over "sex", though I think both are fine these days. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It's reasonable to understand the two as different (see sex and gender distinction) and if you are doing so, it's the sex of a baby that a physician would look for. J Milburn (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Redrafted to avoid either.

Really strong article, beautifully written. I'll be happy to support (assuming image/source checks are fine) once the small issues above are clarified. I like the way you've kept the cultural portrayals/things named after her out of the main article, but I wouldn't be opposed to a paragraph mentioning them overall/any particularly significant ones. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Answers interspersed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support, provided the source/image checks come back clear. Seems like a comprehensive, very well-written article. On top of that, it's an important topic that would probably be covered in a traditional encyclopedia. What's not to love? J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. Just one comment (unrelated to FAC).

• While the WMF rightfully rejected the National Portray Gallery's copyright claim for old images of 2D-art (like the infobox image), it may be wise to select another image for an eventual TFA-display (no need to wake sleeping dogs). GermanJoe (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Quotes longer than c.40 words should be blockquoted, but the citations themselves are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I do have a few comments to this most excellent majestic article. I should add there were certain things I was looking for (basically, the things I knew about Anne, which weren't much) and every one of them was hit. (the Scottish Militia Bill would be an example):

Lede

• "no surviving legitimate children". Did he have any legitimate children? If not, is the word "surviving" needed? (also applies to identical phrasing in "Early Life")

Marriage

• The word "visited" occurs three times in reasonably close succession in the second and third paragraphs. Suggest the middle one be varied.
• " she gave birth to two daughters" The word "she" could probably safely be axed.

Accession of James

• second sentence "appoint/appointment" suggest "appoint" be changed to "name"

"Glorious Revolution"

• "Anne and Sarah fled from Whitehall" The repeated "and"s in this sentence are displeasing.
• "where she met Prince George in triumph, escorted by a large company" it is unclear whether she or George was in triumph, ditto on escorted.

Two-party politics

• "a woman of the bedchamber who became more amenable to Anne" this seems a bit ambiguous.

Legacy

• It might well be worth noting that it was Anne's reign was (really, continuing from previous reigns) an age of exploration.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Changes made.[4] DrKiernan (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Aa77zz

• It strikes me as odd that the section headed "Act of Settlement" contains two paragraphs on the Anne's health - one speculating on the cause of her failed pregnancies and another on her gout. Aa77zz (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Support this excellent article, with a few questions:

• Do you know why William opposed Anne's allowance after his accession?
• On the Morley/Freeman thing, I thought the nicknames were meant to facilitate a relationship of greater equality between the two when they were alone. Is that not so? It's not clear from your text.
• In the "Act of Union" section, an introductory sentence might help explain what it was and why people wanted it.
• Thank you for explaining why Anne vetoed that Scottish Militia Bill! I knew it was the last time that happened, but never knew the reason behind it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Changes made.[5] DrKiernan (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Just about to promote but I'd have expected to see a source for the short para under Titles and styles, unless the info was mentioned/cited in the main body and I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Added, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 21 July 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, 21 July 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 00:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

Rani Mukerji

Nominator(s): smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji is a popular Indian film actress who has established herself as one of the most versatile actresses of her generation. I joined Wikipedia two years earlier, with the sole intention of expanding this article. Since then, the article has improved leaps and bounds and it is a moment of great pride for me to finally nominate it for the FAC. In my opinion the article is comprehensive, well written and extensively researched. I hope that the reviewers who haven't seen her work, enjoy the article and in the process watch some of her films. Thank you. smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reference review by Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...}
  • Checklinks shows that two of the articles are resolved as being suspicious (soft 404). The respective pages came up for me when I opened them, but I might recommend grabbing a couple of archives courtesy of the Wayback Machine just in case they do go solid 404.
  • Otherwise, references all appear to be good and I believe they're all reliable.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference review Red Phoenix. :) India Today links are always shown as Soft 404 errors for some reason. Anyway, to be safe I have archived both these references. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 13:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Will give a read tomorrow, sorry to see this FAC hasn't attracted much attention to date!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Blofeld, looking forward to your comments. :) --smarojit ^HD 06:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Support No comments from me, I've made the minor changes I would have mentioned myself! I was going to mention something about lack of book research, but I did a google book search and found frightfully little of substance. What I did find I added. Hopefully at some point an autobiography or biography about her will be published in which more details can be added to improve it, but it doesn't exist at present to my knowledge. Happy to support this excellent piece on an important actress in India. The article has a delicate balance of praise and criticism and the way the films are covered is done with much skill given the sources that exist. It covers the most important aspects of her career in film well in my opinion, and I believe the article is every bit as good as our other featured articles on Indian actresses. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Dr. Blofeld. Much appreciated. :) --smarojit ^HD 08:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing, the quote "Mukerji's mock sob-whine-whimper do not amuse anymore" Shouldn't "do" be "does", is that the exact quote? If so I'd probably put [es] in brackets.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the exact quote. Anyway, included [es] in brackets. --smarojit ^HD 09:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

*Additional comments by Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past...: Sorry, didn't mean to just leave you with a quick reference review; I was actually fully intending to give you more. So, I hope this will help to make up for it. I very much like what I see and think it's very close, but have a couple of changes to suggest, looking now at the prose: Image check performed - all validated for allowed use by OTRS, and look quite professional. Use is appropriate, and no fair use images are in the article. Look across your paragraphs. See how many of them start with "Mukerji..."? It gets pretty difficult to read paragraphs that all start the same way. I'd recommend mixing up the way the paragraphs begin to help improve fluency and make the read more professional. My personal recommendation is that no two paragraphs that are right next to each other should start the same way, but sometimes this is okay every now and then. In this article, however, it's done over and over quite a bit of the time. Same thing, but to a lesser extent, with "In 199X..." Done: Removed repetitive use of Mukerji to begin a paragraph. I would wikilink "Indian" and "actress" in the first sentence of the lead. It may seem like it's obvious to us, but Wikipedia places emphasis on thinking of the reader and stating the obvious. This is the first use of these terms in the article, so linking them here to their respective articles is a good idea. I agree that it's too obvious to link them, but done anyway. :) Why is Rani Mukerji's filmography a separate article? Certainly as I look at it, I think it could be merged into this one rather effortlessly, provided MOS:LIST is followed and the table formatting is updated to be compliant. As I look at her filmography, I can't see it being long enough to validate a content fork (and to cite precedent, check out Kirsten Dunst, which has an even longer filmography). When formatting the table as well, make sure to look at MOS:DTT, and in the notes, make sure to explain when describing nominations and awards as to what institution they are for; i.e. in the US, are they nominated for an Academy Award or a Golden Globe Award? Again, state the obvious and make it clear. Thanks Blofeld for merging the article. As an aside to the previous note, I would consider the list article of her nominations and awards a valid content fork, and there's no need to merge that in. Have you considered working on that and making it a featured list next? Not necessary for this article here at FAC, of course, but it's just a thought for your next project, perhaps. Yeah, the list article of her awards and nominations does need a look of work. I do want to look into in a couple of days time. "Awards & Honors", in keeping with consistency, should be "Awards and honors" Perhaps a paragraph or two can be taken from the list article and added to the Awards and honors section before the bulleted list? I find that anytime a list is in an article, it helps to have some type of introduction to the list in prose to help connect the dots. In fact, that's part of why list articles use lead sections; or at least, the best ones do. Even in articles, having a paragraph introduction that talks about some background in the section before running through the list helps, especially since this section is the section where the article specifically talks about her awards and honors. Since the filmography section has been merged into it, and it contains the major awards that she has received, I think the "awards and honors" section is not required now. Don't get discouraged by some of the major suggestions here; it's actually a very nice read. Work on the comments and let me know when you're done; I'll be glad to take another look and hopefully throw you my support. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you so much for the suggestions Red Phoenix. I hope that your comments have been resolved. :) --smarojit HD 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Much improved. Deserving of FA status. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) --smarojit ^HD 02:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I am late getting here; some comments:
earlier life:

• Source for "Bengali Brahmin parents"?

The surname "Mukerji" is a Bengali Brahmin surname. I don't think a source is required for that.

• Source for "Maneckji Cooper High School in Juhu and graduated with a degree in Home Science from SNDT Women's University"?

Done.

debut

• "hit Ghulam" - source comes after following sentence, and it says 'above average' not 'hit'.

Changed.

• "Due to Mukerji's problems with a broken voice" - is it a problem or just a trait?

Changed the wording.

• KKHH casting - it would be good to say that she approached Johar as the source says

Done.

• Why use adjusted gross only for KKHH? Be consistent with others.

Done.

• Last source is titled incorrectly as year 2000, but is really 1999 (as it should be)

Done.

• Last paragraph might fit better in next section since it is start of struggles.

One of the commercial faliures was in 1998 (her breakthrough year), and she had only one release in 1999. Hence started the next section from 2000.

Sources:

• Be consistent in HighBeam source formatting, why italics?

Done.

• No Wikilinks in sources? Consider linking first of each kind.

Done.

• I checked only the first 10 sources for author names; three were missing. You should check all sources for this.

Added missing authors to all the sources.

• Ref 146 looks messy. If it's supposed to be three separate citations, they should have bullets to set them apart.

Changed.

• Only two sources have locations. Be consistent. Remove these or add others.

Removed the two locations.

That's it for now. Perhaps more later. BollyJeff | talk 02:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the comments Bollyjeff, I hope that they have been resolved. :) --smarojit ^HD 04:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Through 2003:

• "Due to Mukerji's broken voice texture, Bhatt hired a dubbing artist with a much higher pitched voice to dub for her lines; when asked if the director's decision to not use her voice in the film affected her, she said that her voice was dubbed as it "did not suit the character"." and "The romantic comedy Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega, however, earned her a Best Supporting Actress nomination at Filmfare and was better received by the critics;[33][34] Padmaraj Nair of Screen found Mukerji's role to be "too meagre for her to prove herself" but added that "she is quite adequate in whatever scenes she has been given"." and "In Bas Itna Sa Khwaab Hai and Nayak: The Real Hero, films that failed to find an audience, Mukerji played the love interests of Abhishek Bachchan and Anil Kapoor respectively;[37] in a review for the latter Sarita Tanwar wrote that "[Mukerji] has very little to do except being part of some magnificently picturised songs"." - Seem like they could each be two separate sentences, instead of semicolons.

Done, separated all the three sentences.

• "in a review for the latter Sarita Tanwar wrote" - comma after latter.

Done.

• "Tamil box-office hit Alaipayuthey" - period missing.

Done.

• "The film co-starred Vivek Oberoi and her paternal aunt Tanuja and proved an economic success." - some commas please.

Added.

• "replaced Aishwarya Rai" - either explain why or leave it out.

Explanation added.

• "Coincidentally, the film's concept was similar to Saathiya and dealt with misunderstandings between a married couple. On questioned about the similarity of her roles in the two films, Mukerji said..." - I don't think Coincidentally is needed, and the second sentence doesn't sound right.. on questioned?

Changed.

2004-2006:

• "At the 50th Filmfare Awards in 2005, Mukerji won both the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress awards." and "She won both the Best Actress and Best Actress – Critics trophies at the Filmfare Awards ceremony." - Just curious, is she the only actress to accomplish either one of these feats?

Yes, that's true. However, I could not find any reliable sources to back this fact and hence had to remove it.

2007–10:

• Mention that she had no film releases in 2010.

Done.

2011:

• (seventh overall) - what does this mean? Probably not needed.

Removed.

Lead and general

• In the lead and media section, it says that she has a reputation for playing roles that are a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in Indian cinema. Yet in the decline section it says "she had become an "exclusive Yash Raj heroine" which hindered other directors to approach her for roles". Some mention should be made that she overcame stereotyping to get to where she is now.

I think that both these statements are mutually exclusive of each other. Her film roles were different from "the traditional portrayal of women in Indian cinema" even before her exclusivity with Yash Raj, and continued later. So I don't think that there was any overcoming a stereotype in this matter.

• Lead says "seven Filmfare Awards from fourteen nominations" - I believe that this is a record, no?

Yes, that is a record. But again, no reliable source available.

• Lead says "performed on stage for televised award ceremonies" - she also performed in other stage shows as pointed out later,not all were for award ceremonies, as could be assumed by reading this.

Done.

• box office vs. box-office - try to be consistent (except in quotes).

Changed to box office.

• source 121 - can this be made to not bring up a print screen?

Changed the url.

Okay, I am done now. Overall it is very good. BollyJeff | talk 23:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Bollyjeff. :) --smarojit ^HD 02:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

How frustrating that a "reliable" source cannot be found. Keep looking. Here is an "unreliable" one [7], but a little research into the award pages would reveal the fact to anyone. I think that the facts should be known, and a source's (un)reliability is dependent on the type of data it is supporting. These are just a compilation of available data. Maybe a delegate or someone else can comment on this. Anyway, I am proud to add my support here, but I have to disclose that I have made a lot of edits to this page in the past, in case that matters. BollyJeff | talk 02:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Bollyjeff. I agree, it is frustrating. I would appreciate comments from anyone regarding this matter. Thank you. --smarojit ^HD 03:11, 18 July 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) 08:37, 21 July 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 08:04, July 21, 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

Interstate 496

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all of the criteria for promotion. I-496 is the Ransom E. Olds Freeway, named for the founder of Oldsmobile and the REO Motor Company. The freeway connects downtown Lansing to I-96 and I-69. It was built through a neighborhood that was home historically to the city's African-American population; the results of that construction actually helped to desegregate the city somewhat. The freeway's construction also resulted in the demolition of the historic Olds Mansion, Ransom's former home. I hope you enjoy the history behind this freeway as much as I did writing it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed the article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 01:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I, too, reviewed this article while it was at ACR (which can be found here). This article seems to meet the FA criteria. TCN7JM 01:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support/spotcheck I reviewed the article and did a source spotcheck at the above ACR and feel it meets the criteria. --Rschen7754 01:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• A thorough Image check was done for all present images during ACR (thanks for that). GermanJoe (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comments :

• The lede states that "The city renamed it the Oldsmobile Freeway", but the body of the article, citing Barnett p.165 states it was "Oldsmobile Expressway." Which is correct?
  • Kinda both; all "Expressway" names in Michigan were converted to "Freeway" names by the state during the 1970s. It's a force of habit to "convert" them as I'm writing, but I switched this one back to correct the apparent inconsistency. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• IMHO Google Maps is a terrible source with numerous factual errors and I would avoid it like the plague. Can you not cite official MDOT documentation instead - we don't mind if sources are offline and verification is hard, as long it means we get things right.
  • All of the Google Maps citations are combined with the paper MDOT map; all of them. Also, if you click the link, it's the satellite imagery that's being used from Google Maps, not their cartography, to reference the details about the landscape. This is a standard editorial and citation technique I've used on most of my other FA-level articles on Michigan highways. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah okay, I'm more comfortable with that. Personally I think if it's something you can go out and physically see, it's de facto verifiable, but an online source does make it easier to do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• I cannot believe that demolishing a portion of a significant African-American community did not pass without comment from the local news, and for a FAC quality article, we should strive to retrieve such a quote for completeness.
  • The entire section on that history is cited to the Lansing State Journal who did a human interest piece in 2009 on the story. There is also the 1965 LSJ article cited. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Ironwood Daily Globe source states that 50 men worked on their days off for more than three months to complete the highway before year end. I think this is worth mentioning in the article.
  • Added. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• December 18, 1970 is cited multiple times in the article. I think one of these mentions is probably redundant, unless they're referring to completely separated schemes that finished on the same date by coincidence (which I don't think they are).
  • The date is mentioned four times: 1) the infobox, 2) the lead, 3) the history when stating when it opened, 4) the history when discussing the naming controversy. Of the four, the last one could be replaced with a more generic mention, but that's not really needed, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• The section starting "The freeway underwent a $42.4 million reconstruction" probably wants to sit in a separate paragraph, as it's a completely separate time frame to the rest of the construction history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Line break added. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on resolution of above issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support after conducting my own examination of the article, and based on the thorough checking and modification that has been done in this nomination and the A-class review. The article more than meets the WP:WIAFA criteria from my perspective at this point. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - not sure why this has been listed so long... consensus seems fairly clear! But I'll throw my support in for a well-developed article with plenty of detail that offers a rich reading experience without crossing the threshold into fluffiness. I made a few minor tweaks to the history section to improve flow, but otherwise I have no concerns. Juliancolton (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This has been awaiting a source review (requested at WT:FAC) for a bit. If no-one gets round to it this w/e I'll probably do it myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Well written, detailed, and interesting article -- Nbound (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review by TCN7JM

Since this article is only awaiting a source review before promotion, I will conduct one in a few moments. TCN7JM 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, I have found them to be well-formatted (though I did add a couple spaces for consistency), and there are no issues with reliability or anything else. Therefore, I remain in favor of the article being supported to FA status. TCN7JM 06:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 21 July 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) 08:04, 21 July 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 00:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

Alan McNicoll

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed both Good Article and MILHIST A-Class reviews and I now believe it meets the FA criteria. Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll was a career officer in the Royal Australian Navy, serving in the Second World War, as a liaison officer to the British nuclear tests off Western Australia in 1952, and captaining several ships before his career culminated with his appointment as Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) in 1965. As CNS he presided over the RAN contribution to the Vietnam War, oversaw an extensive modernisation of the Australian fleet, and it was during his tenure that the Australian White Ensign was created. He later served as Australia's first ambassador to Turkey. I look forward to any and all feedback and comments. Many thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "In December 1942, HMS King George V deployed as a component of Convoy JW 51A; the first Russian convoy to sail direct from the United Kingdom without stopping at Iceland.": The part after the semicolon is a sentence fragment (although you do occasionally see this usage in BritEng). Substituting a comma is one fix.
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
• "a deception to allude to possible landings": a deception suggesting landings - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
• "Honorary Aide-de-camp": assuming this is a proper noun: Honorary Aide-de-Camp
  • Decapitalised (not a proper noun). Abraham, B.S. (talk)
• "Captain (D)": a little jargony for my taste, and doesn't seem necessary, since you say he was put in command of a destroyer flotilla.
  • Captain (D) is an official appointment so I don't think it crosses the line of jargon. I had also added the detail in the sentence to explain that the position placed McNicoll in command of the 10th Destroyer Squadron. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
• "which cited adultery as the cause": readers these days may not understand that it used to be impossible to get a divorce without giving a good reason, and adultery was not an uncommon reason ... I don't know whether that's the case here, but it's possible this isn't the most enlightening detail.
  • It may have been cited as a common cause of at fault divorce during the times (as was abandonment), but I think it still enlightens the reader as to the given reason for McNicoll's divorce and is useful in that respect. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
• "of the Perth-class destroyers, initial batch of Oberon-class submarines, Attack-class patrol boats, and a re-equipment ...": See WP:Checklist#series.
  • I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here... Abraham, B.S. (talk)
    • It's non-parallel, that is, it doesn't make sense to put "of" (or "with") in front of each of those elements. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I understand that. In this case, though, the reason for these qualifiers is that McNicoll only saw the introduction of the first two Oberon-class submarines (the rest were to come into service during the tenure of his successor), and to state that the Fleet Air Arm was re-equipped with some American aircraft (the whole fleet wasn't, but they received two new types of planes). Abraham, B.S. (talk)
        • I don't follow; it's never necessary to say something ungrammatical. If your sentence were "Sally went to the store to buy bread, milk, and put petrol in the car", that's nonparallel because it implies she "went to buy put petrol in the car". A series needs to make sense when you write it out with each element separately. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. I have since split the sentence into two. How does it look now? Abraham, B.S. (talk)
            • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Sir Ted Hicks who thought": nonrestrictive, so: Sir Ted Hicks, who thought
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
• "McNicoll was survived by his wife and children from his first marriage." This could mean "by his wife, and by the children from his first marriage", or by his wife from his first marriage. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I was uncomfortable with this sentence and unsure what to tweak it to. Have now introduced your first suggestion. Many thanks for your review, Dank. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, mate. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN9: publisher and work seem backwards
• Be consistent in whether newspapers are italicized
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• Be consistent in how volume is notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All done. Thanks for spotting those. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Support -- I reviewed and copyedited at GAN, and subsequently at MilHist ACR. I thought it was FA-worthy from the beginning and, having reviewed changes since I last viewed it I see no reason to change that opinion. The only very minor niggles I have are:

• As I mentioned when I reviewed at ACR, I find the expression "from whence" a trifle old-fashioned and quaint
• I think flags in infoboxes might be on their way out although, while I've ceased using them, I'm not on a crusade to eradicate them from others' articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the review and support, Ian. :) I tweaked the above (I didn't mind the use of "whence", but will admit it did seem rather old-fashioned and a little out of date). As for the flags, I'm not overly fussed either way. They were added in more for consistency when I started the article in my infobox three years ago, and the fact that they are generated though templates I used. I have left them in for now, just to see what others say. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Advanced to captain in 1949"—would "Promoted ..." be more usual and grammatically clearer?
  • More usual, yes, but "advanced" conveys the point just as well I believe and means "promoted" is not repeated thrice in the lead. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• "and was appointed commanding officer of HMAS Australia. He commanded Australia for two years before it was sold off for scrap"—Command × 2, but there may be no way to avoid the close rep. Second sentence: I wish, but this pissling little country will be here tomorrow, I guess. Perhaps "commanded the ship"?
  • I've left the second mention of "command" in as I also am not sure how to avoid it (although perhaps "presided over the ship" in the second instance would work?), but tweaked the latter per your suggestion. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• "In January 1950, McNicoll transferred to command the destroyer HMAS Warramunga and was subsequently made Captain (D) in command of the 10th Destroyer Squadron." (sorry, I'm copying from display mode, so italics not reproduced; and it's my underlining) ... can you think about the grammar and lexis of appointment, promotion, taking charge of, etc? It needs to be conveyed in a number of places, of course, but there are reps. Can you say "Caption (D) of the 10th ..."? Unsure. "Transferred" here strongly makes him the agent, whereas elsewhere he's the complement. You can vary it, but can you check it's all the way you want?
  • Tweaked to "control" in the second mention. Does that work? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• "sailing to New Zealand for a visit during March 1950"—do you need the "for a visit"?
  • Perhaps not the most necessary addition, but it quells any ambiguities and perhaps stops people asking "what for?". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Warramunga was selected as part of the Australian contribution to the conflict"—sounds like a music eisteddfod or research application. Can it be simpler? // The rest of that para tries to convey a sequence of events and processes; I had to concentrate hard. Maybe it's ok.
  • I've tweaked the paragraph a little. What do you think now? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The year of 1954 was to be HMAS Australia's last in service, and the ship carried out Royal and Vice Regal tasks as some of its final duties."—First, is this a new-para opportunity (it's on the long side)? Second, the opening three words are pretty clunky, inserted I suppose to comply with the no-numerals-at-sentence-opening rule (a rule I don't really like much but have to accept). Don't like the "and" as a logical link between the clauses. Perhaps have a look at this sentence? Rejig, re-order, reword?
  • That is the precise reason the three words are there. Haha. I split the paragraph and tweaked a little. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• short-lived.
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The conjunctive adjunct could be thematic rather than medial here, perhaps, given the windiness of the sentence? "This post proved short lived, however, with his posting from June that year as Flag Officer-in-Charge East Australia Area, headquartered at the land base HMAS Kuttabul in Sydney." -> "However, this post ....".
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I stopped at Rise to Chief of Naval Staff. Looks OK, but needs a little work still on the prose. Tony (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review, Tony. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Some addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Image check

I have bad news for you: the URAA means that Australian images taken in 1946 or later are not PD in the US. This causes problems for some of your images.

File:Alan McNicoll.JPG can you narrow down the date a bit more specifically? This is likely PD in both the US and Aus, but a more specific date would be nice (what happens if this is 1946 and thus not PD in the US? It's deleted).

File:Alan and Ronald McNicoll sailor portrait.jpg is fine.

File:Alan McNicoll 1937 wedding.jpg is fine.

File:HMAS Australia Oct 1937 SLV.jpg is fine (and of great resolution)

File:McNicoll atomic tests 1952.jpg - This is the one with the most problems. As a 1952 picture, it is likely not public domain in the US. However, if you can show that the Memorial's PD claim applies worldwide, the image can be kept. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue of post-1945 Australian government held images (particularly those from the Australian War Memorial) has been raised quite a bit over the last couple of years. Until recently, I was in a semi-retired state for the last two years or so and haven't kept much abreast of the debates, which is why I have pinged Ian on this as someone more knowledgeable in this area than I. Basically, all Australian photographs taken prior to 1 January 1955 are in the public domain, as are all Australian Government photographs older than 50 years. The above two photographs fall into both of these categories. Due to requests from Wikipedia editors, the Australian War Memorial now displays these two notices on their public domain images: [10][11]. As the notices show, these images are "identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... Ian, do you think this could be considered as the source releasing the images as public domain (as opposed to inherently being public domain, which would have been hit by the URAA)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• User:Nick-D would have some knowledge as well, but I think that we've considered post-1946 AWM images as released into the public domain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) Yes, this seems to be the way of it -- it's been tested many a time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• As the AWM is the owner of those images, they've been held to be PD when tagged as such by the Memorial: please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 15 Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• In which case, there are still possible issues with File:Alan McNicoll.JPG as the source does not explicitly license it as CC-zero, nor are we sure what year it was taken) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I also note that the NLA marks File:Alan McNicoll.JPG as still copyrighted (see here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, not sure how they figure that. Correct me if I'm wrong, Brice, but he was promoted captain in 1949, which means that this image of him as a commander must've been taken before then, making it PD in Australia at the very least. I realise 1949 doesn't help us as far as PD-1996 goes, but then the WP file suggests c. 1943-45, so what was the evidence narrowing it down to that again? Something about the decorations he's wearing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say it is an oversight of the Library not having reviewed the image files in this set in some years (the Library claims the wedding photo of McNicoll's parents taken in 1905 to be copyright if you click on "Order" as Crisco did above). The Australian War Memorial, before the push above, also claimed copyright on several images that were obviously public domain. Honestly, there is pretty much no possible way this image is not in the Australian public domain. The rank (commander) and ribbons (George Medal and Atlantic Medal, I believe) worn in the photograph indicate that it would have been taken no earlier than 1943 and quite possibly no later than (very) late 1945. If the photo was taken later than that time he would have been wearing further awards for service during the Second World War. I think this photo was probably taken after McNicoll's return to Australia and posting to staff duties in late 1944, though that is purely speculative, of course. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• When did the WWII medals and ribbons get handed out? If this is even 1 January 1946 it's not PD in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, depends what medal it was (a number of certain types were handed out during the war, while others were dispatched following it). However, the ribbons seem to have come quicker than the medals themselves (particularly for personnel still serving), and were awarded from late 1945. While I'm not sure he would have received all of his medals or ribbons before the year was out, he would definitely have been wearing more than what is in the image if it were taken in 1946 or later. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm rather worried that this goes against OR and the precautionary principle (not that I'm doubting you, just that this is so close to the cut off date). Perhaps GermanJoe could weigh in, or you could find/crop a more definitely free file? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Or this looks like a wedding picture (compare the suit). Or some crops: File:Alan McNicoll 1937 wedding crop.jpg, File:McNicoll atomic tests 1952 crop.jpg — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate the efforts Crisco, but the alternate lead images are not even remotely as good. There is no doubt the current image is PD in Australia, and I'd be highly surprised if it is copyright in the US still. However, if it will alleviate your concerns, I will switch out the current licensing for a FUR. Is that fine by you? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that a FUR would pass muster in this instance, as there are clearly free images of him available, albeit not as good (although a FUR of an image of him as an older man may have more of a chance of being accepted). Hence why I pinged GermanJoe, who is quite well versed in image copyrights as well and will likely be able to provide a third opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I did consider that (although I think a decent argument for the image under FUR could be mounted), which is why if it does come to that I will go for an FUR on this image as it is the only available portrait photograph I am aware of that shows McNicoll in formal uniform as a flag officer (he is ranked rear admiral in the photograph). Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think that image would be very good, especially as it shows the contrast between him as a youth and him in his older age. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I waited off doing anything with the image in the event of comments by GermanJoe. However, would it be easier if I just went ahead and uploaded the above under a FUR now? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• GJ has not edited in a couple of days, so I'd give him/her a bit of time. The current state of the images does not affect my support below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I just figured I may attempt to keep things going since the FAC has been open for quite some time. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and most images. Very well done, very nice indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for all of your dedicated efforts in reviewing the article, Crisco. I greatly appreciate it. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very high quality article, and I have only the following comments:

• "McNicoll was posted to HMS Victory" - do we know what he did in this role? I think that Victory was a museum ship (and ceremonial flagship) at this time, though I think that there was a radio room on the ship (and still is, from memory). However, are you sure that this wasn't a 'holding' type assignment? (or an assignment to the admiral's staff in a building?)
  • Victory served as the ceremonial flagship of the Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth during this period. It probably was a holding attachment, but nothing specific is given in the source unfortunately. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "King George V took part in several Arctic convoys throughout the conflict." - KGV and the other battleships didn't sail with the convoys, but provided "distant support" by sortieing into the Arctic Sea during the first stage of the convoys journey to the USSR. I'd suggest replacing "took part" with "supported" or similar.
• "From April to May 1942, King George V formed up as a component of Convoy PQ 15" - as above. The Home Fleet operated as an entirely separate force from the convoys, and on many occasions never came within sight of the convoy.
  • Admitedly, I'm not the most knowledgeable about British naval operations of the Second World War, so it's good to hear from someone who is! I have tweaked the above. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• The coverage of the collision with Punjabi seems overly detailed given that McNicoll isn't identified as having any particular experiences arising from it.
  • I was concerned about this, but details on McNicoll's posting to King George V are rather light and I thought the incident was rather notable plus provided background information. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • When I read this material I kept waiting for a link to McNicoll to turn up, but nothing ever did. I'd strongly suggest trimming it back given that it's not really hugely relevant to the subject of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I have tweaked the paragraph and removed some unnecessary detail. How does it look now? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I've just chopped out another couple of sentences to focus the material more tightly: please revert me if you don't think that this is an improvement though. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "HMS King George V deployed as a component of Convoy JW 51A" - as above
  • Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• "briefly reposted to HMS Victory on 1 September 1943" - as above, do we know what he was doing?
  • I would assume holding, but as above nothing specific is given. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• HMAS Australia and Queen Elizabeth II are repeatedly linked
  • Australia is linked twice in the article body due to the distance between the mentions. As for the Queen, good spot! Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• "recruitment and retention in the Navy were particularly lagging" - "particularly lagging" is a bit awkward - how about "lagging behind targets" or similar?
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Secretary of Defence" - no such position has ever existed as far as I'm aware. I think that you meant "Secretary of the Department of Defence". Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I did, yes. Amended. Thanks very much for the review and comments, Nick. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 17 July 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) 21:08, 17 July 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 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [12].

---

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

Nominator(s): User:Prhartcom and Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel that in its current stage, it fits all of the required criteria, and would make a great addition to Wikipedia's FA collection. It is currently a GA status article, and though it has failed FA reviews in the past – most recently in November 2011 – it has undergone a lot of recent reform and improvement from ourselves and User:Curly Turkey. It would be really appreciated if our peers here at Wikipedia could give it a look and let us know what they think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks later, and no takers yet. —Prhartcom (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: for what it's worth, I think it certainly ticks the right boxes. Some minor grammatical points perhaps, but certainly seems neutral, comprehensive and well-referenced... ---Brigade Piron (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, with the disclaimer that I did quite a bit of copyediting on this a while back, and fought a mighty battle with the primary authors on the lead. I'd like to see some of the writing a bit more tight & concise, but I think we've come to see that as a philosophical difference; I don't see it as actually problematic.

  Some additional comments (that won't affect my support):

  • Not entirely necessary, but it would be nice if there were more images. For example, something like File:Benoit Peeters 20100329 Salon du livre de Paris 3.jpg might be nice in the "Critical reception" section, as Peeters is a prominent Tintin expert, and a paragraph is devoted to his criticism of the book.
  • I used to use |indent=yes a lot for reference sections until I found out it breaks for some readers. Removing that parameter and replacing the colons with asterisks would make it slightly more accessible.
  • A {{Portal|Comics|Soviet Union}} would be nice in "External links".

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

All good suggestions, all applied. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, but wouldn't it be better if the caption to the Peeters photo tied in with the text? For example: "Hergé biographer Benoît Peeters considered the book to be a lackluster debut for Tintin." or "Hergé biographer Benoît Peeters thought In the Land of the Soviets to be "joyously bizarre", but was critical of its opening sequences." or somesuch. And don't forget the circumflex in "Benoît". Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

CT, when you're right, you're right. Suggestion and correction applied. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check

• File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg doesn't have source or author information. I did a quick Google search, and haven't been able to find this information myself. I've left a message on the uploader's talk page. If nothing comes of it, I'm sure there is no lack of appropriate photos from the era that could replace it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No lack indeed.

Category:Lenin speaking at a meeting in Sverdlov Square in Moscow on 5 May 1920

I don't believe there's an issue using this image in this article (I believe it's in the public domain). Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt it is. I did, however, come along recent doctored versions of the photograph—one was doctored just to show how easy it was for the Soviets to remove Trotstky. These versions could be under copyright. The uploader has let me know that they don't remember where they got this image, so it looks like a source will not be provided. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to chip in here, but I've seen this image numerous times in history text books. The versions of the photos which cut out Trotsky were made during the early years of the Stalin regime, thus also out of copyright...---Brigade Piron (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've said already, I don't doubt it. Last I checked, though, we cite our sources here, and don't just take people's word for it. "Everyone knows" that the US Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776, but we wouldn't let an editor get away without providing a source. Further, "I believe it's in the public domain" doesn't mean it is—Europeans don't abide by the 1923 rule; and textbooks publish plenty of photographs that are under copyright, so it doesn't really matter in how many textbooks you've seen it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, thank-you for your comments. We're all trying to remain polite and respectful during this review. You have been very helpful as you often are by spotting issues that many editors don't normally see, such as the examples above, and for this you are valuable and I personally am grateful. This same eye has occasionally spotted things that are not issues and their observance and discussion does not expend our energy efficiently. I pray that you please take a moment and consider that this may be the case. I say this with the greatest respect. I am here solely to improve the article and to have fun along the way. If you could please agree to drop the issue you are currently pursuing as we could then use our energy on other matters. If you wish, you may take it offline. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I'm baffled by your response. The Featured article criteria clearly requires (point #3) that "[i]mages included follow the image use policy". The Image use policy, in the Requirements section, states: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the origin, sometimes called its "source") and information on how this could be verified." In bold, no less. I hope it's not being suggested that it's impolite or disrespectful to point this out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope so too. Curly is quite right to point out the FAC requirement to follow WP image policy. The fact that this is a commonly reproduced picture doesn't exempt it from that policy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have dealt with the image in question; hopefully this problem should be sorted now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Some link suggestions, and nitpicky comments about the prose and MoS. Sasata (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• link serialized  Done
• I'd consider mentioning that the OGPU is the Soviet Secret Police in the lead, to save the reader a click away  Done
• "En route to Moscow, an agent of the Soviet secret police, the OGPU, sabotages the train; declaring the reporter to be a "dirty little bourgeois"." semicolon does not work here  Done
• "Hot on his trail," – idiomatic expressions should probably be avoided in encyclopaedic language; perhaps "Following closely,"?  Done
• ""disappear... accidentally"." ellipses should be spaced (sometimes with non-break spaces, per WP:ELLIPSES)  Done
• link propaganda, firing squad  Done
• "and that the government plans to "organise an expedition against the kulaks, the rich peasants, and force them at gunpoint to give us their corn."" to whom is this quote attributed? The government? A person in the government? (Midnightblueowl, please see to this one. —Prhartcom (talk))
  • The quote is actually provided by a Bolshevik character in the comic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)  Done
• "A Bolshevik then captures him and informs him, "You're in the hideout where Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin have collected together wealth stolen from the people!"" not sure if it would be better just to paraphrase this information, rather than having it as a quote. (Midnightblueowl, please see to this one. —Prhartcom (talk))
  • I like the way that the quote illustrates the manner in which Hergé presents the Bolsheviks, but am happy to paraphrase it also. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)  Done
• "The plane crashes, but Tintin fashions a new propeller from a tree using a penknife, and continues to Berlin, where he drunkenly passes out." the abrupt turn of events in sentence is jarring and does not flow well. The close proximity of these events has me wondering if Tintin's drunken stupor has to do with him making a propellor with the pen knife?  Done
• "The last OGPU agent attempts to kidnap Tintin, but this attempt is foiled, leaving him threatening, "We'll blow up all the capitals of Europe with dynamite!"" It's not clear whether the "him" refers to Tintin or the OGPU agent  Done
• overall, I'm underwhelmed with the plot synopsis and wonder if it could be made to sound more elegant/professional with some careful prose tweaks ...
• link Anti-socialist  Done
• "newspaper's sport staff which told" which->that  Not done (I think you've got this one wrong, as "that" should be used only for a restrictive clause. It did need a comma before the "which", though.)
• "Hergé also had experience producing anti-communist propaganda, having produced" producing … produced  Done
• Le Sifflet– worth a redlink?  Not done
• I don't think United States is a high-quality link here  Not done (You may be right and if others think so we will concede, but the "United States" is a link just as the "Soviet Union" is a link and the first mention of every country Tintin travels to is a link.)
• "and since childhood had been horrified by" his childhood?  Done
• "Hergé did not have the time to visit the Soviet Union or to analyse all available published information about it." The latter part of the sentence seems self-evident … I image that a lifetime wouldn't suffice to analyse all available published information about the Soviet Union, even in 1928.  Done (We meant "any" not "all". Good catch.)
• link consul, syndicated  Done
• link Cœurs vaillants (check the spelling with ligature too), L'écho illustré (no capitals for this one?)  Not done (You want us to link to the French Wikipeida? No.)
  • You might want to check out {{ill}}. {{ill|fr|Cœurs vaillants}} will give you Cœurs vaillants, which makes it clear that the link is to fr.wikipedia—and as soon as anyone creates the page on en.wikipedia, the external link automatically will disappear, so you don't have to bother with cleanup. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That is interesting, thanks for introducing a nice template. My preference would be to not link to this article on the French Wikipedia about a historical newspaper. I read their article and it makes a few bold claims that are accompanied by no cited references whatsoever. —Prhartcom (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• "from 1932 on." on->onward?  Done
• "Wallez recognised the continued commercial viability of the story, in September 1930 publishing it in book form through the Brussels-based Éditions du Petit Vingtième at a print-run of 10,000, each sold at twenty francs." grammar needs fixing; also, link print-run; does it need hyphenation?  Done (Good catch with the hyphenation.)
• link rigging elections  Done
• "it had been produced by Graham Strong" why "had been" instead of "was"?  Done
• please check the ending punctuation of the captions–some are not full sentences and so do not require a period, per MOS:CAPTION  Done

Sasata, thank-you for the good suggestions! Please indicate your support. —Prhartcom (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Per the FAC instructions, pls refrain in future from marking points with {{done}} or {{not done}}. Also pls don't solicit people for support, particularly an experienced reviewer like Sasata, who can indicate so (or otherwise) when ready. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments by Darkwarriorblake : The links Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Brussels, Tom McCarthy, and State Political Directorate are repeated in the body text. Other than that it is an interesting read and all web based links appear to be archived. Was there any kind of significant Soviet reception? Maybe I'm missing it in the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware of the Soviet reception to Tintin (Midnightblueowl?). Checked and corrected each link, thanks for your input, Darkwarriorblake. —Prhartcom (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing regarding the comic's reception in the USSR in any of the English-language Tintinological books, unfortunately. I suspect that very few individuals – if anyone – in Stalin's Soviet Union, ever even got hold of a copy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate note -- FTR, completed a source review and pretty well everything appeared in order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 16 July 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) 22:51, 16 July 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 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

Sholay

Nominator(s): User:Bollyjeff, User:Dwaipayanc

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a high quality, comprehensive account of what is widely considered the greatest of Indian films. I would like to promote it and have it featured in this 100th anniversary year of Indian cinema. You may be surprised to learn that it is like a Western film. Please have a look. BollyJeff | talk 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps Ref 45 needs to be updated. The current link gives a general search results for all articles by same author in Chicago Reader.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The original link showed the date and author of the article, and gave a link, whereas this one does not, but it is certainly better to show the actual content directly. BollyJeff | talk 02:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have changed some of the words to their British English spells, I hope that is all right. The words in the quotes, names etc I have not changed. I was not sure with multi-starrer. Should it be changed to multi-starer? In the Soundtrack section, all the words for a given title starts with capital letter, while as Gabbar singh has s small in singh. In the reference cited only first word start with capital letter. Should 'singh' be changed to 'Singh' or others changed to small letters?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not British, my spell checker flags American spellings. I am pretty sure that Singh should have a capital S though; fixed, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also not British (Indian) and also I have configured my computer for American English. But since in this case it was specifically mentioned to use British english, I copied the entire article into my word process (iWork Pages) and changed setting to British english. However I confirmed each spell with online Cambridge dictionary.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much; I changed it to "multi-star" to avoid the confusion. BollyJeff | talk 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Another comment Recently I had seen in Kaun Banega Crorepati, Amitabh Bachhan mentioned their plans to change the ending of the film at the time of its launch due to poor response. In the planned new ending, Jai was supposed to live. Should this be mentioned in the article?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the Box office section, where it discusses the initial reception. BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Absolutely. Covers all of the needed points and very well researched, great effort.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I had my say in a talk page review, this looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check mostly all OK (fair use, own work). 2 points:

• File:Ramdevarabetta.jpg - caption: the second part ("This location was also used ...") is trivia (and unrelated to the article's topic). Remove.
• File:Sholay_CD_cover.jpg - Fair-use should be OK for an extensively discussed soundtrack with no own article. However the "purpose of use" in the image summary needs a rewrite (it's not in the main infobox, and it's not the article topic, just the soundtrack as one important aspect of the main topic in a single section). It would also help to add some information about the cover design (who designed it? what is depicted? why was this cover design chosen?) to the soundtrack section. GermanJoe (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The trivia has been removed. I updated the album cover fair use; don't know if it's good enough. I have as yet been unable to find details of the cover design. BollyJeff | talk 16:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

All Done, thank you. If you happen to find some more info on the cover design, it would strengthen fair-use even more. But if no info is available, it's OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support My concerns were addressed in PR. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent article on one of the most important films of Indian cinema. --smarojit ^HD 04:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Intersting and well-written. The article meets FA criteria. Good work.—Prashant 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: A very interesting and thoroughly written article about a very iconic Hindi film, and easily one of the best articles Wikipedia has ever produced.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but thank you (and everyone else) for the kind words. BollyJeff | talk 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Source review and spot-check:

• Formatting and quality of sources looks good. No problems found by citation and external link checkers.
• Ref 7:

• Article text: "Sholay was also influenced by the westerns of Sam Peckinpah, such as The Wild Bunch (1969) and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973); and by George Roy Hill's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)."
• Source text: Supports claim.

• Ref 23:

• Article text: "As of 2010, a visit to the "Sholay rocks" (where much the film was shot) was still being offered to tourists travelling through Ramanagara."
• Source text: Supports claim.

• Ref 60:

• Article text: "It was remixed for the 2010 Malayalam film Four Friends"
• Source text: Supports claim.

• Ref 85:

• Article text: "On the film's 35th anniversary, the Hindustan Times wrote that it was a 'trailblazer in terms of camera work as well as music,' and that 'practically every scene, dialogue or even a small character was a highlight.'"
• Source text: Contains given quotations.

• Ref 95a:

• Article text: "It was an early and most definitive masala film"
• Source text: Supports claim. --Laser brain (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Just on a quick scan I'm still not entirely sure about the prose, e.g. "best ever Indian films" doesn't sound very encyclopedic ("best" alone is enough surely), and shouldn't "sadist cruelty" read "sadistic cruelty"? I'd like to see another editor give it the once-over for prose. Andy, since you've been kind enough to run the spotcheck, how would you feel about that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at the prose today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a: Unfortunately I have oppose based on awkward writing. I waded into the "Themes" section and found strange turns of phrase in each of the first four sentences. There are odd word choices, missing articles, and other anomalies that are usually typical of ESL writing:

• "Koushik Banerjea, a sociologist in the London School of Economics, notes that Sholay allows for a sympathetic construction of rogue masculinity through the likeable outlaws of Jai and Veeru.
• "He writes that the film is an epic representation of the conflict between 'established hierarchy' and 'violent usurpers', in which the moral boundary between criminality and legality is gradually erased under the demand of the plot.
• "Film scholar Wimal Dissanayake agrees that the film brought to Indian screen 'a new stage in the evolving dialectic between violence and social order.'"
• "Film scholar M. Madhava Prasad argues that Jai and Veeru represent a marginalised population who are realigned into mainstream as 'proxy agents of an feudal hierarchy'."
• "The character of Gabbar Singh"

Please get a strong English speak to copyedit the article. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A strong English speak? Hmm. Why do the supporters (or anyone else) not notice this until so much time has passed, and we are at the bottom of the list? This process is very demoralizing. BollyJeff | talk 20:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah the irony. Speaker. --Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the comments. I guess this is yet another example in which, despite our best efforts, some "Indian English" usages are used, which are, at times, strikingly different from standard UK or US usage. Hmmm, I sincerely believe that such occurrence won't be a lot, since the article was reviewed by at least two native English speakers(as far as I know) -- Dr Blofeld and Crisco. Of course, human errors occur, and it may not be possible to read through all sections of an article with equal scrutiny. Apologies for the errors.

Can you suggest anyone for the job? Also, some sections may tend to have such errors more than other section, such as theme (which you saw), legacy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, where can we find not an English speaker, but a professional English writer, which is apparently what it takes to get the job done for an FA. I am also a native English speaker and college graduate, and I don't know how to fix these problems. I also had another FA fail for prose, even though it had just been edited by a WP:GOCE member. BollyJeff | talk 00:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I reworked the Themes section with the help of my son, who just got a perfect score on his AP English exam. I hope it is acceptable now. BollyJeff | talk 02:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, Featured Articles should have professional-quality prose. Please try not to take criticism as impugning your work or that of other copyeditors. No single editor can catch all the issues, which is why FAC is a consensus-driven process. I will look it over again tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have stricken my opposition after making a few more changes. The article seems much improved. I watched the director's cut today and it was very interesting—I thank the editors and nominators for exposing me to this film. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that you enjoyed it, and thank you for re-visiting the article. BollyJeff | talk 09:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, at this stage I just plan on leaving the nom open a day or two longer to let the article "bed down" after the recent copyedit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Laser brain for watching it. Such should be one purpose of good film articles, to give rise to curiosity among the readers!--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed there. It always pleases me when people tell me they read a book or watched a movie because of an article I've written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 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) 22:28, 16 July 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 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

Priyanka Chopra

Nominator(s): Dr. ☠ Blofeld, Prashant and BollyJeff 07:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Priyanka Chopra is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. The article has been thoroughly researched and is a comprehensive and well-written account of her career. The statistics indicate that it is within the top 750 most popular articles on English wikipedia.—Prashant 07:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The article has been thoroughly researched and is well referenced. It is deserving of a Featured Article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't it rather unusual to have a long quote in the lead? I didn't follow the previous fac discussion, so don't know if it was a consensus decision to keep the cnn-ibn long quote in the lead. Perhaps the nature of the quote forced the editors to keep it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No one said anthing about the quote in the lead during the previous fac and you are right, the nature of quote is suitable to the situation in the lead. That's why it is there.—Prashant 03:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC).

During the previous FAC someone mentioned that it should be cited; no one said that it shouldn't be there. BollyJeff | talk 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead, as we know, is a summary of the body of the article. In my opinion, it should not need a long quote to summarize the body of the article. Of course the quote may be well-suited somewhere in the body of the article. That being said, I don't know if there is any guideline on long quotes in the lead. The topic of the quote is not something extremely controversial so as to need a quote in the lead, I feel. Other opinions are welcome.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Prashant, be careful not to compare new comments with archived FAC's. Forget the previous attempts when it comes to new reviewers or comments, that was then and this is now. You should be treating this FAC as a completely new nomination. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think, the quote fits better with the situation in the lead, which describes her acting range. So, it can be there. Some suggestions are welcome.—Prashant 03:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dwaipayanc on this. The lead is supposed to summarise the entire article. The quote can be placed in the main body, as it sounds too gushing in the lead! --smarojit ^HD 10:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed that quote from the lead. Thanks.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I certainly feel that filmography should have a new article. With filmography, this article is long to scroll down!! Other wise, this one stays on the subject, with added images for most of the sections which makes it to qualify to be a featured article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Created a separate article for her filmography and retained few of her films under a section "Selected filmography" which also has a link to her filmography.—Prashant 08:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Support as per Doug and Cas Liber. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Chopra has maintained a strong relationship with her family, including her younger brother, Siddharth, and lives in an apartment on the same floor as her family, with her dog Brando." – Why is the fact she lives with her dog worthy of being mentioned?

Removed the name of her dog.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Her mother, a well-established gynaecologist in Bareilly, gave up her practice to support Chopra as she embarked upon a successful film career." – Do you embark on a successful film career, or just a film career. Surely it would be too early to tell if it was going to be a success or not?

Tweaked.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Chopra had signed Abbas-Mustan's romantic thriller Humraaz (2002)" – what does "signed" mean? Do you mean signed up to, or signed to do, or something like that?

Re-worded.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...she stated the production conflicted with her schedule, while the producers stated they re-cast because Chopra took on various other commitments." – repetition of "stated".

Removed repetition.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Chopra has little to do. But she does it with eye-catching aplomb." — Shouldn't the full stop come after a closing quote mark?

Corrected.—Prashant 16:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Putting punctuation inside or outside of quotes was done in accordance with this Wikipedia policy link: Wikipedia:Quotation_marks#Punctuation_inside_or_outside. Yet several reviewers have now questioned that. I need to know if this is to be followed or not. BollyJeff | talk 15:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bollyjeff, see Wikipedia:Logical quotation. If the punctuation is part of the quoted text, then place in front of the quotation marks. If the punctuation is not part of the quoted text, then place behind the quotation marks. Victoria (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Victoria is spot on. The article will need checking throughout to make this consistent. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That redirects to the same link that I provided. It was my feeling that all quotes were adhering to it. Of course there are several cooks here, so some of them may not. Both of those quotes end in a period, so the period is part of the quote, and should be within the quote marks. Is that not right? BollyJeff | talk 16:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. Victoria (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This recent edit has it wrong. Only a single quotation mark is added to text so it's confusing, and a full stop is added, when the sentence continues after the ref. Suggest slowing down and checking these carefully. There's no rush. Victoria (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think, I mistakenly edited that but, have corrected now.—Prashant 16:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Drona, widely criticised for its extensive use of special effects, marked Chopra's sixth film in succession which had failed at both the box office and critically, although Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com stated that Chopra displayed convincing action heroine skills." — I'm not too sure of its correct format, but should box-office be hyphenated like it is everywhere else? If it should, then there are a few un-hyphenated uses throughout so this may need going through and checking to make consistent. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Corrected.—Prashant 15:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• What's a "caper thriller"? -- Cassianto^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India noted her role completely reinvents her" —Sounds odd. I would say "Nikhat Kazmi from The Times of India thought that Chopra's role completely reinvented her".
• "Aniruddha Guha of Daily News and Analysis wrote: "Chopra gets a crack at a role of a lifetime and she sparkles like never before." —watch for the punctuation at the end again.

Linked, changed and corrected.—Prashant 16:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In the first paragraph of the Television and stage performances section, there seems to be a heavy use of her name where I think we could get away with pronoun usage some of the time.

Review finished and I can't see any further issues. I shall await your updates. – Cassianto^Talk 09:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Corrected.—Prashant 11:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support — per resolved comments this time and last. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I had my say last time round and the alterations since then have only strengthened the article. Well done to all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks fellas, much appreciated.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (most images haven't changed since last FAC).

• File:Priyanka_on_the_ramp_for_Mijwan_fashion_show.jpg - OK. The only new image (OTRS), source and author provided. GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the image check.—Prashant 01:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments - this is comprehensive and has improved since the last FAC. Still a few comments regarding prose:

Lead

• "Although Chopra at one time aspired to study engineering or psychiatry, she accepted offers to join the Indian film industry" > presumably this is a result of her Miss World win? If so, perhaps mention that. (btw, I've reworded here a bit)

Done.

• "By 2006, Chopra had established herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema with starring roles in the highly successful films Krrish and Don. After receiving mixed reviews for a series of unsuccessful films, she was praised for her portrayal of unconventional characters, including a troubled model in the 2008 drama Fashion" > needs a little more clarifying here with a brief explanation that in 2006 she was successful but then apparently not but then by 2008, a mere two years later, successful again

The difference is commercial success vs critical success; I have tried to clarify that.

• In addition to acting in films, she has participated in stage shows, hosted a reality show on television, and written columns for India's national newspapers. Chopra has engaged in philanthropic activities, and was appointed as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador for Child Rights on 10 August 2010. In 2012, she released her first single "In My City", which, although a commercial success in India, was met with mixed reactions from the critics." > rem "In addition"; consider changing verb tenses. Does she still do stage shows, etc? If so, maybe something like: "She participates in stage shows, has hosted a reality show, writes a column for India's national newspapers" and so on. By the way - is the column published in multiple newspapers?

She wrote for two different newspapers, but only had a regular column in one. BollyJeff | talk 17:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• Mentions that she traveled frequently as a child. Did the family travel (as in leaving and returning home) or did they move the household frequently?

Use of the word relocated is not clear enough? I removed travel from the lead. BollyJeff | talk 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I think I got hung up on traveling and it me made think something other than relocate. Victoria (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "She now considers Bareilly her home town, and maintains strong connections there.[13] Chopra has fond memories as a child of playing in the valleys of Leh, in the cold northwestern Indian desert region of Jammu and Kashmir. She has said: I think I was in Class 4 when I was in Leh. My brother was just born. My dad was in the army and was posted there. I stayed in Leh for a year and my memories of that place are tremendous ... We were all army kids there. We weren't living in houses, we were in bunkers in the valley and there was a stupa right on top of a hill which used to overlook our valley. We used to race up to the top of the stupa and that too 'nange paon' (bare feet). We used to go to the market then.[14]" > a couple of issues here: is Leh the same as Bareilly? If so, can that be clarified somehow by saying something like: "fond memories as a child of playing in the valleys of [nearby] Leh" or somehow to indicate proximity so the reader knows it's the same place. I'm not crazy about the blockquote here and wondered if it could be summarized, but if this is the reason she now considers Bareilly her home, then perhaps that should be emphasized to give context to the quote

I think it's a good and appropriate quote and coming from her lips gives a good impression of her childhood which is better quoted than put in a word summary in my opinion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired of arguing at FAC. This is now the third time it's happened. It's a long quote and hard for the reader to get through where it is, but if you disagree, then you disagree. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why did she move to the US? How many years was she there? Massachusetts and Iowa are quite far apart - is there a reason for the moving?
• "Grade 10" > not a term used in America (usually 10th grade) but since presumably Indian English is being used here, maybe substitute something like "second year of high school"

Grade 10 means the same as 10th grade, quite clearly I think. I see no reason to change it, it isn't written in American English.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It was when in US though; I don't care either way, you may change it. BollyJeff | talk 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've suggested a workaround solution. Is Grade 10 in India equivalent to Grade 10 in the US? If so, then not a problem. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that it says "senior year" for her last year in school in India. In the US the tenth grade = "sophomore year". Perhaps for consistency that term can be used? Victoria (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be the same: Tenth_grade#India. Changed to sophomore year. BollyJeff | talk 20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "During her teenage years in America, Chopra sometimes faced racial issues and bullying for her looks. She has said, "I was gawky imperfect, had low self-esteem, came from a modest middle-class background, had white marks on my legs. But I was damn hard working. Today, my legs sell 12 brands."[19]" > When I first read this article this sentence really jumped out at me, but I've now looked at the source and see that it's cited to the Daily Mail which isn't a great source to use. Did the bullying happen in Newton or in Cedar Rapids? Also the quote doesn't really support the fact that she was bullied for her looks or because she was Indian.

There are other sources available. I will fix this; didn't know that Daily Mail was not considered reliable here. BollyJeff | talk 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Now she's back in India finishing high school > when did that happen? after which grade?

I think these are all addressed now, although we cannot always know why a person does what they do. BollyJeff | talk 19:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

All much better now and really only needed small tweaks.Victoria (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review

• Because of the use of the Daily Mail and the large number of sources here, would very much like to see a source review, because I haven't a sense of the quality of these sources. I'd offer to do it, but it's not something I do well. Also, I noted some discrepancies in the citations (which might only be because of template rendering) which I think need to be looked at for consistency.

The Daily Mail isn't blacklisted as a source; I've used it for several articles in cases where it provided a lot of detail which other sources didn't cover. But I agree that if possible it should be replaced with a more "serious" newspaper.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've not said it was and I think the replaced source in the case cited re the bullying is much better. What I meant, and perhaps it came across wrong, is that I looked at the sources and noted a., some inconsistencies with formatting (for example retrieval dates aren't necessary for books) and b., I'm not familiar with all the sources used. For that reason, as is the norm in a FAC, imo, a source review would be helpful. That's all. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the access dates from the book sources, and am awaiting the source review. BollyJeff | talk 02:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The rest of the article looks good - I"m working my way through slowly and if necessary will post more. Thanks, Victoria (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC) A few more comments:

Recent work

• Third paragraph: repetition of "item number"
• Last paragraph: per WP:DATED should probably mention the projects are under development in 2013

Done.

Further reading

• Are these entries necessary? I guess my question is whether they should be used in the article, or, if not, then deleted from this section.

I think that's all. Victoria (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your input. BollyJeff | talk 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Waiting now on replies from Dr. Blofeld. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Really good observations. Thanks.—Prashant 01:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - have finished reading through, my comments are resolved, and I think this is a well done and interesting article. Although I still see a few places where the prose can do with a bit of tightening, that's not enough to stop me from supporting (and when the FAC is done, I might copyedit it myself a bit). I've enjoyed reading about her. A request for source review can be added here, which is not at all a reflection of this article: it's standard operating procedure at FAC. Victoria (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and taking so much time to deliver all of the points which has definitely improved the article. That I might disagree on several of your concerns is perfectly normal, and I'm surprised it's only the third time you've experienced that. That I agree with the vast majority of your points and the article has improved as a result should be an indication that your input at FAC is much valued and appreciated Victoria. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• As iUniverse is a self-publishing company, what makes its publication a high-quality reliable source?
• Be consistent in how Bollywood Hungama references are formatted
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers
• Be consistent in how you format sources retrieved through HighBeam
• FN93, 194: should be endash not emdash
• FN142: title formatting

Quote's within quotes? I changed to singles. I hope that is what you meant. The rest of these are done. BollyJeff | talk 01:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why are we citing a law exam guide for the detail that she is a Goodwill Ambassador? Particularly when there's already a UNICEF source?
• FN186: why the wikilink?
• SAGE or SAGE Publications? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the source check.—Prashant 01:40, 16 July 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) 19:43, 16 July 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 00:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

Drowning Girl

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have developed it fairly well for a work of art. I had initially begun expanding it thinking that the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition is coming up on September 28. However, while expanding the article, I found out that it was also exhibited in April 1963. However, with all the work I have done on the article, I hope to get it to FAC.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I probably should have gotten this advice while this was at PR, but I am looking at book refs online in the footnotes and book refs from print in the references section. How are online book refs suppose to be handled? Do you need retrieved dates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I doubt it. What do retrieval dates tell you anyway thats useful. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I suppose to move the online book refs down to the refs section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be any mention of the controversial nature of the image appropriation. This year there was an exhibition re-appropriating the works, with this work critiqued by Fufu Frauenwahl, [16]. See [17] for a reliable source on the exhibition. I think for the article to be comprehensive it needs to discuss the controversial nature of the art appropriation. Hiding T 08:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The second to last paragraph currently discusses this issue. I will look at your leads to see what further I can add.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is what I added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • <Edit conflict, note I've been constructing this argument for over four hours so haven't looked at recent updates to the article> I don't know if you can access the BBC iPlayer but Dave Gibbons notes the dishonest nature of Lichtenstein in [18] and [19], the latter transcribed at [20] which includes material from the broadcast show not available in the clip. Deborah Hirsch also pointed out Lichtenstein's art-theft with her own Drowning Girl of 2010, [21]. Also, where the article states "Thus, Lichtenstein reinforced the non-realist view of comic strips and advertisements, presenting them as artificial images with minimalistic graphic techniques", having looked at the source, that should really read reinforced a non-realist view of comic strips. The source is arguing that Lichtenstein was emphasizing that these comic book panels are not, as widely assumed, realist, "but highly artificial pictures". I'd challenge that view though, and I'm not sure that argument is a widely held view of comic art. I'm worried the article is too balanced in favour of modern art view of Lichtenstein and the work as opposed to a commercial art one.
    • Also the text states "Although single-panel comic representations depict a moment in time, this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times." That's not what Steiner is arguing. If you follow the argument from earlier in the book, she's making the point that comics are a narrative art and that comic book panels in general have an imbued sense of narrative and time. The actual quote is "Though the single frames that Lichtenstein borrows from the comics do not represent more than one temporal instant, they do contain the drama of the 'pregnant moment'." Now I can source arguments and theories on comics that demolish the idea that a comics frame represents just one temporal instant so I think it's wrong to present it as a fact. I also think the emphasis in our article is wrong. Steiner is arguing that Lichtenstein borrowed narrative structure from the comics and that the comics form Lichtenstein is borrowing allows Lichtenstein to invoke a number of narratives. She's arguing that Lichtenstein is, in essence, playing with the formalism of comics. The article is suggesting that, well I'm not sure what the article is suggesting with this sentence. It doesn't lead into the next sentence very well, and it doesn't really make a point. I'm not even clear if the "this" in "this is an example" refers to the painting or the original panel. Steiner was referring to the original comic book panel, so I think the article should make that clearer and also discuss why it is relevant to the Lichtenstein.
      • I interpret the concept to mean that a comic panel is part of a sequence, but largely an instantaneous part. Thus, Lichtenstein is capturing an instant although we know it is part of a sequence with other contributing factors to the instant being what it is. Lichtenstein has chosen an instant here where we naturally are intrigued by both the past that has led to this instant and the future that will flow from this instant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think that is what's being argued. Lichtenstein hasn't chosen that moment; she quite clearly states that he has borrowed it, and that is a very important distinction.Hiding T 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
          • In terms of the surrounding content to the "pregnant" issue, I don't see your point about borrowing. Above you mentioned something about earlier in the book. Where are you referring to?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Because of the placement of the sentence and the way it is worded it is very unclear what is being said. Okay, let's unpack it: "Although single-panel comic representations depict a moment in time, this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times."

single-panel comic representations is rather unwieldy. The text is referring to a comic-book panel, so I don't know why we don't just say comic-book panel, otherwise the way you've worded it it is unclear whether you have the same meaning as the source or it means Lichtenstein's representation of the comic panel. this is an example of one. Which this are we referring to, Lichtenstein's art or the original comic book panel? Same for one. this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times. In the original source this refers to comic book panels. My point is that all comic book panels by their very nature are "pregnant", it's a basic tenet of the art-form; the panels work as sequential art, cf Gibbons whom I linked to earlier who makes this very point. Hiding T 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't this refer to moments taken from comics?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• P.S. can't access the BBC player in the U.S. Can't access Gibbons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you read the transcription I linked to? Hiding T 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think the point is that some panels are more pregnant than others. They may all be pregnant, but not equally so. This is true in any form of sequential art. For example in a movie there are "suspenseful moments" that are more pregnant than others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • • • • You also still haven't explained what the sentences are achieving in the article, as they make no sense in the context of their placement. Hiding T 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't understand this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying the sentence makes no sense. Hiding T 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have made a slight modification. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made another, because Steiner is quite clear that "the single frames that Lichtenstein borrows do not represent more than one temporal instant, they do contain the drama of the 'pregnant moment.'" Hiding T 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • • Also, your claim that you can present sources saying that a panel is not an instant could be presented if you wish, but they do not affect the interpretation of this source. The article currently is trying to summarize the found source assuming it is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • But I think that's the very nub of the issue here. I'm not sure these are reliable sources when it comes to discussing what Lichtenstein has done with the source material because none of them seem to understand the source material. I really think the article needs to better balance that gap between modern art theories of Drowning Girl and comic art theories of it, otherwise I think there's a POV issue. Hiding T 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Each of these published books is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Circular argument. Not sure how we resolve it. Let's try backing up. Do you understand and acknowledge my concern that the article is currently structured too far from a hmmm, how to put it, okay, from a high art perspective if we accept a high/low art paradigm. ;) Hiding T 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not a high art type person. Never been trained. Don't try to pretend. I do take credit for 5 of the 52 articles listed at Category:FA-Class visual arts articles nonetheless. Whether I am high art or a FA vet, is irrelevant. An WP:RS is a well-defined thing. Look at the link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which link you want me to look at, but WP:RS discusses context and in the context of discussing comic art these sources are not contextually reliable as they are specialised in modern art theory and not comics art theory. Hiding T 15:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Are you happy with the introduction of a source more authoritative on comics art and the tweaking of a line of text sourced from Grover that inaccurately described the meaning of line art? If so I can strike this concern. Hiding T 18:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • And where the article states "Lanchner wrote of Lichtenstein's translation of a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art which intensifies the contrast between the two" that's not what Lanchner says. She doesn't state that Lichtenstein translates a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art, she states "the contrast between highly charged content and coolly handling has been not only preserved but intensified." Lanchner's discussion of anything Lichtenstein adds in his "translation" occurs after the quoted sentence, so we're synthesising here. The contrast was already in the original and is not something Lichtenstein has added, merely intensified. I'm now rather worried that the article is not maintaining a fidelity to its sources, I don't have time to check every source but I am concerned that we're misrepresenting the sources.
      • Lanchner's statement is "the contrast between highly charged content and coolly handling has been not only preserved but intensified." = Contrast X is intensified, with contrast x being between "highly charged content" and "coolly handling". X is thus the contrast between the source content and some noun represented by "coolly handling" which is probably the coolly handled resulting image. What am I saying that is wrong?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • You are saying that Lanchner stated that Lichtenstein's translation introduced the contrast, which is not supported by the quoted text. Lanchner is quite clear that the contrast already existed and Lichtenstein intensified it. Your text openly states that Lichtenstein's translation created the contrast. I have no idea what you mean when you write "X is thus the contrast between the source content and some noun represented by "coolly handling" which is probably the coolly handled resulting image." That you do not know what the highly charged content and the coolly handling refer to worries me in the sense that I am not sure you can summarise something you do not understand. In any sense, however, the article text is not supported by the text, because Lanchner is quite clear that the contrast pre-dated Lichtenstein and your text states that the contrast was the result of Lichtenstein's translation: "Lanchner wrote of Lichtenstein's translation of a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art". Lanchner never writes that Lichtensteain translated something that was highly charged into something that is coolly handled. The content, namely the plot, is highly charged. The art, the original comic book art, is coolly handled. The contrast, as Lanchner states, already exists in the comic book. All she credits Lichtenstein with is intensifying the contrast between the narrative and the art. She's asserting that Lichtenstein, through his "image duplication", has basically turned up the angst in the narrative and turned up the pop art or ligne claire in the art. I hope that helps explain why we are currently contradicting the source. Hiding T 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
          • With "Lanchner wrote of Lichtenstein's translation of a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art which intensifies the contrast between the two." I believe myself to be saying that the translation intensifies the (pre-existing) contrast in what I have included in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Given that Lichtenstein has only intensified a contrast it must have existed prior to his involvement. So I see what you are saying. The "coolly handling" refers to something in the original work that contrasted with the "highly charged" content. The question is whether this is the narrative (as she is thinking it in the instant) vs the graphic or is this a temporal contrast of the emotions the contributed to the instant of the comic art vs that instant. Now that I look more closely, her being fed up by earlier actions could be the "highly charged" content and the execution of the panel's instant could be the coolly handling. She could be saying that Lichtenstein intensified this contrast by editing the narrative down to the most "highly charged" distillate of the original presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Does this change address your concern?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with it so I tried this [22], which I'm still not sure is perfect but it gets closer to the nub of my concern. Hiding T 13:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • Also, Herge has been cited as an influence on the work, see [23]. Hiding T 18:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Change incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, don't want this comment to get missed. I think we should also credit Ira Schnapp, letterer of the original comic book panel, because Lichtenstein is referencing his craft as well. I'm not sure whether we should note also that the scripter is unknown? Whoever scripted it may also have plotted the panel out? I'm also unsure of whether we should mention that the artwork itself is a cropped portion of what's known in the comics form as a splash page? Hiding T 13:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• What is the difference between a letterer and a scripter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • A letterer writes the speech balloons. A scripter would be the writer, so a writer would write the scrip that would be given to the artist to draw. It's impossible to know whose hand is behind the composition of the original image, as the artist may have been given a free hand or he may have been directed quite tightly to draw this specific scene. The letterer would generally have a free hand over the placement of balloons, but artists would draw to guide placement, leaving areas of the page blanker than others. The lettering would be in the hand of the letterer.
    • Did you write what you meant to write? First you have a letterer doing the writing. Then you say a scripter would be the writer as if he would be, but isn't. Then you say a writer writes the scrip [sic] given to the artist to draw, which suggests that the artist who puts the narrative content into the panel is the artist not the letterer, scripter or writer. I am a bit lost here as to what you mean. Here are my understanding at this point. A person conceives the narrative content for the speech balloons (scripter, letterer, or writer not sure). Another person physically inserts the narrative into the panel by hand (scripter, letterer, or writer not sure).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • My apologies for the tipo. In my past conversations with you Tony I have always found you very pleasant. Typically someone conceives the story and passes it to an editor in scripted form, somewhat like a movie script, which is never seen by the buying public. This script is assigned to an artist who creates the art for the comic. This artist does not do any lettering, which means he does not write any text onto the art he produces such as speech ballons or narrative captions. Instead he passes the art to a letterer who will place the balloons and captions and write in the desired dialogue indicated in the script. A typical DC Comics comic book is the work of many hands. So Lichtenstein has reproduced not only Abruzzo's work in his piece, he has also reproduced Schnapp's as well. Have a read of Ira Schnapp, that may help? Schnapp should be credited to avoid biasing in favour of Abruzzo. My point about the scripter being unknow is this: Lichtenstein hasn't composed this image, he has re-composed it. Abruzzo has not necessarily composed it either, though, he may have been directed to create this composition by an unknown hand, therefore I believe we should state that the scripter, the original composer of this piece, is unknown. Hiding T 13:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Do you have a WP:RS to credit this Schnapp chap?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the comic itself credits him, but also [24] Graphic Design Basics, Amy E. Arntson Cengage Learning, 2006 ISBN 0495006939. Is that good enough? Hiding T 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I am getting the following message at that source: "You either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limits for this book." However, I am not aware of having looked at this book before.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Can't help you with that, but the text was there when I looked. I never understand how these reviews are supposed to work, to be honest. I think I'll just edit the article. Hiding T 13:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Do you have a source for this splash page issue?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this good enough, it's a blog from the Times Union. [25]. Otherwise, um....Will Eisner defines a Splash Page in Comics & Sequential Art, 1985, p62. I have a copy on my shelf, I hope you can see the relevant quote in this link [26]. Does any of that help? If I've missed something you want me to reply to above please let me know at my talk, I fiond it hard to navigate these threads when they become convoluted these days, my apologies. Hiding T 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • What do you mean when you say the "the artwork itself is a cropped portion of what's known in the comics form as a splash page"? Are you saying that the panel I am presenting as the source is one panel from the splash page or that panel is a cropped version of some larger artistic effort?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Can't work out where to drop this in, but above you made this change [27] to address some of my concerns. Aren't we supposed to avoid words like "others"? Also, the issue of credit and compensation only comes up in the lede, shouldn't the lede reflect the article? Also, not sure if you can access the article mentioned at this link, I can't but it may mention Drowning Girl. I also think that the addition you've made to this pair of sentences, placing the sentence in the middle, muddies the meaning of the whole and especially the last sentence. "such artwork" could now refer to Lichtenstein's or to the original comic book art. I think it should also add that the original artists are now more widely credited where known, although Lichtenstein himself never did so. Although the MOMA attribution is awful, they credit the original piece as being a cover. Hiding T 16:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Where the article states "The image is typical of Lichtenstein's depiction of comic subjects responding to a situation in a cliched manner." I don't have the source, but does it mean comic as in funny or comic as in comic book or comic art? Would it be better to change it to comic book subject or comic art subject for greater clarity of that's what the source intends? Hiding T 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Source: Coplans (ed.). p. 15. "Lichtenstein's lovers and heroes are full of pathos and at the same time, ironically, fully exposed in their shallowness. They reveal themselves to be programmed: Each responds to a give situation with standard modes of behavior typical of the American culture, whether it is the girl who has quarreled with her lover or is about to tearfully drown (Drowning Girl, 1963)..."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI, this version has a lot of quotes from the sources in the footnotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• also, with "The waves are intended to "recall Hokusai as well as the biomorphic forms of Arp and Miro;"[48] just as the source comics were intended to." The statement that the source comics were intended to recall Hokusai, is that from a sourced interview with the creators of the original art or is that an opinion advanced by either the writer of the book or Lichtenstein? If it is opinion, we should avoid stating it as fact. Again I don;t have the source but would it be okay for you to check and amend as required? Hiding T 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Source: Coplans (ed.). p. 26. "...the form of the waves in Drowning Girl are reconstructed to recall Hokusai as well as the biomorphic forms of Arp and Miró..."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Do you think the material I added to the Whaam! peer review from Beaty's book could be of use here? Hiding T 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not an Irv Novick derivation. I have added that content to Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, where it is more relevant because those sentiments were written in the context of Novick-derived works, especially the two that were named.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking specifically of the Hajdu quote: "No comics publisher would have hired Lichtenstein - he wasn't good enough." The general opinion of artists working in the comics medium is that Lichtenstein's art was poor; his line art had no variation or character. I can't remember if it is in Beaty, but someone makes the point that while Lichtenstein recomposes the art and may improve on the composition as a museum piece, his craft in terms of varying the thickness of the line was poor and is worse than the original sources. Hiding T 07:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Unless that was a comment resulting from a conversation about this piece specifically or about his series of girls, it should be in the main biography and not here, IMO. It might also go well in Look Mickey as a counterpoint to the quote about painting Mickey Mouse vs. cartoons. I think I will use it there and Artist's Studio—Look Mickey.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh I see that quote was in the context of his romance works. I will work it into the article.--14:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, after the incorporation noted above regarding the Hadju quote "No comics publisher would have hired Lichtenstein - he wasn't good enough." is made. The article then will be comprehensive to my eyes, taking in both modern art and comics art views, and thus also balanced between the views. The images are necessary to understand the points made in the article. It looks to be well-researched, well structured and the lede sums the article. Citation format is not my strong point so someone else may want to check that area, and while I have had issues with the prose I think they've been resolved. So to my eye it will meet the criteria once the outstanding quotation is resolved. Hiding T 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have incorporated the point. In fact, I would welcome additional comic art feedback on this particular work or his romance work on "Girls". I don't really have as much negative feedback as might appear balanced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think I have the issue of The Comics Journal with his obituary, sadly. I've looked through what I have and passed on everything I've found. Oh, hang on, I forgot about ImageText. They have an interview with Bill Griffith, [28]. Griffith gets into the "appropriation", discusses how his view changed and notes that Lichtenstein's art draws attention to the tension between high art and low art, in the sense that a fine artist can "elevate" one to the other, which implies the thing that has been elevated wasn't originally high art. That was also a thrust of Beaty's. Then there's also an essay on William Blake, by Matthew Ritchie that argues Lichtenstein was one of many who helped break down the barriers between comics art and fine art. It is a valid point if tangential in his essay which is more about examining Blake from a comics art tradition. Hope any of that helps. Hiding T 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You are free to add any of that, but that is all stuff that should go in his bio. My thinking is that that is mostly more of the same. I was hoping for content that may raise issues detracting from the work to balance out the page more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Does "Pop art" need to be capitalized? The Pop art article itself seems to be a bit inconsistent re: capitalization. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In both of my prior pop art FAs (Campbell's Soup Cans & Look Mickey), it has been lower case throughout. I will change it at Drowning Girl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: "—Lichtenstein, [2]" looks funny to me. Perhaps remove the comma and space, leaving just the name and ref? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is a template. I had to get slick to make the requested change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments moved to talk page

• Support on prose. Enough killed bytes over a point which, in the long run, is not likely to make a difference. "Adopted" works fine, is easily understandable for all readers, and supported by the source. Good job, Tony. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The article reads too much like a fan magazine, this line attributed to Wright, Carol V The work is considered[weasel words] one of the highlights of the core collection of the Museum of Modern Art is just too much absurdity, sorry but I can't support this article...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hence why I've been stressing attribution from the earliest review. It is quite possible that reviews are overwhelmingly positive, but we can't state opinions as objective facts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • While Drowning Girl might well be a highlight of the collection; I questioned the sources (Carol V Wright) qualifications. Who is this person? An art critic? An art historian?...Modernist (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I view her ([29] and [30]) as an author who is authoritative (or is it authoritarian) on topics related to New York. Is the title New York author sufficient for attribution in this case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• She has little if any expertise to evaluate the 'core' of the collection of the Museum of Modern Art. One of the greatest collections of Modern Art in the Western world. Either find a genuine expert or deal with my strong oppose...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Lichtenstein might be a highlight of the Pop art holdings in the museum; which is one subsection of the museum - however the Modern collection is abundant in European, American, South American art and is essentially an international and historical institution - and this work is most definitely not at it's core...Modernist (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• How unusual is this list of MoMA highlights: "Dali’s ‘The Persistence of Memory’, Warhol’s soup cans, Lichenstein’s ‘Drowning Girl’, Pollock’s ‘Full Fathom Five’, Van Gogh’s ‘Starry Night’, and a couple of dozen Picassos"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• What about this list: Van Gogh’s The Starry Night (1889), Monet’s Reflection of Clouds on the Water Lily Pond (1920), Rousseau’s The Dream (1910), Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon (1907), Dali’s Persistence of Memory (1931), Mondrion’s [sic] Broadway Boogie-Woogie (1942-1943), Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans, Matisse’s The Dance (1909), Chagall’s I and the Village (1911), Pollock’s Number 31 (1950), John’s Flag (1954-1955), Wyeth’s Christina’s World (1948), Lichtenstein’s Drowning Girl (1963), and Klimt’s Hope II (1907-1908).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Am I interpretting this list correctly by saying MoMA chief curator John Elderfield feels a "synoptic overview of 20th-century art" from the MoMA includes Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, van Gogh's Starry Night, Matisse's Dance (First Version) and Lichtenstein's Drowning Girl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• They are blogs Tony. Find an expert (art critic, art historian) with sources; or modify Wright's assertion. It's arguably a highlight of the Moderns pop art holdings, however as I am saying it's inaccurate to assert that it is at the core of the museums collection. John Elderfield is an excellent choice...Modernist (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Use John's list!..Modernist (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Drop Wright's assertion of 'core' collection, and I'll consider dropping my oppose...Modernist (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support...Modernist (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (fair-use, PD-old-100, PD-ineligible). Sources and authors provided. Just one question and comment:

• File:Roy_Lichtenstein_Drowning_Girl.jpg - fair-use OK as infobox image.
• File:Drowning_Girl_source.jpg - fair-use OK to show the artistic source of the article topic. Just checking: is there more info available about this image? For example, why did Lichtenstein choose this specific panel as inspiration? What aspects of the image were especially intriguing for him? What did he like or dislike about it? Some of this may be covered in other sections, but the "history" with only one sentence seems a bit short about it.
  • The background section has general information that he said, "I was very excited about, and very interested in, the highly emotional content yet detached impersonal handling of love, hate, war, etc., in these cartoon images."
    • This is a prime example of "emotional content".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Also note that the text says he did not choose this panel above all others. He also produced a work named Hopeless from the same exact work. It isn't as if he singled out this panel from the work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• File:Roy_Lichtenstein_Drowning_Girl_narrative.jpg - OK. Strictly speaking the text as phrase could still be copyrighted. However short text snippets and quotations are generally accepted usage.
  • Honestly, the main reason for including the image was to have an image for WP:TFA. We could just go with the wave if necessary however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If it's about TFA and the current handling of "no fair use for TFAs ever" is still active, i'd advise to use the wave image anyway. Even if the cropped image may be technically OK, it could be seen as undermining this rule by some. But TFA is not my area of expertise, probably best to discuss the case there. GermanJoe (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• File:Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa2.jpg - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 3: book needs ISBN. You can usually pick up missing isbns by going to the Worldcat site. This book is listed there.
  • thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 9: Why is the link in the middle of the book's title?
  • These are the parameters in the template that yielded this output: |title=Pop Artists | series = Artists in Profile--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sometimes you get weird results by following templates too literally. You have to adapt; in this case I'd forget the "series" parameter and say title= Pop Artists (Artist in Profile Series)
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 12: Author details missing (they are there in the source)
  • added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 19: How does this source support the text statement cited to it?
  • Are you suggesting that I relink Hopeless (Roy Lichtenstein) here? The first part of the sentence says that this comic book issue was the source for Drowning Girl. 19 shows it was the source for Hopeless, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The words to which this citation relates are at the end of the sentence: "Drowning Girl is derived from Tony Abruzzo and Ira Schnapp's splash page from "Run for Love!" in Secret Hearts, no. 83 (November 1962), DC Comics,[16][17][18] which is the same source that inspired Hopeless."[19] I can't see how the source supports the assertion made - can you indicate how it does? Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I have rephrased it to clarify that I only mean it is from the same issue (not the same page).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 23: A similar query arises here. The source says "This print/poster was published to announce Lichtenstein's exhibition at Leo Castelli Gallery, September 28 October 24, 1963," which is not quite the same as the text.
  • I was rephrasing the content to avoid copyvio. By marketing materials I mean posters and mailers. Offline ref 24 also supports this fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, maybe I was being overzealous there! Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Refs 35, 36 and 37 are to the same page of the same book, and could be combined
  • Note that 35 and 36 each have quotes from this page (they have been challenged in discussions), whereas the three instances of 37 just point to the page. How would you suggest merging these and retaining the quotations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you mean by "just point to the page", but I'm not insisting you combine them, just suggesting it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • When I say "just point to the page", I mean that the 3 WP:ICs that use 37 do not refer to a specific quote like the ones for 35 and 36. I am just not sure how to merge these three citations without it being a bit confusing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 43: I am not sure that the "Encyclopedia of Art" source justifies its grandiose title. Is this a recognised "expert" site?
  • I can't say for certain that it is an WP:RS. Should I remove it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If you have doubts about it and can't defend it then, yes, it should go. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 44: Pub year and ISBN missing - you can find them at Worldcat
  • I got it from the publisher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 48: Text does not reflect source. Your text says: "John Elderfield, Museum of Modern Art chief curator at the time of its 2004 expansion, feels a "synoptic overview of 20th-century art" from the MoMA includes Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, van Gogh's Starry Night, Matisse's Dance and Lichtenstein's Drowning Girl." The source says: "According to MoMA chief curator John Elderfield, the show is a "synoptic overview of 20th-century art" -- a dignified way to refer to this "greatest hits" survey that every undergrad meets in art history class. Some masterpieces, notably Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, were too delicate or too valuable to make the transatlantic trip. Others, like van Gogh's Starry Night, Matisse's Dance (First Version) and Lichtenstein's Drowning Girl, are shown here for the first time outside the U.S.". That's completely different. Elderfield doesn't "feel" anything; he merely describes his show as "a synoptic overview of 20th-century art". The rest of the source is the writer's own comments.
  • Rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I bet the sources I am now pointing to are working from a press release from Elderfield.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. My spotchecking has been very limited, but apart from what's mentioned above revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved to my satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of general comments: I haven't read the text in detail, but I noticed a few things:

• Second paragraph of Background section: first mention of subject should be by name, not pronoun
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• First paragraph of the General atmosphere contains "it should be noted that" – an editorial directive that is inappropriate POV
  • O.k.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• I wonder about the title "General atmosphere"; what is this wording trying to convey? Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I could roll this into the Background section. It is just trying to say what the general reception of Lichtenstein was at the time. I have already gotten feedback that this does not belong in the reception to the work section. Didn't know what to do with it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe "context" would be a better word than "atmosphere"? Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I see a few occurrences of "the The" and "bouyancy" [sic], and this formatting problem: Bader, Graham, ed. (2009), Roy Lichtenstein: October Files, The MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-01258-4 Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBader2009.. Graham Colm (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the "the The"s, but i don't understand the bouyancy issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this an WP:ENGVAR problem? I spell it as buoyancy. And you haven't fixed this: Bader, Graham, ed. (2009), Roy Lichtenstein: October Files, The MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-01258-4 Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBader2009. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Buoyancy fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the Bader issue (refs 21 and 24 are relevant, I think).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Errm... Sorry Tony, it seems to be a citation template issue that will not be visible to most of our readers who have not installed the script. Often these templates cause more problems than they are worth :-) It's close to my bedtime, I will read the article once more in the morning with a view to closing. In the meantime, please continue with your other nomination. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 20:57, 14 July 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) 06:47, 15 July 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 00:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [31].

---

Sorga Ka Toedjoe

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm sure it meets the criteria, particularly after a PR by Wehwalt and Sarastro1. Speaking of historical significance, Sorga Ka Toedjoe was the first film which cast Roekiah and Djoemala together; their pairing lasted another three films. However, more interesting to me (and Wikipedians in general?) is that this article it the first which can provide a plot summary for the film, as cited to its novelisation; modern sources do not seem to have had access to novelisation, and they have not provided even the slightest plot summary. As such, even though this is fairly short (not as short as Gagak Item, but still only 6k characters) it is easily the most detailed look at this film now available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-1996, PD-IDOld-Art30, Anonymous-EU). Sources provided (authors unknown). GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the check! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed at the PR and had my say there. As usual, very little to fault about these articles, and I suspect the coverage of Indonesian films on Wikipedia is unparalleled anywhere, thanks mainly to Crisco. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, shucks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Support – A flawless piece of work Crisco congratulations. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Cassianto! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Support I also had my say at the peer review, a fine job.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is an admirably concise but detailed article - great work. I have the following comments:

• "targeted at low-class native audiences" - "low class" is usually used as an insult (eg, someone or something which lacks class). "Lower class" or "working class" might work better.

• Went with "Lower" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Where's Puncak located?

• Southeast of Buitenzorg/Bogor. Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "When Rasminah's carriage is stuck in a ruck" - by "ruck" do you mean "crowd"? If so, I'd suggest substituting this word as its likely to be much more familiar to readers.

• D'oh. "Rut". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Sorga Ka Toedjoe was shot in black-and-white, with some scenes filmed at Telaga Warna, near Buitenzorg (now Bogor)." - were was the rest of the movie filmed? (presumably in a studio somewhere)

• Likely in Tan's studios in Batavia, but the sources don't explicitly say it :-(.

• "However, Kristanto records several as having survived at Sinematek Indonesia's archives, and film historian Misbach Yusa Biran writes that several Japanese propaganda films have survived at the Netherlands Government Information Service" - I'm not sure what the purpose of this sentence is: is it suggesting that a copy of the film may still exist in a dusty archive somewhere? If so, it would be better to state this explicitly. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the sources support explicitly stating "it may survive somewhere" (a statement true for most lost films, I should think), but they do give enough context for readers to get this implication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support All my above comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Nick! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support I can't see any issues with this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Jim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Source check: All look good, but check alphabetization of Works Cited. --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, got that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:59, 10 July 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) 18:41, 14 July 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 00:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [32].

---

All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because as part of my on-going effort to improve Maya Angelou articles, it's next in line. I believe that it's ready to be reviewed here. A question that comes up in almost every review of these articles is regarding capitalization. Here's the explanation:[33] Thanks, and enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:14, 20 June 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, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I was the reviewer who passed this article's GA nomination two years ago. All my concerns were addressed at that time, and since then article has improved slightly. It is very well-sourced, with consistent formatting, and the prose is clear and compelling. The three free images are on Commons and have no problems, and the single non-free image is used appropriately with a valid rationale. The sections (particularly on "themes" and "style" are well organized and free of POV problems. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I volunteer to do spotchecks, but I'll need to get a couple of the print sources from the library. Give me a week. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Another superior effort. Would be good to see these autobiographies form a featured topic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Re: Hawkeye7: there already is an Angelou overview FT. My longer-term goal is to form a FT of her works, but there's a lot of work to be done. This article and A Song Flung Up to Heaven needs to be passed to FA; I need to expand Mom & Me & Mom, her 7th autobiography, which just came out this year; other articles about her books of essays, poetry, and other of her less-important works need expansion. Perhaps by the end of the year. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN12 is broken
• FN9, 21, 30: page(s)?
• FN57, 59, 76: accessdate?
• FN66, 77, 78, 80, 81: possible to link the short cite?
• Why is Works cited all italicized?
• Hagen: which university press? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

All the above fixed. I dunno why the "Works cited" is italicized. Another editor imposed the cite template on it, so I'm unfamiliar with it. BTW, this is the exact reason why I'm philosophically opposed to citation templates. I'll dig up said editor and ask for assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have searched the entire article for any misplaced double apostrophes (the command for italics), but found none, so I am baffled as to why the entire section is italicized. I will keep searching for the cause. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have also searched the entire article for any quotation marks that may have been mistaken for double apostrophes, but found none. Christine, funny you mentioned a dislike for citation templates--this is why I like citation templates! (The templates result in fewer punctuation marks and more consistency, making mistakes easier to find, but that's just imo.) I will keep searching... --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the issue was the "id cite" template, which I believe has been discontinued. AB, I think you're awesome, really I do--but I respectfully disagree. I've had much more difficulties with templates than by formatting templates by hand. Print publications face the same issues with consistency and errors, but careful observation by copy-editors correct them. It's the way it was done for centuries, before templates, so there's no reason why we can't depend upon each other to ensure they're right. We do it for other things; why not for citations? I suspect that I'm in the minority in this opinion, but I can control it in the articles I manage. Like this one--I went ahead and removed the harvard citations that someone added, so the short citations don't have links anymore. It's my understanding that the format doesn't matter as much as consistency, which is way it is now. Now I'll move on to things that will make my time more productive, thank you. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I am just glad you were able to address the problem. I wish I could have been more help. I agree with you that the formatting here was confusing... I do not often work with "id cite" or harvard citations. (My comment re: templates was simply about "cite web", "cite book", "cite news", etc. templates.) I don't know who formatted the references for this article, but it was not me. You took the time to expand the article, so I am happy the references are now formatted your way! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly looking good now, though points 3 and 4 from above don't seem to have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The numbers must have been changed since your initial review, Nikki. I guessed that you wanted accessdates for the Martinson interview. I'm not sure I know what you mean by "link the short cite". Could you repeat the refs in question, unless the issue's already been resolved? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, no longer relevant since you removed the templates, sorry. All good now. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Angelou-travelingshoes.jpg Book cover. Has fair use rationale.
• File:Ghana-Greater Accra.png CC licence. Derivative work from CC source. (But now that I think about it, a map of West Africa showing where Ghana is might be more useful.)
• File:Angeloupoem.jpg US Government photograph.
• File:Malcolm-x.jpg Properly licensed.

All images have valid licenses. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to make those nifty maps that expand larger geographical areas. Perhaps I can look into that, although I hope it doesn't affect this FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The map highlights Greater Accra, the region. The article refers mostly to Accra, the city. Would an image like this be more suitable (option 1)? Or perhaps a locator map, using Wikicode such as the following? – Quadell ^(talk) 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

{{Location map|Ghana|width=150|float=left|caption=Most of the action of ''All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes'' takes place in [[Accra, Ghana]].|label=[[Accra]]|position=bottom|lat_deg=5.55|lon_deg=-0.2}}

Ooo, it's so much prettier now! Happily replaced. Thanks, man! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks by User:Quadell.

(Footnotes below refer to this version):

• 3c: Quote is accurate.
• 7: The brief quotes are accurate, faithful in context, and do not use to much of Lupton's own words.
• 17: It seems to me that "Lupton, pp. 98-99" would be more accurate than "Lupton, p. 98". The article's statement is clearly supported by the text. Good analysis, no plagiarism.
• 26: Quote is correct and representative of the source in context.
• 43b: Statement is fully supported by the source. No plagiarism.
• 51: Statement is fully supported by the source. No plagiarism.
• 59: Statement is supported by source, and is frankly more concise and clear than the source. No plagiarism.
• 66: The analysis in the statement is a good summary of the material in the source.
• 69a: Both the quote and the summary are faithful to the review, without copying too much prose unnecessarily.
• 71: Quote is accurate.

Conclusion: Sourcing is great. No corners cut. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that I missed ref 17; now fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

• Lead:
• Pipe Accra, Ghana separately.
• "with the horrible and traumatic car accident" traumatic is sufficient enough here, no car accident is "nice", remove horrible.
• "At the book's end" =end of the book (looks better).

1st three addressed.

• "Racism continues to be important in this book, but she has matured in the way she deals with it in Traveling Shoes." A bit vague, you mention her maturity a lot as a writer without really touching on what it is about and why issues such as racism are important and how she deals with them. As the reader this doesn't really inform me of anything.

Rewrote sentence and replaced confusing part with something more clear. Hope it helps clarify. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• "All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes was greeted with both praise and disappointment, although reviews of the book were generally positive." You mean All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes "received a mixed reception from critics". I think that the lead needs improvement to inform the reader about the book. FOr instance you already mentioned that African and American identities were important and then you say the same thing again further down "according to scholar Mary Jane Lupton, "Angelou's exploration of her African and African-American identities"[2] is an important theme in Traveling Shoes." So a restructure is needed to make it flow better.

Writing leads has always been one of my weakest areas as an editor. I did as you asked, and restructured, removed, and added stuff. Does it flow better now? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's certainly better Christine, excellent work.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Background:
• " The success of Angelou's previous autobiographies and the publication of four volumes of poetry had brought Angelou a considerable amount of fame by 1986." needs citations.
• Title. Overlink of spiritual, remove the second link.
• Plot summary -Overlink of University of Ghana, remove the second link.

Previous two fixed.

• "Angelou strengthens her ties with "Mother Africa" while traveling through eastern Ghanaian villages," What is meant by "Mother Africa" in this context?

I don't think that the Plot summary is a place to explain it, so I removed the poetic quality of the phrase and kept Africa.

• "She connects her departure from Africa with the forced slavery of her ancestors and her departure from Guy." you mean she likens her departure from Africa metaphorically to the others?

Again, I was being poetic. To make it clear that it wasn't literal, I added the word "metaphorically", which follows your suggestion, I think.

• Genre The tense comes across as rather awkward in parts. "Angelou states in a 1989 interview that she is the only "serious" writer to choose the genre to express herself". It should be rewritten in past tense Angelou stated in a 1989 interview, I'd change much of it to past tense.

Did I do enough?

• "Angelou states in a 1989 interview that she is the only "serious" writer to choose the genre to express herself.[19] As critic Susan Gilbert states, " Repetition of the word state, please change one of the words to avoid this.

Changed the first sentence.

• Problem with continuity, In a 1983 interview with African-American literature critic Claudia Tate, Angelou calls her books autobiographies. then you revisit this in the next paragraph as "Angelou recognizes that there are fictional aspects to all her books; she tends to "diverge from the conventional notion of autobiography as truth". I'd be inclined to write it as Although Angelou referred to her books as biographies in 1983 interview with African-American literature critic Claudia Tate, she acknowledges that there are fictional aspects to all her books, with the tendency to "diverge from the conventional notion of autobiography as truth". This should be together, in my opinion.
• "Although Angelou has never admitted to changing the facts in her stories, she has used these facts to make an impact with the reader." -citation needed

Section done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Style Remove "horrible", name me a car accident which isn't.
• "Critic Sondra O'Neale insists that this technique both centralizes each installment and connects each book in the series with each other; additionally, each volume "ends with abrupt suspense"." Use of the colon and additionally here look awkward, noting that each volume "ends with abrupt suspense" will do.
• "In Traveling Shoes, Angelou continues to demonstrates" -demonstrate.
• I find this section rather tedious to read because of the frequent "As Hagen reports", as scholar "Mari Evans says" etc. By going back to different authors it makes the information look a little haphazard, a little snappy in terms of phrasing. I'd prefer a "cleaner" approach if you know what I mean, organizing one author's input then the next and organizing the details better.

Section done. It's come to my attention lately that I can tend to be a little overzealous in giving credit where credit is due. Other editors have been harsher than you've just been, and have said that this practice reads too much like a college freshman essay. Perhaps, but it's probably more likely due to my lack of confidence as a writer, and my reluctance to be more creative in my article writing. I'm working on that. From now on, before I submit articles for review, I'll go over them and try and correct it more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Themes Motherhood: Good section, "but Angelou intimidates in Traveling Shoes that motherhood is never over" I don't think intimidates is the right word here.

Thanks. I think I was going for "intimated", but that's not right, so I changed it to "implies".

• ""Sister friend" -why the capitalization?

Because Angelou capitalizes it.

• "Racism, an important theme in all of Angelou's autobiographies, continues to be important in this book, but she has matured in the way she deals with it in Traveling Shoes. " This sentence belongs at the beginning of the paragraph.
• Journey: Link the Accra airport article.
• Reception:
• "Reviewer Janet A. Blundell found the book "absorbing reading";[77] reviewer Jackie Gropman stated that the "prose sings"." and will do here instead of colon.
• "All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes was also greeted with disappointment" greeted with disappointment is odd, I'd write it as "Some critics were less favorable in their views of the book".

All the above done.

• References Please place all books in bibliography and just add the page notes above.

I believe you're talking about the times when books are referred to once. It's my practice, and I believe that it's accurate, to place books in the Bibliography if they're used more than once. If not, I put the full ref in the "Citations" section. If it's a big deal for you, I can follow your suggestion, but I'd prefer not to.

My feeling overall is that it certainly contains the content needed for this to pass FA but it doesn't always use the material in the best way. In a few parts, especially Genre, the text is a little convoluted and haphazardly constructed and I don't think it is always written in the polished, structured way I'd expect of an FA, although I think some of the lower sections are excellent. My feeling is that it needs some serious thought into the wording in parts and is often in need of a better structure and focus. I think some copyediting is really needed on this before I feel happy supporting what is otherwise a very good article. If you can address these concerns and try to improve this further I'd lean towards supporting this. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll do another copy-edit run-through to correct some of the clunkiness you're talking about, and then let you know when I'm ready for you to take another look. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Sorry for the delay. Looks better now!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please check for duplicated links,such as The Heart of a Woman. Graham Colm (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure that I've taken care of this. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:55, 14 July 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) 18:28, 14 July 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 00:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [34].

---

Gertie the Dinosaur

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the 100th anniversary is coming up for Winsor McCay's most famous animated film, and the most significant of the pre-Disney era. The article's a well-illustrated GA with comprehensive background and contextual information; also, the film and it's unfinished sequel are in the Public Domain, so we get a couple of nice film files to boot (although higher-quality ones would be nice).

When Google made a doodle of McCay's Little Nemo, McCay's article was hit with more than 3 million page views. Unfortunately, the article was garbage at the time (I'm in the process of fixing it). I don't expect lightning to strike twice, but animation does get more press than comic strips do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, it looks like you have the topic well-covered here! I've read through the article, and I have various comments to make:
  1. In the lead section, the sentence starting with "It influenced the next generation..." is rather long. Maybe break it into two?

     Do you mean by replacing the semicolon with a period? If so, done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  2. In "Background", you link to a couple of files directly. Is this standard practice? In addition, I think that these file links do not satisfy WP:EGG because it looks like it is the date that is linked. If it really is acceptable to link to a file directly, maybe do so in parentheses?

     No, it's not standard; in fact, I've never seen anyone do it before. I wanted to see what kind of objections people had to doing it, and I guess WP:EGG is a pretty good one. I'd still lke to find a good way to direct readers to the files (they're way too big to cram onto the page, and I don't want to shunt them out of context into the "External links" section). Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

     I think I've come up with a better solution to this by moving the links to endnotes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  3. In "Content", would it be worth mentioning the length of the film in any way, either as a general characteristic or in historical context of film lengths, especially animated ones?

     I'm not sure how this would work. The length in the infobox is the length of the film as it is available today with the added live-action sequences and intertitles. There is no surviving version without the live-action sequences and intertitles. It might take some creative calculation to determine the original length, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be appropriate on Wikipedia.

     As for historical context of film lengths, I'm not an expert on historical films (I came to McCay from the angle of the comic strip world). If you have something you could add here, I'd much appreciate it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  4. In "McCay and animation after Gertie", the first sentence is also long. Can you break it up?

     Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  5. "Release" hits the ground running. I think it helps to write a section that can be read on its own. Would it be possible to be more introductory, such as establishing the historical period? Maybe something as simple as mentioning "1914" for Gertie as a kind of reminder.

     Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  6. "Reception and legacy" starts with, "Gertie pleased audiences and reviewers." In footnote 59, Crafton 1993 does not mention reception (I assume it was used to locate the premiere in Chicago), and I cannot access Canemaker 2005. I wanted to ask what the latter said to make sure that the opening statement is directly attributable.

     It's a bit long to quote, but Canmemaker goes through some of the reviews in Chicago, from the Examiner and the Telegram, and then two reviews in the New York American and one from the Evening Journal. I guess "Gertie pleased audiences and reviewers." was meant to sum up what came later in the paragraph; I've added a cite to it: Canmaker 2005 pp. 177, 181. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  Let me know if you have any questions! I'd like to give this another read later now that I have a sense of the structure and content. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Page(s) for Heer?
  • Unfortunately, Questia won't provide the page numbers for this one (they display the article in one page). They do this frustratingly often. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Need endash in Merkl title
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you include publishers for journals
  • Done. Added publishers to all. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Page for Syracuse Herald?
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

——— Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Image review:

Image review moved to talk

• Images are okay now, I'll be moving the image review to the talk page later. Just a couple prose comments left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Way to go! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Sorry to follow up so late. I copy-edited the lead section a little, and I'm reading through the article, which looks great so far. In the "Release" section, it mentions that Gertie "appeared in an edition for movie theaters". I don't know what this means, and I don't think general knowledge of just the word "edition" helps here. What does it mean, and can different wording be used? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've reworded it to "extended edition"—later in the section it explains how McCay added a live-action sequence and intertitles to the theartical version. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  Also, in "McCay and animation after Gertie", it mentions that in 1921, McCay was made to give up animation after what Hearst learned. It seems like McCay got in trouble earlier already. Would it be better to say something like Hearst learned that McCay continued to work more in animation than in illustrations? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  McCay was earlier made to give up most of his vaudeville performances, but no mention was made of giving up animation, which he did in his spare time at home. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support promoting Gertie the Dinosaur to Featured status. I found the article engaging to read and the content to be well-referenced, especially for a film of this age. The age also helps provide lots of great images, which all check out with ease. I hope to see this article on the Main Page for the film's 100th anniversary! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 00:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support A truly engaging read. Meets criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- Being interested in the history of film I decided to recuse my delegate duties and comment directly. Prose still needed a few tweaks but nothing terminal, and structure, coverage, referencing and supporting materials appear sound (deferring to Crisco for the image check) -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 14 July 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 00:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [35].

---

Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick and I have a long history of editing and reviewing each other's articles, but this is the first time we've actively collaborated. The idea developed spontaneously as I was expanding No. 86 Wing (long-time operator of the C-130) and Nick was working on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service, which I reviewed at GAN. It occurred to us that a) there was an article on the C-130s' Australian service crying out to be written and b) we were just the blokes to write it, the subject and format being fresh in our minds! Anyway, this is the story of the RAAF's greatest workhorse, with a 50-year-plus history through four different models. It's recently been through GAN and MilHist A-Class Review, so have at it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also from me. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Retrolord

Support Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 06:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1. "The type" In the second sentence of the intro, why does it say that instead of "The aircraft" or something simpler?

   "Type" is common aviation terminology and was used as a variation on "aircraft", which we employed at the end of the previous sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

2. " replacing its venerable" That seems extraodinarily subjective. Would you mind pointing out where in the article that is referenced?

   "Venerable" is used simply in the sense of "old" but I don't particularly mind losing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

   The second sentence of the "Initial selection and purchase" section covers this: the Dakotas were a long-serving and highly successful type within the RAAF. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

   Tks Nick, clean forgotten we mentioned that -- so I think we're covered for both the "old" and "respected" meanings of "venerable"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

3. "quantum leap" Could this perhaps be replaced with something more 'encyclopedic'? It just seems a bit out of place in a wikipedia FA

   Not sure how it's unencyclopedic. Elsewhere the source uses the term "quantum advance" to describe a similar leap forward in fighter technology; in this case we're talking three generations of capability in one bound. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

4. " In 1986, No. 37 Squadron transported the Popemobiles during John Paul II's tour of Australia; its other unusual cargoes have included a Murray Grey stud bull presented to the Chinese Government in 1973, kangaroos and sheep for Malaysia, and archaeological exhibits from China" I have a problem with this sentence. It really does seem like a list of strange things that have at one time been in a C-130, and reads like a trivia section. Is it really relevant to the article to mention this?

   Well I think it just illustrates the wide variety of cargo these planes have carried. However, I don't have a particular issue losing it unless Nick has another opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

   Published histories of the type's RAAF service consistently note these unusual missions, so I favour their inclusion. Bear in mind that carrying non-standard loads is a relatively complex task as it requires the aircrew to carefully consider how the plane should be loaded to ensure safety and good performance (this is largely done for them when carrying standard loads due to previous experience with that kind of cargo, or loading plans drawn up by the RAAF's air transport development units). Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

5. " In April 2013 the Australian Government offered to sell five of the C-130Hs as well as spare parts and simulators to Indonesia at below their market value" Given we have mentioned this deal, was there any outcome?

   I'll have to leave this one to Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

   Updated slightly: the Indonesian Government has agreed to the deal, and the specifics are being negotiated. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just some thoughts to consider ★★RetroLord★★ 06:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm happy now that those points have been addressed. Oppose changed to Support. Have a nice day, ★★RetroLord★★ 06:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John I agree that quantum was not the right word; among those in the know it means the smallest possible advance in something. Other words to watch on a FA include "additionally", "in addition", and "a number of". All in all it looks like a great article and I think I will support. --John (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tks for copyedit, John. I have no prob with any of the text changes except the "ones" seems to me a slightly unencyclopedic substitution for the second mention of "panels" in the same sentence -- I think in this case repetition of the word might be better. Also I think the detail in several of the images justified a somewhat larger size than normal (for consistency, we made it all of them) -- granted the fixed px size is not the best way to do it but we could use the upright parameter that allows for proportional sizing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN26: shouldn't be italicized, and what's a "stap"?
  • Damn, I thought I caught all those article refs -- tks.
• FN79, 89: title should be italicized
• FN107: is there something missing, or something extra?
• Be consistent in how you format short cites with more than one author. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All done, I think, tks Nikki. Nick, pls just check that I'm right about the first "Clark(e)" for First on the Scene... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That looks fine to me. Thanks for the review Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (USGov, US Navy, own work, OTRS, PD-Australia, 1 fair-use). Sources and authors provided.

• File:Patients_on_board_a_RAAF_C-130_aeromedical_flight_-_AWM_photo_fair_use_claimed.jpg - fair-use is OK, adding significant visual context to understand the transport conditions on such flights. Only used once here, minimal usage OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that check. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Prose comments from Crisco 1492

Mostly nitpicks, by the looks of it. Very well done. — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Some addressed comments moved to talk

• Support on prose. Very good job; impressive safety record. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Many tks for that detailed review, Crisco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks also from me Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I reviewed this one for A-class. Having looked at the changes made since then, I am happy it has been improved sufficiently to meet FA standards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 14 July 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) 16:53, 14 July 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 00:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [36].

---

Archie MacLaren

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Archie MacLaren was arguably the worst England cricket captain ever. He had a spectacularly bad record and managed to alienate almost everyone he played for. Additionally, he was an a poor businessman who was permanently short of money and got into some interesting situations because of this. And he was a grumpy so-and-so. This article is currently a GA and had an excellent PR from several users. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images (image check at PR transcluded below). I had my say at the PR, and subsequent changes have only made this article better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support and earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Images

• File:Ranji 1897 page 189 F. S. Jackson making an on-drive.jpg - How can you claim PD-70 without a death date?

• Potential problem here. Some digging reveals that E Hawkins was not the photographer, but the name of the company, named after the late proprietor. I suspect that the photograph would have been registered with the photographer's name, but that is not available and is likely unrecorded anymore. The copyright owner would have been the proprietor, and I'm not too sure who it was at that date. It was probably a George Thatcher, who was born in 1839, so in this case it would certainly be PD-70; although I cannot trace a death date, I think we can safely say he died before 1943. The other possibility as proprietor was "Miss Clara Wivil", who died in 1932, if this site can be trusted (and it is backed up by the National Archives and Ancestry.com if you dig deeply enough. But I cannot find when the ownership switched from one to the other; it was Thatcher in 1895, around the time of this photograph according to this. In either case, we are Ok for PD-70, but how do we show this? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Can't think of anything short of actually putting that down in writing. Or, last I checked, in the UK a copyright where only a company is credited was considered anonymous in terms of duration, so PD-anon-1923 might work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone for the PD-anon-1923 for the moment, but I may add an explanation when I've done a bit more digging. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:MacLaren 1905.jpg is likely PD-anon-1923 and can be safely copied to Commons.

• I've no objection if anyone does this, but I can't say I have any great inclination to do so myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise quite good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• (Since the above image review, "MacLaren 1905" has been removed. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC))

• Alright, thanks for the heads up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not familiar with cricket, so I apologize ahead of time for my ignorance of the topic.

• Can you link "innings" in the lead?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• An appointment as Lancashire's assistant secretary allowed him to play more regularly from 1900. Is there some link for "assistant secretary"? What does this mean?

• Err... The assistant to the secretary. The secretary was an amateur position, the assistant paid. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• However, he was a hero to many as a cricketer I hesitate at the "many" claim here, which goes unsupported. Reminds me of weasel words.

• Good point. Removed. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• paid professional cricketers to bowl at him can you link "bowl" and "century" a sentence later?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• MacLaren had little success in intra-school cricket during his first year there but in 1887, success in trial games resulted in his promotion to the school first eleven. Can you add the first name for clarification, and I don't know what the "school first eleven" means.

• Given that the article is about Archie, it seems redundant to clarify this (it is better to use first names for anyone who is not Archie), and I think it is clear that it is Archie we are talking about. I've added a link for First Eleven. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• relatively fast time of two hours Certainly a citation needed here, as "relatively fast time" appears to be open to interpretation.

• It is covered by the source for that section. I would prefer not to cite every single fact in the paragraph to the same source. And it is not really a matter of interpretation: the source calls it fast as a reflection of contemporary coverage and "standards", and although it would not be considered so today, it was fast for the period. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• When he did play for Lancashire, MacLaren was moderately successful. Again, a citation needed here.

• Ditto, this is covered by the sources at the end of the paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• had success in the high profile match against Yorkshire what makes that game in particular "high profile"?

• Not directly relevant, but it was (and is) simply one of the most widely followed and competitive games, as it was between two of the strongest teams. It's just one of those cricket facts, and it is covered by the source. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• He scored 66, sharing an opening partnership is there a link for "opening partnership", or can you explain?

• I've linked to opening batsmen, which will come up as a duplicate link but I think it is justified here. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• winning six matches to finish fourth in the Championship What is the "Championship"?

• The County Championship, already mentioned. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• However, his successful leadership of led some critics to suggest I again apologize for my ignorance, but is the term "leadership of" accepted, or can you just remove "of"?

• Mistake on my part. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• which toured Australia in 1894–5 1894–95 per MOS.

• Oops. Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• MacLaren returned home via Japan any particular reason why?

• Not reflected in the sources. Sightseeing is the most likely explanation, and this was quite common. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Link "Old Trafford".

• Already linked earlier in the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm to the "England captain" section. Albacore (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no more outstanding comments, and I am inclined to support after a spotcheck on the references. Albacore (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Should "public school" be linked in the lead – many readers may get the wrong impression, as this has a very different meaning in the UK compared to elsewhere.

• Yup. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "appointment as Lancashire's assistant secretary allowed him to play more regularly from 1900."

• I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes sorry, my comment is below re that. - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He appeared intermittently until 1922–23" wondering if "He played intermittently" works better, or is this sentence just referring to Lancashire?

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• " For many years, he was Lancashire's assistant secretary" maybe " For many years, he was employed as Lancashire's assistant secretary" to make it more clear this was a professional rather than voluntary/amateur position?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "MacLaren was born on 1 December 1871 in Whalley Range, a fairly prosperous district of Manchester,[1] the second of seven sons to James MacLaren and Emily Carver" – is this a run-on sentence?

• I don't think so. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• It reads a bit funny, but I'm happy to let it go. - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He quickly reached the school's cricket team," – would it be clearer to say "was selected for" rather than "reached"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He quickly was selected for the school's cricket team"? - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Err... Just testing? Reworded again, hopefully grammatically. I've included "soon" as I think the point needs making that he got into the team quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if non-cricket fans will know what "first eleven" is?

• Linked. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "play off the back foot" wondering if a note explaining this would be worthwhile

• Added a brief explanation. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "pitch in a relatively fast time of two hours." -> "pitch and in a relatively fast time of two hours." ?

• I'm not sure that is an improvement. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the Lancashire section you mention twice that he opened the batting, was this his regular position in the batting order?

• Usually, but he tended to bat in different positions, hence my hesitancy in saying so outright. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a source that states he usually opened? - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's surprisingly hard to find. Part of the problem is that he tended to whizz around the order. Nothing on his role for Lancashire. The best I could find is in the ODNB article that he "was an automatic selection as England's opening batsman", but this is demonstrably not the case. He only batted 35 times out of 61 innings as an opener for England. I'd prefer to leave it vague on that basis. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "attention of the cricket authorities" - what cricket authorities, obviously he's caught the attention of the county authorities, does this refer to England administrators?

• Again, some hesitancy. I would say MCC, but the MCC did not select all the teams such as "North of England". So basically, it is just anyone in authority here. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why not just omit it? I don't think it's worth including. Or even – "His runs (or scoring) helped him earn selection to play ..." ? - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reworded a little, along the lines of your second suggestion. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "winning six matches to finish fourth in the Championship" how many did they play during the championship?

• 16 that year, but I'm reluctant to get into this in the article as the number of fixtures varied widely in these years. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I see your point, but in this particular section it lacks a bit of context. Even a note saying they played 16 matches in that particular season would help; I don't think it'll imply that they always played that number. - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I took out the mention of the six matches (they actually won seven matches in total, so I'm not too sure why I bothered to put this in). Does that help? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "his successful leadership of led some critics to suggest him as a future England captain" - think you're missing a Lancashire in there, and some critics is a little vague, could this be more specific?

• Fixed mistake and added some clarity. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is the reason he was a "last minute selection" to tour to Australia because Stoddard had been "unable to persuade several leading batsmen to join his squad" ?

• I think that is a safe assumption, but the sources do not make it explicit so I'm being cautious. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• " was caught from the opening delivery of the match" "caught off"?

• Caught from is more standard in UK English. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• would "lost betting on horse races" work better?

• He didn't necessarily always lose, so I prefer spent. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it'd imply he only ever lost, but happy to leave it. - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "and he also received presentations in his honour during the winter" – I'm not sure what this means

• Nor am I! Doesn't seem important enough to go into, so cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "However, he was severely criticised for conservative tactics in one game, where his approach may have cost his team the championship through the points lost." - this leaves me wanting to know more

• Added a little more to clarify what happened. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe link Melbourne Cricket Club – also was this standard, for them to organise inboard tours by English teams?

• Linked. I think various clubs organised the early tours. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The tour proved a great success for the team and for Warner" – did they win the Test series?

• Yes, added. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• " Other players were left out whom most commentators believed should have played," - wondering if this could be clarified

• Not really; there were nearly 30 players chosen that season, and lots of "mistakes" were made. I think it is better like this for readability. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Wisden source does go into specifics; mentions the omission of Jessop, Jayes and Rhodes in particular. - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• The point here, though, is if these names are of any meaning to the reader? A few general readers may have heard of Rhodes, cricket specialists may have heard of Jessop, but even I've never come across Jayes outside of this! Adding names may be more complete, but what does it do for the reader? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• "but his poor form continued until June," maybe an alternative to "until June" here, as when the season starts is not explicitly stated

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "bring about Robinson's greater acceptance in society" - what exactly is meant by this?

• Linked society: it is high society he wanted acceptance in. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Could a note be added on the results of the 1921 Australian team following their defeat by MacLaren's side?

• I don't think this is particularly relevant: they won another couple and lost once more in a festival game, but they had had lost their "mojo" after the defeat. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Nor was MacLaren particularly popular; in later years, several people for whom he had been a hero changed their opinion of him after they met" – an example here would be valuable. Even if just included in a note.

• The source is vague, and it was mainly young Lancashire players in the 1920s. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• What do the sources explicitly say? - Shudde ^talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't check fully until this evening, but if I recall, they were young Lancashire players from the 1920s, one of whom may have been Jack Iddon, but not exactly big names. I think the same point applies that I made above about Jessop, Jayes and Rhodes. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at the wrong bit anyway. The source states: "Even admirers who grew close enough came away disabused. "It is disillusioning to one of my youthful loyalties,' wrote the Etonian littérateur George Lyttleton to his former pupil Rupert Hart-Davis, "to realise that the Majestic MacLaren was an extremely stupid, prejudiced and pig-headed man." In Batter's Castle (1958), Ian Peebles recalls perhaps his most notorious habit: "I have heard old timers say he was liable to enter the dressing room clutching his head and saying, "Look what they've given me this time." Or "gracious me! Don't tell me you're playing!" Which cannot have been very good for morale."" Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wow – those quotes are quite something. That Lyttleton quote almost warrants inclusion in a note; that's only a suggestion however. - Shudde ^talk 09:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Gibson observes that although tactically a good captain, MacLaren captained a strong Lancashire team for 12 seasons but only once won the County Championship." - I'm not sure this reads very well

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)</

I enjoyed the article. Easily comprehensive, and well written. Many of my comments above are minor, and some are queries rather than complaints. The 'Style, technique and captaincy' section is particularly well written. He doesn't come across as quite as spectacularly unsuccessful as your introduction implies Sarastro1!? Maybe my views of success in Test cricket are coloured by me being a New Zealander. Anyway I look forward to adding my support. - Shudde ^talk 05:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Support No problems. Thanks for bearing with me and for the very prompt replies. - Shudde ^talk 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and review. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I reviewed this article for GA status and it seems to read more smoothly now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and your earlier review. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I took part in the peer review, with considerable pleasure. It was a fine article then and is a finer one now. I try not to comment on images as I am not expert enough, but in my judgment the text meets all the FA criteria. Comprehensively cited, from a good range of sources, thorough but not excessively so, in delectable prose, focused, unbiased, and artfully making the arcana of cricket comprehensible to the lay person. Most impressive. – Tim riley (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the extremely kind words, support and earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Consider organising "Notes" in three columns. It looks neater.
• Ref 10 needs pp not p

That is all I could find. All sources are of appropriate quality. No spotchecks carried out. I will add a few general comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Both of these done, thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support, subject to the resolution of some minor quibbles. I did a long peer review on this article, so I don't have a great deal more to say. The article is comprehensive, and MacLaren was an interesting—some might say repellant—character. Cricket lovers will want to read about him, and perhaps wonder how he got away with it. Here are the quibbles:

• "To support him financially, the Lancashire committee gave him a £100 advance before the tour." As the paragraph begins "By then..." (i.e. by the time of the fourth Test), this should read "had given him" rather than "gave him". Also, can you explain "advance"? This normally implies an advance of salary, but he wasn't employed by the county at this stage.

• Tense fix done. The source uses "advance" and I think it may be an advance on his expenses for playing for Lancs, but the source does not make it clear. I've tweaked it to say they simply gave him £100, but for the later mention of an advance, the source explicitly says it is from his expenses, so I've reworded that too. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Do we need "rendered" rather than "made"? Unnecessarily pompous I feel

• Changed to "left" (although pompous suits Archie down to the ground...). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am generally hostile to sentences beginning "But..." unless there is a very good reason. Cf "But as the Test was played at Old Trafford..." etc; "But his captaincy proved controversial..." etc, and a couple of others

• All gone, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "His batting was praised..." By whom?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "His season was ended by neuralgia,[61] and he played nine first-class games to score 478 runs at 29.87" Wrong use of conjunction. I suggest: "He played nine first-class games, scoring 478 runs at 29.87, before his season was ended by neuralgia".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...the points lost through the subsequent draw may have cost his team the championship." How many points were thus lost, and by how many did Lancashire fall short of the championship?

• A bit of digging reveals that the source is talking bollocks here, to be honest. Yorkshire were too far in front whatever the result of the game as the Championship was calculated as a percentage of points available from "result" games. Even several more wins would not have given them the title. Removed the mention of the Championship altogether. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "MacLaren in turn included Tate out of spite." You need to clarify that this is Gibson's view.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "MacLaren's paid role for Lancashire counted against him." Had he not ceased his paid role with the county on taking a post with the wine merchant?

• Clarified that he no longer held the post (but still had it held against him). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In the winter of 1906–07, MacLaren returned to India." Say why; to resume his post with Ranji, presumably, rather than to play cricket.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "According to Wilde, this was to allow MacLaren to play more regularly" You need to clarify what is meant by "this". It reads as though you mean t holiday in India.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In England's second innings, Jack Hobbs, making his first Test appearance in England despite MacLaren's reluctance to include him in the team,[notes 10] and Fry, whom MacLaren promoted to open the batting having done so himself in the first innings, scored the required runs to complete a ten-wicket win for England." This sentence is difficult to read because of its two long subordinate clauses. I suggest a prose rehash: "In England's second innings Jack Hobbs, batting with Fry—whom MacLaren promoted to open the batting having done so himself in the first innings—scored the required runs to complete a ten-wicket win. Hobbs was making his first Test appearance in England, despite MacLaren's reluctance to include him in the team."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• We have "apportioned" used twice in the "Return as England captain" section. I think once is probably enough

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "for teams such as the MCC" does not sound right. Perhaps "for the MCC and other teams".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Will non-cricketers know what is meant by "he followed through with the bat"? They may think he hurled the bat after the ball.

• I think follow through (not the article we have here, incidentally, which refers to bowling actions) is fairly well known, particularly in sports. And I can find neither a decent link nor a non-convoluted explanation that doesn't need far too many words. Unless you have any suggestions, I might have to leave this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the term "leading fielder". I would say something like "highly proficient"

• OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Down suggests MacLaren was usually correct..." Smooth prose requires a "that"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...several people for whom he had been a hero changed their opinion of him after they met". Does this mean after they met him, or after they met each other?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall, a fine achievement. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think I got everything I could. Thanks for the comments here and earlier, and for all your help and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Provisional support – I also peer reviewed this article and gave my comments there. As soon as the comments above are resolved, this will be worthy of the star. The article is high-quality throughout and would meet any criteria we could come up with. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support and earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 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) 16:29, 14 July 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 00:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [37].

---

Oxbow (horse)

Nominator(s): Montanabw (talk), Froggerlaura (talk), Craiglduncan (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has evolved into a surprisingly thorough work on a very tough, quirky and interesting American race horse who is surrounded by an equally quirky and interesting cast of human characters: a reclusive billionaire owner, a 77-year-old trainer, and a 50-year-old jockey in the midst of a comeback from retirement. I am submitting it for FAC in part on the recommendation of peer reviewers who felt it already exceeds GA standard and could be a featured article. This article had extensive contributions from myself, Craiglduncan, Froggerlaura, Tigerboy1966, TonytheTiger and a very thorough peer review and copyedits from User:Eric Corbett and User:The Rambling Man, with an additional runthrough by User:Ealdgyth of WikiProject Equine. It's a team effort and we're pleased with the result. Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

• Lead caption: 2013 Preakness Stakes, or the 2013 Preakness Stakes, as in lead text? Also, shouldn't end this caption with a period
  • Both done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK fix w/me --Montanabw
• Don't include quote-initial or terminal ellipses
  • Done, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK here. --Montanabw
• "Stevens later commented, "His mind was right ...[53] When I hit the half-mile pole ... The race was over at that point ...[26] [t]hey gave me a free three-quarters of a mile today ...[54] Stevens later tweeted" - I'm guessing the quote should end at FN54?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • These comments are more helpful when a reviewer says, "I think you put the quotation mark in the wrong place" (smile) I had to re-read that three times to figure out what you were saying. (Middle-aged eyes make these kinds of mistakes and sometimes it's difficult to see the error unless it's noted with some specificity. Just saying) --Montanabw
• Why are you choosing to have citations in the middle of quotes?
  • Split quotes to reference them separately. I think it sub-optimal, but my prose is weak, so perhaps another editor can give it a going-over. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

    Because they came from multiple sources and not from just one interview. (Stevens and Lukas are both kind of verbose, and in different interviews makes the same points but says it in slightly different ways.) I did go through and consolidate two quotes that were in the same article into the same bit to avoid citing twice. For the rest, I could lump the citations all at the end, if having three or more cites at the end is better than having them in the middle, but as is, makes it easier to say what came from where and avoids implication that everything was said at the same time in the same place. But open to suggestions. --Montanabw

    Huh. I understand why you'd want to combine similar stuff, but I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate to have stuff from multiple sources within a single set of quote marks - even with the citations, it still kinda implies same time and place. Let's see whether any other reviewers want to chime in on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

    I've got some wiggle room, whatever gets us there. I could fix the quote marks, if that's the problem. My concern was to avoid 25,000 quote boxes or excessive quotes in the article text; kind of wanted to sum things up via the simple quote box. My other concern was to capture the proper spirit of what the people had to say -- in these racing stories, they sort of get microphones shoved into their faces practically at the finish line (sometimes while the jockey is still on the horse- literally), then a press conference about five minutes after they walk off the track, and then more follow ups afterwards, and so the people involved start to repeat the same stuff, but then verbally edit their previous remarks in the subsequent interviews (I spared everyone Lukas' remark about how he gets paid to "spoil [triple crown] dreams," he said it in about five interviews...) Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC) I think I fixed the issue by finding a totally different source with a more extensive quote. Does that work? 23:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, that's fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dead links
  • Tool currently not working, could you name the dead links? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Tool shows no dead links now. If there are some, can you name or tag individually so we can figure it out? --Montanabw
    • Tool's not working for me now either, so this will have to wait. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, this is dead, so's this, and this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Fixed links. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Another one, and another. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Eff, eff, eff...  :-P Dang, why must those sources change their links! Grrrr! (mumbling and grumgling at news sources...) Off to get them. Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Follow up" detroitnews put everything behind an impossible to navigate paywall. Grr, grr, grr... found it free elsewhere, to my amusement. Daily racing form was just having a server glitch, it's back live now. Do we ahve everything fixed now?--Montanabw
              • Yep! ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Compare FNs 8 and 9 and 25 - same site, why the different formatting?
  • Same formatting now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Added the work and publisher both to those sites as well, now OK here if OK with the reviewer. --Montanabw
    • Still not the same - compare "Kentucky.com (Lexington Herald-Leader)" in FN8 with "Kentucky.com. Lexington Herald-Leader" in FN 9 and 27. It doesn't much matter whether parentheses are used or not, but pick one. I'd also suggest reversing the italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • Addressed with question: Nikki, part of the problem is the template; I put them all to "cite web" (some were "cite news" which got us the parentheses). My question back to you is that as created, putting Kentucky.com as "work" and lexington Herald-Leader as publisher (which appears to be accurate) you get the italicization you think should be flipped. Can you comment further? (Or, if you wish, just flip it as you see fit?) --Montanabw
        • My inclination would be to see both as work and McClatchy as publisher; however, their website is ambiguous on this point and it'd be a pain to do with the template clearly, so what we have now is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• What makes this guy a high-quality reliable source? SB Nation? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks unlikely that this blogger or the site publishing his blogs will be RS. Need to find another. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree per WP:NEWSBLOG. The SB nation articles are in plain English and dovetail with the RS Brisnet source, which is filled with abbreviations that most laypeople can't interpret. THAT SAID, I reworded the Risen Star Stakes an Rebel Stakes narratives to correspond with the just the Brisnet source, cut SB nation for the Risen Star and joined it next to Brisnet for the Rebel. I found a different source for the Belmont morning line, that wasn't too tough. Does that solve the problem? --Montanabw
    • Sorry, I'm not sure how NEWSBLOG would apply? SB Nation appears to be a contract blogger collective, and it's not clear what qualifications, if any, those authors have (unless you happen to know their backgrounds? The site bios weren't too helpful.) Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

      Well, did my fixes solve the problem? I cut all but one ref entirely, and the one I kept dovetails with the Brisnet ref that is right with it. I see the problem with SB Nation (now, didn't earlier) but it happens to actually have fairly decent coverage for the horse racing stuff, sometimes better than local papers who assign non-horse-knowledgable reporters to stories. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

      Okay, for Gardner it's fine now. There is another SB Nation source (FN33) - once for a direct quote, which is fine, and again for "Stevens unsuccessfully attempted...". Ideally we could find an additional source for that second bit? Or, alternatively, a source discussing the coverage/reliability of SB Nation? If not possible it's okay, though suboptimal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • In that case, I think we can keep the source, as the author is a fellow named Joe DePaolo. If you read the actual piece, it's a very long feature article that happens to be published on SB Nation, but the author is clearly a RS: from the SB nation piece, "Joe DePaolo has written about sports and entertainment for The New York Times, ESPN.com, and a host of other prominent print and Internet outlets." I checked this, and found three articles by him on ESPN, and several horse racing articles in the New York Times articles (Not counting the ones on a Joseph DePaolo) and he also blogs for Huff Post. Horse racing nation lso has several articles by him but I can't do the URL properly because the site is blacklisted for some reason (if you want to check that one, try www. and horseracingnation and then .com and then to /blogs/BigAConfidential#) I think that makes the author a RS for horse racing articles. Now, if you disagree, I can probably go dig up something else, but that particular article happens to be a pretty extensive one that isn't written by some random blogger. Both uses referenced the jockey's thought process during the Arkansas Derby, and probably the most extensive discussion of that particular race. I'd prefer to keep it as is, but let me know your thoughts. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

One reason I'm kind of fighting to keep that bit is because it goes straight to the point that the horse has a personality quirk that he doesn't like to run anywhere but close to the front and there's hell to pay if you try to convince him otherwise (which probably cost him the Belmont, and maybe the Derby); if one of the best jockeys in the country couldn't control him when he tried to rate his pace and save some for later, and same jockey took a month to figure him out, that's really, really pertinent; particularly because the Preakness proved that once the horse WAS in front, he was controllable and perfectly happy to slow it down a little. (watch the race, if you look closely, the horse had his ears pricked forward in the backstretch and a couple of other times later on, he was happy as could be up in front, it was the being in front part, not the going fast part, that mattered to the horse ...) What I didn't put into this article was a comment I found by D. Wayne's girlfriend (not exactly a RS, though she probably knows horses) that Oxbow has a "Napoleon complex" i.e. small, stubborn and opinionated. I got into this article partly because this horse just amuses the heck out of me. (I also just put up a new article on his almost-full brother Paynter (horse), who is also tough as nails and likes to run in the front.) Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Follow up and anyway, the Detroit News article mentioned the same thing, so I doubled up with that source as well. Are we good now?

Yep, that's good. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Support with more nitpicks (and pending spotchecks if delegates deem necessary)

• Triple Crown linked twice in lead

  Fixed. We had an earlier peer reviewer suggest the second example might confuse people with the Breeder's Cup Classic, but I think the rewording also solves that problem --MTBW

• "only two wins until victory" -> "only two wins before victory"?

  Fixed by saying "prior to his". Hope that works --MTBW

• Triple Crown Race or race? Check consistency

  Fixed all to lower case, at least I think I got them all (bad eyes, younger eyes checking will help here...)? --MTBW

• There's a fair bit of whitespace above each race in the "Major wins" part of the infobox - any way to reduce that? And do we really need to identify species in the infobox?

  I am so NOT going to mess with Infobox thoroughbred racehorse! To do so will impact something over 3,500 race horse articles! That is an issue for WikiProject Horse Racing! EEEEEKKK! =:-O --MTBW

  The addition of the scientific name to the Thoroughbred infobox caused a minor kerfuffle in 2010, but User:Andy Mabbett justified the addition because it would help search engines determine the page was about a horse (seemed silly to me at the time too as the page text often says "horse" at least once). The template can easily be changed if there is no objection to removing the scientific name.- Froggerlaura

  My own thinking (?) is that it's kind of irrelevant to the FAC for this particular animal, and an issue to be taken up at WP Horse racing. I personally have no strong feelings about that particular bit of info one way or the other. -- Montanabw

  I've fixed the spacing. It's not going to hold up my support in this FAC, but I do think the species mention is something that needs to be addressed at some point, even if not in this review. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  Looks like it was FIXED by Froggerlaura, who is one of the leading editors over at WP Horse Racing. --Montanabw

• "to the historic Calumet property early 2013" -> "in early 2013"?

  FIXED--MTBW

• Be very careful about using horse-racing terminology without link or explanation - for example, what do you mean by "broke"?

  Dang! I thought we caught most of that. User:Froggerlaura, we need another definition! In the meantime, Nikki, "broke" in this context is when the horse starts running out of the starting gate. I reworded a couple places to avoid using the word, but we can only go so far without sounding like ignoramuses to horse racing people, so if we get a link to the defnitions, for the rest, will that be OK? --MTBW

  Fixed by Froggerlaura --MTBW

  Yes, linking's fine if there's a link available. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Make sure dates are consistently M D, Y, mid-sentence (watch commas)

  Which ones did we screw up? (eyes....bleary... can't see...) --MTBW "FIxed by Froggerlaura (--MTBW)

• "mile and one-sixteenth" first, then "mile-and-one-sixteenth" later - use consistent hyphenation

  Fixed. Killed hyphens --MTBW

• Can we provide metric translations for mile and yard measurements?

  Am I correct that we only have that in one spot, for the Lecompte? User:Froggerlaura, how shall we do this? (Version in chart has convert template and is accurate, but more complex) --MTBW Fixed by just doing a manual convert based on the template numbers down in the chart. --MTBW

  There's also the mile and one-sixteenth for CashCall. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Pull-quotes: why is one attribution Roman and the next two italic?

  Fixed. --MTBW

• How many points are needed to be eligible for the Derby?

  It's in the source cited and explained at the wikilinked article. There are no set points, just the top 20 horses with the most points get to go. Complicated formula and they changed it this year, (It used to be purse money won, not points) it's like figuring out which college football team is the national champion (i.e. I don't get it, I just understand how to add it up...) --MTBW

• "triple digit" -> "triple-digit"

  Fixed. --MTBW

• "winners circle" or "winner's circle"?

  Fixed. --MTBW

• "Stevens knew better than to argue about it" - if not a direct quote, this seems a bit colloquial

  His said he didn't want to "fight" with the horse. It is a bit colloquial, but is this a problem? I'm kind of tired of quoting Stevens on everything --MTBW

  What about "Stevens knew better than to fight him"? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I can live with that if you don't think it is a too-close paraphrase or something like that --MTBW

• "due owing to his win"?

  Fixed by another editor. --MTBW

• Text says CashCall track is synthetic, chart says dirt - which is correct?

  It's a synthetic "cushion track" aka "All Weather Track" I'll tweak the chart (Froggerlaura, is the abbreviation OK?) --MTBW Fixed --Froggerlaura go to that before me. --MTBW

• What is "LeCompte"? Do you mean Lecomte?

  Fixed. (Can't you just say, "inconsistency in capitalization?") --MTBW

  Er, no, because though caps are fixed there's still Lecomte and Lecompte (note spelling). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  This is why it is helpful to just point out the error instead of doing the "now, you have to find your own mistake, kiddies" thing (Seriously, I'm over 50 and work on a laptop, and yes I'm in denial about my need for bifocals but do you know how small the editing box can be late in the day???  :-P )

• "Another of Cee's Song offspring" -> "Another Cee's Song offspring" or "Another of Cee's Song's offspring". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. --MTBW

  I think maybe this one got missed...Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  Changed to "Another Cee's Song offspring" to avoid double 's.--Froggerlaura

  Is this fixed now, Nikki? --Montanabw

OK, other than a couple things that I think Froggerlaura is better positioned to fix (noted above), did I get everything that was a nitpick? Montanabw^(talk) 19:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost, a few replies inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, do we have them now?? Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth Changed to Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Generally a well-written article, though I am more used to British English phraseology about racing. A few points -
• Not many images?

  I know, I've been digging madly for some. Everything is under copyright, even on Flickr, except for the stuff released by the State of Maryland for the Preakness. Can't even find a free image of the sire and dam. Froggerlaura is a genius at finding stuff and I think this is all she found too. Open to ideas, but we may be stuck with this. --Montanabw

• "Oxbow has a reputation as a front-runner who is difficult to rate during his races." - What do you mean by "rate" here?

  Control speed, especially to slow down. Thoughts on rephrasing that is not a "little kiddies, a stallion is a boy horse" tone that will make us sound like amateurs? (smiles) --Montanabw

  Follow up: Froggerlaura defined the words in the glossary and linked them. Will that do?? --Montanabw

  That's helpful Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Ridden for the second time by Jon Court, he went off as the fourth choice and 5–1 and had a favorable number four post position." - Do you mean "at 5-1" rather than "and 5-1"?

  Typo. Fixed. Good catch. --Montanabw

• "Five weeks later, Oxbow was entered in the Grade II Risen Star Stakes at mile and one-sixteenth." - The bald "at" seems awkward to me.

  Rephrased. Better? --Montanabw

• "I've Struck a Nerve won at 135–1." - It is a bit unfortunate that this sentence starts as it does. Could you rearrange it as "The winner at 135-1 was I've Struck a Nerve" (or write an article "I've Struck a Nerve (horse)" and wikilink it ;)).

  Rephrased, not quite as you have it but similar. Better? (Horse probably won't be worth his own article, most likely) Also no objection if you want to word it your way --Montanabw

• "The other horses on or near the early lead finished 12th or lower." - this is a bit awkwardly expressed.

  True. Any thoughts how to best fix that? I redid it a couple of times to get it that far, my brain isn't working. --Montanabw

  "None of the other horses competing for the lead near the start had finished better than twelfth" ? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  REWORDED: "None of the other horses out front early finished better than twelfth." (full context: "...observers noted that he was the only horse that ran near the front of the pack in the opening half-mile to also finish in the top six;[fn] none of the other horses out front early finished better than twelfth.") Will that work? (And feel free to just tweak a word or two if you want.) --Montanabw

• Same quote - there is inconsistency using "12th" here when elsewhere we have "sixth" etc.

  I think we are doing the MOS rule that one through nine or ten are words and 10/11 and up use numerals. But thoughts? --Montanabw

  Not sure about the MOS rule but I prefer "twelfth" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  FIXED to "twelfth." --Montanabw

• "There were concerns about Stevens' fitness ... although with no evident sign of injury." - Not very grammatical.

  Heeheehee, that was user:Eric Corbett's edit (aka Malleus) LOL! (that said, my version was worse). Basically, the tale is that the jockey got dumped off a horse, though he walked away from the fall, but he didn't ride his scheduled races the following day because he was bruised up and sore, especially his ribs. His X-Rays came back OK, though. It was a big deal because the guy is 50, came out of retirement after seven years off, has a bum knee and is kind of held together with duct tape and baling twine generally. So, if you'd like to help shake my brain loose on how to elegantly and concisely explain all that, I'm open to suggestions. --Montanabw

  "Although he appeared uninjured, there were concerns about Stevens' fitness as he had been thrown from a horse at Hollywood Park the previous week." ? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  REWORDED: (As he was banged up enough to miss the next day's races, I never was comfortable saying "no" injury) "There were concerns about Stevens' fitness, as he missed races at Hollywood Park after being thrown from a horse the previous week, but x-rays came back clear" IS that better or worse? --Montanabw

  My inclination would be to forget about the x-rays (and Hollywood Park?) and just say "There were concerns about Stevens' fitness as he had missed races after being thrown from a horse the previous week." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  Cut Hollywood park, trying to keep the point that he was "given the all clear" to ride. Trying "There were concerns about Stevens' fitness as he had missed races after being thrown from a horse the previous week, but medical tests showed no evident sign of injury." Any better? --Montanabw

• I am happy with the article now and have changed my "Comments" to "Support" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• • That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review, I have a couple inline questions above and think I fixed the rest. Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Support - knowing jack about horse racing, just some quick comments and questions:

• lead "... best known for winning the second [jewel] in the American Triple Crown ..." - is "jewel" journalese or a common term for this race series?

  Pretty common term used to refer to the Triple Crown races in the US [38]. Derby being first, Preakness second and Belmont third. I could add the term to the racing terminology page if unclear. --Froggerlaura

• Background "He was bred by Richard Santulli's New Jersey-based Colts Neck Stables,[2][3][4] ..." - does this statement really need 3 sources?

  Montanabw clarified on talk page during PR. The three sources are needed because they each contain a part of the information- Santulli was breeder, Colts Neck Stables is the name of his operation and it is located in New Jersey. A single reference doesn't have all the parts.--Froggerlaura

• Background Notes "Kelley is [believed to be] a member of the Calumet Investment Group" - why the weasel here? Source 9 says "He is a member of that investment group", Source 10 calls him "owner" without any reservation. Is there some missing background info?

  Removed "believed to be" from notes per sources. I think the uncertainty is that he is owner/chair of the investment group but is somehow leasing the farm to himself for tax purposes (OR alert :)--Froggerlaura

• "[He started from] the far outside post, at number ten. [He broke from] ..." ==> Doesn't flow well, but i have no better idea to offer.

  Linked post position to make sentence flow- "He started from the far outside at the tenth post position and broke from the gate in seventh but jumped out to the lead within a few strides and led going into the turn by a half length." --Froggerlaura

• "Oxbow moved with ..." ==> would " ... was moved ..." sound more natural for a horse?

  Changed to was moved.--Froggerlaura

• Preakness Stakes "The victory was Lukas' sixth career Preakness ..." ==> "career" is redundant here

• Defer to Montanabw on this one. I think "career" is used here to refer to wins only accrued by him. I don't remember if he had wins in partnership or apprenticeship with anyone else.--Froggerlaura

• A minor nitpick either way, no problem. GermanJoe (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Career win" seems to be common racing lingo; probably because people can change jobs. Indicates his number of wins as a trainer. In theory, he could also own a horse that won but not have trained it. Or, another example, Stevens was briefly a trainer during his retirement, though I don't think he won any really big races as a trainer, one needs to clarify what he won as a jockey versus in some other capacity. --Montanabw

• "It [also] was ..." ==> "Also" is redundant for obvious lists. The article has "X was" three times in a row here - suggest to rephrase the middle sentence.

  Removed also and tried to change "it was"--Froggerlaura

With little topic knowledge i could easily follow the content, no obvious gaps in coverage. No concerns about referencing or structure. I haven't checked racing statistics and pedigree, leaving that to the experts. GermanJoe (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick tweaks. Changed to support above with the disclaimer, that i can't really judge the factual accuracy. But nothing questionable stood out for me. GermanJoe (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support PumpkinSky talk 18:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, everyone! We appreciate all your help and your careful reviews! Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Oxbow is ... ridden in his Triple Crown races by Gary Stevens." Since Oxbow won't be riding in any more Triple Crown races, shouldn't "was" be added before "ridden"?

  Changed to was --Froggerlaura

• Background: The space after ref 1, by Awesome Again, should be removed.

  Removed extra space --Froggerlaura

• Pedigree: The Awesome Again and Breeders' Cup Classic links are repeated from earlier in the article, and are good candidates to be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  Didn't remove. Linking once per section, especially when subject has own article, is okay. --Froggerlaura

  Spotted two wls to Breeders' Cup in the same section, tossed all but one there. Went ahead and tossed the one to Awesome Again, as it can go in that context (though technically I agree with Froggerlaura)--Montanabw

  • Support – The article appears well-done in general, and I'm happy to support it now that these nit-picks have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

• Duplinks: You have a fair few of these, pls review with the checker.

• Removed most of the offending wikilinks.--Froggerlaura

• Spotcheck of sources:

• FN1c: Not particularly controversial I suppose but I can't see in the source where Awesome Again is identified as Canadian-bred, nor the winner of a particular year of the Breeder's Cup Classic...

• Found two additional sources to address this. (Can we do subsections on this page? It's getting really difficult to figure out what still needs to be done.) Froggerlaura ^ribbit 14:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• FN38a: Okay.
• FN35b: Okay.
• FN47: Okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Froggerlaura, I think EVERYTHING is done except for Ian Rose's comments. I've been working with Nikkimaria on addressing all her stuff, and everyone else has also given us the green light. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ian, I restored a couple of links Froggerlaura deleted because they were the only links to define certain words ("broke", "off the pace") that others had asked us to link or define; they both go to the glossary, but different words in different sections. I think/hope that's OK. I think Froggerlaura got everything else? Let us know if we need to fix anything further. Montanabw^(talk) 20:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that does it, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU EVERYONE! Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 14 July 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) 15:48, 14 July 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 00:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [39].

---

Uruguayan War

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC) and Astynax

This article has undergone an extensive copyedit by Malleus Fatuorum (now User:Eric Corbett). It's very well researched and it's certainly the best piece of text in English available about the conflict. Lecen (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Marshal's oppose moved to this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Move and reasoning noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm seeing a strong, well-referenced article that has had a severe prose massage from some of the best copyeditors on Wikipedia. What I'm not seeing is any basis for Marshall's oppose. Urugauayan War is used in sources, and there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating Uruguayan War (disambiguation). The Spanish name is four vs. two in Google Books (when you take out Wikipedia mirrors and a repeat). Given the complete paucity of sources, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the nominator, but we can always compromise and add them both. As for "tacit support", the basis is in the lead, first paragraph, last sentence. Your analogy of Chilean and Peruvian political support in the Falklands War is nothing close to "supplies, Argentine volunteers and river transport for troops." Last, the use of an oppose just three hours after this was nominated, over what are essentially minor, nitpicky issues is ... interesting, especially given the current arbitration case relating to Marshal and Lecen. I do hope/expect that the delegates will take this into account. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "Frontier life in Rio Grande do Sul was often chaotic with cattle-rustling, hostilities between partisans of various cattle barons and killings, which often spilled across the border into Uruguay, provoking retaliatory raids.": I can't tell if it was only the killings that spilled across the border, or if only the killings provoked retaliation.
• "as just valid claims": looks like a misquote; just as valid claims, maybe?
• "from both navy and army": I recommend "from the navy and army", but "total from the navy and army" or "from the navy and army combined" would be fine too.
• "gave slightly higher numbers: 616 (204 dead, 411 wounded and 1 missing).": "put the total at 616 ..."
• "envisaged": Garner's recommends "envisioned" in AmEng in all but literary contexts.
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• All done. Thanks a lot, Dank. --Lecen (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Paranaibarivermap.png (source of first map): first source link is not working
• File:Villa_del_salto_destroyed.jpg: when/where was this first published?
• File:Cerro_de_Montevideo_desde_la_ciudad._Año_1865_(no_watermark).jpg: when/where was this first published?
• For images from the 1860s where author is unknown, it is possible (though not likely) that date of death was less than 100 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• Worth checking the bibliography against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles - some of the titles, e.g. "The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct" aren't complying with this yet
• "client-patron" - the more usual sequence in English is "patron-client"
• " Unlike the elder López, who wanted to avoid "any entangling alliances", Solano López greeted the Blanco's proposal with enthusiasm." - unclear from the main text if the quote is something which Lopez said, or if it's a quote from a historian.
• " The Brazilian monarchy could not afford to remain aloof" - "aloof" read awkwardly to me here; "uninvolved", "neutral"?
• " included covert efforts to underwrite opposition parties" - "included covertly underwriting opposition parties"?
• "and regarded itself as Brazilian rather than Uruguayan" - "itself" felt odd, but I may be wrong; I'd have expected "themselves"
• "(called "Division of Observation" until the ultimatum)" - "the Division of Observation"? (it sounds very odd without an article)
• "According to Whigham "Suárez's " - a comma after Whigham might make it easier to read.
• Overall, it seems to reflect the English-sourced literature well. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Thank you for taking the time to read through the article. Most of your suggestions and corrections have been implemented. • Astynax ^talk 06:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support, excellent read and very well-done. I don't have anything to add that wouldn't be both subjective and minor. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Nikki or Andy, did you happen to do a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the sources or formatting. --Laser brain (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 14 July 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) 15:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you all for taking a second look. • Astynax ^talk 16:33, 14 July 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 00:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [40].

---

Norman conquest of England

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... after lots and lots of work, I believe it's ready for prime time. It's had several copyedits, I've reread sources I studied in college as well as reading a whole slew of new sources, it's had an image review, and it's been through GAN as well as a mil-hist A class review. I've been slowly working on this topic with hopes of an eventual featured or good topic on the Conquest, but for now, I hope you enjoy reviewing the article as much as I enjoyed editing it. (I'm sure several of my usual collaborators will be overjoyed with this nomination, as it means I'll quit bugging them about doing stuff on the article.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 26 June 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, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• No citations to Campbell
• Why the double parentheses on subscription-needed notations? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Campbell is removed. The double parentheses are because I use the format field for those notations, since they have their own template. I've been doing it that way for at least two years. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided (minor tweaks done during FAC-preparation). GermanJoe (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "At dawn on 25 September Harold's forces reached York, where he learned that the Norwegians were at Stamford Bridge. The English then marched on the invaders and took them by surprise, defeating them in the Battle of Stamford Bridge.": It's possible to remove the repetition here, if you want to. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Now reads "At dawn on 25 September Harold's forces reached York, where he learned the location of the Norwegians." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• "northwest", "south-west": We're generally going with the hyphens in BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "laudatory and full of praise": I'm not aware of the difference.
• "If Anglo-Saxon England was already evolving before the invasion, with the introduction of feudalism, castles or other changes in society, then the conquest, while important, did not represent radical reform.": It seems to me that that doesn't work, since there's general agreement that Anglo-Saxon England was already evolving before the invasion.
  • Needs to be read with the preceeding sentence to make it clear that we're talking about the degree of change. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. Really good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and all the help with various prose bits and stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I've read down to the end of "English resistance" and hope to read the rest in the next day or two. Minor issues only. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• "leaving many of his forces in the north": How many forces did he have? This reads slightly off to me. I think "left much of his force there", which is used later in the article, is better.
  • Went with "leaving much of his force in the north" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• The image of "Harold's death" is perhaps a little misleading. While opinion, as indicated in the text, is divided over how Harold died, there is also uncertainty over which figure/figures is/are Harold in that section of the tapestry; would it be better to have the whole "Harold Rex Interfectus Est" sequence as the image?
  • I have vauge memories that there was a reason I didn't. I suspect that the whole sequence is not available in a good quality image, but I'd have to do some checking. I'd rather go into the whole detail of who is whom in that image at Harold's article (which I've started revising...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, not a huge deal for me, but this may be something that gets picked up later, especially if this goes on the main page! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• As the papal legates are mentioned, is it worth mentioning that William's army had the support of the pope/the papal banner?
  • But ... did they? Blargh! I just realized that this historians tidbit is in William's article but not here. Have added a bit to the "Norman forces" section. It boils down to .. it wasn't likely ... only one source reports the papal banner idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• "William also oversaw a purge of prelates from the Church, most notably Stigand, who was deposed from Canterbury": Is "purge" a little harsh? Was anyone other than Stigand deposed? And while Normans were doubtless appointed to the key roles, were they not introduced as fairly gradual replacements than appointed in one fell swoop? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, it was a purge. When Stigand was deposed, new appointments were made to Winchester (which had been also held by Stigand), Lichfield (Leofwin was deposed), Selsey (Æthelric II was deposed in 1070 and the see later moved to Chichester), and Elmham (where Stigand's brother Æthelmær of Elmham was deposed in 1070 and the see moved to Thetford) as well as to Canterbury. In 1071 a new bishop of Durham was appointed after the imprisonment of Æthelwine (bishop of Durham). Barlow describes the period as "the purge of the episcopate in 1070-1072". When you combine that with the new appointments to York, and Dorchester (Wulfwig died in 1067 ... the see moved to Lincoln in 1072) that came from deaths, and remember that there were only 2 archbishoprics and 13 other bishops in the entire country... (The bishop of Wells had been appointed by Edward the Confessor and was a continental, not a native Englishman. Likewise the bishop of Hereford had been appointed by Edward but was a continental native, not Anglo-Saxon. And the same held true in London, where William the Norman was bishop until 1075. And Herman (bishop) who remained in office at Ramsbury was not a native either. ). The only native English bishops to survive 1072 still in office were [[Siward (bishop of Rochester)] and Wulfstan at Worcester. And Wulfstan was widely regarded as a saint in his lifetime... so the chances of his being deposed were slim and none. It appears likely that the abbots were even more purged, but our data is much more spotty on them so it's hard to know how much change there was. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I'm convinced. Although I'm sure it was Barlow who made me think the other way! It may just be my faulty memory... Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That's Barlow though... always opinionated but ... capable of changing his mind at times. (He's not my favorite historian, in case no one had ever guessed...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

More comments: Looking really, really good. I'm not quite sure how you do it. Last few comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "but William claimed ultimate possession of the land in England over which his armies had given him de facto control, and asserted the right to dispose of it as he saw fit.": Am I correct in remembering that this was a change to what was in England before? Or to Norman custom? I'm sure there was a change somewhere which I wonder if it is worth highlighting and making explicit?
  • It was a change, probably. Probably not worth getting into as this is one of those problems that is beloved of historians but leaves most non-historians totally clueless and baffled. Whether it was a change or if it was really as stark as the legal scholars would have you believe is something that delights specialists but really isn't germane to the actual effects of the conquest. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "and the loss of English control over the Catholic Church in England": Do we need to specify Catholic, as there was little alternative at the time?
  • Technically it's "Catholic" as the usual split with Orthodoxy is held to be 1054, but there really isn't a good choice to link to otherwise. I could pipe the link, but it's not inaccurate to call it Catholic either. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Most medieval governments were always on the move": I wonder if "on the move" is sufficiently formal? Itinerant? Mobile?
  • Is it too informal though? Do we really need to use big words just to be "formal"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Domesday survey: I seem to remember that this was also based on existing Anglo-Saxon machinery, although that may have been a theory rather than generally accepted. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Domesday was based on the shire, but it used a sworn jury and returned each shire's records arranged by feudal holding, so technically it did use a bit of AS framework (the shire) but that was it. The sheriffs do not seem to have been involved. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: I can't find much wrong with this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the kind words, but the prose mostly owes its polish to User:Eric Corbett and User:John. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

    But we'd have nothing to polish if you didn't do the hard graft Ealdgyth. I certainly couldn't have written an article on the Norman Conquest, that's for sure. Eric Corbett 22:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

    Hear, hear. It was already a beautiful article before we started tinkering with it. --John (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • Harold stopped in London for about a week before reaching Hastings, so it is likely that he took about a week to march south, averaging about 27 miles (43 kilometres) per day,[43] for the nearly 200 miles (320 kilometres) to London. - is that wrong? ("week ... week")
    • Two weeks between Stamford and Hastings (about). Week to march south to London, one week in London, couple of days to Hastings from London. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Tweaked the text to make this more apparent. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Why did Harold leave so much of his army in the north? (I may have inadvertently messed up the lead on this point)
    • We aren't sure, but likely because they had just marched north, fought a hard battle, and were utterly exhausted. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • To control his new kingdom, William gave lands to his followers and built castles throughout the land, commanding military strongpoints. - commanding or creating?
    • Commanding. Most of the locations were on roads or rivers or fords or in the center of towns. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay. To me, this reads that the followers were all given castles to command. Is there a better way of wording it? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Now reads "To control his new kingdom, William gave lands to his followers and built castles commanding military strongpoints throughout the land." Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The section on the Battle of Hastings seems quite short, given the large amount of attention given to it in sources.
    • Since I've been working on (and will continue to work on to get to FA status) the Battle of Hastings article, I've for once felt we could put all the details in the subsidiary article, since it's pretty decent for a change. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I like each article to be able to stand on its own ... but if other reviewers are okay with it, I'll be happy to let it go. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Robert fitzRichard - right name?
    • Yep. Confirmed with Bates William the Conqueror also as well as Huscroft Norman Conquest. If I can find any other information on him, I'll do a link, but for now, this appears to be the only time any of my sources mention him. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, I just wanted to be sure, given the really odd prefix. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh, you were questioning the "fitzRichard". That just means "son of Richard" and is a Norman construction. It's very common in the time period - William fitzOsbern and Richard fitzGilbert are also mentioned in this article, plus see Payn fitzJohn or a number of others. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • They were few in number compared to the native English population; historians estimate the number of Norman settlers at around 8000; this figure includes not just natives of Normandy, but settlers from other parts of France. - semi-colon abuse. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Eric! (yells for help from Eric) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It is indeed, now fixed. Eric Corbett 20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Eric. And thank you Ed for the comments. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you both! I have some replies interspersed above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
          • And I am now supporting. Great work! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Comment - taking a look now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward's immediate successor was the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson, the ... - loooong sentence - can we split?

Broke into two. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

''William and Harald at once set about assembling troops and ships to invade England - can drop "England" at the end as it is clear where they will invade.

If you insist, I'll remove it, but we did digress a bit before this, so I think saying "England" helps return the reader's thoughts to the subject at hand. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ok. not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Norman army's crossing was delayed, either because of unfavourable weather or because of the desire to avoid being intercepted by the powerful English fleet. - we've just stated this in hte previous section, so maybe we can remove it and just say the word "belated" somewhere.

Removed the whole sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

An estimated 8000 Normans and other continentals settled in England as a result of the conquest, although exact figures cannot be established. - again ,repeated information. I think I'd lose the sentence.

Here, the duplicated information is widely separated. I'd prefer to keep it duplicated, but will remove if you insist. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ok. not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I presume you've already looked into this but I did wonder whether there were other aspects of societal change - religion? also, which names became less common. Any other cultural things vanish or appear?

Religion stayed the same, the main change in the church is the replacement of the upper levels with Normans. The main changes took place in the upper levels of society, very little changed in the lower levels except the disappearance of slavery. As for the less common names, there wasn't a set of "common names" in Anglo-Saxon England, the naming pattern was different, so there isn't really a list of names we can give that became less common. I've tweaked it a bit to have a link to Germanic name to make it clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ok - I am not an expert in the area so will take your word for it :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking pretty good overall and on target for a shiney star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support

• Reflects the specialist literature on this topic well. A great article. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments

Great article! I only have a few minor questions:

• In footnote b, you say that Edgar was "of direct descent from King Edmund Ironside". Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but is there an "indirect descent?" If "direct descent" here means "patrilineal descent," maybe it's better to say just that, since Edgar was the only male-line descendant left in 1066.
  • Now reads "who was a patrilineal descendant of King Edmund Ironside" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• In footnote d, what does "sworn brother" mean? That they swore oaths to support each other?
  • I have not the slightest idea. The source just says "sworn brother"... so that's what I said. I would imagine they swore some sort of oath... whether of support or just bloodbrotherhood isn't specified. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• That's it. Excellent article on an important subject -- good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate note -- I reviewed and supported at MilHist A-Class so I think I might recuse myself from closing this one. Normally I'd review modifications that had taken place since last I saw it but quite a lot has changed so I won't do that either except to say that I performed a cursory check for dab or dup links and found none. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 10 July 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) 19:29, 11 July 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, 7 July 2013 (UTC) [41].

---

Harold Davidson

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the sad story of the Rector of Stiffkey who, after being kicked out of the Church in 1932 for immorality, embarked on a series of bizarre money-making stunts to raise funds for his legal appeals. One of these involved him preaching in a cage of lions...bad idea, that. In this tragi-comic tale Davidson emerges as an enigma; was he basically an eccentric but well-meaning do-gooder—a pesterer of women, and a nuisance no doubt, but essentially harmless? Or was he something more sinister, a serial molester and predator on young girls? THAT PHOTOGRAPH did much to answer the question at the time, though later assessments have tended to be more sympathetic. The article was very thoroughly treated at its peer review, here; thanks to all concerned. Any further comments will be equally welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - I commented at PR. It was a fine article then and is a fine article now. It meets the FAC criteria on all prose points (I am not competent to comment on images) and is clearly of FA quality. The balance between comedy and tragedy is beautifully done, and the narrative is as clear as one could wish. An article for the author and Wikipedia to be proud of. Tim riley (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these kind comments, Tim, and for your help in getting the article into shape. 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Support I also was with the PR crew. Excellent article, my concerns were answered, what more can you ask?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Most grateful. Tha article was quite fun to do, despite the underlying sadness. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Support I also was involved in the Peer Review and all of my concerns were addressed there - this is very well done and deserving of FA status. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Image Review As part of the peer review I also reviewed the seven images in the article, which are either free or have a valid fair use claim. Five images are clearly free (of places associated with Davidson's life), and two images are Fair Use (the lead image and the image of Davidson with the half naked girl used in his trial). Together they show the two sides of the vicar presented at his trial. Both have clear Fair Use rationales, and as part of the PR there was a specific unanimous support by eight editors for the fair use image of Davidson with the near naked girl being included in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am, as always, most grateful for your advice and help over image questions. Once again, thank you for your time, and for your suppport here. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. I was another traveller at PR: the article has improved further since my few comments there and I have no hesitation in giving my support. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Inclined to support - just a few comments :

• In the lede, "direct evidence of improper behaviour is slight" might be worth rewriting as "there was no obvious evidence of improper behaviour" which (imho) scans more easily.

• I've compromised with a slightly amended version of your wording. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can you confirm that "Sholing was a poor parish ... many of whom were inclined to drunkenness" is in the source given? (Cullen p.27) It sounds rather strong to tar an entire community with the same brush. At least one of my friends has ancestors who lives in Sholing and would not take kindly to the insinuation they were all alcoholics!

• The text says "many", not "all", so your friend's ancestors are obviously in the clear. I wonder if they were part of Davidson senior's flock? Cullen is rather more direct than I have been in describing Sholing's inhabitants, but he does not especially emphasise drunkenness so I have trimmed those few words. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not good on MOS lawyering, so I left this, but the quote ending desperately to be diverted". - should the full stop not go before the closing quotation mark?

• The full stop terminates the whole sentence, of which the quotation is only a part. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "After thwarting her suicide attempt" could probably just be written as "After preventing her suicide attempt" - in my view, you "thwart" something where somebody is doing something malicious or bad and you stop it, and implying suicide is like that is controversial, to say the least.

• I agree, this is better, and have amended. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "and an income in 1906 of £503 per annum" - is it worth putting in a comparable figure adjusting for inflation for today, or do you think that distracts from the main narrative?

• Not only distracting, but possibly contentious; there are too many theories about how to calculate present values of historic monies. Footnote 3, I think, gives a more useful indication of Davidson's financial circumstances; he was one of the better-remunerated clergy. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Davidson married Molly Saurin" - "Molly" is redundant, no other Saurins are mentioned in the article.

• Possibly, but "Davidson married Saurin" does seem unnecessarily cold and curt. If someone deletes the Molly, fair enough – I won't reinstate it, but personally I'd prefer to leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can never work out the best practice for naming a subject's spouse in an article. Kim McLagan is a particularly error-prone example of mine, which jumps between three surnames and a first name in the space of a couple of paragraphs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll come back to the rest of the article, but in summary these issues are all minor and should be easily fixable, if not just opinion and not relevant to fix to pass FAC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for these comments, all of which I have acted on or noted, as above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He explained that he was looking for a diseased prostitute who had been infecting his men" just doesn't scan right. I don't think a prostitute deliberately infects her clients. Perhaps substitute "infecting" with "liaising with".

"deliberately" is not suggested, but "infected" is what the sources say, along with "wreaking havoc". I don't think "liaising with" is strong enough. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "a clever writer and entertainer [who] pays attention to duty" - can you confirm this is cited to Tucker pp.15-16. With direct quotations, I find it's best to put the cite right after the end of the quote.

• Yes, it is. My own preference is not to have two identical citations more or less on top of each other; each citation covers all material since the previous citation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "and that one day his investments would pay off; much of his" - semicolon can be replaced with "and" without making an overlong sentence and helping the wording flow better.

• That would mean two "ands" close together in the sentence, which does not read at all well. Instead, I have replaced the semicolon with a full stop. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• That picture has a valid non-free use. Theoretically, the original (which, if commercially published without a credit more than 70 years ago, might be in the public domain) could be retrievable from somewhere like the British Library's newspaper archives. However, as that's kind of asking to find a needle in a haystack, we can leave that issue to one side for now.

• I think it highly unlikely that the photo was published until Cullen's biography was published in 1975. It would have been part of the records of the court, to which Cullen acknowledges he was given access, and he presumably had permission to publish it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• As you may have heard, Gale is opening up the entire of the Daily Mail archives from 1896 to 2004 here. The Mail, though a step up from the Daily Mirror in terms of tabloid press, is not above running sensational stories, and I dare say there might be something related to Davidson buried in there.

And that's it. A fascinating story, and one that puts our minor squabbles at the dramaboard into perspective, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these additional comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I participated at the peer review and believe that this meets the FA criteria. I therefore support. Nominator asked me for a source review, but I do not own the books in question and am not a subscriber to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, so I don't feel I can do this properly. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful regarding the source review —Cliftonian (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the peer review help and support here. Don't worry about the sources review - I'm sure someone will pick it up. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: I'm a bit late to this, but I read the first few paragraphs and couldn't stop! What an odd little story, which perhaps would not be out of place in a Carry On film. Just one query, which does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Tucker argues that "Harold Davidson probably deserved to be quietly defrocked or his shortcomings as a priest", but nevertheless…": Is "or" a misprint (I assume it should be "for")? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• It was indeed a typo, now fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review:

• Ref 27 is not quite formatted the same way as the similar refs 43 and 79. The latter two have just one "pp." for two page references. Following that, should ref 27 be "Cullen, pp. 42–43 and 59"?
• Ref 51: missing "." after pp
• The "ODNB" reference citation for Davidson is defined twice with two different access dates, which is confusing the citation error checker.

Otherwise sourcing looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• The format errors are now fixed. On the ODNBs, I don't quite understand the problem. Ref 9 is to Davidson's ODNB entry, Ref 106 is to Bertram Pollock's. I accessed them on different days. Am I misunderstanding something? Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a sourcing problem as such, and doesn't affect what is visible. But there are two <ref name=ODNB> definitions (if that is the right term! I'm not too sure) which both give a citation for the Davidson ODNB article; the information in replicated, with two different access dates. It shows up if you do a citation error check. But rather than give a convoluted explanation, I've removed one of them which solves the problem, and I don't think I've broken anything. (I hope this makes sense to you, as I've just confused myself). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I understand now - I had used the ODNB ref name twice, and you have removed it from the Pollock ref. Thanks, all is well now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your sources check, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 4 July 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) 05:06, 7 July 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, 7 July 2013 (UTC) [42].

---

Horse Protection Act of 1970

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC) and User:Montanabw

Over the past few months, Montanabw and I have been working to put this article together, taking it from a very short stub to the comprehensive state in which it currently stands. This law, now over 40 years old, has not been completely successful at preventing abuse in certain portions of the horse industry, but it has helped significantly. We think we have portrayed an unbiased look at the successes and failures of this law, as well as the history behind it. We look forward to your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 17:51, 9 June 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, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comments Support by Cwmhiraeth on prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• " It is illegal to show a horse or enter it at a horse show, auction, sell, offer for sale, or any transport a horse for any of these purposes if it has been sored." - This sentence is a bit grammatically confused.

  (Smiles) So is the statute. We are trying to simplify the statute, yet mirror the statutory language without going too far off the tracks and saying something that's not there. If you have any suggestions how to further translate legalese into English, we are all ears! --Montanabw

  How about "It is illegal to show a horse or enter it at a horse show, to auction, sell, offer for sale, or transport a horse for any of these purposes if it has been sored."

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done. ==Montanabw

• " While Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking horses ..." - This needs consistency in capitalisation.

  Done. ==Montanabw

• You use "HPA" in the article but do not define it?

  Fixed by adding acronym at first mention. Does that work? --Montanabw

• "For the first decades of Act, " - This needs a definite article.

  Fixed. --Montanabw

• Consistency is needed in whether or not a capital letter should be used for the act.

  Fixed, as no preference expressed, I made it all caps, consistent with usage in legal writing. --Montanabw

• "Pressure shoeing" is used in the article but not explained.

  For a written definition, we have a RS/OR concern and your views on how to resolve it are welcomed! Basically, pressure shoeing is the "...any tack, nail, screw,... and the ..."any other substance or device.. (in this case, trimming and shoeing techniques) parts in the statute, but the statute doesn't say "pressure shoeing" explicitly. ( and neither does the CFR) There's a good RS here on the AAEP protocol for detecting it, but it's really technical and lacks a simple "pressure shoeing is..." definition. So we can look to other examples, and this page explains a bunch of the methods pretty well. this also explains it, and this one is in plain English Would any (or all) of these last three sources work for you as a RS? If so, we can use that definition, somehow. Please advise. --Montanabw

  I would accept that the American Farriers Journal is a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done, added new bit (and rearranged some of what was there) to "Implementation" section. Does tht work? --Montanabw

• "... including the need for inspectors to show knowledge of soreness before inspection; in this case, the court decided they did not." - Which case is this referring to?

  Fixed. Had to redo that bit, it wasn't worded properly in the first place, went back to source material and fixed it to say what was actually stated there. --Montanabw

• The section heading "Proposed amendment" should be in the plural.

  Fixed. --Montanabw

• What is the Tennessee Walking Horse industry?

  Everything about it that makes money; breeding, showing, auctions, etc. -- just like horse industry, automobile industry, textile industry, etc... ? Unclear as to concern?? --Montanabw

  No particular concern, just disappointed that the breed has become an industry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  Preaching to the choir there, $$$ is part of the problem and part of the soring issue. (sigh) --Montanabw

• Why are abbreviations like TWHBEA given when the entity to which they refer only appears once in the article?

  May have been in more than once in previous versions and might appear twice as time goes on, don't want to forget about it. Prefer to leave it that way unless you think it's a real issue? No prob to remove it if it is, but horse industry in general understands TWHBEA pretty fast, sometimes faster than the spelled out version --Montanabw

Thanks for the review Cwmhiraeth! Please let us know what else we can work on or your further thoughts on the article. Glad to see you here for the review! Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with your amendments and have changed my Comments to Support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks

• Image licensing looks good
• FN4, 12, 13, 21: should use endash

  I"m going to let Dana do the techie formatting stuff because she's better at it than I am. I have no idea which way they want this done this week :-P --Montanabw

• FN19: accessdate?

  Re-verified today, fixed (note, due to new material, this is now FN 20)--Montanabw

• FN25: should this publication be italicized?

  Probably, but the template wasn't cooperating. I did it manually. Does that work? --Montanabw

• Case: what pages does this cover in the journal? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  Footnotes 12 and 13 cite the specific pages referenced in the journal. I added the full law review citation to the main source, though I can't figure out how to make the template work now. (It's a legal citation). So it's FIXED, I think. --Montanabw

Thank you, Nikki, for the review! I did everything but the endash bit, I'm letting someone who does more formatting stuff take that one. Montanabw^(talk) 17:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

SupportComments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) - all my concerns have been addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a member of WP:EQUINE but I've not edited this article at all - it's not really an interest of mine. I'm also a Wikicup participant.
• Lead:
  • "Soring is the practice of applying irritants or blistering agents to a horse's front feet or forelegs, making it pick those feet up in an exaggerated manner. High action is desired in..." You don't define "high action" - although it may be clear to some readers from the context, it'd probably be better to define the term. Maybe "Soring is the practice of applying irritants or blistering agents to a horse's front feet or forelegs, making it pick those feet up in an exaggerated manner, a style of movement known as "high action". High action is desired in..."

    reworded lede. See if that's better. --Montanabw

• Background:
  • "Soring began in the 1950s with gaited horse trainers who were looking to improve their chances of winning in the show ring." Why do the piped link here to use jargon when you could just say "of winning at horse shows."?

    Fixed--Montanabw

  • "High action" or "high-action"? And definition needed as pointed out above.

    Hyphens destroyed. --Montanabw

  • Can we get a short explanation for "gaited breeds" in this first paragraph, rather than relying on the link?

    Would prefer not to, as it's not a simple explanation. (From list of gaited horse breeds def: "Gaited horses are horse breeds that have selective breeding for natural gaited tendencies, that is, the ability to perform one of the smooth-to-ride, intermediate speed, four-beat horse gaits, collectively referred to as ambling gaits.") I am very concerned that excess definitions will mess up the flow of the article, that's what wikilinks are for. That said, do you have a proposed way to word this that would not be klunky and "kiddies, a stallion is a boy horse" in tone?? --Montanabw

    A footnote would work, it doesn't have to be in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    I guess I can do that, I don't see the need if we have the wikilink, but whatever. Give me about 20 min to fix and make a note, then let me know if it meets with your approval. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    A wikilink takes the reader away from your article, and they may not return. For something so central to the concept of the article, it should be explained here at this article also. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Link for "American Horse Protection Association"?

    Don't think there's an article on wiki, search came up empty. Should we do a redlink? --Montanabw

    Is there enough to do an article on it eventually? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Beats me and I can't say I'd be the one to do it. Is this an issue?? Just tell us what you want here. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "In 1969, Senator Joseph Tydings (D-MD) " non-Americans aren't going to understand the "(D-MD)" bit...

    Hmm, it's common across hundreds of politician articles and newspapers, first sentence of his article explains it...? I suppose we can just cut it here, does that work? --Montanabw

    That works. What party and state he was from doesn't really have much bearing on this subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    If we cut it in the background section, we need to cut it in the Proposed amendments section too... Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    I think in that amendment context, the state and party is relevant, as it's a bipartisan effort from the heart of Walking Horse country, so I expanded that bit instead and wikilinked the parties. Will that work? Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "leading to the passing of the Horse Protection Act in 1970.[2] The law was amended in 1976." Choppy little sentence there - suggest "leading to the passing of the Horse Protection Act in 1970,[2] later amended in 1976."

    Reworded slightly, will that work? --Montanabw

• Contents:
  • "§1821" - non-lawyers aren't going to understand that funky symbol...

    I used the word "section" the first time and then § the rest of the time. --Montanabw

    Actually, I was looking for something like "Section (§) ..." which then instructs the reader as to what it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    OK, I did that. Is it OK now? Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "which may be civil or criminal" can we link to something that defines the differences between these two types of punishments?

    Wikilinked. --Montanabw

  • "§1830 is currently reserved" HUH?

    Someone will undoubtably ask why we have no § 1830 if we just jump from 1829 to 1831. It's empty. I added "...for future use>" That work? --Montanabw

• Implementation:
  • "Competitors and trainers at shows have been known to leave when they find APHIS inspectors present, rather than allowing the inspectors to see the horses." shouldn't this be "see their horses"?

    OK, fixed. --Montanabw

  • I have a concern with the implication of this sentence "Competitors and trainers at shows have been known to leave when they find APHIS inspectors present, rather than allowing the inspectors to see their horses." One of the sources (the second one) for this statement goes on to point out that one reason the exhibitors gave for not showing up was that they feel the USDA inspectors are inconsistent" and that it's persecution of the gaited horse community. To be NPOV the other side should be presented, instead by just stating that they exhibitors don't show up, it's not presenting their side of the situation.

    I see your point, but I'm wary of going down a rabbit hole or a WP:UNDUE concern ... Seriously, how many paragraphs should we add? There's the "wur bein' pursecuted by the evil guvmint" excuse, there's the "we can police ourselves" excuse, there's the "we don't do it" excuse, there's the "guvmint inspectors disqualify us for a scratch" excuse, there's the "guvmint inspectors are ignorant" excuse, there's the "this will cost us jobs in the industry" excuse, the "it doesn't really hurt the horses" excuse I mean, it goes on and on ... I suppose we could add must the "inconsistent and persecution" reason, but then we'd also need to add the FOSH analysis that USDA inspectors are quite competent -- There's at least a paragraph here... If you see this as a big deal, we can work on it some, but to me it's kind of like holocaust denial. I am open to discussion, however, don't get me wrong... --Montanabw

    To me the competitors are just trying to make themselves look better. They're using excuses to cover up the fact that they're abusing their horses, which has been done since this law was put into place. For one source with competitors saying the inspectors are incompetent, we can provide a dozen with outside observers and even former violators of the law saying that they aren't. If competitors weren't hurting their horses, it wouldn't be necessary for the big equine vet associations to be pushing for more stringent standards and laws. Personally, I think that the competitors' opinions fall somewhere in the neighborhood of a fringe theory. Dana boomer (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Look, I think they are slimeballs too, but that doesn't mean they are "fringe" and shouldn't have their side mentioned at least. We would say what excuse an accused murderer gives, the same would hold true here. I don't think it needs elaborate, but something like "Competitors and trainers at shows have been known to leave when they find APHIS inspectors present, rather than allowing the inspectors to see their horses, with some exhibitors claiming that the APHIS inspectors are inconsistent." Newspaper articles feel that they should mention the excuses, so that tells me it's not fringe. When editors feel strongly about something (such as soring, which I know all three of us despise) it behooves us to work extra hard to make sure what we're putting in is NPOV. If it was a fringe behavior, it wouldn't be impacting shows this much and making the newspapers. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    I added a bit of their view, which was noted in one of the sources. see this diff for the change. I'd think it sufficient without going into a lot of unnecessary politics and detail. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Consistency - in the lead you do "Horse Protection Act of 1970 (HPA)", "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)" and "United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)" which is correct. However, the body of the article, you do the "United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)" for the USDA but do NOT do the abbreviation thing again with either APHIS or HPA... all or none for this in the body as well as the lead. Need to treat these all consistently.

    Killed the second time we said "United States Department of Agriculture" --Montanabw

• Impact:
  • "The largest US association" - haven't defined US and it's generally "U.S." or "U. S." in the states. For that matter, doesn't American English do "U.S.D.A" or "H.P.A."?

    Fixed U.S. to add periods, but otherwise, no not really, Acronyms in modern usage usually omit periods. Definitely when discussing federal agencies. (example) --Montanabw

• Spotchecks:
  • I checked the use of the Womach source, the Patton source, and the Tennessean newspaper source for footnote 26. All were good.

Overall looks pretty good, but some jargony spots and spots that would be difficult for a non-American to understand. Once these are cleaned up, I should have no difficulty supporting. 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, I think I hit most of your concerns, though I couple I'm not sure if we really have a non-klunky solution and am open to further discussion on the matter. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I ran the dash-fixing tool on the article, since I saw a few MoS breaches that it was able to handle. Otherwise, I have no complaints about the article and it appears to meet FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Giants! 21:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

• Caption in lead image: I assume that "multiple pads, extra nails placed in pads to add weight to the foot, possibly pressure on the sole, and band across hoof to hold it all on" all describe "stack", so I'd have thought that there should be an "and" rather than a comma between "shoe" and "stacks".

  Fixed. --Montanabw

• Just to confirm, is the act effectively to prevent soring and nothing else? That's the impression I get from the wording of the first sentence so fine if that's correct but if there's any more to the act I'd expect it to say up front that soring is one of (or the major practice) that it outlaws, not the only one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, but soring is accomplished in multiple ways through both mechanical and chemical methods. Does that help? Montanabw^(talk) 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  All fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:27, 7 July 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) 04:34, 7 July 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, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [44].

---

Tylopilus felleus

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) & Sasata (talk · contribs)

Another pored mushroom, this one a foul-tasting one. A joint effort by the clinically thorough Sasata and me. Lots of eyes have been on it. I think we're nearly there. So come and have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 June 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, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking good. Thought I'd found this one once, but it turned out to be a Boletus species.

• "Anaxoboletus"- Not certain about this, but if this is an informal name and (sort of) higher than a genus, I don't think it should be italicised.

fixed - aligned with source now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• "features outlined below" avoid self references?

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to say that "Index Fungorum" doesn't need to be italicised. The MOS unhelpfully says that "Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis."

hmmmm, the wiki article is italicised and it is a major work. Am open-minded on this one. I slightly prefer italics..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It measures 7–10 cm (2.8–3.9 in)—rarely to 20 cm (7.9 in)[2] tall, and 2–3 cm (0.8–1.2 in) wide—and can bulge out to 6 cm (2.4 in) across at the base." This doesn't read that well. I think you'd need to move the second dash to before the word "tall", as the text between the dashes does not form a coherent subclause.

yep, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm probably showing my "interested amateur" status, but the mycomorphbox lists this as mycorrhizal, but the description in the ecology section makes it sound saprotrophic?

good question - all these boletoid things have been traditionally considered mycorrhizal...but this one has evidence casting doubt on that. I don't recall any of the sources stating outright that it was saprotrophic though....need to double check. The safest might be to have an asterisk/see text notation in the mycomorphbox. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now stated explicitly in the Ecology section that it's mycorrhizal, and added a sentence to give some context about nitrogen cycling with respect to its role as a mycorrhizal partner. Oddly, none of the sources I have discuss the significance of its occasional fruiting on old conifer stumps and buried wood. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Fruiting season is from August to September, though can be as early as June and late as November,[18] in many of the northern temperate zones.[16]" Double check- do you mean it's June to November but usually August to September in northern temperate zones (which is what it currently says), or do you mean it's August to September everywhere, but June to November in northern temperate zones?

the former - rejigged it a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "skim milk" Wouldn't that be "skimmed milk"?

Ahaa, didn't think of that - we call it skim milk in Oz - changed to British spelling. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally very strong. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Support, assuming source/image checks come back fine. One outstanding issue, but it's not a massive problem. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Support from Jim I can't see much here that J Milburn has missed, so I'm happy to support, just one query below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Petter Karsten transferred it to Tylopilus in 1881, a genus diagnosed by its pink spores and adnate tubes,[4] as the large genus Boletus was carved up into smaller genera. — I'd move the final clause to the start so that cause precedes effect

• Changed as suggested, thanks for the review. Sasata (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (own work, Mushroom Observer). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - I would suggest adding states/countries to lesser-known locations, but sources are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. We decided to use a more concise approach to given publisher locations (not giving state/country): it's easy to keep consistent, and it makes no difference on the reader's ability to find the source, given that all of the other more significant bibliographic details are there. Sasata (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comment – Just one thing from me: in Taxonomy, ref 12 should be moved outside the parenthesis mark. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed, thanks. Sasata (talk) 06:07, 30 June 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) 06:31, 6 July 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, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [45].

---

Thomas Ellison

Nominator(s): Shudde ^talk 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Ellison was a highly influential figure in late 19th century New Zealand rugby union, and was also one of the first Māori to be admitted to the Bar. He played with the New Zealand Native Football team that toured Australia and the British Isles in 1888–89, and later captained New Zealand on their tour of Australia in 1893. For someone who died so young he achieved a lot, and has had a lasting legacy on New Zealand society, but on sport in particular. I believe the article is as comprehensive a coverage of his life—and especially his endeavours and influence on rugby—as any available. The page has met the Good Article criteria, and been through a peer review. I welcome comments and questions. - Shudde ^talk 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments: A well-researched article on an interesting person, but I have a few reservations. There are some sloppy features such as the references not being in numerical order throughout, and a few places where the prose is a little rough. The article also seems heavy on background, such as the scrum, and light on details of Ellison's actual life and achievements. His presumably pioneering career as a barrister is glossed over in a couple of sentences. I don't really get a sense of the man himself, or why he was so highly regarded in rugby. I've left quite a long list of points, but I think this one needs a little more work on top of these as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll addressed some, and will try and address them all, but may take another day or so. Regarding the scrum (or wing-forward), I tried to find a balance between discussing the topic in enough detail for it to not leave more questions than it answers, and not going into excessive detail—especially regarding the negative influence the position had on the relationship between the NZ and Home Nations rugby authorities. It would be good if there was a stand-alone article about the position, but there isn't, although I'd like to create one eventually (hopefully). It was a central part of NZ play for nearly 40 years, but without Ellison that would probably not be true. I'd like to have more information on his law career and political views, however nearly all sources only mention those topics in passing. [46] has more on this than all other sources combined. I'm not sure his law career was particularly notable, other than him being one of the first Maori admitted to the bar; if he was pakeha it probably wouldn't be considered notable at all. Anyway hope this at least partially addresses those points. - Shudde ^talk 04:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Watch out for using "Ellison" too much, when a pronoun could be used instead.
• "He led the first New Zealand representative rugby team organised by the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) on their 1893 tour of Australia, and played in the 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team on their epic 107 match tour, and scored 113 points, and 43 tries with the side": Long sentence, with a few too many ands.
  • I've tried to fix this. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "in 1882 Ellison was awarded a scholarship to attend the famous Māori secondary school Te Aute College in the Hawke's Bay. He had been introduced to rugby by a cousin at Otakou, and participated in the sport after starting at Te Aute College": The order seems a bit off here. We go school, rugby, then back to school. Could these be merged somehow?
  • I have reorganised this section, and added a quote from Ellison re his first game of football. - Shudde ^talk 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "when they won the Hawke's Bay senior club championship.[3][4][5][1]": The order of the refs needs sorting here. And four refs in a row looks quite ugly.
  • I've sorted the order out of all the refs, but still have to sort the fact there are so many in a row. I'll find a fix for this. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "After moving to Wellington, he joined the Poneke Football Club in 1885": Don't start a paragraph with "he" as the subject. It should be "Ellison".
  • Done. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "After moving to Wellington, he joined the Poneke Football Club in 1885. The Poneke team played junior club…": Close repetition of Poneke; could be re-worded to avoid this.
  • Done. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Poneke won the Wellington club championship in 1986, and won again the next three years": I'm assuming 1986 is a typo.
  • Yes. Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• How did he perform at school rugby? He suddenly seems catapulted to the Wellington team. And then how did he perform for Wellington, which would have been quite a step up, I imagine.
  • There is no more information on his performance for the school team, but that they won the Hawke's Bay club championship means that they must have been a very strong side. I'm not sure if the step up from club to provincial was as large as it would be today, however Poneke were clearly a very good side if they were unbeaten one season, and then won the club championship immediately after promotion to senior rugby. So he had 3-4 season playing for very successful club sides before playing provincially. I've tried to find more on his performances for Wellington, and I'll keep looking. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The best I've found regarding his time at Te Aute so far is Greg Ryan describing his career there as "distinguished" - Shudde ^talk 11:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Why did he stop playing for Wellington in 1892?
  • I have not found anything on why; it's probably not particularly unusual to retire younger than today, especially considering the sport was amateur, and travel times for provincial games was longer. I haven't found anything to suggest he stopped playing because of injury, his professional career, or family. He did continue to be involved as a coach and administrator. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of "Early life" seems to have a few too many short sentences.
  • I've started to address this, but will try and play with the paragraph some more. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hopefully more acceptable now. - Shudde ^talk 10:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "In early 1888 Joe Warbrick was attempting to organise a private party": Why not just "…Warbrick attempted to organise…"? Or if he succeeded, why not just "organised"?
  • I have reworded this. I've tried to make it clear that he was attempted to organise a tour of Maori players. He ended up recruiting non-Maori as well because of concerns that the squad wouldn't be very strong. It is beyond the scope of the article, but hopefully it reads better now. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I added a note on this that will hopefully this for anyone that is curious. - Shudde ^talk 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "They then toured Great Britain, Australia, and finally New Zealand again—with the trip lasting 14 months": Better to have just "–the trip lasted 14 months".
  • Changed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "and played at least 83 of the team's 107 matches; including a minimum of 58 in Britain.": Why the uncertainty over the number of games he played? I think the reader may want to know. What about a note?
  • I've added a note. The most comprehensive information on the tour is in the Greg Ryan book "Forerunners of the All Blacks" - teams listings for all the matches haven't been discovered/may not exist, so the numbers are a minimum. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "with Ellison playing in the forwards.[11][10]": Try to avoid the noun plus -ing construction. And make sure the refs are in numerical order.
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Second paragraphs of "New Zealand Native football team": A few too many instances of "the natives" rather than a pronoun or synonym.
  • Addressed. - Shudde ^talk 10:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The Natives scored four tries in the half; with their third try scored by Ellison after a counter-attack by George Williams": This sentence does not quite make sense using a semi-colon. And "their third try was scored by…" would be better.
  • Changed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Writing after the tour, Ellison said of the incident—".. gross as these errors were": Why the dash, and I think the ellipsis has gone a little wrong.
  • I removed the dash and ellipsis. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• How was the team received by critics and the public? Were the games popular? Did critics consider the team to be a good one? Were the matches full internationals? Were the opposition full strength?
  • I will add some information on all of this. I think the team were generally well received, the incident where several players left the field against England seemed to overshadow other aspects of it. Whether the matches are full internationals is decided by the union of the respective sides—so for example the Wales Rugby Union get to decide whether to award Test caps to the Welsh players. The Natives were not an international side, and would not have been awarded caps, although their opposition may have (it's a weird rule in rugby, even today the Maori All Blacks won't be awarded Test caps, but sometimes their opposition will). I am not 100% sure either way whether the English, Irish and Welsh were awarded international caps for the game, but from what I have read they were treated like full internationals in all other respects. - Shudde ^talk
  • I've expanded on this. It's almost certain that the three teams awarded caps to their players ([47] and List of Wales national rugby union players offers evidence). The Natives would not have been awarded caps, allblacks.com has a very good archive of past players and past matches, and the Natives would be included there had Test caps been awarded. - Shudde ^talk 11:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "and 10 in New Zealand.[19][1]": Ref order.
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "amply penalize off-side interferences of opponents bent on spoiling my passes ...".[23]": Something off with the punctuation here.
  • I double checked the quote, and it is transcribed exactly from the source. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I actually found another source for this quote (McLean, 1987, p 20.), and it is consistent with the Elliott transcription. - Shudde ^talk 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The use of a wing-forward did provoke controversy": Why not just "provoked"?
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The all black uniform would become famous as that of New Zealand representative sides, and eventually give them their name—All Blacks": The name is as famous as the side? I think this needs sourcing a little better. And the quotes source suggests that this is only one possible explanation of the origin of the name.
  • I'll reword this, but have not yet. A consensus has emerged over the last 15-20 years that the name "All Blacks" derives from the colour of their playing strip, not a newspaper misspelling of "all backs" as was widely believed in the past. I can find more sources for this, but may take a little longer to address than the other issues here. - Shudde ^talk 10:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The tour was the end of Ellison's participation in the sport as a player": Why?
  • See above. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "this was in 1898—nearly a century before rugby relinquished its amateur status": If we are trying to cast him as an ahead-of-his-time pioneer, perhaps the origins of rugby league should not be forgotten! I think we are reaching here.
  • That wasn't the intention; I reworded it to make it more explicit. He was specifically proposing that players be compensated on long tours—so not "broken time" payments or anything like professionalism. It was probably more of a middle ground between broken time payments and strict amateurism. Terry McLean spent a few pages talking about it in New Zealand Rugby Legends, and I can probably expand on it to make it clear that he wasn't talking about domestic tours, only international ones if need be. Players and administrators were still arguing that long tours required to large a financial sacrifice on behalf of the players in the 1980s (when McLean was writing), and that their per diem was not adequate for overseas tours. I didn't want to dwell on it to long, because the proposal wasn't successful. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The book was pioneering, and is a classic of rugby literature.[8][4][32]": Says who? And again ref order.
  • Fixed the ref order, will adding quotes from the sources in the ref be adequate here? - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've included quotes from the sources in the footnotes—let me know if this is acceptable. - Shudde ^talk 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Outside of his sporting endeavours": Makes it sound like he played many sports successfully, but we don't read of these.
  • That was a mistake, corrected now. - Shudde ^talk 03:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "and is believed to be one of the first Māori admitted to the bar.": Believed by who?
  • Changed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "several times against Tame Parata,": Who?
  • Wiki-linked. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "working for government consideration of Ngāi Tahu land claims": Of what? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wiki-linked to Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements which I hope will be satisfactory. This is an aspect of his life that I would like to know more about, but as I mentioned above, sources are lacking. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A few more: Nearly there, I think. I've done some copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything you don't like or which I have messed up. Just a few last points. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He married his wife Ethel May Howell in 1899—with whom he had three children—before his death from tuberculosis in 1904": Do we need his marriage in the lead? And there is no need for "before": he could hardly marry after his marriage! A new sentence would work better if you want to keep his wife here.
  • I've tried something. See what you think. - Shudde ^talk 05:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "In early 1888 Joe Warbrick was attempting to organise a private party": I still think this would be better as "Warbrick attempted to organise..."
  • Done. - Shudde ^talk 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Be consistent in which numbers are given in words and which in figures.
  • I was always taught to use figures for large numbers and words for smaller ones. I've gone through and used a cut-off of 12 before I start using figures. Hope this is ok. - Shudde ^talk 03:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "this would increase the amount of time the half-back would have in possession before their opposite could tackle them": A little ambiguous, perhaps, for non-sports readers. Maybe "in possession of the ball..."?
  • Good suggestion. Done. - Shudde ^talk 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The book was pioneering, and is a classic of rugby literature...": Better to say within the text "according to X" rather than adding a note.
  • I've done this. - Shudde ^talk 04:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Is the "All Black" part finalised yet?
  • Yes , done now. I'm pretty happy with the source I used, it supports the assertion that the name is derived from the playing colours. I've added an additional source however. - Shudde ^talk 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• The only thing obviously missing for me is some kind of critical summary of his career: other than his gravestone, there are no opinions of him as a player, either contemporary or modern.

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I've added a couple of things that I think are appropriate. The quote in the quote box should be PD (the author was born in 1868). Hope this is satisfactory. - Shudde ^talk 07:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I did some light copy-editing on this article, but nothing major. I think this article comfortably meets the criteria now, and well done to the nominator for putting up so patiently with my nit-picking. Good work. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Early life: "Introduced to rugby at the age of around 14 by his cousins at Otakou, later wrote of his first game" is missing Ellison or "He" after the comma.
• New Zealand Native football team: "Ireland led led 3–0 at half-time." Repeated "led" needs fixing.
• Wing-forward: The 1903 link appears at first to be a bare year link—which is undesirable—but turns out to be a valuable link to a tour article. Is there any way we can avoid this situation? Maybe we can make all of "Test match in 1903" go to that link and trust that interested readers will find the Test article if they need it?
• Professional and personal life: Last semi-colon should be a regular old comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made those changes. I changed the sentence with the link to the 1903 tour. I think the link to Test match is probably more valuable, as it's not a term very well known in some parts of the world. Hopefully my changes address your comment satisfactorily. - Shudde ^talk 03:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support – It's been a while since I've seen a really good rugby article at FAC, if I ever have seen one in five years. I'm confident that the FA requirements are met here. It's not the longest article, but it's clear that a good deal of research has gone into it and that this is a quality piece throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Lead: should "wing-forward" be linked, also the wrong hyphen is being used (see later in article when correct hyphen is used)
  • Good spotting – fixed the hyphen. Like I said to Sarastro1 above, there is not an article on the wing-forward position. I might create one in the future if I have time, and when I do I'll be sure to link to it from this article!

Oops, sorry, I missed your response to Sarastro1. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Early life: Otago and rugby are not linked on first usage.
  • They are both linked in the lead, so I didn't link them afterwards. Is this not ok?

It is a little inconsistent when you have done links in both the lead and main body (which is acceptable) for several other things eg. Okatou, 1888–89 New Zealand Native football team. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Early life: He was introduced to rugby at around 14 and presumably played his first game at Otakou; but then he "started playing rugby there [Te Aute]". Do you mean he started playing graded rugby there?
  • Was his first organised rugby; have reworded.
• New Zealand Native football team: "New Zealand born players" close repetition of this phrase, and although not 100% sure, I think it should hyphenated "New Zealand-born players".
  • Tried rewording – see what you think.

Works for me. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• New Zealand Native football team: try is wikilinked, but on its second usage (third if you count tries). Maybe wikilink "converted"?
  • Try was linked in the lead. I linked conversion.
• (one goal and two tries to nil): Re the goal, do you mean conversion or a penalty goal?
  • At the time there was no distinction, both were worth three points. I could maybe add a note on this if you wish. It was a conversion, but this probably isn't important.

Wow, so tries were only worth one point at the time. If it was a conversion, I would say so, i.e (two tries and a conversion) rather than have other editors potentially ask the same question I did. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wing-forward: RE the image, what is with the numbers on the blue players? They are not jersey numbers?
  • There are no official jersey numbers for positions in a seven-man scrum (numbers were standardised after it was abolished). I added the numbers so that there could be a numbered key with each description. See the description at File:2-3-2 scrum.svg. I could add a key to the caption if necessary, or removed the numbers.

I would remove the numbers, adding a key would clutter things up for something that is not necessary for understanding of the article. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wing-forward: off-side is wikilinked but on its second usage.
  • Fixed.
• Professional and personal life: "stood unsuccessfully for the Southern Maori parliamentary seat": should the electorate be wikilinked?
  • Done
• Professional and personal life: "Ellison was buried in Otakou, Otago Heads." An inconsistency here with respect to the first section of the article in which he was born "...at Otakou in Otago, to..." (i.e. not Otago Heads specifically).
  • Like you say, Otago Heads is more specific, but neither is wrong. I would like to have Otago Heads in there, but there is not an appropriate article, so Otago (with a link) is probably the next best thing. What do you suggest here. I'm not really sure what to do either way.

For me it is a matter of consistency. If you prefer Otago Heads, go with that in both places (born in, buried in). I would suggest linking Otago Heads to Otago Peninsula. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Professional and personal life: "I am prepared to say that the late a T. R. Ellison..." should the "a" be there?
  • Fixed.
• Professional and personal life: "...among the backs—half or three-quarter—I and was a fine coach..." should the "I" be there?
  • No. Fixed.

Looks a good article, I thought the description of the wing-forward position is particularly well done. Zawed (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Hopefully everything is addressed, let me know if you are happy with my changes/responses. - Shudde ^talk 12:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking good, some embedded comments above for your consideration. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully everything addressed now. I have gone with only linking in the first instance (including the lead). Let me know what you think. - Shudde ^talk 03:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes satisfactory and I made one myself. Sorry to do this at such a late stage, but I just noticed that some of the notes are not referenced? Zawed (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Most are non-controversial and easily verifiable. I'll added references regardless. - Shudde ^talk 08:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check all OK (PD in Australia and NZ, own work). Sources provided (tweaked some tags). GermanJoe (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that so promptly! - Shudde ^talk 11:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- Hi Shudde, looks like it's been a long time between FACs for you? I've requested a source review at WT:FAC and would like to see someone perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, In the meantime, you have some Harv errors -- this script will highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it has been quite a while! The process is essentially still the same; looks like the project is having more trouble getting reviewers though. Thanks for letting me know about the source review. The harv errors are for sources that are no longer cited in the text (after the changes made during this FAC). They still have value though, so unless someone objects I'll leave them in the source section. I've removed the harvid templates causing the errors however. - Shudde ^talk 07:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they're useful refs but not cited in the article then I'd generally expect them to go in a separate "Further reading" section at the end of the article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Done that. - Shudde ^talk 10:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review but no spotchecks

• Don't include quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
• Formatting error in Anderson entry
• Why have Meikle 2011a when there is no other Meikle 2011?
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There were two Meikle references from 2011, but during the FAC one has become redundant – I've removed it. I've included locations with books. Everything else should be sorted. - Shudde ^talk 10:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor spotcheck. I checked sections of text where the cited source was Anderson 2012, which is available online (ie. footnote 1). They were all good on both reflecting the source and appropriate paraphrasing except for one quibble: the phrase "nearly a century before rugby relinquished its amateur status" is a fact not in the source, though the date to which the phrase refers is indeed in the source. Some readers might regard this as either common or unimportant knowledge, but if we were being sticklers, there would be a source for when NZ rugby turned pro. I also checked the one citation to Meikle 2011, and that was also OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. As far as online sources go, I leaned on the Anderson source more than any of the others., so really appreciate you doing a source check on it. I'm am very confident that the statement regarding professionalism is common knowledge (for anyone quite familiar with rugby union anyway), but I've added a sourced note. For those unfamiliar with the sport it will hopefully be valuable. Cheers for checking those sources, I really appreciate it. - Shudde ^talk 12:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment for delegate - I have left a message on Hamiltonstone's talkpage, but haven't had a response yet. I'm guessing the only thing we're waiting on is a more comprehensive spotcheck? Is it worth leaving a note at WT:FAC? - Shudde ^talk 11:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not returning to this nom earlier. I think we're almost there but:

• We should have a sentence in the lead expanding upon the fact that he was a lawyer -- if it's worth mentioning this profession in the opening sentence then it's worth a bit more info.
• ...the Natives improved considerably in the second-half where they scored four tries. -- I think the second half is an expression of time rather than location, therefore "when" (preceded by a comma BTW) is more approproaute than "where" -- or you could simply replace the last clause with ", scoring four tries." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Addressed both of those. Added a sentence in the lead giving a little more information on his legal and political career. No problems with the speed of reply, I understand you're kept quite busy! - Shudde ^talk 05:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks; I'm satisfied with the review this has had. Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 6 July 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) 05:16, 6 July 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, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [48].

---

Artur Phleps

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently successfully underwent GAN and MILHIST A-Class review and was expanded and enhanced during those reviews using a number of mainly German language sources. Phleps served in three armies, in two wars, was an SS Corps commander in the Balkans and was posthumously awarded the Oak Leaves to his Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. While under his command, the 7th SS Division earned a reputation for savagery and committed numerous war crimes against the Yugoslav population. He was famously photographed with Kurt Waldheim (later UN Secretary-General and President of Austria) during Case Black in Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review:

• First sentence, "a Austro-Hungarian": an ...
• "reaching the rank of Generalleutnant (major general) and also became": comma before "and"
• "after he was killed in September 1944, a posthumous award": redundant; delete one part or the other.
• "third son of ... his mother Sophie": third son of ... Sophie
• "he transferred to the staff of the 13th Infantry Regiment at Esseg in Slavonia, and the 6th Infantry Division in Graz.": Maybe a "then" after the "and". - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, all addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Why do the second set of flags link to image descriptions and the first set to articles?

• It might just be me and a lack of knowledge of flag templates. I've fixed the Kingdom of Romania ones, but the Austro-Hungarian Army and SS ones don't seem to have flag templates that go to the relevant article.

• File:Phleps.jpg: what is the original source/creator of this image? The "unique historical image" tag is tricky, as it's usually only allowed when the image is the subject of commentary in the article

• I have replaced it with a different pic with a historic portrait NFR. Can you check it please?

• Still using the "unique historical image" tag, with creator/status unknown...which unfortunately doesn't solve the problems of the last image, unless you can find more information or a different tag that might apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand all this, but I have added some more information about where the photograph was taken and the date, as well as the fact that it is very likely it was taken by a German military photographer. I assume that means that the relevant copyright resides with the photographer, was extended to 70 pma in Germany before the date of restoration, and is therefore copyrighted in the US too? Do I need to use a "Non-free biog-pic" copyright tag instead of the "Non-free historic image" one?

• Yes and yes, given the information you've presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done

• File:Kirchenburg_Birthälm.jpg: as Romania does not have freedom of panorama, you need to include licensing for the building as well as the photo

• So does that mean I can use PD-art-70-3d with an additional statement as follows: "Per [49], copyright protection in Romania expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer). The lack of Freedom of Panorama (FOP) is no longer relevant for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free. The church depicted in this image was built in the Middle Ages, and it can be reasonably assumed the creator or designer of the church died centuries ago."?

• Yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done.

• File:Artur_Phleps_and_Kurt_Waldheim.jpg: can you give more info on the NYT publication? Date, page?

• added name of article and journalist.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• support I reviewed this at milhist A-Class and have nothing to add to this article at the time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks MB! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- Copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and, having checked alterations made since then, I believe it meets the FAC criteria for structure, prose, referencing, coverage/neutrality, and supporting materials. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • The transition between the evacuation in January and the criticism thereof and the award of the German Cross in Gold in June is a bit abrupt. What did he win the medal for and what did he do during the time in between?
    • I've moved it, I don't have the text to hand to clarify if the reason for the award is provided (other than as corps commander) per the awards section.
      • Ok, that's better, but what did the corps do in the first half of '44?
        • Added three operations, two with links.
  • Where is St. Paul? And Oxford?
    • Done.
  • Fix the title of Kumm
    • It's verbatim off the inside title page. What do you mean?
      • Capitalize "history". There's a deplorable tendency nowadays to ignore title case in titles. Damn kids! Get off my lawn! (shaking my cane at'em)
        • Day'um. Done.
  • Need an ISBN or OCLC # for Schulz
    • Done.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• The rather long rank at the top of the infobox, in my opinion, detracts from Phleps' name and seems rather unnecessary given that the rank appears right next to the infobox in the lead and is then mentioned in the appropriate section of the infobox. So, I think this can be safely removed.
  • Fair enough, done.
• Is it known why Phleps was awarded the Iron Cross in 1917? Same for his World War II awards?
  • No, it is rare for such detail to be available about what were really quite low-level awards issued in huge numbers.
    • I figured as much, but thought I would ask anyway. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• The title of Phleps' 1926 book should probably be mentioned.
  • Done.
• What specifically did Phleps criticise of the government policy?
  • I've added a bit from Kaltenegger, but it isn't clear what the specifics were.
• Who did he ask permission from to leave Romania? The Government? If so, why did he require their permission?
  • have added some material that fleshes it out a bit.
• How did Operation Kopaonik end with little success?
  • Added.
• Is it known when Phleps married? Or are there any further personal details about him available?
  • No, what we have is what we've got, even the Austrian Encyclopedia of Biography doesn't give any.
    • As above, thought I would ask to confirm. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• All done, let me know what you think of the aditions? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All of my concerns have been addressed and I am confident that the article meets the FA criteria, so I am happy to support. Nice work! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:57, 1 July 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) 19:43, 4 July 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, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [50].

---

Three-dollar piece

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. The three-dollar piece is a bit of an oddball in American numismatics, and why there was one and why they kept it 35 years is a bit uncertain. Perhaps it is not quite as queer as a three-dollar bill, but it's getting there. This is another fruit of my research and photography at the American Numismatic Association Library and Museum in January, my thanks for their courtesy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

• near-identical -> perhaps "nearly identitical"
• Longacre's models, both for the obverse and reverse, did not have lettering on them, as the legends and numbers were to be punched once a reduction was made from the large models. - Repetition of models, suggest cutting "from ... models".
• Julian believes that there were no later restrikes, but that pieces held by the Mint in anticipation of demand were obtained surreptitiously by employees in exchange for common-date issues before the proof pieces would have been melted, and were not included in official mintage figures. The proof-only pieces were available to the public only as part of a proof set of all gold denominations, at a price of $43. - that first sentence is making my head spin. Also, you have "proof" four times in two sentences. Couldn't "would have been" be changed to "were"?

• Fantastic article, and great work on an obscure piece that most people have never heard of. I'd give you an image review but as I uploaded nearly all of them there may be a conflict of interest there. I think they are all fine, for what it's worth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Got those, thanks for all your work on this one, you've been in since I was at the museum. I'll forgive you the images, which should be simple, all the images are of coins or medals and I took them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Solid, interesting article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Title for Bowers et al should use endash not emdash
• Whitman Publishing or Whitman Publishing LLC? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. A few minor comments:

• Final words to lead: "only one is known". Does this mean "only one is known to have been struck", or "only one is known still to exist"?

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have raised before the question of terms such as "Indian princess" and "Indian queen". I am raising it here, not because I think the terms are offensive, but simply because of possible confusion. The words "Indian princess" don't immediately suggest a native American princess, particularly to the UK reader; we have been schooled against using the term "Indian" in the American context. And you have used "Native American" in the lead. Perhaps you would consider whether this wording is the most appropriate.
• "the Whig Millard Fillmore administration..." is a bit clumsy, particularly with the double blue. Perhaps: "...the Whig administration of Millard Fillmore..."
• "Julian believes that there were no later restrikes..." and two sentences later: "Numismatic writer R.W. Julian suggests..." The description of Julian belongs to the earlier mention.
• It would be interesting to know roughly how many of the half-million $3 coins produced are thought to be still in existence; is tghere any reliable estimate?

Not that I'm aware of. There are sometimes estimates for individual dates, but they are really focused on how many in the highest grades.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Another for the collection. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've dealt with those.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. The earlier reviewers seem to have fixed all the obvious problems, so I don't have much to add:

• I added a link to Oscar Hugh La Grange.
• Where you talk of resumption of specie payments, a link to Specie Payment Resumption Act might be useful.
• That's all I've got. Nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I will do that, thanks. Appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 2 July 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) 19:46, 4 July 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, 1 July 2013 (UTC) [51].

---

Lie Kim Hok

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I am sure it meets the criteria. I was confused how to introduce Lie. After all, he won't be our first FA on a Chinese-Indonesian, nor on an Indonesian writer, nor even on Lie himself. However, I realised that, if promoted, this article will be our chronologically earliest featured biography of a person from what is now Indonesia. The article had a GA review by Khazar2, which helped immensely, and a PR from Wehwalt and Sarastro1 which polished the prose even more. Hope you enjoy the read! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose, had my say earlier on, worthy and interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of your help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support: I reviewed this article at PR and I think it meets the criteria fairly comfortably. Just re-reading, however, a few little points come to mind. Nothing major, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Watch out for overuse of "Lie". Are there any places where synonyms or pronouns could be used? There are over 70 instances of "Lie" in the main body. The "teacher and publisher" section seems particularly heavy.
• The lead seems to jump a bit abruptly into his biography without really giving a sense of his achievements or significance. Rather than wait until the fourth paragraph, is there anything that could be moved to the first few sentences? I imagine many readers will not have heard of him, and it is good to give a sense quickly about why they should be interested, or why he is notable.
• I think one or two sentences are a touch long in places, and would stand splitting. Nothing concrete here, just a vague sense that trimming may be needed. Perhaps cut back on one or two semi-colons as there seem to be quite a lot. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reviews, I think I've gotten everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Another comment: Watch out for too many sentences beginning "In [year]..." or "After [year]". I think this should be my last nit-pick before supporting! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I got some "ins" but couldn't find enough "afters" to (in my opinion) justify rewording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: There may be one or two minor prose nit-picks remaining, but I think this article comfortably meets the criteria, and I'm happy to support fully now. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-IDOld-Art30, PD-1996, PD-1923, PD-old-100). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the image check! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN18 is broken
• check alphabetization of Works cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done and done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Jim No major problems, well written, looks thorough to a non-expert. A few nitpicks, mainly minor style niggles, before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• peranakan Chinese—this links to Indonesian Chinese, not sure why you have used an obscure term instead of self-explanatory, especially in line 1 of the lead

• Two reasons: one, peranakan is more specific (there are also pure Chinese, not interace, in Indonesia) and two, there was no "Indonesia" until more than 30 years after Lie's death. Ethnic Chinese would work, though, if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• You've translated European foreign language publications in the text, and local languages in the references, but local names aren't translated in the text. I assume this is accepted practice?

• Pardon? I'm not clear on your meaning here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, you meant the Malay titles? I can add that to the bibliography (rather than inflate the body), but some will be lacking (the ones with Chinese names; they aren't Mandarin, and I doubt most Chinese speakers could identify the correct words based on the (nonstandard) romanization. My classmate is Chinese and she protests every time I say "Lie Kim Hok"; she insists on "Li Jinfu"). Is that an issue? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• a rice mill operated by his friend.— the friend isn't named until much later, either give his name here, or change to "a friend"

• Chose the second course of action. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• to the latter field.—the intervening clauses have detached this somewhat from its target, perhaps literary output" although it's a bit repetitive

• How's "literary works" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• the stage and film—I'd expect "cinema" or "screen" here (or plays and film)

• Screen.

• Although displeased with the coupling, he obeyed.—to me, coupling suggests mating, perhaps "arrangement"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• found himself unable to support his wife. As such, he sold— suggests equivalence rather than cause and effect, "Therefore" or something similar in meaning would be better

• Okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• While busy with the press, he wrote or contributed to four books. Two were pieces of nonfiction, one a collection of Chinese prophecies and the other outlined lease laws.— either fourth or last

• Saw that coming before I finished reading your comment. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Another was a partial translation of the One Thousand and One Nights,—Another has no subject, you've done all four books

• Okay, "the third" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ibrahim gelar Marah Soetan—just checking capitalisation is correct

• Correct. "Gelar" indicates that "Marah Soetan" is his title. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• You have an "External links" section but no linked websites, surely redundant?

• I think that was under the (mistaken) impression that the authority control was an EL. Removed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Support No further queries, nice work. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot, Jim! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 23 June 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) 05:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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