Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2014

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, 3 January 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

Hattie Jacques

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC) and Cassianto^Talk

Oooh Matron! The inimitable Hattie Jacques was a much-loved figure in British comedy from her work with the Players' Theatre in 1946 through to her appearances in 14 Carry On films and many appearances with Eric Sykes on television and stage. A woman who was conscious of her weight problems, she spent much of her career typecast into roles that played on laughs at her expense, from Sophie Tuckshop in Tommy Handley's It's That Man Again, to Griselda Pugh, Tony Hancock's secretary in Hancock's Half Hour. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC) and Cassianto^Talk 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tim Riley

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers and my (very minor) quibbles and suggestions were all dealt with there most satisfactorily. As a lifelong admirer of Hattie Jacques I was astonished and gratified to find from this comprehensive article how much more there was to her career than I had realised. This is just the sort of article that gets Wikipedia a good name: it is much the best biography of HJ that I can find on the web, free or subscription. (It is six times the length of the ODNB article, without wasting a word.) Full, fair, proportionate, well illustrated and excellently referenced. Clearly FA standard in my judgment. Tim riley (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks once again for your extremely helpful assistance at PR, and your further comment here: both are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, kind words and support Tim. Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Source Review – NikkiMaria

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN176, 187: page?

• None given, unfortunately. I used LexisNexis to search, and the results show all the details of the article, except page number. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Given discussions like this, can you briefly justify the use of the first Daily Mail citation? (The second is fine)

• I've swapped it out for something more reliable. -SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• FN180: formatting

• Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Can you explain the placement of London in the Sources list?

• Nope! Now moved to a sensible location. - SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether books include locations

• All now included, I think. -SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is the Historical Dictionary author Cathy Hartley or Hartley Cathy? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• The former: now corrected. -SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

All now sorted: thanks very much for picking up on this one: it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Brian Boulton

Support: I did a long peer review. My various concerns were properly addressed, and I am satisfied that the article fully meets the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Brian for all the time and effort you put into both the PR and here: all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492

Comments From Crisco 1492

• Joseph Rochester Jaques (?–?) - what's the point in having a range if it's unclear when he was born or died?
  • I have just renewed my ancestory subscription so I hope to find this. On a second glance, I can only see (1897–1923)? -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I was looking at the grandfather. Or has this already been changed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • There were two occurrences: I've removed them both for the present. We can always add back later if the dates come to light. - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• ventriloquist's dummy Archie Andrews - per WP:SEAOFBLUE this should be trimmed a bit
  • lol, I had no idea of this guideline. Propose to delete "dummy", which appears deleted. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Later that year the short film The Pleasure Garden was released: filmed in 1952, she appeared alongside Le Mesurier in the 38-minute "movie-masque" which won the Prix de Fantasie Poétique at the 1954 Cannes Film Festival. - "filmed in 1952, she appeared" ... I don't think this matches up very well
• A lot of sentences beginning with "she", I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cheers Crisco: the first three points covered, with the final one still to be sorted. Thanks very much for taking the time and effort: we'll sort the final point shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto thanks very much. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think we're down to eight sentences starting "She" across the whole article. The recent tweaking of the lead has lowered the count I think. - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• from Wilfrid Hyde-White's bottom, - is "bottom" the best (most encyclopedic) term here?
• Sykes and a... went on to run for sixty episodes over nine series over the next five years. - Over over?
• destined for a major part in the film - destined? Didn't know encyclopedias recognised destiny as real.
• Did Jacques release any albums or records? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• All now covered, I hope! - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Mostly, though her as a singer still appears to come out of nowhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a minor tweak to try and help, but it still sticks out a little. I'm hoping Cassianto may come up with a smoother way to include. - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Solid article. If Cass smooths it out a bit better, awesome, but I'm already satisfied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think that Cass has done some good smoothing there, so it now reads much better than my awkward prose. Many thanks for taking the time and effort on this: it's much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Loeba comments

I'm getting quite nitpicky here, please consider them only as suggestions.

Lead

• I'm surprised there's no mention of the Carry On films in the first paragraph? Realistically (I'm afraid), lots of visitors to the article won't read beyond the first paragraph, so I always think it's best to give an overall summary of the subject here, and make clear what they are known for. Treating the first paragraph this way also draws readers into the article, IMO.
  • Great point! I had a go at this. What do you think? -- Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• "whose career spanned from 1946 until her death. She started her career in 1946" - Spot the problem :)
  • I do, fixed. Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'd personally merge the third and fourth paragraphs.
  • Done. Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• "a separation caused by her five-year affair with a younger man." - Definitely necessary for the lead?
• I also kind of question the inclusion of the sentence about her overeating. Soon after it we have "caused by her increasing weight", which I kind of think would be sufficient (you could put the 20 stone fact here).
• "which were a result of her" - Suggest "as a result of" or "owing to her".
  • I think I caught all of these with this edit. Cassianto^Talk 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• "a serviceman in the British Army and latterly the Royal Air Force" - Change "latterly" to "later"?
  • Fixed. Cassianto^Talk 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• "As well as being an aviator who attained the rank of flight lieutenant, Robin Rochester Jaques was a keen sportsman and became a semi-professional footballer." - Jarred a bit for me (the opening of the sentence is a complete change in subject), I'd prefer it to be reworded so that we open with Robin's name or an explicit reference to her dad, so that we know we're moving on to him.

• Now tweaked to open with the name. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need to stop there for now but will be back later! --Loeba (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple more sections...

Early post-war work

• I'd rearrange the material regarding how she came to be called Hattie, e.g. "While appearing at the Players' in 1946, she acquired the nickname "Hattie" after appearing in the minstrel show Coal Black Mammies for Dixie. A member of the backstage staff compared her "blacked up" appearance with the American actress Hattie McDaniel, known for her work in Gone with the Wind, and Jacques adopted the name for the rest of her professional career." Summin' like that.
• I feel that the quote box caption should probably give the full name of the show ("It's that Man Again")?
• "the scriptwriter of the BBC radio show..." - Can we link to the specific radio station (eg, BBC Radio 1)?
• "Later that year Le Mesurier divorced his wife" - We haven't heard about this wife, were they already separated or not?

• All sorted, tweaked and altered. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Increasing fame

• Second para: we have "In the show" and "It was on this show" close together.
• "The reviewer in The Times thought that Jacques was "as appealing as last year", - Hmm, I don't find this a very interesting or useful review quote..?
• I'm not sure about including the cast members of Scrooge...George Cole doesn't have a very big role, he's surely only mentioned because Jacques appears on screen with him, but then because he is mentioned it feels like Alastair Sims is tagged on as a necessity... I would, however, mention that the film was a big success.

• Yes on both guesses! The reason I mentioned Sims was that there are so many versions of A Christmas Carol, that this is a good shorthand method of identifying which one it is. It's also (probably) the best-regarded version. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • How about, "including appearing in the successful film Scrooge, starring Alastair Sim"? --Loeba (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like she had the lead role in The Pleasure Garden? If that's the case, I think it should be stressed.
• "who came rollicking and laughing into the world in October 1956, a trifle before his allotted time" - quote seems a bit unnecessary?

• Slightly unnecessary, but I think it gives an insight from JLM and adds a little colour to the rather plain prose of the alternative. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• All now dealt with, apart from the commented two. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment, I feel that there's a slight overuse of semi-commas? Great stuff though, I'm enjoying this and will be back soon --Loeba (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Probably! That's one of my perennial weaknesses: I'll try and weed some of them out. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't you dare! Semicolons are not a vice but a virtue. They prevent staccato short sentences. This is Wikipedia, not the The Sun. Tim riley (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Carry On

• "When the first Carry On film was made in 1958, Jacques was part of the cast." This sentence seems to be made for people who already have some knowledge of the series. I think a brief description is in order, especially stating the type of comedy that it uses.

• I'll leave this one to Cass to sort out: he's the resident Carry On expert. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Private turmoil

• The lead mentioned that her affair was with "a younger man", but I can't see any mention of this in the main text. Unless he was a lot younger, I wonder if this point even needs to be made?

• i've taken out the "younger man" tag: lots of reliable sources (and the Daily Mail) refer to him as younger, toy boy etc, but I can't fine his age at the time shown anywhere, so I've taken it out instead. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• "and allowed Jacques to bring a divorce suit on grounds of his own infidelity. This was to ensure that the press blamed him for the break-up, thus avoiding any negative publicity for her." - So Mesurier allowed Jacques to blame him because he didn't want any negative publicity going her way, is that right? I'd try to make this absolutely clear, something like "He made this decision to protect Jacques from any negative publicity."

• I've reworked this a little. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• So did Schofield's relationship with the Italian woman mean the end of his relationship with Jacques? May be worth clarifying.

• It did: any ambiguity now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Return to Carry On

• "citing an inability to achieve the kind of success that Jacques had experienced in Carry On Nurse" - A bit wordy, how about "claiming that Jacques' performance of the role in Carry On Nurse could not be repeated/surpassed."

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think we get too long a description of Sims' character? I'd trim it to "with Sims accepting a smaller role as the doctor's timid assistant."

• From memory she wasn't a doctor's assistant: I'll leave to Cass to work on. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Final appearances

• A bit too much detail about the British Rail advert?

• Now tweaked back. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• "where on 6 October she died from a heart attack at the age of 58; she was also suffering from kidney failure." - The kidney failure fact here feels very "tagged on".

• It was a major condition when she died, so we have to mention it, but it wasn't the direct cause of death, which is why we have the current form. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Two close-together paragraphs end with "according to Merriman." It would be better to vary this a bit.

• Removed one of the instances, which is still supported by the citation. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Reputation

• I would link the image caption to the text, something like "Hospital matrons continue to be closely associated with Jacques, who first played the role in Carry on Nurse (1959)."

• Yep, now altered. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe a few too many quotes here?

• Possibly, but as this is the section given over to how others viewed her, I think we're just about in the bounds of propriety here, unless anyone else also thinks this should be cut? - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• The "See also" section is a bit problematic...I thought these were frowned upon in FAs? It also means that someone hoping to find a quick link to her filmography won't necessarily know where to look. How about renaming it "Filmography and other credits"? Then you could give a couple of summary statements as well, maybe the number of film, theatre, television and radio programmes she appeared in?

• I've not heard of any FA-related guidelines against something so specifically outlined in the MOS? If we have a section there is would, in effect, summarise much of what has preceded - and is on the attached page, so I'm not sure it's the best approach to take in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No it's not an MOS thing, just something I've read before (people complaining that FAs shouldn't need "See also"s because they should be comprehensive). I still think titling the section "Credits" or something would be better.. I know it's essentially just a repeat of what's come before, but I wouldn't worry about that - it's very standard practice in actor, musician and author articles. We do it so that people wanting to find a simple list have that available and can find it easily. Anyway, I'll leave it with you two. --Loeba (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Very comprehensive and well-written article, congratulations! Having read through it all, I would suggest emphasising in the lead that she was a very prolific performer, particularly on television. This isn't quite communicated at present. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In light of my own comments about the lead, I have but together an alternative here - basically some changes to the opening to stress Hattie's prolific nature in several mediums. I felt this was too bold a change to make without letting you see it first, so put it in my sandbox. No obligation to adopt it for the article, or you can alter it as you please! --Loeba (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your version now in place, give or take the "younger man" tweak. Many thanks for all your time and effort here Loeba: it's very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Cool, I hope you genuinely like it that way - if not please change it back! --Loeba (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Excellent stuff, meets all the FA criteria. --Loeba (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's great: many thanks Loeba: much obliged for the time and effort you've taken here! (and I do prefer the new version of the lead, honest!) - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Much thanks Loeba, your review has been invaluable. --Cassianto^Talk 10:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Note -- Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I've asked German Joe to have a look: he's having a break over the holidays but will help out when he returns if no-one has stepped up Inge meantime. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Hattie_Jacques_in_Carry_On_Nurse.jpg: can the "n.a." fields be filled in? "Not replaceable" in particular is certainly applicable, and is partially covered by the current "purpose" statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've reworked the FUR, so it should be more focused towards where it needs to be (I hope!) - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 30 December 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) 11:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Ian, and for the time and effort of everyone who took part. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. I echo SchroCat in thanking everybody for their help and time in making this FA quality. A great new year's gift! -- Cassianto^Talk 14:20, 2 January 2014 (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, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [2].

---

Henry III of England

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Henry III, one of England's longest reigning, but probably least successful, kings. Revolts, retreats, holy relics - his reign had it all. It has been through GA and ACR reviews, and I believe it reflects the current literature on the King and his reign. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. If he's considered less successful than Aethelred, John, Edward II, Henry VI, Mary I and Charles I, he must have been putting in some real effort :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Dank. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A very brief note: I saw this sentence in the lead: "Henry died in 1272, leaving Edward as his heir". Surely, Edward was the heir before Henry's death, and then became his successor; he was not "left" as his heir? Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Very true! Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Given the number of citations to the ODNB article, why not use a short citation for it?
• I believe the city in which Brill is located is Leiden, not Leidin
• You include both "London" and "London, UK" - either is fine but should be consistent
• "Boydell Press" or "The Boydell Press" or "the Boydell Press"? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've tried to keep the handling of books versus on-line sources consistent. The people of Leiden would agree with you, changed! London and Boydell standardised. Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Support from Jim I made a few notes as I read through, but taken against the quality of the article as a whole, they seemed too trivial to bother with. I'm happy to support this impressive piece of work, even though you have unaccountably failed to mention Melbourne Castle (; Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're right Jim - no article is compete without a link to Melbourne Castle! :) Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments - looking good. A few queries..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'd use the word "fiasco" in the lead as you use it in the body of the text.

Henry had four legitimate, younger brothers and sisters - comma looks funny to me here...I think I'd leave it out....

Hubert de Burgh, a former Justiciar - shouldn't "Justiciar" be lower case here?

but Henry became increasingly ill: concerns about a fresh rebellion grew and the next year the King wrote to his son..... - should this be a semicolon rather than a colon?

Unlike many other medieval kings, Henry did not feature significantly in the works of William Shakespeare, and in the modern period he has not been a popular subject for films, theatre or television, having only a minimal role in modern popular culture - try and avoid two "popular"s in the one sentence....

The war soon descended into a stalemate - funny juxtaposition of verb and noun. I think I'd change the verb to something like "stalled" or something?

• Changes made as suggested - thanks Cas. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support

Article looks pretty good to me. A bit puzzling that the article refers to "Sir Maurice Powicke's two major biographical works on Henry", but makes no use of them. I suggest considering moving some of the notes into the text, but am not fussed about it. The article is fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Hawkeye. Powicke's work is mentioned in the historiography, as it was an influential work in the post-war years. Due to more recent research in this field it is dated now, though, and wouldn't really be what I'd expect to see a Featured Article using extensively as a source. Will take a look at the footnotes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Note -- did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, there was one done against the current set of images here at ACR. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Helps, yes, but I think I'd like to see Nikkimaria, GermanJoe or another specialist double-check here -- will request at WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• A number of captions could use editing for grammar, particularly punctuation - for example, the "first coronation" caption might be better phrased as "A 13th-century depiction of Henry's first coronation in 1216"
• File:Heinrichus_tercius.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Henry_III_penny.jpg needs separate licensing for coin vs image
• File:Henry3ostatky.gif: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes made to files. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 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) 11:04, 2 January 2014 (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, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [3].

---

Two-cent piece (United States coin)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about… a rather obscure coin that only made it for nine years, the second-shortest life of any US denomination. However, the two cent piece started by helping to reintroduce federal coinage after the economic turmoil of the American Civil War. And if Thaddeus Stevens plays a role, it can't be all bad. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

Nice article, leaning support. Feel free to disagree with anything I leave here.

Lead

• "Mint Act of 1873" redirects to Coinage Act of 1873, which doesn't actually list "Mint Act" as a synonym. Should this or the other article be fixed?

It probably should, and I will adjust that article. Sources use varied terminology.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "even the non-silver cent,": would it be better to link this as Indian Head cent? Otherwise it looks like a link to the more general "cent"
• "Nevertheless, two-cent pieces remain inexpensive by the standards of 19th-century American coinage.": I assume this means inexpensive as collectible items?

If that mintage of 65,000 for the 1872 was for the Indian Head cent, which is much more widely collected, it would be much higher priced.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Inception

• "coins should contain their value in metal": is there something good to link to here?

I can't think of any offhand that deal specifically with this, although it is mentioned in a fair number of numismatic articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "nickel as a coinage medal": not "metal"? If not, could we layreaders get an explanation?

Typo.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "according to numismatist Neil Carothers": link "numismatist"?

Legislation

• "up to ten times their values": meaning ten times the value of the metal in them?
  • Sorry, but "both the cent and two-cent piece up to ten times their face values" seems to read as if a two-cent were worth 20 cents? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The cent was legal tender to ten cents; the two-cent piece was legal tender to twenty cents. I've played with it, but I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So with a two-cent coin you could buy 20 cents worth of goods? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you needed ten of them, but yes, it was good for that and would have to be taken, at least in theory, though the importance of legal tender was for government taxes and tariffs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm sure I seem particularly dim here. I'm reading this now as that the government would redeem the coins, but put a cap on the number they would redeem, right? Maybe rewording/combining "both the cent and two-cent piece were acceptable to ten times their respective face values.[15] The government would not, however, redeem them in quantity.[16]" would make this clearer if that's the case? The way it reads now is that individual coins were worth up to ten times their face value. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a different angle. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Crystal clear now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Wharton and his interests would be appeased": or "were appeased"?

Design

• "the Rev. M.R. Watkinson": could we heathens have "Reverend" spelled out?
• "had written to Chase,": or "wrote"?

The narrative is moving back in time, thus the usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "In heraldic engraving": worth a link to heraldry?

I think hatching system a better pipe.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Production and collecting

• "A few thousand of the first business strikes": what's a "business strike"?
  • It's a general strike, meaning produced for the public. 204.234.102.32 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Image check

• All images are properly tagged.
• File:1836 pattern 2c.jpg is causing sandwiching—and given that it's not very clear, is it necessary to include it?
• Alt text would be nice

I understand, but as my alt text tends to get objected to, I would rather leave that to the willing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Except as noted above, I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I believe for File:Washington 2c pattern obverse.jpg you need to explicitly note that you took the photograph in the "source" field. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose, for the Centurion's work on another great article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Can we get an OCLC number for the Bureau of the Mint pub?
• Shouldn't all article titles be in title case?
  • For the sake of consistency. Examples would be Freeman, Green, Kay, LaMarre, etc. I understand that you just followed the publisher's practices, but the shocking decline in grammatical understanding in the last few decades shouldn't affect us. I blame the major cite styles as they don't use title case hardly at all. But I guess I'm just standing on my porch, yelling at the kids to get off my lawn.

You mean examples of title case or examples of needing to be converted to title case?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Examples needing to be converted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, Do you read MOS:CT as covering short works like articles? Because my understanding was that titles of articles in periodicals were not to be in title case.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that they count as "other works". After all, they're just as much creative work as a book, only differing in the length and amount of effort to write.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• And how about ISSNs for the journals?
  • No, not a formal requirement, as far as I could discover, but I've gotten in the habit of adding them when available.

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No other issues noted. Well done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I got the OCLC number. I'm not certain which article title is noncompliant. If you mean the website titles, I tend to reproduce them exactly. As for ISSN, that's a new one on me. Is this now standard? While I'm aware you can search WorldCat by ISSN, it seems only marginally useful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Responses above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I've gotten everything now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• The headings "Bibliography" and "Other sources" are slightly confusing, since a bibliography is a list of all sources, not just books. You could merge the two lists under the "Bibliography" heading, or use "Books" and "Other sources" as subheadings under "Bibliography"
• Page range formats should be standardised (see ref 5 v. ref 6, for example)

Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. (General review to follow) Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Support with a few prose quibbles:

• "A two-cent piece was, according to numismatist Neil Carothers, most likely proposed to get as much dollar value in small change issued in as short a time as possible, as the Mint could strike a two-cent piece as easily as a cent." I have problems understanding what is meant here. I don't think the interpolation helps - perhaps begin the sentence "According to..." etc. But even so I'm struggling.
• "The domestic supply of nickel was then produced by a mine..." I think "at that time" rather than "then", otherwise the sentence reads ambiguously.
• "...a select committee of the House of Representatives endorsed the Pollock bill." What was the "Pollock bill"? (no previous mention as such)
• In the final paragraph of the "Legislation", the terms "the act" and "the bill" are both used. Are they referring to the same thing? My assumption is that a bill becomes an act when it passes into law.
• Production and collecting section: Too much "according to..." – three times in the third paragraph
• "With the advent of the Grant administration, Pollock returned to office" – there is no mention of his leaving office.
• "Pursuant to the authority" seems slightly stilted language, and it's not immediately clear what "authority" refers to.
• (Aside): bearing in mind the long-term impact of his modest request that a reference to God be placed on the coinage in times of war, I am surprised that the Revd Watkinson isn't better known (no WP article!)

I am surprised to and may do a bit of research.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the source review. I'll run through these tonight or in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done all those things, other than researching the Reverend Watkinson, who will have my attention next time I'm at the ANA library, which may be late this winter or early this spring. I'm not aware of any impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 31 December 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) 10:44, 2 January 2014 (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, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [4].

---

Waveguide filter

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 17:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This article was previously nominated and although it attracted some comments there were no supports (or opposes) before archiving. The article is to the same standard and same style as the previous FAs Mechanical filter and Distributed element filter. I am therefore nominating again. SpinningSpark 17:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Mark Viking

I've read through this article and made a few minor edits. I'm not an expert on FA criteria, so will mostly comment on content.

1. The main criticism I have is that the article doesn't really describe in clear terms how a waveguide filters out some frequencies and passes others--what is the intuitive mechanism here? There is a mention that non-resonant frequencies decay down the guide, but why? Are the non-resonant waves absorbed by the guide? Are they reflected back from the input port of the waveguide, and if so, why? I think giving some sort of intuitive picture of the basic mechanism would go a long way toward making this article more accessible.
2. The history section frontloads the article with a lot of unexplained jargon, which makes the article less accessible. I understand this was discussed in the first archive and is perhaps the way FA articles are done, but it backfires in a technical FA article, where a desire to be comprehensive about the history has the effect of introducing many unexplained concepts.
3. I am unsure how FA folks balance accessibility with comprehensiveness, but I was dismayed to find, in an article on filters, not a single plot of frequency response, nor any mathematical models of the frequency response in simple cases.
4. Terms like 'apertures' or 'irises' in the lead should probably be explained in the lead or glossary. I thought to wiki link them, but the target articles were mostly about the optical varieties. Aperture is particularly confusing, as there is a concept of antenna aperture that is completely different.
5. Bethe was only at Rad Lab a short time but produced his aperture theory while there. -- this needs a citation, perhaps from among the sources (1) H.A.Bethe,’’Theory of Side Windows in Waveguides”, M.I.T. Rad. Lab. Report No.43-27, April 1943., (2) H.A. Bethe,’’Theory of Diffraction by Small Holes”, Phys. Rev. VO1.66, pp. 163-182, October 1944, or Cohn's expansion of the theory (3) S.B.Cohn,’’Microwave Coupling by Large Apertures’,Proc. IRE, VO1.40, pp.696-699, June 1952, taken from this paper.
6. They are usually made of brass, but aluminium and copper are also used. -- this needs a citation.
7. More of a question: is it normal to have quite a few red links in an FA article?

Overall, this article is well written and well-cited. I think that if my concerns are addressed (with the exception of the history placement; I'm not sure what can be done there) I will happily support the nomination. --Mark viking (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll deal with all your comments in due course, but I just wanted to address the order of sections issue first. Putting history first started in an earlier filter article at Peer Review when it was suggested that non-technical readers might find the history section more enjoyable and an easier read, so putting it in front of technical details made it a much better article for the general reader. That format has been followed in a series of filter articles, some of which have become Featured Articles. Personally, I have always been a bit dubious about this, but went along with the advice from a non-technical reviewer - it is all too easy to be blind to the difficulties non-technical readers are going to have. You are not the first to make this comment, and really, I agree with you. I am therefore inclined to make the change. However, I wish to wait to see if there are any more comments on this; I do not want to get into the situation where the article is bounced back and forth to please each reviewer in turn. There are also consequences for other articles in the series so this will not be a trivial amount of work and I would like to be sure of consensus first. SpinningSpark 17:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the formatting above. I understand your point of view and have no wish to cause pointless extra work. As a technically oriented editor, I tend to focus on the technical bits. But I could see a nontechnical reader happily ignoring the jargon and enjoying the general history of the devices. I agree, let's see if there is consensus for a change. --Mark viking (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the rest of your points;

• the article doesn't really describe in clear terms how a waveguide filters out some frequencies. I have tried to address this, at least partially, with this edit. The problem here is that waveguide filter covers a broad class of filter using many different mechanisms. It is not really possible to give an overall description except in very general terms. It is a bit like asking for a description of how it works in the lede of the engine article; one cannot even say all engines are rotary, one cannot say they all directly produce mechanical motion from burning fuel (eg steam engine).
• non-resonant frequencies decay down the guide. I cannot identify the passage you are referring to. Please provide a direct quote.
• not a single plot of frequency response, nor any mathematical models. This is an article about a technology used to construct filters. It is not about a class of filter based on transfer function. In principle (and often in practice) any desired response can be implemented in waveguide. There is no particular response associated with waveguide filters so it would be inappropriate and off-topic to include them in the article. The series of articles classifying filters by response include for instance Butterworth filter and Chebychev filter and the mathematics and plots will be found there. Any of these can be implemented in waveguide. The series of articles which this article belongs to discusses filter implementation technologies such as Mechanical filter.
• apertures and irises. Added to glossary
• Your point #5, the passage is already cited to Cohn, as is the entire paragraph
• Your point #6, the passage is already cited, but I will add Connor as a direct cite.
• Redlinks. It is normal in any article to link terms that should have articles. It is not any fault of this article that Wikipedia is not finished, it is everybody else that needs to pull their fingers out :) SpinningSpark 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my points.

• Regarding the point about providing an intuitive explanation, thanks for adding the equivalent circuit explanation, I am sure that will help some folks who have some electronics knowledge to understand these devices a little better. Being a physicist, my intuition is more along the lines of reflection, absorption and propagation of the EM field, so to me a waveguide filters out non-resonant frequencies primarily through reflection of the EM wave back through the input of the waveguide. But such an explanation may not resonate with the general populace. I'll declare myself satisfied here.
• But thinking about this topic some more made me realize that there are two more points to address. The first is that evanescent mode waveguide filters are not mentioned at all in the article. I'll try to add something.
• The second is that in the article it is claimed that The limitation to Q in waveguides comes mostly from the ohmic losses, which is fine as far at it goes, but is not the whole story of loss in waveguides. In all real circuits, insertion loss and return loss are also factors affecting overall losses and thus filter performance. Best to mention these, too, maybe in the Reflections and discontinuities section.

With the exception of the two new points, all the previous points I raised have been addressed. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a description of evanescent mode filters should be included. It is one of the few design considerations that is unique to waveguide. Reflection loss is not really a component of overall loss in the sense of lost energy. Return loss is a measure of the energy reflected back from the filter, which is an essential part of the operation of the filter. Reflections result in insertion loss so one could say (ignoring ohmic losses and the like) that both are expressions of the transfer function of the filter. Further, I would argue that both of these are general characteristics of filters and so belong in an article on filters generally. Here, they can be wikilinked if the phrases happen to get mentioned, but I don't think we need to go out of our way to discuss them. In fact, they are not just general characteristics of filters, they are general characteristics of all two-port networks. SpinningSpark 22:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that I have a broader notion of the scope of this article than you do. But within the narrow scope you suggest, you have addressed the issues above. I will give my Support for promoting this article to FA status. --Mark viking (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Catslash

Before commenting, as I suspect there is a prohibition on canvassing support, I need to declare that Spinningspark [invited] my participation.

I notified everyone who has made substantial comments on this article, whether or not they seemed supportive. SpinningSpark 10:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A few comments on the content before considering the FA criteria:

• The Multiplexer history section refers to directional filters - which made me think: ¿what's one of those? So I concur with Mark Viking's point 2 above (though I recognize that having the history at the top is standard).

Taken with previous comments, I think we are moving to a consensus to put history at the end, but as I said above, let's wait to see if there are any more comments. It may be that only this editor thinks its a good idea to have it at the beginning. I don't even like it myself. SpinningSpark 10:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Though I am prepared to accept the relevance of some band-limited devices that are not intentionally filters, (see Talk:Waveguide_filter#Filter-like_devices), the Moreno coupler does not come into this category (or else everything is a filter, since everything is band-limited). The Moreno picture needs to be replaced by a Bethe-hole coupler or suchlike.

Done, replaced with Bethe-hole filter. SpinningSpark 10:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• In the glossary, the use of free-space wavelength rather than frequency is a bit archaic and is potentially confusing. In the expression for the travelling wave impedance it has to be understood that λ_g as well as λ itself is varying. In the relation for λ_g it must be understood that λ_c is free-space (and in the context, it would be clearer to separate λ_g on the left hand side). I suppose I could fix this myself though.

Are you wanting to write,

${\frac {1}{\lambda _{\mathrm {g} }^{2}}}={\frac {1}{\lambda ^{2}}}-{\frac {1}{\lambda _{\mathrm {c} }^{2}}}$

I could go along with that. Or are you looking for

${\frac {1}{\lambda _{\mathrm {g} }^{2}}}={\frac {f^{2}}{c^{2}}}-{\frac {1}{\lambda _{\mathrm {c} }^{2}}}$

or maybe like this? That seems to me to be unnecessarily complicating a simple relationship. I only included it because it was so simple; arguably, we don't need the exact formula at all in an article like this. SpinningSpark 10:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just realised what your point is about λ_c. So perhaps you want it written like this,

$\lambda _{\mathrm {g} }={\sqrt {\frac {c^{2}}{f^{2}-f_{c}^{2}}}}$

Yes, I would have written

$\lambda _{g}={\frac {c}{\sqrt {f^{2}-f_{c}^{2}}}}$

or perhaps

$\lambda _{g}={\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-\left({\frac {f_{c}}{f}}\right)^{2}}}}\lambda$

and

$Z_{g}=\left\{{\begin{matrix}{\frac {Z_{0}}{\sqrt {1-\left({\frac {f_{c}}{f}}\right)^{2}}}}&{\text{(TE mode)}}\\\\Z_{0}{\sqrt {1-\left({\frac {f_{c}}{f}}\right)^{2}}}&{\text{(TM mode)}}\end{matrix}}\right.$

but it is a minor issue - and as you point out, it would suffice to mention that the wavelength and travelling wave impedance in the guide differ from those in free space. --catslash (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have amended the expression for guide wavelength as susggested. I don't see much advantage in changing the impedance expressions. The forms in the article are nice and simple and now the λ_g expression has been changed it can easily be substituted into the impedance expression by anyone wanting it in terms of frequency. SpinningSpark 12:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't really give this much attention for the next couple of weeks - will the nomination stay open that long? --catslash (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably, they are usually held open anyway while there is still an active discussion on the page. Let's make that a request to the FA Director to poke you when s/he is about to archive if you have not returned by that time. SpinningSpark 12:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

History sections One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, so I think that this article should have a History section. I was apparently the first to suggest moving History sections "earlier in the article" in the Peer Review for Distributed element filter (which is a FA). I note that in that article the History section follows the Lead and a "General Comments" section, so there is a fair amount of explanation of concepts before History. In the Mechanical filter article (also a FA), the History section again follows the Lead, and an "Elements" section, which again provide more explanation and background before the History section. I have not read all of this article carefully and am not an expert on these filters, but could the current section "General description and principles" be moved so it comes before History? That might solve some of the issues raised and follows the model of the other two FAs on electronic filters. For non-experts if the lead introduces the topic, and there is some sort of overview / general explanation, followed by a history section that shows where these filters were used in the past and today, then I think this gives a better idea of what the article is about. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No one has suggested not having a history section at all (at least not here). Your suggestion would not resolve Catslash's issue concerning directional filters, which is not really appropriate to put under general principles. He could easily have pointed to numerous other examples. I request other reviewers to comment here on whether they think Ruhrfisch's suggestion is an acceptable compromise. I will implement whatever seems to be the consensus. SpinningSpark 08:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I came here because Spinningspark posted on my talk page and mentioned this FAC. I wanted to correct what Spinningspark wrote there (in the PR I said the History section could be moved "earlier in the article", not that it must be the first thing after the lead). I am busy in real life and as I noted have not had time to read this article or even all of this FAC (let alone the previous FAC). I am not an engineer, but I have a pretty good grasp of the physical sciences. I find history helps me to understand these very technical engineering articles better, since it lets me understand how these devices were originally developed and used in the past and now. I note that the material on directional filters is the very last section in the article before the glossary. My suggestion (and it is only that) is that the earlier "History" appears in the article, the more likely the general reader is to get to it and find the material in it helpful. Ping me if for some reason you need me, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Image check

• File:Waveguide-post-filter.JPG: photo released under a cc-zero licence
• File:PSM V25 D738 John William Strutt Lord Rayleigh.jpg: published in 1884, now in public domain
• File:Hans Bethe.jpg: U.S. Federal Government photo in the public domain
• File:Pierce cross-coupled filter.png: patent image in the public domain
• File:John Robinson Pierce head.jpg: crop of File:John Robinson Pierce.jpg, a NASA photo in the public domain
• File:Selected modes.svg, File:Iris lumped equivalents.svg, File:Iris coupled filter.svg, File:Post filter.svg, File:Dielectric resonator waveguide filter.svg, File:E-plane insert filter.svg, File:Corrugated filter.png, File:Corrugated filter section.svg, File:Waveguide stub filter.png, File:Multi-hole waveguide coupler.png, File:Waveguide directional filter.png: created by SpinningSpark and licenced cc-by-sa 3.0
• File:Cauer lowpass.svg: created by Alejo2083 and licenced cc-by-sa 3.0
• File:Orthomode transducer.jpg: created by and licenced cc-by-sa 2.0 Germany

The images all look clear to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

More comments from Catslash

Having reviewed the featured article criteria, it seems the only possible objections to the article would be on the grounds of (4) length or (1b.) comprehensiveness. I'd still like to see the History section moved to near the end, after the technical content, so that the article makes sense when read in the order in which it appears - but the FA criteria do not explicitly demand this.

Regarding the length, under a strict reading of the FA criteria the General description and principles section (apart from the Advantages and disadvantages' subsection), might be objected to as a lengthy digression. However the FA review of the Distributed element filter article suggests that most readers need a lot of background explanation before approaching the specific content, so this section is indispensable.

The comprehensiveness depends on the declared scope, which I understand to be any filters constructed from waveguides. There should therefore be a section describing and explaining evanescent mode filters (I am aware that these are now mentioned in History and General description and principles). Also, a question from Mark Viking above makes me wonder whether harmonic absorption filters should also be mentioned (though I would accept no as an answer). Apart from this, I am ready to support FA status for this article. --catslash (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

On the positioning of the history section, we are still short of a definite consensus. Since no one has indicated that this is a show stopper for FA perhaps this can be handled outside the FA process in slower time and broadened to include other electronic articles. I think someone should make a proposal at Wikiproject Electronics and then have the result written into the project article writing guidelines (which are currently less than helpful and could badly use some improvement). Once there is something definite to go on I will happily start amending all the affected articles to comply. At the moment it seems counterproductive to change anything as the next person to come along may have a different opinion.

On evanescent modes, you seem to have missed that I added this to the article some time ago after Mark Viking had added evanescent modes to the history. The purpose and advantage of evanescent mode filters are briefly explained. Is that not enough?

On harmonic absorption filters, I know nothing about them. Do you have a source that could be used to write something from? Are they particularly a waveguide design? A quick google search seems to indicate that a lot of lumped element designs are used for harmonic suppression in electrical power feeds, although microwave filters come up as well. SpinningSpark 03:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the position of the History section is a separate issue

Yes, I saw both mentions of evanescent mode filters (one in History, one in General description and principles), but thought that this type of filter perhaps merited a section of its own (on a level with Resonant cavity filter, Dielectric resonator filter, Corrugated guide filter and Stub filter), providing a description of the structure and explanation of the operation of these filters. In my (very limited) understanding, these filters consist of a length of below-cutoff guide with shunt capacitances (screws or dielectrics) at intervals along the guide. The parts of the guide with added capacitance form the resonators, the intervening cut-off lengths provide the coupling. Probably, coax ports are usual - a transition to wider guide seems unlikely.

The absorption filters I'm thinking of have a large number of side-branches of approximately half-width guide (sometimes two rows side-by-side), terminated in matched loads. Frequencies more than twice the main-guide cutoff (maybe in higher modes) get absorbed. I only mention these because Mark Viking asked whether non-passed frequencies were reflected or absorbed. If you deem this sort of device to be out-of-scope, then I'd be happy with that. --catslash (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with improving evanescent mode filter coverage (but I'm not planning any new diagrams). I don't necessarily think that harmonic absorption filters are out of scope but the issue is the lack of a source. I can find nothing useful on gbooks. I can get something similar to your description from vendor's websites, but these are essentially ads and not suitable for a WP reference. I'm still looking elsewhere, but my access to IEEE Xplore has expired since I retired (these people have no respect for pensioners) and nothing else has turned up so far. I suspect that we should be describing "absorption filters" and that harmonic absorption is just one application of this general type. A class of lumped element absorption filters are Zobel networks (although they are not usually described in that way) which I do know a lot about but I really have no idea if the waveguide version follows that kind of topology. SpinningSpark 19:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A paragraph explaining the structure/operation of evanescent mode filters with no diagram would suffice. Absorption filters are atypical of filters and I would be happy to forget them. I cannot think of any other filter types that I would consider in-scope - and so that would for me tick the comprehensiveness box and secure my support for FA status. I have given up on ieeexplore and now have no direct access. Content always contrived to be outside my subscription anyway - it's a complete rip-off. --catslash (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, both of those are done. I got some IEEE papers on absorption filters from WP:LIBRARY. SpinningSpark 21:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• support: the necessary boxes are now ticked. --catslash (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Note -- Given this has some support, the last review only closed due lack of comment, and it's the silly season, I'm prepared to leave this open longer than we might normally. It does need at least another set of eyes on it, however, and a source review -- I'll post requests for both at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

This topic is difficult for the non-specialist to understand, and undoubtedly that makes writing this a challenge. This article requires more introductory explanatory material than Mechanical filter or Distributed element filter. (Neither of those needed a glossary.) In many ways, this article feels more like a chapter in a textbook that what a Featured article typically looks like. My first impression when looking at this nomination was (a) this topic is way outside my comfort zone, and (b) I don't have a clear concept of what a Featured article on this topic should look like. Because of this, I've avoided the nomination thus far, and I'm probably not the only reviewer to have this reaction. But that's not the fault of the article, so I'm really trying to give this a fair look.

After looking at other Featured articles that require extensive explanation to be clear on what the article is even about—Virus, Aldol reaction, DNA, Oxidative phosphorylation, even Castle—I'm finally convinced that this could be an acceptable way of organizing and presenting information in a FA, even if it doesn't look much like most FAs I'm familiar with. Although the glossary is unusual, I think it's useful and appropriate. Others above have given various opinions about the order and placement of the history section. I agree that this is the "friendliest" section for newcomers, but I really think the reader is better served by having the "General description and principles" section come first. Otherwise, it isn't clear what we're reading a history of. Most similar articles that need a "Here's what we're talking about" section place it before the "history" section.

I'm going to look at this more tomorrow, but for now I'll just give my boring MoS-technicality feedback. WP:LEAD recommends that a lead have no more than four paragraphs; five is not forbidden, but it's discouraged. If the information in this lead can be rearranged into four paragraphs, that would better conform with the MoS. Also, like most articles, this one alternates between using and omitting the serial comma (e.g. "duplexers, diplexers and multiplexers" vs. "satellite communications, telephone networks, and television broadcasting"). Would you prefer to use or omit them?

More will follow later. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, I appreciate that this is a difficult article to review. Not wishing to be argumentative though, I have to take issue with you on your "textbook" comment. A typical page of a textbook on microwave filters looks like this or this. In other words, very heavy on the maths - it is impossible to study this subject properly without a great deal of maths. For the most part, I have entirely avoided introducing maths into this article except for a few very basic simple relationships, and even these I have moved to the glossary (one of the advantages of having a glossary). I consider this article to be an overview of the different designs of waveguide filter out there; some design equations may be appropriate to an article on a specific type, but not here.

On the order of sections, you have probably noticed that I have been resisting making any change here on the grounds of precedent and the lack of a clear guideline. It is not possible to please everybody here. However, I concede the point made by Ruhrfisch, who wants something very similar to your suggestion, that putting "General principles" in front of "History" would actually be more consistent with prior FA filter articles. I am therefore going to crack and make that change. There will probably need to be some moving of wikilinks to get the first occurence. I will go through those either this evening or tomorrow. Right now I need to go out. SpinningSpark 11:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I see you've been busy this morning. No offense was meant by the textbook comment—this article is clearly more approachable an overview than the textbooks you link to.

Previously I mentioned the five paragraphs in the lead. As I read closer, I see that the lead's final paragraph mostly explains what is not in the article. Key terms from the fifth paragraph, like "dielectric rod" and "optical fibre", are not used outside the lead. MOS:LEAD says "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and I think that includes information about what is not covered in the article. Therefore I think most of the information in the fifth paragraph of the lead should be moved to the "General description and principles" section (or another section). The remainder (mostly on the post-wall waveguide structure) could easily be incorporated into paragraph four of the lead. Doing so will help to bring this lead into closer conformity with our MoS.

Also, I'm doing some copy-editing and I will continue to do so, but I still need to know whether you prefer to use or omit the serial comma. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph of the lead is about the article itself -declaring its scope- and not about waveguide filters as such. It might be better to reduce this paragraph to a hatnote along the lines of:

This article is about frequency-selective filters made from waveguide in the narrowest sense of the word waveguide -a metal pipe conveying microwave energy- and including post-wall waveguide. For filters built from transmission lines such as microstrip or stripline, see distributed element filter.

Filters built from optical fibre would only be mentioned if the relevant article exists. --catslash (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD also requires that the lead should "define the topic" and constraining the article scope is certainly part of that. It seems to me that the four paragraph guideline is entirely arbitrary, I suppose intended to prevent the lede from getting out of hand, and does not need to be rigidly adhered to. Happy to make changes for non-arbitrary reasons though. On the serial comma, my usual practice is to only use it when it is required to do so for clarity. I am pretty sure that there is a guideline (haven't checked) that says keep it consistent within a given article. So since it is needed in at least one place we should have it everywhere. Now it is just a case of finding them... SpinningSpark 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the serial commas, that's fine, I'll add them when I come across places for them in my copy-editing. (For whatever reason, they jump out at me.) It looks like they're present most of the time anyway.

Regarding the lead, however, I'm afraid I'm unwilling to support a FAC that violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in two obvious and imminently fixable ways. Some parts of the FAC may seem arbitrary to some editors, but FA criterion 2 still requires that they be followed. Of course there will be occasional exceptions where following a given point of MoS would clearly detract from the quality of the article in a specific situation... but in this case, of course the lead would be just as effective if it were organized into four paragraphs, and of course the article would cover the subject just as well if information about out-of-scope waveguides were covered elsewhere. Currently in this lead, more words are devoted to material not covered in the body than are devoted to the history of waveguide filters, which is the longest section of the article; that really goes against both the spirit and the letter of our Manual of Style. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the scope information to its own section. Does that solve the problem? SpinningSpark 16:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thank you for being flexible. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the serial comma usage is now totally consistent. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand why "Advantages and disadvantages" is a subsection of "General description and principles". As analysis, it seems to me that it should be its own section. (As I am clearly a non-expert, I want to know if I'm off-base in this.) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  I'm happy to have that as a separate section. My feeling was that general pros and cons belonged in the general section, but I don't think it is important. SpinningSpark 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  That's fine. Do you think it should still be above the "History" section? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't know what to think about the history section any more, the issue makes my head hurt. My personal preference was to put history at the bottom of articles, but it has been moved up in previous articles to please other reviewers. As I've said to other editors on this page, it is not possible to say what the order of sections should be until we have a project guideline which says what they should be and in the meantime we should desist from moving stuff back and forth. But to give you a more helpful answer, I am still thinking of the pros and cons as general information and if "general" is to go before "history" then it is in the right place. Also note, I have renamed "General description and principles" to "Basic concepts" as the title seemed no longer appropriate with the pros and cons moved out. SpinningSpark 16:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• When the article states "Losses in waveguides mostly come from ohmic dissipation losses caused by...", this sounds like a redundancy in the word "losses". (Is the statement analogous to "Losses at Walmart mostly come from financial losses caused by..."?) I honestly don't understand the topic well enough to know for sure, but it sounds like it should be reworded. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed, done. SpinningSpark 21:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Captions are usually either noun-phrases (e.g. "Pierce's waveguide implementation of a cross-coupled filter") or complete sentences. The captions of the three portraits are problematic. For the first, I would suggest "Lord Rayleigh first suggested waveguide transmission." (note the period, since it's a complete sentence), although "Lord Rayleigh, who first suggested waveguide transmission" would also work. The second portrait caption is odd, because Hans Bethe is not an aperture theory. I would suggest a sentence like "Hans Bethe produced his aperture theory while at Rad Lab.", though a noun phrase akin to "Hans Bethe, who developed an aperture theory" would also work. (It's hard for me to know how to word this, since the Hans Bethe article doesn't mention aperture theory at all.) The third portrait caption should probably be something like "John R. Pierce made import innovations in cross-coupled filters and contiguous passband multiplexers.", though I'm not sure how to make the wording most accurate. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  I've tweaked the captions, see what you think. SpinningSpark 21:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  That's great, thanks. (I added periods, since they are now complete sentences.) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is this correct, or is it a typo? "These made Richard's work more usable in unbalanced and waveguide formats..." Is the "and" spurious?

  No, it isn't spurious. "Unbalanced" is a different format from "waveguide". It refers to formats where the return path of the current is through ground or the shielding such as coaxial cable or microstrip (as opposed to balanced formats like twisted pair where identical conductors are provided for the current in both directions). We could write in full "unbalanced transmission line" but that is clunky and I doubt that it would be any more helpful to those that don't know. Instead, I have wikilinked unbalanced. SpinningSpark 17:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, great, that link makes it clear. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Cauer's work was largely developed during the war..." Do you mean WWII? (You'd previously mentioned Kuroda's 1955 work.)

  Yes, WWII, and yes, Kuroda is slightly out of historical sequence, but his work follows on from Richards' whereas Cauer's work is along a different line. SpinningSpark 17:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, I specified WWII in the text to make that clear. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble following the grammar here, but it may just be that I'm not familiar with the terminology: "and the stubs will have a lumped-element approximate equivalent circuit of parallel resonant circuits connected in shunt across the line." Is that what you intended to say? (I'm just double-checking.) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I think so. Can you explain where you think there is a problem with the grammar. By equivalent circuit we mean an analogous conventional circuit that behaves in a similar way. By parallel resonant circuit we mean a capacitor and inductor connected in parallel with each other. By line we mean a pair of conventional conductors along which a transmission can take place. By shunt connection we mean connected between the two line conductors (as opposed to series connection which breaks one of the conductors to insert the components). All four combinations of parallel or series resonator inserted in shunt or series with the line are possible. The sentence is attempting to specify which of those four combinations is germane. SpinningSpark 22:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. The thing about English (as opposed to most other Indo-European languages) is it's so difficult to tell what's a noun, what's an adjective, and what's a verb, without some rather specific contextual clues. I think the sentence is fine then. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. This is a very challenging article to assess, but after giving it a couple of careful reads and a very thorough copy-edit, I am now convinced that it passes. It follows our MoS fully and avoids grammar or phrasing problems. The order of sections is at least as good as anything I could come up with, and the lead succinctly summarizes the content. The review given by someone who actually fully understands the topic makes me more confident that all necessary information has been covered in a balanced way (which I'm frankly not competent to assess myself). I'll go out on a pretty sturdy limb and put my signature on it: this article passes our FAC and should be featured. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Tks Quadell for joining in the review when needed. Can I assume you went over reference formatting? I realise now I mustn't have saved my edit when I thought I posted the source review request at WT:FAC, so if you've done it or can do it that'd be great, just let me know here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

I previously checked the formatting of the references and fixed a few dash problems; everything else looks great there. I had not carefully checked the formatting of the Bibliography. I have now, and I found a few nitpicky issues, which I'll list below. I also did not spotcheck—nor am I qualified to assess whether the article accurately summarizes the sources. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• In the bibliography, most entries begin with the name, followed by a comma, and then the title. When there are multiple names, they are separated by semicolons (not "and"), with a comma after the last name. But there are entries with very minor formatting inconsistencies in the punctuation around the names: Belov et al., Huurdeman, Levy & Cohn, Mason & Sykes, Matthaei et al., Montgomery et al., and Young (1963)
• Also, Edward Cristal's name is given as "Cristal, E.G." in one entry, and "Cristal, Edward G." in another.
• And the comma after the year at Schumacher looks out of place too.

  All done. SpinningSpark 16:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I patched up a final few details. The source check is complete, and everything checks out. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:08, 30 December 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) 10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [5].

---

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is an Anglo-American development of the first-generation Hawker Siddeley Harrier that is capable of vertical or short take off and landing, or V/STOL. It entered service in the mid-1980s with the US Marine Corps before being exported to Spain and Italy. Like its predecessor, the aircraft has attracted significant attention due to its V/STOL ability and, to a lesser extent, its high-accident rate. With more than 340 examples built, the AV-8B will be replaced by the F-35 Lightning II.

After about 100 hours of research, writing and collaboration with other editors, I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. This FAC is the second after a premature nomination I made in 2011, when the article was sorely lacking in content. With this nomination, I am looking to make the article the 15th FA of WikiProject Aircraft. All comments are welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Images

• File:YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg: source link isn't working. Same with File:Marine_Corps_TAV-8B_Harrier.jpg, File:McDONNELL_DOUGLAS,_BAe_AV-8B_HARRIER_II.png

• @Nikkimaria: I've replaced File:YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg with another photo, removed File:Marine_Corps_TAV-8B_Harrier.jpg and replaced the URL of File:McDONNELL_DOUGLAS,_BAe_AV-8B_HARRIER_II.png.

• File:USMC-07516.jpg: source link is dead, tagged as lacking author info. Same with File:USMC-12252.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've replaced File:USMC-07516.jpg and File:USMC-12252.jpg with two other images. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

In the lead the "UK", presumes that all readers will know its the United Kingdom. Should be in brackets after first use of the full names. Same with USMC as you have done in the origins section.

In that section inconsistency of terms - starts with Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC). Then in the next paragraph its RAF and Marine Harriers.

In the same paragraph - the US was unwilling, same as first point not everyone will know what the "US" refers to.

Numbering - 12 aircraft, 40 percent, RAF, 60 then in the upgrades section we have twenty-eight and later on in the Spanish navy section eleven aircraft.

Not sure this should be in an article about the aircraft seems to be a memorial and off focus "Some of the VMA-211 pilots fought as infantrymen during the raid; the squadron commander, Lieutenant Colonel Chris Raible, 40, was killed while leading an attack on the insurgents, armed only with his pistol. The attack was described as the worst loss of U.S. airpower in a single incident since the Vietnam War." Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Jim Sweeney: I've address all your points through these edits. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Slightly shaky Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Shaky because these are the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class; in the "improved diff", that shows up as a sea of red and green, but I hope I didn't miss anything. These are my edits. Some reviewers will object to "and the latest in July 2013" per WP:DATED. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sturmvogel 66

Comments (Taken a bit at a time as this is a big article)

• What does the link of Combined arms have to do with "support of ground troops"? I think the link of close air support suffices.

• @Sturmvogel 66: Removed link. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why is Pegasus 15 italicized on first use? And isn't it missing "the" in front of it?

• Remove italics. Added the.

• The engine was more powerful but had a diameter 2.75 in (70 mm) greater, too large to fit into the Harrier easily. Isn't there a missing comma here?

• Added comma after powerful.

• Why are you inconsistently italicizing designations on first appearance? YAV-8B, GR.7 forex, but not AV-8B(NA) or GR.5?

• Italics were present when the designations themselves were discussed. For example, in "the designation GR Mk.7; earlier GR Mk.5", the designation of "GR Mk.7" was talked about, while that of the GR Mk.5 was not. I've replaced all italics with quotation marks for consistency.

• Why bother even doing that? I don't see a need at all for either italics or quotation marks for aircraft designations. I certainly don't see many used in other aircraft articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Removed quotation marks.

• At the time, the USN wanted to procure A-18s to constitute its ground attack force, and so pressured the USMC to adopt the F-18 instead of the AV-8B to fulfill the role of close air support (both designs would eventually be amalgamated to create the F/A-18 Hornet). This is unclear. The reader has no idea what an A-18 is and thus its close relationship with the F-18.

• Reworded to "At the time, the USN wanted to procure A-18s to constitute its ground attack force, and to cut costs, pressured the USMC to adopt the similarly-designed F-18 fighter instead".

• Don't like constituted; howzabout a simple "for"? Otherwise, this gets the relationship between the two aircraft backwards; the A-18 was a derivative of the F-18.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• took its maiden flight Never seen this usage before. The common phrasing is "made", not "took".

• Replaced.

• (LERX, which are extensions to the root of the wing's leading-edge) If you're not going to use the phrase again, there's no point in giving the abbreviation. And the explanation seems a bit redundant as the actual link title suffices to explain it. But perhaps I'm biased because I already know what they are.

• The explanation was added after an editor wanted clarification on what the LERX was. Removed initialism and explanation entirely.

• Is the BuNo for any individual aircraft really worth knowing?

• I don't see why not.

• Seems a bit detailed for an enyclopedic article.

• Link financial year.

• Linked.

• 824 variants were delivered This is unclear and should be rephrased to inform the reader that 824 Harriers, of all models, were delivered.

• Reworded to "824 Harriers of all models were delivered".

• I haven't heard of any interest by Taiwan in the F-35 recently. Your cite is two years old; is it still current?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Updated with recent Taiwanese request for F-35.

• Excellent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• would follow shouldn't this simply be "followed"?

• Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Now for the Design section:

• The first sentence is inadequate as I'm used to a bit more general description of the aircraft. Forex, from a book on the Westland Wyvern that I just finished: "The Wyvern was a cantilever low-wing monoplane of all-metal, stressed skin construction, fitted with retractable main and tail wheel landing gear plus catapult and holdback attachments and a tail hook." Now that probably should have been split into two sentences, and "single-engined" should have been added somewhere, but that does give a good general description that can be elaborated and explained later on in the section.

• I've merged the first two sentences and added the fact that the aircraft is of metal and composite construction.

• Didn't the first generation Harrier have four wing stations, plus a belly hardpoint, plus the cannon mounts on the belly? The wording here is confusing.

• Reworded.

• Fuel capacity can be enlarged I found this awkward and too wordy. Just tell the reader that additional fuel can be carried on the hardpoints.

• Reworded.

• McDonnell Douglas overhauled how about redesigned instead?

• Replaced.

• More later, hopefully in a more timely manner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ian Rose

Support Comments -- recusing myself from delegate duties for a copyedit and detailed review...

• "the second aircraft, which crashed in November due to engine flameout" -- I realise the article is pretty detailed but can we record the fate of the pilot?

• @Ian Rose: The pilot ejected safely. Added to article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• "These modified AV-8s were flight-tested during 1978 and 1979." -- timeline seems off to me since we just said the first one flew in November 1978, didn't we, meaning there wouldn't have been much of 1978 left...? Not sure that this sentence as a whole adds much anyway...

Up to Design, more later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've rephrased the latter sentence as "Flight testing of these modified AV-8s continued into 1979". I don't feel it's entirely redundant, as it leads into the next sentence; the "Positive results in other areas" that lead to the development contract, were specifically positive results in the flight testing mentioned in that sentence. I've clarified this a little. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Works for me. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Continuing where I left off...

• "deliberately engineered lateral stability" sounds a bit odd to me -- since we're comparing it to the original Harrier, why not "increased [or greater] lateral stability"?

• Reworded.

• I feel I should know this as someone reasonably familiar with modern military aircraft but why is "front-fuselage" hyphenated and "rear fuselage" not?

• Removed hyphen. Sorry for the confusion.

• General point: not sure of the number formatting standard -- I see "22", "seventeen", "60", "a thousand" -- but perhaps I'm missing something...

• Converted to numbers.

• Another general point: "air strikes" or "airstrikes"?

• Fixed.

• "Spain did not send its aircraft carrier to participate in the Iraq War in 2003, instead deploying F/A-18s and other support aircraft" -- "other support aircraft" implies the F/A-18 is a support aircraft, so do you mean "close support", or are you referring to some other type of aircraft like transports?

I think that completes the main body, will take a look at other sections in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Removed support. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tks for those changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking now to the statistical sections, and assessment criteria in general...

• "Approximately 117 aircraft have been written off since the type entered service in 1985" -- 117 is a very exact-sounding figure so "approximately" seems odd; obviously this figure is subject to change so assuming it is in fact accurate can we be precise and say "as of July 2013, 117 aircraft have been written off..." (and drop "and the latest in July 2013")?

• Reworded.

• Structure of the article seems fine, as does the level of detail.
• Happy to rely on Nikkimaria's image check, and hope she'll be able to perform one of her patented source reviews as well... ;-)
• Certainly leaning to support but my review has mainly concentrated on prose/style so will await finalisation of Nick's content queries before declaring -- strong effort in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think all my points above have been actioned and, aside from a couole of things that I've just copyedited, changes in general since I last reviewed look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I have the following comments and suggestions:

• "Approximately 340 aircraft were produced" - can a precise figure be given?

• @Nick-D: The most detailed table I could find regarding production figures was in the Nordeen (2006) book. If you go to Appendix B on page 165, it says that 507 Harrier IIs have been built, including 96 BAE Harrier IIs and 74 remanufactured USMC AV-8Bs. If you take them away from 507 that would leave us with 337. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• "and the RAF's small 60-aircraft requirement" - why did this contribute to the British withdrawal? This wasn't that small a fleet for the British military of the era (from memory, far less Sea Harriers were ordered)

• I'm not sure. The reference says that. I don't want to pull any strings.

• The paragraph which starts with "The two companies took different paths toward an enhanced Harrier" is a bit confusing given that the previous para says that the project never really got off the ground

• Added "Despite the project's termination, the two companies..." Possibly because the requirement was still there? I really don't see this as peculiar at all.

• "The plan for Harrier II development was authorized by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) in 1976" - why did the US military re-launch the project a couple of years after abandoning it?

• I can only guess. 1) Like I said above, because the AV-8A would still need to be replaced. 2) Much research had gone into a replacement. The requirement was still there for an improved Harrier, but not at an expected price of the AV-16.

• Surely there was some explanation at the time? Major defence programs like this need to be explained to congress, etc. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Added. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Despite these political obstacles" - the obstacles described seem to have been more bureaucratic or doctrinal than "political"

• Replaced.

• Why did the UK re-enter the program?

• Added.

• Was there a link between the development of the Harrier II plus and the similar British Sea Harrier F(A).2?

• No publication has discussed any links between the two models.

• Was the development of the later models of the Harrier II influenced by the British combat experience in the Falklands War? (in which the Harriers were hugely successful, but the value of precision weapons and a need for beyond visual range missile capability was made clear)

• Again, no publication has discussed any links between the two. I would've thought that adding BVRAAMs and the precision weapons would have been a logical step had there been a Falklands or not.

• "financially sounder" is a bit awkward ("more cost-effective", "cheaper", etc do the job)

• Replaced.

• A summary table of the number of aircraft of each variant produced would be great if the data are available

• Page 165 from Nordeen (2006) does not list out the production number of each variant.

• "The aircraft returned to Iraq " - it's earlier said that Harriers flew patrols over Iraq from 1992 until 2003, so "returned" doesn't seem right here

• Reworded.

• I'd suggest replacing the praise of the Harriers over Iraq from their commanding officers with independent assessments. This book should have good material if you haven't already consulted it.

• I've removed Major General Amos's quote, but decided to keep General Hailston's. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• What operations did Harriers conduct over East Timor in 2002? A MEU (presumably with Harriers) provided limited support for the Australian-led intervention in 1999, but I've never seen any suggestion that Harriers were used over the then-Indonesian province (Australia only flew RF-111s on photo recon sorties over East Timor during this period after clearing them with the Indonesian government due to the sensitivities involved - squadrons of F-111s and F/A-18s were on alert at Darwin and RAAF Base Tindal though if things went pear shaped). By 2002 things were pretty calm in East Timor, but the Marines did kick off occasional training exercises in the country at about this time which have involved MEUs. Similarly, are you sure that Harriers operated over Rwanda in 1994?

• It's unfortunate that no additional details were given regarding the AV-8B's exact roles over East Timor. And yes the Harrier did play a role in Rwanda. Again, not sure of the exact nature. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the source has either confused 1999 with 2002, or confused an exercise in 2002 with an actual operation. There were no US military operations in East Timor in 2002 (the country was under the protection of a UN force at the time, and so there was no need at all for the US to intervene there). Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• Here's the quote, "Harrier IIs also have assisted in many other humanitarian operations in Liberia and the Central African Republic during Operation Assured Response (April-August 1996), Albania during Operation Silver Wolfe (March 1997), Zaire/Congo during Operation Guardian Retrieval, Sierra Leone during Operation Nobel-Obelisk (April-June 1997), and East Timor (2000-2002)". I'll replace the current wording with "2000". --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still pretty sure that reference is mistaken. East Timor was pretty quiet by 2000, and the US did not contribute forces to the peacekeeping force there. The force was Australian-led and no Australian jets were operating over East Timor at this time as there was no need for them. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the mention of East Timor. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the report that the ex-British aircraft were to be pressed into service with the Marines has been comprehensively discredited, and I'd suggest removing this (it seemed to be wishful thinking from a British writer rather than something which made military sense given that the USMC would have to spend a lot of money to modify the aircraft to be fully compatible with its standards)

• I wouldn't remove it. I would've guess that it would cost what? $200 million to upgrade the systems, and given the attrition rate of the Harrier II, I don't see plans to induct the British aircraft into the US military as illogical at all. I would keep that paragraph. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Did any other writers regard the Air Forces Monthly article as credible? Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Most likely not. I have trimmed most of the details and merged the paragraph with the one above it. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• You could note the remarkably rapid replacement of the Harrier fleet in Afghanistan following the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid.

• Added.

• The description of the role of the Italian aircraft in Libya is focused on them having "conducted intelligence and reconnaissance sorties over Libya, using the LITENING targeting pods while armed with AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-9 Sidewinders", but it's later noted that they also dropped a lot of bombs: did they also operate in a strike role?

• Flightglobal does not talk about strike missions, while Defense News does. Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to the Spanish aircraft, you should probably note that Príncipe de Asturias was retired early in 2013 and they now operate from the Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) (it would be worth looking for information on whether Spain's financial crisis has effected their flying hours and the plans to eventually replace them with F-35s). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Added. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments are now all addressed, and I'm pleased to support the promotion of this fine article. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: Thanks for the review and support. I really appreciate it. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher and location for periodicals
• Be consistent in whether you include UK for London. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• All fixed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

Support (having stumbled from my own FAC at Typhoon Maemi)

• "The project that eventually gave rise to the AV-8B" - not sure if "gave rise" is the best choice of words here. Perhaps "...eventually led to the AV-8B's creation"?

• @Hurricanehink: Done.

• "While retaining the general layout of its predecessor, the aircraft incorporates a new wing" - given that it was only produced until 2003, should that be past-tense?

• I don't think so. I mean, the aircraft is still in service, and is still relevant. For comparison, Panavia Tornado uses present tense even though it has been out of production for 15 years.

• " Since corporate mergers in the 1990s, Boeing and BAE Systems have jointly supported the program. " - "since" is a weak word here. Perhaps use "after" or "due to"?

• Reworded.

• "AV-8Bs have participated in numerous conflicts and humanitarian operations" - to get some parallelism, perhaps say "have participated in numerous military and humanitarian operations"? I think it'd read better

• Reworded.

• "American and Italian AV-8Bs are to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, with the USMC expected to operate its Harriers until at least 2030." - I thought "American" and "USMC" were the same here?

• Reworded to "USMC and Italian Navy AV-8Bs are to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, with the former expected to". --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the first-generation Harriers entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC), it became increasingly apparent that they were handicapped in range and payload." - it became apparent to whom? I think the sentence should be reordered to something like, "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the first-generation Harriers entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Marine Corps (USMC), but were handicapped in range and payload." I think it's cleaner that way.

• Reworded.

• "The engine was more powerful, but had a diameter 2.75 in (70 mm) greater, too large to fit into the Harrier easily." - kinda weird sentence structure. "Although more powerful, the engine's diameter was 2.75 in (70 mm) too large to fit into the Harrier easily."

• Reworded.

• What does "the RAF's small 60-aircraft requirement" mean?

• Replaced small with insufficient.

• "The United States Navy (USN), which has traditionally procured military aircraft for the USMC" - why present tense?

• Changed tense.

• Why did the DoD add the Harrier into their five year budget in 1981? That's a pretty key event. Is it anything to do with Ronald Reagan becoming president and increasing military spending?

• I'm not sure. My sources do not talk about Reagan at all. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• "400 Harrier IIs, with the USMC expected to procure 336 aircraft and the RAF, 60" - who got the remaining four? Is that "Four full-scale development (FSD) aircraft were constructed"? If so, no need to do anything here.

• Yes indeed.

• "to rebuild aircraft at a lower cost than new-built aircraft" - can you find a way to cut on redundancy?

• Reworded to "rebuild aircraft at a lower cost than manufacturing new ones."

• Make sure you add "GAO" after General Accounting Office, since you use that acronym later

• Done.

• " 31 August 1984 to 30 March 1985" - is there a reason you use British dating, given that the article is largely about an American aircraft (isn't it?)

• Altered throughout.

• "The AV-8B saw extensive action in the Gulf War of 1990–91" - was it used in any earlier skirmishes? Or is this the first one? If the latter, maybe indicate that? (if you get a source to say that was the first)

• See below.

• "On the morning of 17 January 1991, a call for air support from an OV-10 Bronco forward air controller against Iraqi artillery that was shelling Khafji and an adjacent oil refinery, brought the AV-8B into combat for the first time" - this sentence could be clearer. Maybe say [AV-8B was first used in combat on the morning of 17 January 1991, when..." or something

• Reworded.

• What is "85 percent aircraft availability record" mean?

• I've linked availability.

• Do you have any stance whether to use "East Timor" or "Timor-Leste"?

• Removed altogether as Nick-D disputes the source. Thanks for the review! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

All in all, a pretty good article. I was thinking, it might be good to emphasize a little earlier some of the flaws, such as the long takeoff time in the "Design" section? That way it doesn't seem biased in favor of it being awesome. :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy to support now! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Hurricanehink: I really appreciate it. Have a good day! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fly past support
  • In early 1989 the law was changed to allow the navy to operate any aircraft with a maximum weight of over 3,300 lb (1,500 kg) This sounds very weird. can you verify that it is correct?

• @Hawkeye7: Here's a quote from Nordeen 2006, "At first the Italian navy was restricted by a 1937 law to flying only light aircraft and helicopters. Until this law was overturned in 1 989, there was no way to arm the Giuseppe Garibaldi with a new fighter." I don't have access to Wilson 2000 atm to verify the weight, but I'm sure it was from that source. It was weird when I heard it as well. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Citation required on the last paragraph of Spanish Navy.

Well done Speedy Phil! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Added source. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• ...and thank you for the support! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

This is a strong candidate. The writing is of a professional standard, the article is well-organized, the lead correctly summarizes the article, and the sourcing is great. The article has a few MoS problems involving commas that most FACs have:

• A few places in the article use the serial comma (e.g. "a redesigned fuselage, one extra hardpoint per wing, and other structural and aerodynamic refinements"), but most other places omit it (e.g. "the United States Marine Corps (USMC), the Spanish Navy and the Italian Navy"). MOS:SERIAL says "Editors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself."
• Per MOS:COMMA, when a date is formatted as "November 9, 1978", the year is acting as a parenthetic, and needs a comma after it as well as before it (unless it ends the sentece). This is a problem for several dates in this article.

• @Quadell: I've added commas where necessary. Please notify me if I've missed any. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall go over it with my trusty fine-toothed comb soon. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Combed. You got damn near everything. I fixed the last few stragglers. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Beyond those common problems, I've identified a few issues in the text.

• Is "the withdrawal of the UK" an accurate phrasing? I wouldn't say they withdrew from a plane.

• I don't see anything wrong with it. They withdrew from an aircraft project. Could you clarify your point? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The remainder of the sentence discusses McDonnell Douglas redesiging the AV-8A Harrier, so when I read the paragraph in isolation, the phrase seemed like a misplaced modifier. But in the preceding paragraph, it's clearly the project that was discussed, so I don't suppose it's an issue. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• The quote "widow maker" needs a clear and direct source, both in the "United States Marine Corps" section and the "Incidents and accidents" section.

• I've move the reference in "Incidents and accidents" and added quotes from the articles to the references. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's great. This is one of those cases where I think a link to a dab is warranted. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• In "Incidents and accidents", I don't know what "written off" means.
  • It comes from write-off and is quite a common term in Commonwealth countries, effectively meaning "totaled" in this case, but if it's more unusual in the US (since this article is using US English) then perhaps it could be altered... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. The words write off has a more technical accounting aspect to it. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with a tax write-off, but I would not have guessed "written off" meant something like "totaled". If there exists an accurate and clear rewording, it would certainly help U.S.-based reader know what the article is saying. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Quadell: I've replaced it with "damaged beyond repair" and kept the wikilink. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe the "Aircraft on display" section is notable enough to be mentioned in an article of this size. (I could be convinced otherwise, though.)
  • FWIW, pretty sure this is a commonly employed section in such WP articles, including some other military aircraft FAs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
    • If it's not uncommon in aircraft FAs, that's fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• In the "Specifications" section, the ref line in {{Aircraft specifications}} lists "Nordeen, Boeing Airforce-technology.com". You'll need either a comma or an "and" after "Boeing" (or both, if you choose to use the serial comma).

• I've added the comma and and. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also in "Specifications", I think the note at the bottom ("An upgrade program is currently...") should be an actual footnote.

• I've removed the note altogether because Googling yielded results from the ten years ago, so the program is not exactly taking place currently. It is not a notable issue anyway. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why do you cite the "See also" list?

• It was a major issue during the previous FAC. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it sure was. It's unusual to cite a "see also" section, but I do see the reasoning behind it, and there's nothing in the MoS against it, so that's fine. (It is good to see a "see also" section so narrowly focused.) – Quadell ^(talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I plan to add issues here as I find them. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. After reading it over again, I'm impressed with the organization of the article and the clarity of the prose. Any final nitpicks would be easier for me to fix myself than bring up here. I think it's fully ready. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Quadell: Thanks for the review and support. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sp33dyphil. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (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) 11:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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