Tiruchirappalli is one of the oldest inhabited cities in India. With over 2000 years of known history, the city is fourth largest in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The article underwent a thorough peer review and most of the concerns that came up during the first FAC were resolved. Ravichandar84, the article's principal contributor is inactive now. Being my first nomination, I look forward to comments —Vensatry(Ping me) 14:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph is well written but there is a discrepancy. The population in the lead is 0.916 million (can this be written as "around 916 thousand") but the infobox states 846,915. Which number does the census quote?
The infobox figure is the census data, while 0.916 million is the updated figure released by the corporation based on the expanded city limits. I've added a note to both figures. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The figure was not give by the census authorities. It was provided by the corporation based on their calculations. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, but I'm wondering if it would be better to change it to "around 916 thousand" (or even the exact census count if it's available) instead of 0.916 million (which is unconventional, at least in wikipedia)
I've updated the actual figures, thanks to Hindu—Vensatry(Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation does not have this number in it. Also you should say where that value came from (for example, a municipal census) or something like that.
It does give the number, click on the next image. I've added a note explaining where it comes from. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty tenuous source, it doesn't even have a date! Is there an official source from the City Municipality available?
I strongly disagree. The news has been published by Hindu (a week ago), one of the leading newspapers in the country. The figures were released after the "Corporation Council" meet. Nothing can be more reliable than that. —Vensatry(Ping me) 17:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the primary source would be more reliable than a secondary source (without a date!) no? Since I don't know how statistics are released in India, and from an outsider perspective it's strange that the official public data is disseminated exclusively through a private newspaper, but I can take your word for it.
Date? what are you referring to, the publication of the release or some other dates. The article was published on 28 Nov 2013 and it's pretty to clear that the figures were given out by key members of the Municipal Corpn. such as the commissioner, mayor, etc., In India census authorities give out the complete set of data only 4-5 years after the census operations has been carried out. I have no problem in mentioning the 2001 figures in the lead too, but isn't it better to go with latest published figures. —Vensatry(Ping me) 05:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should be more clear. A census was taken by the municipality correct? What year was the census taken? This wasn't apparent in the newspaper article you quoted. 2011? or 2013?
Municipal bodies they themselves don't take census; they make just projections. In this case they might have got the data from the census authorities and calculated for the areas that were newly added to the corporation and arrived at the figure. Besides, I've already added a note for clarification so it shouldn't be a problem. —Vensatry(Ping me) 05:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I thought! You had confused me previously. So the census was the official Indian Census of 2011? NOT conducted by the municipality? Above you wrote that it was the "corporation" that calculated the numbers. I thought you meant the municipality. Now I understand. So the solution would be to fix the note so it says that the municipality calculated the new population using the 2011 Indian census.
The sentence has "as of 2011" at the end. We shouldn't say "as of 2013" because the last census was taken only 2 years ago and the city was last expanded in 2010. Doesn't make any difference if I were to say "as of 2013". —Vensatry(Ping me) 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 2: Is the birth Christianity a good frame of reference for the history of a city in India? Would it not be best to use an approximate date of founding or something more historically relevant to the local context?
"Tiruchirappalli's history can be traced back to the second millennium BC when it was a Chola citadel" I thought the Chola's empire did not begin until 3rd century BC, about 1700 years later.
Paragraph 3: The "index of 59.02" is meaningless without explanation. Suggest rewording to say something like: "Tiruchirappalli is among the top ten cleanest cities in India according to the National urban sanitation policy (2010)." Or "Tiruchirappalli is among the top ten cleanest cities in India." then cite the National urban sanitation policy (2010)
Minor grammar issue: "...such as... having campuses in the city". Such as means a list, but you have a qualifier at the end. So do you mean all have campuses in the city, or just the last one in the list? It's ambiguous.
Wording: "In a rock inscription carved in the 16th century, Tiruchirappalli is mentioned as Tiru-ssila-palli, meaning "holy-rock-town" in Tamil. Orientalists Henry Yule and Arthur Coke Burnell wrote that the name Tiruchirappalli may have derived from it.[6][7]" into something like "Orientalists Henry Yule and Arthur Coke Burnell wrote that the name Tiruchirappalli may have derived from a rock inscription carved in the 16th century where Tiruchirappalli is written as Tiru-ssila-palli, meaning "holy-rock-town" in Tamil.[6][7]" ?
Though the sentence would look a bit longer, I'm okay with the suggestion. —Vensatry(Ping me)
" etymology of the name" this is tautological. Consider "etymology of Tiruchirappalli".
I would say it's still tautological. Etymology means the name of something, so you don't have to say it twice. To be more specific, if I used a synonym for etymology, the sentence reads "The study of the name of the name Tiruchirappalli". Consider changing "etymology of the name Tiruchirappalli" to "etymology of Tiruchirappalli".
Though your explanation seems logical; I think both are accepted forms: See [2]—Vensatry(Ping me) 17:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done as suggested. 17:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Demographics
The city had an average literacy rate of 88.71%; significantly higher than the national average of ??%? You need this value here to make the assertion that it is significantly higher.
Why are you using the 2001 census for all this data, is there not 2011 census data available?
Only the provisional results have been published and that too is incomplete. It's better to rely on the complete set of 2001 datum until the final results are out. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The city's population is predominantly Hindu... why give statistics for the percentage of Muslims but not Hindus? Is this data unavailable? (Same with other religions... what does "sizeable Christian population" mean?)
Religion-wise data is available only for large cities. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine either way, word choice in this case is the same to me. I was just hoping for a number on the Hindu population but I accept it's not out there, comment withdrawn.
"As a separate division of the Southern Railway is headquartered at Tiruchirappalli city, there is a significant Anglo-Indian population in the city." This sentence does not make any sense, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...
It does have some significance. The note explains everything. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it didn't have significance, just the way it is written makes no sense whatsoever. The grammar is incorrect at the very least. And I don't see any reason why this information needs to be in the note instead of briefly in the sentence.
Actually Dwaipayanc wanted an explanation for the presence of Anglo-Indian population in the city and so it is. I've made some minor c/e. —Vensatry(Ping me) 17:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayanc is correct and you should include an explanation here, but that sentence still doesn't make sense. "As a ..., there is...". What? That's not grammatically correct, and I think you are trying to say because of the jobs at this building there are now many Ango-Indians there, but that's not what it says at all. Maybe something like: "There is a significant Anglo-Indian population in Tiruchirappalli concentrated around the Southern Railways divisional headquarters where they are employed."
This is better. I was hoping you would not delete that reference to respect Dwaipayanc's suggestion. I would still prefer it in the main body, but this is fine.
Are there any statistics on the percent of language speakers available? I realize there may not be but if there is it needs to go here.
That's not even available for metros. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, substantial population of Sri Lankan Tamil migrants needs some sort of value, what exactly is "substantial"?
Again, accurate sets of data isn't available. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want I shall remove this too. —Vensatry(Ping me) 05:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's ok, best leave it in. I was just hoping for some statistics. I didn't know they are unavailable. Withdraw comment.
"Attributing to the rapid growth of the city, then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M. G. Ramachandran drafted a plan to shift the administrative headquarters of the state to Tiruchirappalli" This info is incomplete, what happened to this plan? Shelved?
It's very well explained in the next sentence. —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, it isn't. There was a plan to move it to the capital, but it's not currently the capital, so what happened? Mattximus (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A satellite town was near Navalpattu on the outskirts of the city was planned but the idea was shelved by successive governments" Grammar error.
"The topology of Tiruchirappalli is nearly flat, with an average elevation of 88 metres (289 ft), with a few isolated hillocks rising above the surface, the highest of which is the Rockfort." Two clauses with "with" are not reading well.
"The hottest months are from March, April and May..." grammar error.
I did not catch any mention of the monsoon in climate.
"The daily floating population..." What is that?
" Saurashtrian is the language..." Saurashtrian language is redlink? That should be blue.
"As of 2008, Tiruchirappalli had a crime rate of 459.99" The rate needs to be elucidated, 459.99 per what? Also, more recent data may be available.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the rest. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"At its peak, over 12 million cigars were manufactured and exported annually" Any approximate idea which year we are looking at?
The source does not mention the year. —Vensatry(Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... the most famous among them is the Gandhi market, an important source of vegetables" I think "source" is not an appropriate word for market. Perhaps trading place or something like that. In this particular case, I am not sure how appropriate is the word "famous", at best it is probably well-known in the city or the district.
"The chief workshop manager's office at Golden Rock was awarded a star rating by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency for the proper and regulated usage of electricity in its offices" This info seems to be too unimportant to be included in this article.
"This was followed by a seamless steel plant—which cost 580 million (US$8.9 million)—and a boiler auxiliaries..." So, which year was this seamless steel plant? If the year is near 1965 (BHEL year), the rupee conversion is wrong.
" The ELCOT IT Park, the first IT park in the city, has been commissioned for 600 million (US$9.2 million); it was inaugurated by the Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M. K. Stalin on 9 December 2010". The person who inaugurated is unnecessary info,
"the culture of Tiruchirappalli is similar to the Brahminical culture prevalent elsewhere in the delta" Brahminical culture links to Brahmanism in disctionary. Brahmanism, according to the dictionary link, is the culture and tradition of Brahmin caste. I doubt the whole city/delta follows the tradition of one caste only? The other meanings given says "Historical Vedic ritualism, contrasted with Shramana traditions", and "The conduct or attitudes ascribed to the social or cultural elite within a given society". I doubt teh city practices some historical Vedic tradition. Also, we cannot generalize the practice of elite class to the whole city.
True the whole city doesn't follow Brahminical culture. Yet there is no significant presence of people belonging to a particular caste. However, people living in places like Srirangam and Thiruvanaikaval and areas surrounding the Rockfort are predominantly Brahmins. The city does no even have an won slang unlike other cities in the state such as Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore, Thanjavur, Tirunleveli, etc., —Vensatry(Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you told here, "the whole city doesn't follow Brahminical culture". So, you should not generalize that to the whole city. You can, of course, mention that certain areas of the city has predominantly Brahminical culture. I did not understand the understand the sentence "The city does no even have an won slang unlike other cities in the state such as Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore, Thanjavur, Tirunleveli". Do you mean a local dialect by "slang"? How is that related to Brahminical culture?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. I quoted the "slang" only to say that the city does not have significant number of people belonging to a particular caste who follow a particular culture. Of course, it had nothing to do with the Brahminical culture. —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Aadi Perukku, Some other prominent festivals held locally are" Semms to be some grammar error.
"The 12th century Tamil epic Kambaramayanam was recited at the Ranganathaswamy temple in Srirangam" What is meant by "recited"? Somebody recited the epic on some day in the temple? That may happen in any temple repeatedly. What is the significance? Do you mean first recited/created?
In this context to refers to delivering the epic in front of other eminent scholars. Kambaramayanam is considered a masterpiece in Tamil literature and yes it was first delivered at the temple; henceforth the claim. —Vensatry(Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Once a part of the ancient Chola kingdom..." Why ancient? was it part of just Early Cholas, and not the medieval ones? Even then, better to use early Cholas.
I disagree. If I use once a part of "Early Cholas" it would imply that it was ruled only by the early Cholas. —Vensatry(Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so why use the adjective ancient? Cholas are not ancient, they were present in medieval era as well. Simply mentioning Chola would suffice.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Teppakulam at the foot of the Rockfort is surrounded by bazaars.[219] It has a Manimandapam at its centre and has facilities for boat ridin" I think re-wikilinking Teppakulam here is worthwhile. Also, what is a Manimandapam? Wikilink, or simple English meaning would be great.
" The SRM Group of Colleges established the SRM Institute of Science and Technology atIrungalur near Tiruchirappalli; this was followed by Chennai Medical College and Hospital in 2007" You mean there is a hospital called Chennai Medical College and Hospital in Trichy?
Yeah, the name of the hospital itself is "Chennai Medical College and Hospital" —Vensatry(Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, you should add Nobel-laureate in physics to CV Raman either in the image caption or in the text.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hockey and cricket are the most popular sports in Tiruchirappalli" The source does not mention hockey. I understand a source may not be readily available which plainly state hockey is a popular sport here; but at least the source should have some mention of hockey.
"a sports hostel" I am not sure if everyone would understand what a "sports hostel" is.
I don't think an explanation is needed since both terms are self-explanatory. —Vensatry(Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not know what "sports hostel" could mean. Mattximus (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any relevant link here. It's pretty straight forward, sports hostels are hostels that are located with in the sports complex meant to accommodate athletes. —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "hostel for athletes" instead of "sports hostel"? Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... parks monitored by the corporation lack maintenance issues" You mean they are well-maintained or poorly maintained?
Isn't it clear from the sentence that they are poorly maintained? —Vensatry(Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I also had no idea. Literally, "lack maintenance issues" means they are well maintained, but the sentence suggests otherwise. Mattximus (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, never thought that way. Fixed —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rasika Ranjana Sabha, founded in 1914, is the only popular venue for arts and cultural events in the city" It is the only such venue? Well, you don't need to mention the names of other venues, but I doubt such a city would have just one such venue.
As far as my research goes it is the only venue in the city; which again doesn't get much patronage these days. —Vensatry(Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" In 2007, the AIR launched Ragam, a separate Carnatic music station, from Tiruchirappalli. Apart from the government-owned AIR, private FM radio stations such as Hello FM and Suryan FM broadcast from Tiruchirappalli" Consecutive sentences ending in same words; please consider re-wording.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The popular Tamil weekly Ananda Vikatan launched a local supplement for Tiruchirappalli on its 85th anniversary" Probably better to have the year (if at all) than just the 85th anniversary.
"A Chief Distribution engineer is stationed at the regional headquarters at Tennur" Why is C and D in capital but not E of engineer? Either all should be small, or, the E in engineer should be in capital.
"Apart from the Gandhi market, Central Bus terminus and the Chathram bus terminus, solid waste management in the city is handled by the corporation" Ambiguous meaning. The corporation manages waste management in the city except those three places, that is the intended meaning, right? The sentence, in its present form, may also mean that Gandhi market, Chatham terminus, Central terminus and corporation are four agencies that manage waste management in the whole city.
"Recently, the Tiruchirappalli city corporation has begun the scientific closure of the garbage dump and its replacement with a sewerage treatment plant" Needs year instead of recently.
Removed the claim since it is still not implemented —Vensatry(Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove? I think the sentence structured as I had above is ok, don't you think? Plus I want to respect the suggestion by Dwaipayanc.
I said the idea is still not implemented by the corporation, and I'm sure Dwaipayanc has understood that very well and marked it as resolved. —Vensatry(Ping me) 05:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Waste water management in the Trichy-Srirangam underground drainage (UGD) areas are handled by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD) and in other areas by the Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation" The verb should be is or are I am not sure.
Any data available on health indices for the city? I understand data may not be available easily.
I made a thorough search in newspaper articles, and various govt. published sources, only district level data is available. —Vensatry(Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...10,000 lorries in the Trichy—Chennai stretch every night" This should not be emdash.
In references, why are using India within parenthesis on some instances when The Hindu is used? It is not as such necessary to mention the publication country. If you, however, wish to do so, the style should be uniformly used (in this article), Times of India, Hindustan Times (which have been used as references) should also have India in parenthesis. However, this is not really needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead—"The Cauvery Delta begins 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) west of the city as the Kavery River splits into two, forming the island of Srirangam; now incorporated into the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation." That semicolon after Srirangam is probably not correct. It gives an extra pause, and makes it difficult to understand that it is Srirangam that is now incorporated into the corporation.
"Tiruchirappalli's history can be traced back to the third century BC when it was a Chola citadel." Rather, "In the third century BC, Tiruchirappalli was a Chola citadel". That would be more direct, smaller, and precise. Also, "citadel" is usually a fortress. So, are you specifically referring to the Rockfort? Otherwise perhaps some other word would be more suitable.
I prefer not to change the existing structure as gives the earliest history of the city, and moreover starting a new paras with "In (time period)..." is not advisable. Rephrased the part involving citadel. —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The archaeologically important town of Uraiyur, the capital of the Early Cholas, is a suburb of Tiruchirappalli." Not sure if "archaeologically important" is good prose. Perhaps, Uraiyur, the archaelological site of the capital of the Early Cholas, is a suburs..." is better. However, I am not very sure about this.
Archaeological site would imply that excavations are still being carried out. Uraiyur is not an archaeological site like Ajanta, Ellora, Mahabalipuram or Gangaikonda Cholapuram. We should not name it archaeological site unless it's been labelled by the Archaeological Survey of India. —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The city played a critical role in the Carnatic Wars (1746 – 1763) between the British and the French East India companies." You can actually say the critical role, rather than just hinting. Like, " Siege of Tiruchirappally took place during the Second Carnatic War involving the British and the French East India companies." I don't know if there were any other critical roles. If there were, the case may not be easy, and perhaps keeping it as it is might be ok.
Lead is only a summarisation of the article, everything else is explained in the body and the sub-pages. If I go on to add Siege of Tiruchirappalli, Battle of Golden Rock, Battle of Seringham, etc., we'll end up in a long list. —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The most prominent historical monuments in Tiruchirappalli ..." "most" can be removed without any loss of meaning.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An impressive piece of work, and of a high standard, but some quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The use of italics seems arbitrary in places. It's correct to italicise non-English translations like ragi and cholam but not names of places and things. I have doubts about a number of words, especially where they are not italicised in their own articles. Early examples include Teppakulam, Rockfort
I use italics here to emphasise the name of the monument. In this case, Rockfort is used as a proper noun rather than a common noun as the name of the monument itself is Rockfort. Same for Teppakulam —Vensatry(Ping me) 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it's the capital letter that distinguishes Rockfort (proper) from rockfort (common)? Its own article has roman, not italic. I can't see how this conforms to MoS. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
''A few sources say that the city was named Natharnagar after the Sufi saint Nathar Vali—this is part of your etymology for Tiruchirappalli, but it's not obvious to me how one name transmogrified to another so different. Also seems a very late date for the name of an ancient city to originate.
Attributing to the rapid growth of the city, then Chief Minister... —I don't think this makes sense
What exactly is the question here? —Vensatry(Ping me) 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You attribute something to the rapid growth of the city, it's not intransitive. Either there is a word missing, or "attributing" isn't the correct word (referring?), or the phrasing is failing to communicate what you intend. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ragi (finger millet) and cholam (maize) —Why give the Tamil(?) name priority for just these two words in the whole text?
shilpa sastras, Jallikattu, Teppakulam, Mandapa —not italicised in own articles, not clear why here. Also inconsistent with Aadi Perukku, Samayapuram flower festival, Vaikunta Ekadasi
I'll take a look and make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning), and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prose of the lead will read better if all three paragraphs do not start with "Tiruchirappalli..."
I've listened to reviewers often saying new paras should start by naming the subject directly. Correct me if am wrong. —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly one - and it is better to use the subject name rather than "It.." - but not all three. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tiruchirappalli has a number of historical monuments....being the most prominent. - reword to " The most prominent historical monuments in Tiruchirappalli include the Rockfort, the Ranganathaswamy temple at Srirangam and the Jambukeswarar temple at Thiruvanaikaval." (or something similar)
You mention it is an important educational hub in the lead - is it more so than other large cities in the region? I don't think a reference to its importance in British rule (in the Education section) is sufficient for this.
It has more "Institutes of National importance" than Chennai, the state's capital. As for the British rule, I guess the next two sentences support the claim. —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, the references for its importance in education in British rule can't be used for now. The ref now added to the lead should be used in the body of the text and expanded on a little. Also "hub" is a somewhat informal maybe - not sure on this. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear. Do you want to add a recently published source for its importance in British period? Alternate word for hub would be centre which again makes no difference. —Vensatry(Ping me) 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I see. Mainly I wanted the lead's material to be replicated somehwere in the body of text, which it now is Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The recorded population density was 5,127 /km2 (13,280 /sq mi) while the sex ratio was 1000 - something missing here in the ratio...
The sex ratio is equal, is there a need to elaborate on this? —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be 1000:1000 or 1:1 - not just "1000", which is not a ratio. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried that the 2nd-4th paras of the Early and medieval history section are a bit listy (event after event after event) - any encompassing sentences describing them will improve the prose flow I think, or anything else that breaks this procession.
What could be added in "History", nothing but events. Can you be more specific about what needs to be changed? —Vensatry(Ping me) 18:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section contains alot of sentences along the lines of, "this happened, then that happened (etc.)". I am not familiar with Indian history, so it is just alot of names. I wondered whether any descriptors - was it a particularly turbulent time overall, was the city poor or rich. Anything else that breaks up the sequence would be good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Pallavas constructing the rock-cut cave temples within the Rockfort, the Delhi Sultanate plundering the region, the idol of the Ranganatha in the Srirangam temple disappearing, the Vijayangar kingdom reviving Hinduism by reconstructing temples and monuments that were destroyed by the Muslim rulers, the city flourishing under the reign of Vishwanatha Nayak who constructed the Teppakulam and built walls around the Srirangam temple, Nizam of Hyderabad bribing Murari Rao, Wallajah proposed renaming the city to "Natharnagar" , etc., all these facts aren't interesting? —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - the way that you said it just then made it sound more interesting. Maybe I am wrong about what needs to be remedied. I will look again. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, I have seen the phrase/verb "began to decline" used 3 times at least - often the "begin" is redundant, and "decline" can be used alone. Also, can we use another verb instead of decline at least once here?
I have read through various sections of this and part of me feels the prose is at or somewhere near FA status - I am not seeing any prose-clangers but have a feeling the prose could do with a little more massaging. CAn't comment too much on other issues as I am not familiar with the city, but call this a leaning support unless other folks find prose issues, which I'd also consider need doing. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Omer
Firstly; I could not stop my self to appreciate your (Vensatry) dedication and hard work for the article. Best wishes for FA.
The article is well written and is improved a lot since my last visit, Though it is hard to find any errors, mean while to improve the article further more I would like to suggest some comments.
As of 2009, the Indian software company Infosys is planning to start its operations in Tiruchirappalli.[193] : Do we need to keep it or mention it? I mean its been a long time, since 2009 if Infosys had not executed there plan then it means they dropped it. So better remove that stuff and not to confuse the readers.
Almost 1/2 of the third paragraph of "Economy" section speaks about BHEL production, facility space etc. Its better if we chop some stuff and add the number of employment provided by the facility and how it had helped the revenue generation of the Trichy.
Removed content which is too specific about BHEL and added some stuff on how much people it employs, rest is already explained. —Vensatry(Ping me) 10:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently what is the main revenue generation sector of Trichy ? What % of population is employed in it ? It says number of retail and whole sale markets are located in trichy, please name few and there business (Employment and revenue) capacity. If it had any major crop whole sale market we need to mention it and specially in which particular product that market do business.
It's obvious that fabrication is the industry that the city largely depends upon, though I've not mentioned directly. As for the wholesale market, Gandhi Market is already there and other retail outlets are non-notable to be listed here. —Vensatry(Ping me) 10:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this says trichy district produces 13% of India's Sunflower oil seeds, so there may be oil companies in the city which provides employment to some good % of the residents. Onion is the second largest vegetable crop of India, and Tricy produces 14.2% of Tamil Nadu's contribution. As a district head quarter the city Veg and fruit markets spl Gandhi market etc deserve to be mention in the "Economy" section. Some other Sources which may help in this regards are Breif Industrial profile of Trichy and this.
All these pertain to district level data. The scenario might not be the same for the city. A mention of Gandhi Market is already there. —Vensatry(Ping me) 10:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Economy" mostly speaks about the industries/companies and there annual revenue, but not about that sector. ( Except IT and Gem industry, those sections are well written ). We need to know in general not particular.
I see you are referring to BHEL which you had already stated above. Rest all is okay I think —Vensatry(Ping me) 10:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either use Indian or Western numeric system when expressing the revenue figures, etc. ("Economy"; 3rd paragraph uses millions and 4th uses crores).
"The city is an important educational hub in the state with nationally-recognised institutions...". No hyphen after ly, I believe.
Early and medieval history: Comma needed after "from the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD".
Comma after ref 21 should be moved to be before the citation.
Contemporary and modern history: En dash in "pre–independence era" should be a regular old hyphen instead.
Don't think the first word of "Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu" should be capitalized.Giants2008 (Talk) 03:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all. Thanks Giants for offering your time amidst busy schedule —Vensatry(Ping me) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to FA delegates/co-ordinators: I said I would review this article, but have not been able to do so before the holidays. Can I request that you do not archive it until I've had a chance to lokk at it? I'll give it priority from 27 December. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection -- happy holidays... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Brianboulton: I have a few observations to make on the early sections of the article. I have been making minor prose fixs while reading through:
Lead
"is home to 916,674 people as of 2011" – this needs to be "was home"; "is" cannot apply to 2011
There are wasted words here, e.g. the whole first sentence. Also, "It is believed to derive" followed later by "this derivation is not universally accepted" - these could easily be merged into a single statement, such as "Some believe that it is derived..."
A 1955 map seems misplaced in a section dealing with "early and medival history". Incidentally, the "medieval" period is usually considered to have ended by the mid-15th century. Your narrative continues for about 350 years beyond that, so the section title needs reconsideration.
Moved the map accordingly. In India the period between 8th and 18th century AD is considered medieval. —Vensatry(Ping me) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A third invasion attempt in 1793 by Tipu Sultan, son of Hyder Ali, ended in a stalemate;[48] he was pursued by the British forces led by William Medows, thus averting the attack."[49] This reads confusingly, as though Tipu Sultan made three invasion attempts. Also, how was the non-attack a "stalemate"? It sounds to me as though it was a failure, or perhaps a non-event. Finally, the syntax of the latter part of the sentence is all wrong; it needs to read something like "which averted the attack".
By stalemate, I mean he was not able to advance further down south. Should I use a different word here? —Vensatry(Ping me) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace the words "ended in stalemate" with "was unsuccessful". Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear why the "alleged discovery of secret correspondence" led to the annexation of the Carnatic kingdom by the British. It seems a rather threadbare justification.
Sorry, but I'm none the wiser. "Alleged discovery" implies that it is not established that anything was discovered. And without knowing the alleged content of his alleged correspondence, it's hard to see why a British takeover should result. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While some sources say "alleged discovery" this source mentions that some papers found by the Britishers at Srirangapatna implicated the Nawab in a conspiracy with Tipu. The British had found out that the Nawab was secretly helping Tipu during the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War as a result of which they had annexed the kingdom. Hope I've clarified that in the article too —Vensatry(Ping me) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After referring to a rally in 1938 you continue: "Following that, in 1965..." I think 27 years is rather too long a time to treat the two events as a continuum.
The article is very detailed, but I don't think it is ready for promotion yet; there are still too many issues of style, grammar, clarity etc that need attention. The prose, while by no means bad, is not particularly engaging, and it will take me a long time to work through, given my limited availability and current levels of commitment to other projects. I will continue to work intermittently, but it may not be practical to keep the nomination open for the time that this will take. That is a matter for the coordinators. Brianboulton (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and copy-edits. I;ve fixed some of your comments and will do the rest tomorrow. The article was copy-edited by a GOCE member prior to FAC. I'm assuming that you had a full read of the article. So we would be grateful if you can guide us sorting out those prose glitches. Time isn't a constraint; the delegate seemed to have waited for you. —Vensatry(Ping me) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Given Brian's concerns and doubts about being able to assist further in a timely manner, I was about to archive this but I notice Eric Corbett has just been copyediting so will await the results of that.
In the meantime, looks like we need image and source reviews; this being your first FAC, Vensatry, I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- will post requests for these at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Eric's copy-edits, we've resolved most of the concerns listed by Brian. Anyways will wait for him to respond. You may very well carry out the image review and spotchecks. Regards —Vensatry(Ping me) 07:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian for looking at this. I think part of the issue is that the article is trying to cover a big city and it often looks like reeling off lists in prose form to mention as much as possible such as in the education section and musicians etc. It's difficult to make the prose "brilliant and engaging" on such an article. I consider myself a "significant contributor" otherwise I'd have offered my support here for this. I thought it a worthy candidate and it really is by far the best article on the city on the Internet with coverage in individual books being sparse to say the least. Eric seems to be doing a great job with the copyediting, I don't think he's finished yet. Once he's done if there are still concerns about the prose I'll give it another read myself and ask some other people to look at it. If you could keep this open for a few more days to assess the changes I'd be very grateful Ian. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Quadell
I won't be doing a full review, but I will do an image check, a source check, and spot checks. – Quadell(talk) 17:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I can't help but point out, I think "The actual statistics of the 2011 India census are yet to be released" needs an as-of. – Quadell(talk) 17:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The compilation File:Trichy montage1.jpg is licensed as cc-by-3.0, but many of the underlying images are released under cc-by-sa licenses, so the compilation's license isn't valid. (It should be fine if you release it under cc-by-sa-3.0 instead.)
File:Sir CV Raman.JPGmight have been first published in Sweden, or it might have been created and first published in India and only republished by the Nobel committee. I don't see definitive evidence either way. Either way, though, I think it would have been PD in its source country in 1996, thereby making it PD in the U.S. as well. But the image description should claim this explicitly.
The caption for the airport image is not a full sentence and should not have a full-stop.
All other images are legitimately free and used appropriately. – Quadell(talk) 17:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All image concerns have been fully addressed. – Quadell(talk) 13:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source check
The sources all seem to be high-quality RSes, and they are generally formatted well. I did find some problems, however. – Quadell(talk) 17:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was fixed. – Quadell(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources and refs list author names as [last], [first] (e.g. citation 91 and the source Abram 2003), but other do so as [first] [last] (e.g. citation 101 and the source Burn & Cotton 1908). Some even use both, as the source Playne, Bond, & Wright. These should all use one consistent format.
Fixed. As for ref #214, Somerset Playne is the main author, while J. W. Bond, Arnold Wright are co-authors. Should I do something here? —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not fixed. Some citations still use [last], [first] for names, while others still use [first] [last] instead. You should use one format consistently. For the Playne reference, the problem is that you write Somerset Playne's name as "Playne, Somerset" ([last], [first]), but you write Arnold Wright's name as "Arnold Wright" ([first] [last]). – Quadell(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! There were a few straggling problems, but I fixed them. – Quadell(talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Related: I'm pretty sure the first and last names are switched for refs 55, 69, 70, and probably others as well.
For newspaper articles (authors with initials), I've removed both the parameters (first and last) and replaced with "author" field. Is that okay? —Vensatry(Ping me)
You can use the author parameter, or you can use the first and last parameters. Either is fine, so long as use them correctly. It looks like they are now listed in [first] [last] format, which is fine... but see the previous point. – Quadell(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what happened. "2012-2013" is the date of the data, but not the date of the publication. I fixed the reference. – Quadell(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check the alphabetization of the references. For instance, you seem to have alphabetized the Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation ("SLB Results Workshop") under S, though the entry starts with T. Further, we normally ignore an initial "The" when alphabetizing entries like "The Illustrated Weekly of India".
I don't get what you mean by "alphabetized the Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation ("SLB Results Workshop") under S" —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the "References" section should be alphabetized, and it is mostly alphabetized. (It goes from "Abram, David" to "Ahmad, Mohd Rizwan" to "Ahmed, Abad", etc.) But a few of the entries are not in alphabetical order. The "SLB Results Workshop" entry is now fine, since the entry starts with "SLB Results Workshop" and is situated between "Sharma, Pradeep" and "South Indian Railway Strike", so that one is not a problem anymore. But there are still other problems. "Burn, R.; Cotton, J. S." is situated between "Illustrated Guide to..." and "India. Director of Census Operations", but it should be with the other Bs. And "The Administrator" is after "Thani Nayagam, Xavier S.", but it should be in the As. – Quadell(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now got it. Some have been messed up while doing the FAC fixes. Will fix them in the morning. —Vensatry(Ping me) 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For "Madras District Gazetteers: Tiruchirappalli (pt. 1–2).", should that be pp. instead?
We use pp. for page nos. In this case I don't think it's a page number. —Vensatry(Ping me) 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What is it? – Quadell(talk) 13:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thorough search but could find nothing. It might be "part" or "volume", not sure —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed here. The "pt." probably means "part"; it's a part of the name of the publication, so it's fine. – Quadell(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You usually use a space between initials, as in "Kumar, N. R.", but "Pujari, R.M." and "Ramachandran, D.P." are written without spaces. And "R.Rajaram" definitely needs a space. And "Chhabra, G .S." has a misplaced space.
Yes, these are fine. – Quadell(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All source formatting issues have been fully addressed. – Quadell(talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
I did a very thorough spotcheck, looking through 25 sources. In no case did I find any copyright violations or close paraphrasing; I am 100% confident that information from the sources is consistently rewritten thoroughly in this article. But I did find a lot of places where the information at the source did not fully cover the claims made in the article. (All ref numbers refer to this version.)
For these references, I found the information in the article fully covered by the source: 48, 56, 75, 151, 164a, 228, 229, 240, 247, 261, 317, 325, 357, 361
For these references, the statements in this article were not fully supported by the information at the source:
25: The source does not support any of the information in the sentence.
The page number was misplaced. Should be fine now. —Vensatry(Ping me) 12:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the new page numbers support the claim. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
69: The source shows that plans to move the state's administrative headquarters to Tiruchirappalli were shelved, but it does not mention a satellite town near Navalpattu.
My bad, the refs. were switched. Ref #68 mentions about the satellite township. It should be okay now. —Vensatry(Ping me) 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the information is at that other source. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
96: The source says the hottest months are May and June, rather than March through May, and the source does not mention dust storms.
Okay, since I can't read Annesley, I'll have to take your word for it. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
199: The source does show that jallikattu is held at the outskirts of the city, and that bulls were involved somehow. But it does not show that jallikattu is a bull-taming sport, or that it's played on the last day of Pongal, or that Pongal is a regional harvest festival.
Isn't that WP:OBVIOUS? do we need a source which explicitly states that Jallikatu is a bull-taming sport when there exists an article for it. I've added a ref. now —Vensatry(Ping me) 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see that that information is at the Jallikattu link. This issue probably should have been at the "possibly problematic" section below instead. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
213: The source supports the information about P. Madhuri, but not Vaali.
Yes, great, it's covered at that link. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
281: The source does show that the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium was formerly called the Khajamalai Stadium. One could assume that first class cricket matches there, although it doesn't say. But it certainly doesn't mention the TDCA, or that it's part of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, or that it regulates school, college and club cricket in the district.
It's all sourced now. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
295: The source says that Tiruchirappalli has one of the two planetaria in the state. But it doesn't say that it's the Anna Science Centre, and it also doesn't support the claims about expected animals at the proposed zoological park.
Added a source for "Anna science centre". The claim for zoological park expecting to host the specified animals are mentioned in ref #299 itself. —Vensatry(Ping me) 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new ref supports the name, and the former ref was just misplaced; it covers the proposed zoo. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, in the following four cases, it's arguable that the information in the source fully covers the claims in the article. I'm not sure whether it's a significant problem or not.
16: The source does show that the world's oldest surviving dam, the Kallanai, was built by Karikala Chola in 2nd century AD. It does not say that the dam is also called the Lower Anaicut, or that it was built across the Kaveri River, or that it's about 24 kilometres from Uraiyur. This is non-controversial geographic info, though, and it's given at the linked article, so it may not be a problem.
"Lower Anaicut" is an anglicized name. Do we need a source for that. The sourced does mention that it was built across "Cauvery River" (our article names Kaveri though). I've added a source for distance. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry for missing "Cauvery". I don't think the Google Maps source adds much, honestly. I'll consider this resolved, with or without the Google Maps link. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
143: The source supports the info about councillors and wards, but does not mention a Deputy Mayor. (It does mention a "Worshipful Mayor".)
Added a source. It only mentions that there exists a deputy mayor who is elected by the councilors. Do you need a source which explicitly states that he assists the mayor. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
163: The source lists 18 Zonel offices, but 38 police stations. (Our article claims 18 police stations.) Some of the listed stations may actually be parts of a single station, though, and it's hard to be sure. The source also does not seem to mention deputy commissioners at all.
That's great. By the way, it's generally not necessary to have two identical citations back-to-back, as with ref 137 here. It's not forbidden, but I think it would be a marginal improvement to use 137 just once for the whole sentence. (This is also true for refs 65, 141, 168, etc.) – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
164b: I could not judge the accuracy, since I'm not sure what this article means when it says "However, the city had a lower proportion of murder, rape and kidnapping cases in the state." According to the source, the city's rate is not lower than the state average. It is lower than the second-highest rate, however. Since I can't tell what precisely is being claimed, I can't evaluate whether the source supports it.
According to the source, Trichy had the lowest proportion of murder and rape. However, kidnapping was next to second-highest as you say. Rephrased the sentence —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's much clearer, and correctly sourced. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In 28% of the spotchecks I did, there are significant problems. In 16%, there are possible problems, though they may not be significant. In the remaining 56%, there are no problems. – Quadell(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the spotchecks! I think I've addressed most of the issues. Some sources might have been misplaced by me (or others) while working with the article, so is the discrepancy. —Vensatry(Ping me) 08:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into all the issues tomorrow. —Vensatry(Ping me) 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Quadell, while some of your points have been addressed, the rest will be fixed by tomorrow. —Vensatry(Ping me) 18:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of spotchecks: One of these errors was an incorrect page number. In every other problem I found, the given source covered some info, but there was some info not covered in the source. But in all these cases, adequate sources were apparently easy to find. (The nominator was quite prompt.) Many of these turned out to be cases of non-controversial information, such as the name of a dam or planetarium. All the errors I found have been fixed. There was never a problem with original research, it seems, and never a problem with close paraphrasing. In my opinion, I don't think that sourcing problems remain that should prevent the article's promotion to featured status. – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Quadell for your guidance and edits. Both are much appreciated! —Vensatry(Ping me) 07:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've spent quite a bit of time over the last few days looking through the prose, and I agree with those above who have expressed some reservations about whether it was of sufficient quality to meet criterion 1a. I haven't checked other aspects of the article, but I would now be prepared to support its promotion if there are no other outstanding issues. So this should be considered a provisional support. EricCorbett 15:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eric, for all the time spent to improving the prose. So kind of you! —Vensatry(Ping me) 16:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated Eric. Can somebody, Brian or Ian perhaps, let us know if you still have concerns with the prose?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't feel I've read enough of the article to make a declaration. However, my concerns expressed earlier about prose have been largely allayed, since Eric has copyedited and is supporting on the basis of the prose quality. So I have no futher concerns, and will be happy to see a consensus to promote. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- This has now had extensive input by a good many experienced editors and I thank them all for pulling together to work with the nominator in achieving his first FA, which is always a challenge. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because, after a significant expansion and passing a GA review, I believe it meets the criteria. English was an Indiana politician of the middle nineteenth century who made two brief appearances in the national scene: in the 1850s, during the Kansas-Nebraska debates, and in 1880, as the Democrats' nominee for Vice President. -- Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
"He was elected that October and joined the 33rd Congress when it convened in Washington in March 1853" - source?
I cited the election being in October. That the Congress convened in March isn't explicitly stated in the source, but they did convene in March following every presidential election. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"English later added a hotel to the Opera House; both operated until 1948." - source?
Added a source for this fact. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
Not sure what you mean here. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have both "pp. 292–96" and "pp. 155–157" - one omits the first digit of the second part of the range, the other doesn't. Either style is fine, it just needs to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I prefer the latter style. I think I found the one that didn't match and fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair question. I've never used a thesis before in an FA, but I've never written an FA about such an obscure figure. A thesis is, I think, as reliable as a journal article. Both are peer-reviewed -- if anything, a thesis is more highly scrutinized, since the student's degree depends on it. I don't think the one fact for which the thesis is cited is that incredible or weird that it merits excess scrutiny. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was recently an extensive discussion here, which raised concerns about the reliability of even PhD dissertations; a master's thesis would seem to be less scrutinized than a PhD, barring exceptional circumstances. However, you're right that in this case it's not citing anything too remarkable, so...let's see if anyone else wants to comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used a master's thesis once, but as the guy went on to be a notable historian, when Nikki questioned it, I explained why I felt it was reliable (United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898). I think you just have to take each one as it comes and look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toSupport Very well done. Some quibbles, of which this is the first group.
Lede
I"d like to see some statement of this guy's significance high up in the lede. A politician from Indiana? So? I would give his highest office and the fact he ran for VP in 1880.
Done.
"working most notably to achieve a compromise on the admission of Kansas as a state in the 1850s." Admitted 1861. Rephrase?
Done
"English and the presidential nominee" Given that you use the term "nominee" shortly before, suggest change in this phrase to "running mate".
Done
Family etc.
What did Elisha do for a living?
The source says he was a legislator and "prominent ... in business circles". I've added words to that effect, but it's not exactly clear what business he was in.
"tutelage" What did he study?
I meant more like Bright was his political mentor. I'll change it.
I think it needs to be made clearer that these were patronage appointments. It isn't a question of the political involvement giving him a leg up in a competition which he "win"s. He was a Democratic activist, his party won, he got the job, end of story.
That's certainly what I meant, though I can see that might not be clear to the modern reader. I changed it, with a link to spoils system.
"attended the Democratic National Convention in 1848" needs a link to 1848 DNC. Also, was he a delegate? Spectator? Where was it?
Linked, with the city (Baltimore). I haven't been able to discover his exact role there.
"With the change in parties following Zachary Taylor's election to the presidency," I know what you are talking about, I'd make this a little clearer to ensure the reader does.
I think it should be more explicit now.
Congress
"of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The Act, " wasn't an act yet, and watch capitalization here. Possibly "of what would become the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The bill …"
Good point. Fixed.
I am not sure what is meant by "timing of the bill"
The source says "...he did not concur with the majority of the committee in the propriety and expediency of bringing forward the measure at that time, thinking its introduction unfortunate and ill-timed...." I took that to mean he didn't disagree popular sovereignty, but didn't think it necessary to disturb the sectional peace by introducing the bill right then. I think the change I made conveys that better.
"The speaker, James Lawrence Orr, " you have earlier capped Speaker, and I would agree with that.
Done.
"known to history as the English Bill" A little highfaluting given that both English and his bill are obscure today.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. I made the prose less purple. Thanks for the comments! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The remainder:
Congress
" including Bright (now a Senator), " lower case on Senator, I think.
Done.
Since English remained in Congress for the remainder of the Buchanan administration, and things were rather dramatic during both sessions of the Thirty-Sixth Congress, I'm curious to know more. Did he take any positions on the major pieces of legislation, such as the Crittenden Compromise, or the Morrill Tariff? The major battle to elect a Speaker in 1859 in the House is not mentioned, did English have any role in that? The admission of Kansas, as a free state, while English was still in Congress--goes unmentioned. I think you have to give the reader more detail here, even if English was deeply involved in none of these things.
I found nothing except vague assertions that he discouraged secession. (Comm. Bio. p.12) I suppose I could dive into the Congressional Record, but that seems like it approaches original research.
We are limited by the limits of the sources. Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Business etc.
"He did, however, support Morton's policies" I think, more to the point, what were his views on Lincoln's policies. The reader will be more interested in the latter I dare say.
Fixed.
"investment strategy to real estate. By 1875, he had already ordered construction of seventy-five houses along what is now English " Hmm. Maybe "investment capital.
Good point. Done.
"English later added a hotel to the Opera House; both operated until 1948.[24]" Dad or kid?
Dad. Fixed.
Wannabe Veep
" Democratic campaign coffers having been quite depleted." I don't like the quite. Maybe change to, "as Democratic campaign coffers were low".
Fixed.
A few words of explanation that national elections then were really fought in the midwest and mid-Atlantic as being the states most in play, and that tickets tended to have a New Yorker and a Ohio/Indianan whenever possible. And one reason why H/E expected to win in the South, were at the African-Americans were being disenfranchised.
I added a few lines to this effect.
"Hancock and English lost the election by only 39,213 popular votes." Well, perhaps "Hancock and English lost the popular vote by only 39,213 ballots." Can anything be said about what he did during the campaign? Did he make any speeches? Did his speech of acceptance say anything interesting?
Fixed the wording. As to his participation in the campaign, it seems minimal. The Commemorative Biography, maddeningly, hardly mentions 1880. Jordan's bio of Hancock mentions English only a few times, and I added a bit more to the article based on that. Clancy's book on the 1880 election doesn't add much, either, about English. He was present at the convention, so gave a brief speech accepting the nomination (one paragraph, nothing interesting. His letter a month later is longer, mostly about Hancock. I'll see what I can glean from it to add to the story. I added some. It gives a good look at the Democrats' platform. Don't know why I didn't do that before.
It's why it is good we look at each other's 19th century articles, we have some sense of the politics.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"English resumed his business career after the election." Did he ever give it up? Hobart stayed at work most of the time, sixteen years later, under similar circumstances.
I only phrased it this way because he sources mention him shifting control of the opera house to his son. They don't talk about the real estate ventures which, likely, he continued to manage. As passive investments, he likely didn't need to do much once things were built.
Post etc.
Did he have kids? And (looking at infobox fields) is his religion not ascertainable?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two kids, mentioned earlier in the article, and one notable grandson, mentioned at the end. Should the kids go in the infobox, too? I'll add them. As to religion, I never saw a word about it. Don't even know if he was baptized. I'd guess he was vaguely Protestant, like Lincoln and Grant and other midwesterners, only because any other religious affiliation would've been mentioned and would've likely barred him from the VP nomination. But I'll double-check the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd do that. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback -- the article benefited from another pair of eyes familiar with Gilded Age politics. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you already supported, but I wanted to follow up on the religion question. None of the sources mention it. The college he attended is Presbyterian, but that's not necessarily his faith. He was buried in a non-sectarian cemetery. His funeral was officiated by a Baptist minister, his cousin, but held in a Masonic Lodge. I'm going to guess he wasn't a member of any church. Certainly there isn't enough evidence to add anything to the article about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
I'm going to give the article some general feedback—some of it is just my preferences or comments, and not necessarily required for FA, so feel free to disagree with anything.
"They would have two children": or just "had", if it's now an established fact
I like the "would have" language because it indicates that, at that point in the narrative, it's still a future event.
"believing that "each organized community ought to be allowed to decide for itself." ": I realize the period is likely in the original quote, but I believe the logic of the sentence demands it be placed outside the quotation marks
"promised a "sound currency, of honest money," the restriction": ditto
"and a "rigid economy in public expenditure." ": ditto
"platform endorsing "a tariff for revenue only." ": ditto
I actually thought the MoS dictated the opposite (i.e., periods inside quotes.)
No, you have to look at the logic of the sentence. If you were quoting: "The economist said, 'The economy's revving like a well-oiled engine.'", then the period would be inside the quote. If you wrote: "The economist stated the booming economy was performing 'like a well-oiled engine'.", it would be outside. If you want to take the "logical quotes" thing to an inelegant extreme, there are those who believe the first sentence should have a period both inside and outside the quote, one terminating the quote and another terminating the sentence in which it's contained, but that sort of thing hasn't gained any traction here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed these. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"by a 6:1 vote": is this a ratio of six to one?
Yes. I clarified it.
"interested in the theater": in American English I thought it was "theatre" when it referred to live drama (or are the buildings exempted?)
I thought -re was always BrEng and -er was AmEng, and that people just use the British ending here because they think it's fancier, for some reason. I'll look into it, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In AmEng, "theatre" is used as in "I am a thespian who performs in the theatre", and "theater" is used for pretty much everything else, such as "movie theater". I'm not sure if the thespian's workplace is a "theatre" or a "theater" ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our own theatre article says -re in AmEng is a less-common variant. Merriam-Webster agrees at m-w.com. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first link that Google turned up sez that some Americans make the distinction, but those Americans don't always make the same distinction, and plenty of people doN't make the distinction at all. I guess it's not a big deal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Links
"was an American congressman from Indiana": worth linking "congressman" and "Indiana"? I don't think they'd fall under WP:OVERLINK the way "American" would
I linked to the Indiana Constitution already. Do you mean a link to the idea of constitutional conventions generally?
Yeah. I'm Canadian, and I have no idea what a "constitutional convention" is—from the context I assume that it's not a convention to decide on what constitution to adopt, which leaves my head scratching ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've got it right. The state was writing a new constitution. I'll look for a link to make it clearer. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly: thank you for the nbsp edits. I didn't know you could use that inside a link like that. I'll take a look at your comments and address them throughout the day as I have time (working this weekend!) --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I'd still like to see something done about "constituitional convention", but I do think this article reads well and meets the FA criteria. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Quadell
This is a very strong candidate. It is well organized, and the prose is excellent. (Thanks, previous reviewers!) I made a few copyedits; if you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss. I've identified issues below. – Quadell(talk) 18:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues (including further comments)
The lead is a little short, isn't it? I feel like its expansion by a couple sentences would be appropriate. (It does cover each section of the body, though sometimes with only a portion of a sentence.) Perhaps his Civil War actions, or more info on the English Bill, or the opera house, or his presidency of a bank?
I added some about his business deals and his support for the Union during the Civil War. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite excellent. – Quadell(talk) 15:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this list: "increasing the number of elective offices, guaranteeing a homestead exemption, and restricting voting rights to white men." These aren't actually "views". Should it say "their proposals were included in the new law"?
Good point. Fixed.
H and R are appropriately capitalized in Indiana House of Representatives, but I don't think they should be capitalized when referring to a "state house of representatives". (By the same token, we refer to the Governor of Indiana, big-G, who is a governor, little-g.) Wikipedia articles seem to apply this inconsistently, however, and I'd be obliged if someone were to let me know if I'm wrong about this.
I think you're right. Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The parenthetic "(many in Congress did not agree they were so bound)" interrupts the flow and makes the following "their" less certain. Consider making it a footnote, while perhaps expanding it slightly with further information from Russel, which in my opinion is quite interesting.
I moved it to a note. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I improved this slightly. – Quadell(talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would reword "shrunken land grant", since it's language used by the source, and is not as encyclopedic as "smaller land grant".
His wife died in 1877. I think it would be appropriate to mention it in "Business career", along with all the other things going on in his life at that time.
I was wondering how you'd work it in there. You did so excellently. – Quadell(talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the grammar of "a much larger spread: Garfield-Arthur 214 and Hancock-English 155." Should those be en-dashes? Are commas needed? I would reword as "a much larger spread: 214 for Garfield and Arthur, compared to 155 for Hancock and English." (A better wording may be possible.)
Your language is fine with me. I'll keep fiddling with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would rename "Post-election career" as "Post-election career and legacy", since the larger second paragraph isn't really about his career.
True. Changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source check: ...But...
Clancy's book has an ISBN of 978-1258191900.
Footnote 11 in this article (Russel p. 201) references footnote 38 in the source, and should say so.
Fixed these two. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check: Three of the four images are fine, but File:Bust of William H. English.jpg has problems. This photo of a sculpture was uploaded in 2010 by Nicole.m.m, and she did not provide a license for the photograph. (She hasn't edited since 2010, though she did leave an e-mail address.) It was moved to commons with a PD-US license added by a different user, but that doesn't apply to the photograph. In addition, William H. English (bust) indicates that the arist and date of the creation of the sculpture are not known; if it was created after 1978, it could be copyrighted, and the photo could be a derivative work. We can only keep the image if the photographer provides a license, and if we can determine that the sculpture itself is PD.
Thus is an interesting problem. Even the state website has no idea who carved the bust, or when. I think it's safe to assume it's pre-1978, but that's not really good enough for Wikipedia's rules. I think we have no choice but to remove it. I'll see if another suitable image can be found to replace it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a picture of the English Bill's co-author, Alexander Stephens. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. There are no problems with this new image. – Quadell(talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "English Bill" section should at least link to English Bill. Perhaps the lead could as well (at "a compromise"), though that may not be necessary. (The English Bill stub, by the way, is biased and misleading, though that's not an issue for this FAC.)
I didn't know that article existed. I could certainly link it, but I'm more inclined to turn it into a redirect to this article. What do you think? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the best solution would be to improve that article, I'd think, but that's certainly not a requirement for this FAC. Your solution is fine, I'd say. – Quadell(talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decide, so I linked it for now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the first two sentences of paragraph two in the "Kansas–Nebraska Act" section. They are quite strong statements, and should be clearly sourced. "Commemorative Biography" mentions only "the storm raised by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill", which isn't nearly as strong, and I can't find it in Freehling (though I can't see the whole page).
I have Freehling around here somewhere, I'll look it up in there. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're rather general statements about the Kansas–Nebraska Act and its effects. There are probably a wide range of sources that could support them. – Quadell(talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cited to the pages in Freehling volume 1 that cover the K-N Act's effects. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a misunderstanding. I was referring to the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the section: "The Kansas–Nebraska Act was grossly unpopular across the North. The reaction ultimately killed the Whig Party, weakened northern Democrats, and brought about a new party, the Republicans." That part is effectively unsourced, unless it's in Freehling 1990, p. 559. – Quadell(talk) 13:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. That I've sourced to volume 2 of Freehling. The end of v.1 and beginning of v.2 overlap a lot, and I think the latter explains things better on this point. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few concerns regarding the first paragraph of the "Vice-presidential candidate" section. First "It was in that spirit" is unclear; what spirit? (Son in state house, being consulted on politics, not seeking office, or what?) It sounds at first like he's there to vote, not to run, but then you mention "one delegate voting for English". For President? Was that expected? Did English go hoping to be nominated for President, or for veep, or neither? You say he was "selected" for veep... by whom? Hancock? It might be best to explain some of this in a footnote. (Also, it would be nice to split this long paragraph up, if possible.)
"In that spirit": that is, as a Bayard supporter.
That really isn't clear in the text. I'd suggest some sort of rewording, so "in that spirit" isn't hanging there undefined. – Quadell(talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be clearer now. I may tinker with the prose a bit more throughout the day. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the sources suggests he expected any nomination. There's one short paragraph in Clancy about it that just says the delegates unanimously chose him to help in Indiana (pp. 140-141). Clancy mentions the one vote for president, and the Proceedings show it was from Rhode Island, but don't show which delegate cast it. An old congressional colleague? It's not very clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't be clearer than the sources allow. I've added a few words to help the reader keep track of who supported whom for what, but I don't think there's much more to be done. – Quadell(talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my concerns have been addressed. This article is very thorough and well-written, appropriately organized and meticulously sourced. – Quadell(talk) 14:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the thorough review. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source check: The references are impeccably formatted; the "Sources" section is too, now that I sicced Citation bot on it.
Spot checks: I checked the sources for references 10 (a and b), 11, 15 (a and b), 16 (c and d), and 33. In each case, all statements were fully supported by the sources without plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
Image check: All of the images are legitimately in the public domain, and all required information is present. – Quadell(talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Acdixon
Lead
"English entered politics at a young age, becoming a part of Jesse D. Bright's faction of the Indiana Democratic Party. After a few years in the federal bureaucracy in Washington" I'm sure the body clarifies, but I'm left wondering at this point in what capacity he entered politics. We know he was a member of a state party faction, which he could have been without holding any official office, but the next sentence implies that he held some kind of federal position and was totally out of the state. It's all very confusing.
The sources are kind of vague. Some sort of party hack, I'm sure. I'll take a closer look over the next few days and see if I can sort it out. I did link to "spoils system" in the body.--Coemgenus (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of specifics about his partisan activities, it might suffice to date the beginning of his political career to his 1843 selection as House clerk. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"becoming a part of Jesse D. Bright's faction of the Indiana Democratic Party" What were the characteristics of this faction? Were they conservative or liberal? Were they focused primarily on one or a few key issues? Telling the reader that he was allied with Bright really means nothing unless that reader knows something about Bright. At this point, we don't even know what office(s) Bright held, much less what his positions were on the issues.
In this period, factions seem to me to be more about patronage networks than ideology. That said, Bright was among the most conservative Democrats in the North. He turned out to be way more conservative than English, in a sense, if you consider pro- Southern sympathies to be conservative (he was expelled from the Senate in 1862 because he was too pro-CSA, the only Senator to be expelled.) Long story short, I added the word "conservative".--Coemgenus (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He was elected to the state house of representatives and served as its speaker at the age of twenty-nine." Was he elected speaker during his first term or during a subsequent term? In fact, were there any subsequent terms? How long were terms in the Indiana House back then? Since he served four, two-year terms in the federal House in the 1850s, I'm thinking one two-year term or a couple of one-year terms early in the decade is probably all he had time for.
They were two-year terms, of which he served one. I tried to clarify that in the lede without getting to bogged down in dates. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can work it in neatly, some reference to his service in the constitutional convention affecting his selection as speaker might be helpful. Otherwise, the reader wonders how a first-term legislator with meager experience came to be speaker in his first and only term in that body. How about something like, "In 1851, at the age of twenty-nine, English was elected to the state house of representatives and, because of his familiarity with the new constitution, was elected Speaker of the House."?Acdixon(talk·contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole first paragraph could benefit from some more dates. We know he got into politics in some capacity in early life, so we can look back at his birth date and surmise this was sometime in the 1840s. Then, we find out he served "a few years" in some federal bureaucracy before coming back to the state in time to participate in a constitutional convention in 1850. Then he served a term or more in the state legislature, but apparently spent most of the 1850s in the federal House. The timeline is a bit hard to follow.
Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think one more date in his early career would help. Either the date of his selection as House clerk or the date he began his service in the federal bureaucracy would be good choices, I think. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the 1845 date.
What was English up to between the end of the war and his vice-presidential run? That's a good 25 years. I assume his business ventures were undertaken during this time. If so, might I suggest moving that information between the second and third sentences of the paragraph for chronology's sake?
I made some changes that should clear things up. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That helps some. Still not sure why you wouldn't just put his private sector activities in chronological order in the lead instead of tacking them on at the end, unless you just feel compelled to keep all his political doings together at the expense of chronology. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I switched it around so it's more chronological. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He left college after three years and began to read law." Can you give the years he was at Hanover? Without at least a starting year, the bit about being there three years isn't that helpful. Any idea why he left before graduating? We know he was admitted to the bar in 1840, but without knowing when he left Hanover, we don't know how long he was engaged in reading law prior to his admission.
The source is not clear about the dates, and doesn't mention his reason for leaving school. If I had to guess, it seems like he was at Hanover from 1837 to 1840, but I can't say for sure. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a bummer, but it would be far from the first time I've seen the sources silent on such things. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"By the end of 1842, young English came under the mentorship of Lieutenant Governor Jesse D. Bright, who helped him win appointments to a variety of local offices." Suggest dropping the adjective "young". Any idea how English became acquainted with Bright or why Bright took an interest in him?
Consider it dropped. My sources don't say why Bright noticed English. Maybe he knew English's father, himself a minor politico? But that's just my guess, nothing strong enough to put in the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good guess, I suspect, but as you say, not solid enough to add without sourcing. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The following year," Again, I find the chronology a little unclear. Did Bright begin mentoring English at the end of 1842, or had he been under his mentorship for a while by the end of 1842? "The following year" seems to imply 1843, but if the mentorship started at the end of 1842, it must have been a short mentorship prior to English's attaining office.
That's fairly vague in the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"English was chosen as clerk of the Indiana House of Representatives." Who did the choosing? Is that an elected position by the people or the legislators, or is it a gubernatorial appointment?
Kennedy says he was "elected," but it seems like the House elected him, not the populace. I changed the wording to reflect this. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I had assumed this was included in the "local offices" Bright helped him win appointment to. Since it apparently is not, do we know anything about the nature of those offices? The text seems to indicate that he held multiple such offices between 1840 and 1843. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed that language to "who helped him rise within Bright's faction of the party". It's not explicit which jobs Bright got for English, just that Bright moved him along and was interested in his success, etc. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As a reward, English was given a patronage appointment as a clerk in the federal Treasury Department in Washington, D.C." Again, it isn't clear who did the appointing. I'm sure it was Polk, but the non-U.S. reader might not even realize that Polk won the election.
Added a date, mentioned that Polk was indeed elected. Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"English attended the 1848 Democratic National Convention in Baltimore, where he supported the eventual nominee, Lewis Cass." Perhaps clarify that Cass was the party's presidential nominee.
"he found a job as clerk to the United States Senate's Claims Committee, serving until 1850." This sounds like he found an ad in the paper looking for a clerk, which he may well have done. I'm not sure how Senate committee clerks are employed. A little research shows that Bright was apparently on that committee at the time. Perhaps English's connection to Bright was helpful in securing the position?
Probably. The sources don't say, but it's a reasonable assumption. I tweaked the language and added a note that Bright was a member of the committee. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Later that year, he returned to Indiana to work as secretary to the Indiana Constitutional Convention." Again, I wonder how he got this position. Did he have to be elected as a delegate to qualify? If not, did a majority of the elected delegates choose him? Do we know? Was his resignation from his clerk's position motivated by his selection as convention secretary, or were those independent events?
Again, the sources aren't specific. It seems reasonable that he left Washington because of the opportunity in Indiana, but I've not found anything with that level of detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, no idea if he was also a delegate? Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"[Democrats'] proposals were included in the new law" Is "new law" being used here to refer to the draft constitution? If so, I think that's a bit clumsy. Also, I assume the minority party dissented on these proposals, which is why they merit mention.
Changed it from "basic law" to "constitution". --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"At Bright's direction, English worked for the election of Graham N. Fitch to the federal Senate, but was unsuccessful as the legislature chose John Pettit instead." You should at least mention that both Fitch and Pettit were Democrats. This shows tangible evidence of the factionalism alluded to in the lead, but still doesn't really elaborate on what the issues were between the two factions. There is also the presumption of a clear majority by Democrats, but did the minority party (Whigs?) even nominate a candidate? Some sense of the relative strength of the parties and factions would be helpful, if available. What happened to the incumbent senator? Did he just not run again? Did he fall out of favor with the legislature? Did he take another office, leaving a vacancy?
I have no idea what the relative strength of the Whigs was. Van Bolt says the won only one of the federal House seats, but doesn't give the breakdown in the state house. I did clarify that both Fitch and Pettit were Democrats.
"The office of Speaker allowed English's reputation to grow around the state" Awkward construction. Suggest something on the order of "Holding the office of Speaker increased English's influence throughout the state".
Yes, that is better. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"in 1852, the Democrats chose him as their nominee for the federal House of Representatives from the 2nd district" Again, I wonder if we know what happened to the incumbent.
It's hard to say. The 1852 elections were the first after the 1850 census, and Indiana both added a seat and shifted numbers around. The previous holder of the 2nd district was elected in 1852 to the 3rd district. The 2nd may have overlapped partly with the old 1st, and that district's rep, James Lockhart retired in 1852.
Should have thought of that. Maybe reference the "redistricted 2nd district". Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He was elected that October" Do we know anything of the election? Who was his opponent? Did he have an opponent? If so, what were the major issues of the campaign? Do we have a vote total/percentage?
I have nothing on numbers, but I did add that the Democrats were successful state-wide. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas-Nebraska Act
"The House of Representatives convened for the 33rd Congress in December 1853" Since the previous sentence said the 33rd Congress convened in March 1853, you might specify that the second session of that Congress convened in December.
As I understand it, and this has been surprisingly hard to sort out, the Senate convened for a couple weeks in March to confirm Pierce's nominees. Then they went home and the whole Congress got together for the December session. I haven't seen any evidence that the House also convened in March, but they may have. I dleeted "March" in the previous paragraph, but I hope to find a better answer at some point. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you combine the second and third sentences of the first paragraph?
"Northern Democrats divided almost evenly on the bill, but English was among those who voted for it." I'm assuming, then, that his earlier opposition was based mostly or wholly on the timing and necessity of the bill, not its content. If so, maybe say, "Northern Democrats divided almost evenly on the bill, but English, despite his stated reservations, was among those who voted for it." Otherwise, it could be a little jarring to see him writing a minority report opposed to the bill, then voting for it two sentences later.
Good point. I've used your language. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English Bill
I think total House vote on the admission of Kansas should precede English's feelings and his vote. Also, don't the "yeas" still come first in reporting a lost vote?
"to be reelected in 1858 with his largest-ever majority" This brings me back to the lack of detail about English's election and re-election to Congress. Do we have no details of his opponents (primary or general election), the issues, or the vote counts? Without at least some idea of the vote counts, this bit about "largest-ever majority" is not nearly as meaningful as it might be.
There's no detail I can find except on this page, which I'm not sure is a reliable source. Now that site claims to cite to "United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997 The Official Results" by Michael J. Dubin, a real book, but I don't have access to it just now. I may be able to get it in a couple days -- one of the libraries that hold it is near my office. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went to the library and made copies. I added details about the percentages of English's victories with a new citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1880, English constructed English's Opera House, which was quickly considered Indianapolis's finest." Do we know who considered it the finest in Indianapolis?
That's just what the source says. "...the city's finest"
Maybe qualify with "which, according to the 1994 Encyclopedia of Indianapolis, quickly became known as the city's finest", then. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good -- changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vice-presidential candidate
"In the end, English was proved wrong" Should this be "was proven wrong"?
I know that's a lot of commentary, and I know how difficult it can be to dig up the details on minor political figures. A lot of these are just "hey, see if you can find"-type things. A good article about an interesting character. I'll try to keep track of your responses and strike resolved issues in a timely manner. Feel free to ping me if I don't. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Great responses. Struck many; added some comments on others. Thanks for your work. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note --We seem to be close to consensus to promote; Coemgenus and Acdixon if you're able to finalise things shortly that'd be great -- pls ping me when done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following this note, and looking again at the discussion above, I think we can promote this shortly. The fact that Acdixon was very happy with the responses and edits following his first round of comments indicates that he and Coemgenus are on the same wavelength. The only outstanding comments I can see are re. the "1843 selection as House clerk" and "the incumbent" -- if you're able to just acknowledge or action those then I think we can safely wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done, guys. Sorry for the long delay. Holiday stuff. Feel free to promote. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 21:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Coemgenus. 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)[reply]
All of the work on this was in 2013, so I won't be claiming points for it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
One of the ugliest episodes of the Rhodesian Bush War (or Second Chimurenga, if you prefer) was the deliberate shoot-down in 1978 of Air Rhodesia Flight 825, a scheduled civilian flight, by ZIPRA guerrillas. The crash killed 38 of the 56 people on board; the attackers then herded survivors together amid the wreckage and machine-gunned them to death. Naturally, white Rhodesians were outraged, particularly when little sympathy came from overseas. The Smith administration put most of the country under martial law, cut off talks with ZIPRA's political counterpart and launched a series of brutal attacks against ZANLA and ZIPRA positions in Zambia and Mozambique, which were lauded by the Rhodesians as great military successes, but came in for criticism as hundreds of refugees, camping in and around guerrilla positions, were killed. ZIPRA subsequently shot down Air Rhodesia Flight 827 in 1979 in a near-identical incident, killing all on board.
This passed GA and A-class reviews over at MILHIST about a year ago and after a period of reflection I think it is now ready for FA. I hope you enjoy looking it over (as much as one could, considering the distressing subject), and look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportCommentsby Lemurbaby
Beautiful work overall - I always enjoy your writing style, which is clear and concise, and the quality of coverage you give to Rhodesia topics. Just a few comments to make:
Were there any other children on board? If it was just the two girls, it would make more sense to state "four women and two children (or two girls), ages...."
I don't know the full list of passengers, but I believe there were more children on board who died in the crash (there was also four-year-old Tracey Coles, who was part of Dr MacLaren's party that left the site and survived). —Cliftonian(talk) 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You only provide one source for the theory that another party was responsible for killing the survivors of the crash. Is this a fringe theory or one that has some credibility? I think this deserves to be expanded upon.
It seems pretty fringey to me, frankly. Sibanda is very pro-ZAPU and appears to very much want to blame the Selous Scouts for the massacre. He cites the unit commander's statement that they had operated there previously and left the day before the incident, but lacking direct evidence he says only that the massacre "cannot be put beyond them" (p. 192). The version of events described by Nkomo and supported by Sibanda (guerrillas help the survivors and leave them alive, then Rhodesian pseudo-guerrillas arrive, presumably ignoring or missing the real guerrillas, and kill the passengers) seems pretty dubious to me. It doesn't fit the eye-witness accounts at all and it doesn't make sense. If the guerrillas were helping the survivors, why would they have left them alone, strewn around the wreckage? Was it the real guerrillas or the pseudo-guerrillas who looted the wreckage afterwards? Anyway, all of this would be original research so we can't put it in. I'm not aware of any other sources commenting on this theory, I'm sorry to say. —Cliftonian(talk) 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has any monument been erected for the civilians killed by the Rhodesian military around the rebel camp?
Yes, Zambia and Zimbabwe jointed put a monument up at Chikumbi in 1998. I've put this into the article. (As is common with pro-guerrilla sources, this incorrectly attributes regular Army actions to the Selous Scouts) —Cliftonian(talk) 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great addition
is it possible to expand upon the militant nationalist rationale for shooting down the plane when they were in peace talks that were going well? What was their objective, and could it be claimed that the objective was achieved, or not? In general, inclusion of their perspective and motivations could be strengthened throughout the article. Although the public might have abhorred the shooting of the plane, how did they feel toward their overarching political objectives?
I have yet to find a source that properly explains what the motivation was for the attack, beyond the public claim made by Nkomo that they had believed the plane was being used for military purposes (this doesn't explain the massacre on the ground). Sources tend to describe the Smith–Nkomo talks, then abruptly say that talks came to an end because of the Viscount shootdown, as if the two were not linked. Off the top of my head it could be that ZAPU had become tired of the talks and wanted to shock the white community (in this they certainly succeeded), or it could be that a group of ZIPRA fighters shot the plane down without instructions from the regular chain of command, forcing Nkomo to hastily invent a public explanation. I will continue looking and see if I can find anything. —Cliftonian(talk) 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity we can't know this... The addition of the continued insistence to present on the "military use" explanation helps to illustrate that this is the only reason that's been given
Could you provide a brief explanation near the end for the reason that the majority rule elections led Britain to reclaim the colony and hold another election the next year?
I've put simply "This new order failed to win international acceptance, however". The reason is more or less the same as the reason the 1978–79 transitional government failed to win acceptance; whites were perceived to still have too much power as they controlled the police and the armed forces and had five out of 17 government ministers. Smith was made minister without portfolio, prompting Nkomo to dub him "minister with all the portfolios". —Cliftonian(talk) 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect
how has this event been characterized since independence by the government and press?
I'll put something in on this later, have to rush out now. Basically most of the press perceives the plane shootdown as an act of war and the Rhodesian retaliation as evil massacres. Attempts overseas to memorialise those who died are condemned as racially motivated. I'll come back to this later —Cliftonian(talk) 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a new paragraph into the last section on this now. Two Herald (Mugabe state press) articles. Hope this is good. —Cliftonian(talk) 13:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really excellent!
Support: I was not able to pre-review this article, but it seems to have been very thoughtfully put together and has no doubt benefited from sundry eyes at the MilHist A-class review. It is excellent work; I have just a few minor quibbles, mainly relating to uses of particular words:
Lead: I would omit "deliberately" in the first line. The intent of the operation is clear without this slightly non-neutral emphasis.
"Rhodesian whites turn against blacks": The adjective "caustic" should be removed. The word seems ill-chosen – I don't know what is meant by "caustic fury" (sarcastic fury?), but it suggests the presence of an editorial voice.
Legacy: I suggest you replace the word "actors". Whoever were the people responsible, they were not "actors". Perhaps "forces"?
A sombre story, and well worth reading. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like the article Brian. Thank you very much for the support and the kind words, I have made all the suggested alterations. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Sombre indeed, and scrupulously dealt with. The nominator has a track record of bringing to FAC articles on important topics of which I and perhaps many of us are ignorant. This is no exception. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. I have carefully combed the prose in search of something to quibble at, but have failed. Top marks, Cliftonian. Maybe a less downbeat topic next time? – Tim riley (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Tim for the support and the very kind words. I will try to pick a less downbeat topic next time. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Ian_Smith_1950s.jpg: how do we know this is by a government photographer? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in answering, I have a lot going on right now. The photograph comes from the 1954 issue of The Rhodesian Graphic annual ("Federated Rhodesia-Nyasaland"), edited by Sydney Veats and published under governmental auspices in Salisbury. The photograph itself is uncredited. —Cliftonian(talk) 12:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further inspection of the title/contents page credits photographs "except where otherwise acknowledged" to the Central African Archives in Salisbury. (today these are the National Archives of Zimbabwe). —Cliftonian(talk) 13:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Brian or Nikki, could you undertake a source review if you haven't already? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: No issues. All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article for FAC because I believe it to be well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, neutral, and stable. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I GA reviewed this with FA in mind, and therefore don't have much to add. Some sources have dates in addition to year as well, I'm not sure if these should be made consistent with the rest, that don't. It seems his alleged children have been cut, they would probably warrant at least a footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support Funk Monk! There is an endnote regarding his progeny, see nb#32. After looking at the sources I only see one magazine article with a full date (Morello), and its my understanding that periodicals should include a full date when one is available. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've heard about a daughter as well (I'm aware the son is transsexual, but it should be another person), anything to that? As for dates, again, not sure if it is a problem, but the month is also listed in at least Fairchild, Michael (April 1991), GP staff (May 2012), and Owen, Frank; Reynolds, Simon (April 1991). FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any WP:RSs for a Hendrix daughter. Those others sources you mentioned are also periodicals, and as far as I know, if a periodical has a month or date available, then they should be included; I might be wrong though. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the bottom discography, it seems awfully empty on the right side. Wouldn't it be possible to add live albums, singles or some such? Plenty of room for it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think that's idiotic, if there's room I see no reason why, we basically just have a lot of white space there. Anyone else have thoughts on this? McCartney passed before it was removed, right? Which means it was no problem during review, so I'd say be bold and put it back. The user who removed it also said "generally", which shows even he admits it is optional. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In 1958, Hendrix completed his studies at Washington Junior High School; he did not graduate from Garfield High School - I'd slot a contrastive here, such as ", though" rather than semicolon. Just a bit stilted as is.
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - not finding much to complain about at all....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Quadell
What a fascinating character; I'm so glad this was nominated. The prose is excellent.
I'm not fond of the wording "He headlined the Woodstock Festival in 1969 and the Isle of Wight Festival in 1970 as the world's highest-paid performer". (He wasn't headlines as "Jimi Hendrix: The world's highest-paid performer".)
It does, thanks. – Quadell(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comma stuff:
Like nearly all FACs, many places in the article use the serial comma (e.g. "Are You Experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, and Electric Ladyland"), but a few places omit it (e.g. "emotions, spirituality and music"). MOS:SERIAL says "Editors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself."
I'll do my best to find the missing serial commas, but it can be a bit difficult in an article of this size (my eyes aren't what they used to be), so I would appreciate any specific examples that you are willing to give. I have no idea where "emotions, spirituality and music" is located. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I find any more omissions, I'll add the serial comma. – Quadell(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:COMMA, when a date is formatted as "November 27, 1942", 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 usually done correctly, but like most FACs, it's a problem in a few places.
I only found one that was lacking a comma, but I'll look for more. Again, I would greatly appreciate any specific examples. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That might have been the only such problem. I'll keep an eye out. – Quadell(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "Utee" in quotes? (What is "Utee"?) If it's a backup band or stage name, I don't think quotes are needed, and if it's another single, I think the wording is confusing.
"Utee" is the name of the song that was included on the single's B-side. Does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did Hendrix play on Utee as well? If so, I'd probably word it as "she invited him to participate in a recording session for her single 'My Diary', and on its B-side, 'Utee'." (I'm not sure if there's a standard or not for Single / B-side listings.) If he didn't play on "Utee", then I don't think the B-side is worth mentioning, personally. – Quadell(talk) 18:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hendrix played on both tracks. This is made clear in the following sentence: "He played guitar on both tracks, which also included background vocals by Arthur Lee." Do you still think that this need to be clarified? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it is, sorry. This may be a product of my age, but I would not have known that 'her single "My Diary"/"Utee"' refers to the A-side and B-side of the single. If that's a standard way of naming singles and B-sides in other FAs, then that's fine, but if not, I think it would be clearer to specify that Utee is a B-side. (This comes up again when discussing "Hey Joe"/"51st Anniversary".) – Quadell(talk) 20:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, this is an accepted convention, but I could omit the b-side here for the sake of simplicity, though in other instances I think its better to retain the information. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Learner001 recently added a direct quote, sourced to the DVD The Sixties. But I'm not sure who is being quoted. It's a strong statement. Was it the assessment of someone notable? I'm trying to determine if the quote merits inclusion or not.
Right, its also lacking a location for the event. I've started a discussion with them at their talk page, so hopefully we can get an answer about the speaker and the location. Otherwise, I think I'll just remove it, as it strikes me a bit like revisionist puffery. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably best. – Quadell(talk) 21:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's an after-before-after situation in this sentence: "After the festival, the Experience played a series of concerts at Bill Graham's Fillmore, with Big Brother and the Holding Company and Jefferson Airplane, before replacing the latter at the top of the bill after embarrassing them musically." I assume the Experienced replaced Jefferson Airplane in the middle of the series of concerts, not once the concert series was done? And I'm not sure what "after embarrassing them musically" means; is it that the Experience was so much better? I think it would be useful to reword this sentence somehow.
Yes, great. – Quadell(talk) 14:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the captions for two adjacent sound files, each says it "demonstrates Hendrix's cutting-edge use of" something. It would be an improvement to add variety to the wording. – Quadell(talk) 16:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is superbly well-written. It's difficult to find a sentence in this article where the prose is clunky, but the one beginning "The Japanese-made Uni-Vibe..." could use to be split.
Thanks for the kind and supportive words! Does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in the category of "American baritones", but the article never mentions this, so it's essentially an unsourced claim.
I don't get into cats, but I agree that this is not cited in the article, and after a quick perusal of the sources I'm not seeing this readily available, so its now been removed. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue reading and reviewing this tomorrow.– Quadell(talk) 21:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article is clearly among the best Wikipedia has to offer. It fulfills all our FA criteria and should be featured. – Quadell(talk) 13:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be able to do a source review as well, Quadrell? For now I'll just request an image review at WT:FAC (which might generate some further interest in the nom as well). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: The references are formatted very well. I really like the specificity of references like 308, where it's clear exactly where each point comes from. It's hard to find any reference formatting errors, but ref 305 does say "pp." when "p." is meant. As for the Sources section, the formatting is impeccable, and every source appears to be a RS. – Quadell(talk) 15:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bertran_Philander_Ross_Hendrix_and_Zenora_"Nora"_Rose_Hendrix.jpg: when/where was this first published?
I have no idea, but its my understanding that due to its age, its a PD image. Am I wrong about this? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outside comment: Since Nora and Ross Hendrix were Vaudeville performers and photographs were relatively expensive back then, I think it extremely unlikely that this photo would have gone unpublished for decades. It is very unlikely that this image could still be copyrighted; it would be a strange collection of circumstances indeed that could cause that. It would strengthen the claim if we could find any information about who took the photograph or when it was made available for viewing or published, but I can't find any info online, even using newspaper archives. In my opinion, it's safe to assume this c. 1910 publicity photo is PD. – Quadell(talk) 16:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Quadell says, it's unlikely that this is still under copyright, but it's pre-1923 publication, not creation, that would make it PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, but the source of the image (blackpast.org) claims that it is PD, and it was used as such in an article written by Janie Hendrix, so is that good enough, or no? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this image would of course have been published if it was included in a book or newspaper, but it would also have been legally considered "published" if it were made available to the public, for example on a flyer at a publicly-accessible location or in a publicity collection sent to various Vaudeville venues. This photo could only still be copyrighted if it was created in the U.S. (and not Vancouver), and if it was first "published" after 1922, and if was published with a visible notice and copyright registration, and if the copyright was renewed 28 years later. (Alternately, it could be copyrighted if it were created in the U.S. and first published after 2003 and if the photographer died after 1943.)
Can I suggest we nominate the image for deletion on Commons, noting the various information there? Then, if it's deleted on Commons, we of course won't use it here either, but if it's deemed PD there, we'll consider it not a problem here either. (That would also give me some time to see if I can find any other information about the photo.) Would that be acceptible, Nikkimaria and GabeMc? – Quadell(talk) 21:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussion is here. Feel free to comment, if you like. – Quadell(talk) 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg: not seeing a strong rationale for use of this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggestion that I need to tighten-up the FUR, or that even with a better FUR the image should not be included? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outside comment: In my opinion, this non-free image fails NFCC#8. We already have images to show what Hendrix looked like, and all the other encyclopedic information in this image can be (and is) conveyed through the text. – Quadell(talk) 16:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that I do not anticipate a FUR capable of justifying the inclusion of this image. It's possible, but unlikely. Nikkimaria (talk)
NFCC#8 is the deletionists "Get out of jail free card", since it's entirely subject to the interpretation of the beholder. The article is stronger with it in then it is with it out, and if being in means it doesn't get a GA, so be it. There's a very distinct difference between a truly good article and a WP:GOOD ARTICLE. The first is a measure of quality, the second is a measure of how many artificially-designated hoops you're willing to jump through. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus here is that it should not be used. Graham Colm (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More bullshit filtered down from the FA controllers. Go through any of our video game FAs. NONE of them should have a single FU image on them. Oh, but they do, and often with more than one FU image. This is uneven, nonsensical application of FU image policy for FA articles. I'd personally strip every video game FA of FU "screenshots" (which are far more likely to incur copyright issues than a historical mugshot) if I could. But that would be "disruptive". Right? You FU/FA folks (alleged experts like Nikkimaria) need to get a handle on the hypocrisy of how FU images are already used on supposedly FA articles. Gut 'em of the FU's. You've got a lot of FA's that are crying out for the FU images to be removed already. Apply your prowess there. Doctalk 04:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put the image back, right where it has been for years. Nominate it for deletion the proper way. Orphaning it because you don't like it is the easy way. Doctalk 04:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Admittedly I contributed some minor additions to this article a few years back which I can still spot in parts, mainly the intro, but I'm very impressed with the way Gabe and others have developed this into something so comprehensive and concise. I was just checking again to see if I could see any lack of coverage of his technique/playing aside from the bio details and it's all there. Of course one could go into a Technique of Jimi Hendrix sub article (which I'd love to see at some point, would make interesting reading for us guitarists) and venture into more detail but what is covered in the article covers the most important points well I think. Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the 24 species of crocodiles, alligators, caimans and gharials that make up the order Crocodilia. We have been working on this article for some time and it recently had a rigorous GA review done by Quadell. We think it is ready for FAC and we look forward to your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Hamiltonstone
Great nomination, and very interested to read this, as will my little son be, as we have just been checking out the crocs at the zoo....
Ecological role: this is an odd section, as it does not begin with any overall statement about the place of crocodilians in their home ecosystems, but dives into some very particular (and in the first case, unproven) information about individual spp. Surely a general statement can be supported regarding these being top predators in the aquatic / whatever ecosystems of which they are part?
I have renamed this section as "Ecology" and added some extra material. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous. Reminds me of that great rewrite you did on the culture section of The sea (though perhaps I shouldn't mention that!). I think this is much much better. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy / plagiarism / lost quote mark problems in the Evolution section.
WP: "The feature that distinguishes archosaurs from other diapsid reptiles is an extra pair of openings in the skull (antorbital fenestrae) in front of the eye sockets."
Source [footnote 70, UCMP]: "differentiated from the other diapsids by the presence of single openings in each side of the skull, in front of the eyes (antorbital fenestrae), among other characteristics" - ie. WP refers to only one defining difference, source says there are others; WP refers to diapsid reptiles, source refers to diapsids.
WP: "Archosauria is defined as the group that includes the common ancestor of crocodiles and birds and all of its descendants"
Source [footnote 70, UCMP]: "Archosauria is defined as the group that includes the common ancestor of crocodiles and birds and all of its descendants".
I have rephrased this sentence which I thought could be quoted verbatim as a standard definition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem lay not in choosing to quote it, but in not using quote marks to clearly indicate that. But your solution i think is preferable, ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the logic behind the referencing process, that means that all cites of Grigg and Gans (1993) are to one footnote with the full chapter range, while cites to the various chapters of Ross (ed) (1992) are by Harvard footnotes, even though the numbers of pages in those chapters are no greater than in the Grigg and Gans work?
We're citing one chapter in Grigg which is weblinked. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I know that would have been a fiddly job. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forwarding to seeing how this goes, and revisiting other sections at a future date...hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
Lead: "..."high walk" and a "low walk" and smaller species are even capable of galloping." Too many "ands". Suggest "..."high walk" and a "low walk", while smaller species are even capable of galloping."
Done.
Lead: "The largest number of attacks come from the Nile crocodile." In this case "the largest number" is singular (ie. a single number), so it should read "The largest number of attacks comes from the Nile crocodile."
Done.
Lead: "Humans are the largest threat..." Repetition of "largest" from previous sentence and anyway, "greatest" I think is a better word in this context.
Done.
Lead: "Crocodilians have appeared in human cultures around the world since at least Ancient Egypt." What, they turned up in art galleries? Watch out! I think what is meant is something like "Artistic and literary representation of crocodilians has occured in human cultures around the world since at least Ancient Egypt."
Distribution and ecology: "Some prefer swamps, ponds, and the edges of lakes, where they can bask in the sun and there is plenty of plant life supporting a diverse fauna. Others prefer the lower stretches of rivers, mangrove swamps, and estuaries, which also have a rich flora and plenty of food." This seems a bit odd. We are being told that swamps, ponds, lake edges, rivers, mangroves, and estuaries, all have lots of plants and food. That is, the ecosystem features (from a crocodilian perspective) are the same. Yet the sentence structure seeks to establish a contrast between two types of environments (ie. "some prefer...others prefer...") To use this some / others structure, we should expect the differences between the environments to be the focus, but we are told that they are the same. Are you sure this is how the source explains it?
Distribution and ecology: "Dry land is also important as it provides opportunities for basking, nesting, and escaping from temperature extremes". This sentence appears to contradict earlier material under the thermoregulation heading. On the contrary, it appears that the water is used to escape temperature extremes, both hot and cold. What is going on here?
More explanation provided. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reproduction and parenting: something is wrong with this sentence: "Male alligators try to attract females with loud bellows and vibrate along the length of their bodies". The word "vibrate" does not appear to be accurate or grammatical here (I can't quite get what was intended, I'm sorry, so I'm having trouble pinning down the problem). Is the meaning: "Male alligators try to attract females with loud bellows and vibrations along the length of their bodies"?
Phylogeny: Any chance of a wikilink or something for "maximum likelihood cladogram" to assist those readers (ie. almost all) who will have no idea what this is or why it is important?
I did quite a lot of source checks on Grigg and Gans. They were all good, except for one inadequate paraphrase, which I fixed.
Thanks.
References: What's going on with the Erickson et al reference, which appears to occur twice at footnotes 5 and 93, but differently linked etc. Should this be one repeated cite?
Support. I performed the GA review, which was extremely thorough. I did not just apply the GA criteria, but also gave suggestions for improving the article along every facet I could think of. As I said then, "I can't find any more needed improvements. In every section, I asked myself, is anything missing? Is there more on this aspect that should be discussed? And every time, the content seems full and complete." By the time the GA review was finished, it was in excellent shape, and it has only improved since then. I believe this fulfills all our FA criteria and should be featured. – Quadell(talk) 13:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportQuery Nice read. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki.....
"a subordinate will summit" could that be "a subordinate will submit"
Re "Intake of water and salts takes place through the skin, across the lining of the mouth, when water is drunk, incidentally while feeding, and when present in foods. Salts and water are lost from the body in the urine and faeces, during respiration, through the skin, and via salt excreting glands on the tongue, though these are only present in crocodiles and gharials.[43][44] Gaping causes water loss by evaporation, but the skin is a largely effective barrier to both water and ions" If the skin is an effective barrier to water how can it also be where water intake takes place. Also would you mind checking the bit about salt being lost in respiration?
I will check on this when I have the book available again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source also uses "water and salts" as the subject in the source but, like you, I doubt whether salts are lost during respiration so I have rephrased the passage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re "The ranges of the American and Chinese alligator extend into regions that sometimes experience periods of frost in winter." There's also a reference to the crocodilians as being tropical except for Florida and the Yangtse. But according to the map the furthest part of their range from the equator is southern Uruguay where the temperature can drop to minus 4 centigrade. Is that aspect of the map correct, or is it just that Uruguay like the Nile delta has very mild winters.ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know. The map was derived from a reliable source and the Wikipedia article on Uruguay states "Uruguay has a largely uniform temperature throughout the year, with summers being tempered by winds off the Atlantic; severe cold in winter is unknown." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at Climate of Uruguay which talks about minus 4, but obviously we can't go beyond the sources. Thanks for investigating it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cas Liber
Comments - looks good on first scan. Will take a closer look and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would have thought Deinosuchus warranted a mention somewhere - maybe in the dimensions, showing that there were larger extinct forms? AFAIK it was the largest crocodilian found....?
Have mentioned it and its size.
Given the diversity in the mesozoic and early cenozoic, think that some of those families warrant a mention somewhere (but appreciate the article is quite large as is!)
Noted.
Have added Borealosuchus, Pristichampsidae in Evolution section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodylia in taxobox and on cladogram - reason for leaving it with a 'y' in these places?
The taxobox spelling cannot be changed as the mechanism only accepts the -y- form. Have set the cladograms to be -i- like the rest of the article, but that in a way emphasises the difference with the taxobox. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aah well, maybe that can be changed at template level. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - only had to tweak two templates and do one move, wasn't really hard. Let's hope nobody puts it back... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually read through this at the gym on my smartphone - nothing is jumping out at me prose-wise, and it now looks comprehensive. Have not checked sources. I think I am leaning support pending other issues found by other reviewers. Will have another look as it is a big article. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Axl
From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Like birds, they have a four-chambered heart." Mammals and fish also have four-chambered hearts, so this isn't a distinguishing feature. Of course the archosaur heart evolved independently, which is why birds are mentioned here. Axl¤[Talk] 11:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Axl¤[Talk] 20:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead section, paragraph 4: "Crocodilians appear in folklore and literature from around the world since the time of Herodotus and Pliny the Elder." It is worth stating when exactly the time of those people was. Axl¤[Talk] 11:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Morphology and physiology", paragraph 1: "in particular, the ribs allow the animal to collapse its thorax when diving." This statement implies that this is an active decision by the animal. Is this the case, perhaps to reduce buoyancy, or does water pressure passively compress the thorax? Do the animals dive deep enough for water pressure to cause a significant change in the volume of the lungs? Axl¤[Talk] 12:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really wanted to clarify exactly what the source states. The current and/or previous statement may well be accurate, but there is potentially more information to be added. Axl¤[Talk] 21:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Respiration" subsection doesn't really answer my questions. Axl¤[Talk] 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This reference states "Submerged lung volumes of C. porosus are approximately half the maximum lung volume reported for reptiles over the same body mass range. These low volumes are probably not due to intrinsic differences between lung morphology of C. porosus and other reptiles but to buoyancy restrictions. Freely diving C. porosus are usually negatively buoyant, with an average specific gravity of 1.028. To maintain this specific gravity, lung volume must be reduced considerably prior to submergence." I shall add some text to the article. Axl¤[Talk] 18:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have added a sentence with the reference. Do you think that this source is reliable? Axl¤[Talk] 20:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Where does it come from? LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From an internet search. This is the website's home page. Axl¤[Talk] 21:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about adding this statement: "The maximum diving depth is unknown, but crocodiles can dive to at least 20 metres." Axl¤[Talk] 11:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the statement and reference. Axl¤[Talk] 14:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Morphology and physiology", paragraph 2: "This allows them to stalk their prey with most of their body underwater." A minor issue: "their body" implies that the crocodilians collectively have only one body. Axl¤[Talk] 14:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if that solution was the best one, which is why I didn't edit it myself. However if you think that is the best solution, that's fine with me. Axl¤[Talk] 21:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Locomotion", paragraph 1: "when pursued or when chasing prey they can move rapidly, and can lunge out of the water in a manner reminiscent of dolphins." I'm not sure that "a manner reminiscent of dolphins" is helpful. I suspect that readers are more likely to be familiar with crocodilians lunging out of water rather than dolphins doing so. Axl¤[Talk] 14:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Axl¤[Talk] 21:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Circulation", paragraph 1: "Like birds and mammals, crocodilians have heart valves that flip open when pressured by surges of blood and shut closely when the pressure subsides." The statement doesn't describe the importance of the valves. How about this: "Like birds and mammals, crocodilians have heart valves that direct blood flow in a single direction through the heart chambers." Axl¤[Talk] 11:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Respiration", paragraph 2: "When inhaling, the intercostal muscles expand the ribs.... When exhaling, the intercostal muscles push the ribs inward." I presume that the external intercostal muscles undertake the former and the internal intercostal muscles the latter? Axl¤[Talk] 12:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Do the references support the statement? Axl¤[Talk] 19:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, changed. It doesn't name them that. Its says "parts of the intercoastal muscles". LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This source and this source confirm the function of the internal and external intercostal muscles. The former source is already being used for the article. I have adjusted the text and added the reference. Axl¤[Talk] 12:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Thermoregulation", paragraph 1: "Solar radiation is the main means of warming for any crocodilian." How about "The sun's heat" rather than "Solar radiation"? Axl¤[Talk] 14:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Osmoregulation", paragraph 1: "Intake of water and salts takes place through the skin.... The skin is a largely effective barrier to both water and ions." The two statements are contradictory. Axl¤[Talk] 13:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref from Mazzotti and Dunson 1989; skin largely impermeable, so removed the 'through the skin'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Morphology and physiology", subsection "Osmoregulation", paragraph 2 refers to "the concentration of ions in the plasma". I suppose that this means "osmolality". Can we change it to "osmolality"? If necessary, you could include a short definition in parentheses alongside the first instance. Axl¤[Talk] 13:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mazzotti and Dunson 1989 use the term of the 'electrolyte composition' of the urine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have changed the second instance to "osmolality". Axl¤[Talk] 22:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Osmoregulation", paragraph 1: "The animals are well-hydrated, and the urine in the cloaca is "copious, clear and dilute, and excess nitrogen is...excreted as ammonium bicarbonate"." Why is a quote used rather than paraphrasing? Axl¤[Talk] 12:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced quotation with paraphrase. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Distribution and ecology", paragraph 1: "several species can tolerate the brackish water of estuaries, mangrove swamps, and hypersaline lakes." Hypersaline lakes do not contain brackish water. Axl¤[Talk] 12:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Distribution and ecology", paragraph 3: "Desert crocodiles in Mauritania have adapted to their arid environment by staying in caves or burrows in a state of torpor during the driest periods." Is this aestivation? Axl¤[Talk] 23:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all 32 images. All are legitimately free, and all required information is provided. Images are used appropriately, and captions are good. – Quadell(talk) 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography is correctly formatted. I have not checked the reference formatting, and I'll leave that to someone else. – Quadell(talk) 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quality and formatting of the references is of FA standard. Graham Colm (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I've done some source checking against Grigg and Gans that looks fine, but found other issues along the way. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another red link in the list of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals turned to blue. Although not exactly in the first rank of Air Force personalities, Headlam did have a long and interesting career, seeing service in three South-East Asian conflicts (four if you count the brief time he spent in Vietnam preparing for Australia’s first Huey deployment to the war). Thanks as ever to all who participated in the article's recent GAN and MilHist ACR, and in advance to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made one tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images - Plane and helicopter captions should end in periods, but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - will take a look and jot queries below.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The squadron deployed to Dutch Timor in December, --> "The squadron was deployed to Dutch Timor in December," (active tense for deploy looks funny to me...)
It's not uncommon in militarese to employ the term that way, but I don't mind altering it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ummm.what's a conversion course? Can we link or explain somehow?
Pilots who've learnt to fly on training aircraft have to undergo conversion to the specific types of aeroplane they fly in operational squadrons. I guess I could pipe "conversion course" to operational conversion unit, or else I could make the concept a bit clearer by just saying "seaplane conversion course" (which I would've done except I decided to avoid repeating "seaplane"). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think piping the link is fine - whole new idea to me.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, looks good - prose is pretty tight and it looks like you've gone through the references so I am presuming it is comprehensive. I was wondering if you'd come across any anecdotes in any of the material that might add a little colour or feel for the man and help bring him to life for the reader. It is a touch on the dry side. However, if there isn't anything that fits the bill then this is nonactionable and a non deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for reviewing, Cas. To be honest I agree with you about it being on the dry side. I always try to find personal anecdotes or interesting quotes by or about the subject but in Headlam's case they seem to be lacking, apart from his youthful ideas on the defence of Australia being considered somewhat prescient by a major Air Force historian... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I sorta guessed if there was anything, you'd have found it....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your support (and understanding)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very strong article, and I have only the following comments:
"Headlam was promoted to flying officer, on 1 July" - the relevant year isn't identified in this para (I presume that it's 1935)
Well spotted!
In regards to the paper Headlam wrote on the defence of Australia at about this time, do the sources place this in the context of the anti-raid concept which the Army (and, to a lesser extent, Navy) was concerned with at the time? The view was that while Australia didn't face any credible threat of invasion, there was a need to be able to repel small forces of raiders through coastal artillery and mobile forces (of course, this came back into vogue in the 1970s/1980s, but that's a bit off topic).
The source does mention "enemy raids" but doesn't discuss the Army's and Navy's concerns explicitly. I could reword "national defence" to "defending against enemy raids", although it seems to me that the RAAF had grander plans for the concepts developed in the papers than simply repelling the odd raid, which is why I used my original expression.
Fair enough: there hasn't been much scholarship joining the dots together on the pre-war defensive thinking in the services (to the extent that the dots can be sensibly joined together). Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fascinating to know why Headlam mainly served in (very important) training and support roles after early 1942 rather than combat positions, but I imagine that the sources don't describe this. His experiences at Timor would have been terrifying and many of the other RAAF survivors of this period seem to have been posted mainly to training roles.
Yes, John McCauley was described by Alan Stephens in one history as being "exhausted" after Singapore, and this was a guy who went on to become Chief of the Air Staff. I imagine also that Headlam's long navigation credentials probably had something to do with his assignments to training posts. Unfortunately none of the secondary sources state this explicitly.
In regards to his role as CO of No. 90 Wing, I'd suggest noting that No. 38 Squadron mainly undertook courier duties across Asia at the start of his posting, so the wing's duties were broader than just supporting the war in Malaya.
Reworded, see how it reads now.
"He was also one of two RAAF members to serve on a committee..." when was this?
Stephens isn't explicit in the text and that plus the footnotes gives a slightly contradictory indication. The committee appears to have been set up in 1958, but Headlam is supposed to have served on it while acting AMP, which he was in 1957 and 1959–60 only. The latter term is presumably the applicable one so I've just tried to place the info in the best position chronologically that I can.
Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and with manpower shortages stemming from Australia's increasing involvement in the security of South East Asia" - this might be over-stating things given that the RAAF wasn't that big (especially compared with the Army or its WW2 strength). Was the problem recruiting and training enough personnel to keep up with the expansion rather than its involvement in South East Asia per se? Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was both and I hadn't worded it quite as it was meant. Tks for reviewing, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 CassiantoTalk 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your review, kind words and support Tim. CassiantoTalk 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)? -- CassiantoTalk 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the grandfather. Or has this already been changed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
lol, I had no idea of this guideline. Propose to delete "dummy", which appears deleted. -- CassiantoTalk 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ditto thanks very much. -- CassiantoTalk 19:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
All now covered, I hope! - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, though her as a singer still appears to come out of nowhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? -- CassiantoTalk 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"whose career spanned from 1946 until her death. She started her career in 1946" - Spot the problem :)
"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".
"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)[reply]
I'm afraid I need to stop there for now but will be back later! --Loeba(talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about, "including appearing in the successful film Scrooge, starring Alastair Sim"? --Loeba(talk) 13:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
All now dealt with, apart from the commented two. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."
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)[reply]
Final appearances
A bit too much detail about the British Rail advert?
Now tweaked back. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cool, I hope you genuinely like it that way - if not please change it back! --Loeba(talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent stuff, meets all the FA criteria. --Loeba(talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Much thanks Loeba, your review has been invaluable. --CassiantoTalk 10:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ian, and for the time and effort of everyone who took part. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. I echo SchroCat in thanking everybody for their help and time in making this FA quality. A great new year's gift! -- CassiantoTalk 14:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Very true! Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're right Jim - no article is compete without a link to Melbourne Castle! :) Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - looking good. A few queries..... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note -- did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, there was one done against the current set of images here at ACR. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Changes made to files. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"nickel as a coinage medal": not "metal"? If not, could we layreaders get an explanation?
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So with a two-cent coin you could buy 20 cents worth of goods? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've taken a different angle. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support on prose, for the Centurion's work on another great article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words and for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Examples needing to be converted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
No other issues noted. Well done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think I've gotten everything now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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!)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They are usually made of brass, but aluminium and copper are also used. -- this needs a citation.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 λg as well as λ itself is varying. In the relation for λg it must be understood that λc is free-space (and in the context, it would be clearer to separate λg on the left hand side). I suppose I could fix this myself though.
Are you wanting to write,
I could go along with that. Or are you looking for
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)[reply]
I've just realised what your point is about λc. So perhaps you want it written like this,
Yes, I would have written
or perhaps
and
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)[reply]
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 λg 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, both of those are done. I got some IEEE papers on absorption filters from WP:LIBRARY. SpinningSpark 21:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support: the necessary boxes are now ticked. --catslash (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've moved the scope information to its own section. Does that solve the problem? SpinningSpark 16:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Thank you for being flexible. – Quadell(talk) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the serial comma usage is now totally consistent. – Quadell(talk) 20:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's fine. Do you think it should still be above the "History" section? – Quadell(talk) 15:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've tweaked the captions, see what you think. SpinningSpark 21:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks. (I added periods, since they are now complete sentences.) – Quadell(talk) 15:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, great, that link makes it clear. – Quadell(talk) 20:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Okay, I specified WWII in the text to make that clear. – Quadell(talk) 20:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
I patched up a final few details. The source check is complete, and everything checks out. – Quadell(talk) 18:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Works for me. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tks for those changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
"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)[reply]
"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.
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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"?
"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?
"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?
"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."
" 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?
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)[reply]
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?
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.
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)[reply]
The quote "widow maker" needs a clear and direct source, both in the "United States Marine Corps" section and the "Incidents and accidents" section.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If it's not uncommon in aircraft FAs, that's fine. – Quadell(talk) 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
I plan to add issues here as I find them. All the best, – Quadell(talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Done
