Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2014

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC) [1]

Russian battleship Retvizan

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Russian battleship Retvizan was ordered from an American shipyard because Russian ones were already at full capacity building ships for Tsar Nicholas II's naval expansion program to defend his recently acquired territory in northern China. Damaged several times during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–045, she was sunk when the Imperial Japanese Army besieged Port Arthur. The ship was salvaged by the Imperial Japanese Navy and repaired for service with the name Hizen. She served in minor roles during World War I and was sunk as a target in 1924. The article had a MilHist A-class review last month and I've tweaked it a bit recently to bring it fully up to speed. I'd be astonished if I've caught everything, so I welcome comments from reviewers who can point out things that need to be better explained or rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I reviewed this article at the ACR and have a few more observations:
  • Would it be worthwhile to redlink the auxiliary cruisers Cramp & Sons built? If it's not likely that articles on them will ever be written, don't bother.
    • Since somebody's already made an article on one of them, I might as well redlink them all.
  • Link "watertight" -> watertight compartment
  • In the Port Arthur section, it might be confusing for the reader to see that the Russians were moored in the outer harbor and then to see that after the torpedo hit, Retvizan "head[ed] for the harbor" - they might say to themselves "weren't they already in the harbor?" It might be better to clarify that she was making for the inner harbor. Or call the outer harbor the roadstead instead.
    • I went with inner/outer harbor as more familiar to people than roadstead.
      • Fair enough.
  • I think it would be good to mention the competing Russian and Japanese interests in Manchuria and Korea in the run-up to the war - right now, it jumps from the arrival of the Russian squadron in 1903 to tensions on the eve of war, with no explanation of how we got there. It should probably mention their competing interests, Russia's leading role in the Triple Intervention, etc., if only briefly, so that the reader doesn't have to go clicking around to figure out what was going on. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • How does the new paragraph work? Thanks for the comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Much better, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some discrepancies between infobox and article - for example, the date she was struck. Other details, such as complement, are unsourced
• Check alphabetization of References
• Location for Forczyk? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Thanks for the eagle eyes, Nikki--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - some significant copyediting may be needed. I've made it through the first two sections. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you be a little more specific?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Support from John

Are we in American or British English here? The article seems to have been started in the latter then changed to the former. Why would that be? --John (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears the change happened a bit earlier, with this edit. When Sturmvogel got to the article, it was a mix of British and American English. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, good catch. Per WP:RETAIN unless there is good reason to change it it should stay in Br Eng. Is there? --John (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As I think I've said before, if it's in a mix of the two then I pick which ever one I feel like writing in, barring strong national ties; I don't go back and research what the article was started in. Which is often, especially for stubs, only a couple of words in the infobox. I see no need to change things now, but if someone wishes to do so, I have no objection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. It is one of the things I look for in an article under review, as these things can creep and they are not supposed to. It looks pretty good apart from this, and I will support shortly, once a couple of further minor items are fixed. --John (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

From the above, you seem OK with my use of AmEng, but you dropped a use BritEng tag on the article. Kind of a mixed message, don't you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. RETAIN applies here so we have to keep UK English, unless there is good reason to change it. --John (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that this is a battle that really needs to be fought (absent of any actual complaints... no offense intended, John, as you know I respect you and your work), can this be quickly solved with a talk page discussion as prescribed at WP:RETAIN? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Question On a similar matter, why do we have the imperial units first, rather than metric? Weren't Russia and Japan metric nations in this era? --John (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia used English measurements until the revolution, aside from imported French guns. The IJN was English as well until about 1920 or so when they revised their nomenclature.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is fascinating. It's looking good now, and I will just need one more look before I support. --John (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I now support; thank you for indulging my questions and my copyedits, and congratulations on a fine article. --John (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time and effort to improve the article. Much appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Support good work. A few suggestions.

Background

• a mention of the location of the Cramp shipyards might be welcome.

• Done.

Design etc.

• "The new ship had four fewer 6-inch (152 mm) guns …" as Potemkin"? Ditto for the comparisons on the Maine class battleships.

• Is this really ambiguous given that the comparison ships are mentioned in the previous sentences?

• "two second-class torpedo boats equipped with a single torpedo tube " I'd toss an "each" before "equipped"

• Good idea.

Battle of Port Arthur

• A few sentences about how the war came to be might be good before discussing the battle.

• Done, although the wording might need to be tweaked a bit.

Battle of the Yellow Sea

• "over two hours later" than what?
• The sinking comes rather abruptly. Can a sentence or two be added about the siege for the sake of context?

Excellent as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over. See if the changes adequately respond to your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Retvizan_Brassey's1915_corrected.png needs US PD tag
  • Done.
• File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Marineschepen_in_de_haven_van_Sabang_op_het_eiland_We_TMnr_60011323.jpg: was the listed author working for the museum, or is this PD for another reason? If the latter, the CC license should be supplemented with an appropriate PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The photographer seems to have been independent, but he died in 1922. I don't know how the Tropenmuseum obtained the rights to his photos, if any, but it's irrelevant except in countries with life + 100 years or more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC) [2]

---

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, a United States military agency responsible for those aspects of nuclear weapons remaining under the military after the Manhattan Project was succeeded by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on 1 January 1947. I am especially pleased with it as I created the article in 2010. Since then it has passed Good Article and A Class article reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from John

Oppose for now based on prose concerns. Could do with a good copyedit. Sourcing seems ok. Will post a full review in 24 hours or less. --John (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Update I am sorry real life seems to have caught up with me. I still hope to post a full review here tonight or tomorrow. --John (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@John: Were you planning to return to this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Sorry this escaped me. I will try to post a proper review, do the copyedit myself, or withdraw my oppose over the weekend. --John (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Question "The act that was signed by President Harry S. Truman on 1 August 1946 created a civilian agency, the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), to take over the functions and assets of the Manhattan Project, but the AEC did not assume its role until 1 January 1947." Is it important to highlight this five-month hiatus? Other than that I think it is almost good to go. --John (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hawkeye, was such a gap unusual or par for the course with US govt agencies? The way it's expressed makes it sound like the former; if not, the last bit could be recast as "and the AEC assumed its role on 1 January 1947". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  Not usually when it is so urgent. Five months is a long time. The point is that in this case millions of dollars was being spent and very important decisions put on hold, with the whole Manhattan Project practically on autopilot while first Congress argued over the legislation, and then the AEC commissioners took their time being appointed and getting up to speed on their roles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Can this be sourced? If it's a vital part of the subject's story, of course it should be included. --John (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Added a bit more about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  That works for me; I still query giving it such emphasis, but I trust you that it's an important part of the story per the sources. --John (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  @John: How are things looking for you now, as I think we're close to wrapping this up otherwise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  I still wish we could clarify the tanks issue mentioned below. It's like a teaser as it stands. --John (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  Removed the bit about the tanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions

• You mentioned in an edit summary that 502d is USEng; how about "122nd"? Should that be 122d?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• To bolster the base defenses, Montague acquired 18 tanks; what kind of tanks? What happened to them? --John (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  No idea. All my source says is: The next month, General Montague brought in 18 tanks and stationed them around the Ordnance, Igloo, and Technical areas. It's sourced to the internal history, so I'd have to access the archives at NARA College Park to find out more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I'd ideally like to see this clarified; "tanks" could mean various different things. It's unusual enough to be worth elaborating on I think. --John (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Well that is all I have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  That's a real shame; on a military technology article, saying "18 tanks" is almost like saying "7 warships". I'd almost suggest just pulling this sentence if that is all we have in the sources about it. Though I probably wouldn't oppose just over this. --John (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  Removed the bit about the tanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Update I think I am now happy with the prose which I tidied here. I will support once the two outstanding items above are resolved. Thanks for taking care of the ordinals. --John (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I now support this article's promotion. I'd love to see more about the tanks re-added should it become available. --John (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Me too! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review from Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Rearden: need ndash in title
• Truslow: check caps on publisher name. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Anotherclown

Comments from Anotherclown

• All images have Alt Text except File:AFSWP badge.jpeg - wonder if it should be added for consistency? (suggestion only - not an FA req as far as I'm aware).
• Some duplicate links:
  • Manhattan Project
  • Leslie R. Groves, Jr.
  • Los Alamos Laboratory
  • President
  • Harry S. Truman
  • Silverplate
  • Kenneth D. Nichols
• "The military side of the Manhattan Project had relied heavily on reservists..." perhaps wikilink reservists?
• " However, they were also urgently required for many other jobs in the post war Army...", think post war should be hyphenated (i.e. "post-war").
• "...which would become a field unit under the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project..." abbreviation AFSWP should be introduced here.
• Typo here I think: "which would be a jointly staffed by the Army and Navy..." ("a" should be removed).
• "...Patterson and Forrestal issued a memorandum that formally established the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP)..." should just be AFSWP after introduction of abbrev earlier in article.
• "...one for each of the three Midway class carriers..." Midway class might need to be hyphenated here to be consisted with previous usage in article.
• typo here: " in April 1947, Lilienthal informed the him..." (specifically "the him").
• this seems a little awkward: "...and there now two members from each of the three services...", perhaps reword?
• DASA is redlinked in the lead, but you use a piped link at the end of the article. Should the one in the lead by piped also? Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • All done. Decided that "prewar" is the correct American English form. And kept the red link on DASA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - in my opinion the article meets FA criteria fol these changes. Anotherclown (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

      Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support from ColonelHenry

I was asked whether I could give the article a look and do a review. It will be forthcoming this evening (10JAN14) or tomorrow (11JAN14).--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Took me a few days to look at the article, I apologise greatly for the delay. After a few minor adjustments, I look forward to supporting this.

Per the FA criteria:

• 1A: Generally well-written, informative, and factual. I do notice a few stylistic areas that need to be addressed (below)
• 1B: Sufficiently comprehensive.
• 1C: Article is well-researched and adequately sourced, meeting WP:V. Article relying on combination of primary documents, and secondary sources that are both rigorous scholarly surveys and popular histories of the program. I did some source checks at random, and didn't see any problems.
• 1D: Article is a "just the facts" historical presentation--no opinion, no bias.
• 1E: Article looks stable for the past several years, no evidence or indication of content disputes or editing behavior that undermines article stability.
• 2A: The lede is pretty good - adequately sums up the article, and meets the requirements of the MOS
• 2B: No problem with the structure/layout--I think its entirely appropriate for the article's content.
• 2C: Citations are consistent. Not a style I like to use or see, but they're consistent.
• 3: I did an Image Review and all looks good--all images are either created by a Wikipedian or public domain federal government work product.
• 4: Length is appropriate, balances need for details with summary style.

I noticed a few issues to address:

• There are a lot of superfluous commas. For instance, in one section I removed about two dozen.[3] For example: One sentence Groves retired at the end of February 1948, and Nichols was designated as his successor, with the rank of major general. didn't need either of the commas. I removed both of them.
  • No, that is incorrect. A comma is required when "and" is being used to coordinate two independent clauses. So the first comma should be there. I don't use the serial comma though. USEng used to be big on commas, but it is in decline, and people like you are drifting towards AusEng, where comma usage is mimimized. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, comma use is arguable depending on which style guide you look at it, and independent clauses are often condemned (q.v.: cf. Strunk & White [4]) as sloppy and many advocate splitting such awkwardly constructed sentences. Take the advice of wise novelists who have essentially said, unless your famous, don't do it. Perhaps splitting would be better. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• A civilian, Donald F. Carpenter from the Remington Arms Company, rephrase..and why is his past at Remington relevant. It seems a superfluous detail. What was he at Remington that makes that relevant to the project? If it's not really that germane, it's easier to say Donald F. Carpenter, a civilian,...
  • Done. I had in the back of my mind that "civilian" is pejorative in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping me when you've taken a look at the above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review ColonelHenry. It is much appreciated. The subject isn't a well-known one, but many people reading up on the Manhattan Project might wonder what happened next. This article will tell them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 has sufficiently addressed my concerns. I support this article's promotion to FA status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

• Support. The article is impressive in its sourcing, throughout. I particularly like the standardization and uniformity, as well as the easy-to-use Notes/References sects. A few redlinks throughout the article, it'd be nice to see those as bluelinks someday soon, but not urgent for FA. The article is certainly educational and has high encyclopedic value. Minor quibble: I don't think the portal links belong in the References section, rather, suggest using a portal bar format to add a bunch more portals as a portal bar at the bottom of the article. Excellent efforts, overall. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review! Per WP:Red Link: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished". The whole article was created from a red link. I normally don't create red links them unless I intend to eventually create articles. In particular, intend to create DASA. The conversion to DASA just seemed like a natural place to end the article. I actually started writing about RADM Parker, who is best known for the Battle of the Java Sea, but could not find enough information about him. The other red links were added by other editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. — Cirt (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Well done, but I do have one quibble:
  • was a real prospect that wartime Mightn't "danger" be a better word here than prospect as it emphasizes the risks in the situation? Suggestion only.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    • A good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [5].

---

Newton's Parakeet

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Very little is known about this bird, and what is known is somewhat questionable. I've tried to collect as much obscure info as possible (from both new and old sources)), and to make it easy to understand, despite its complexity. I have also added all important historical images, and hope this account will bring some attention to the species. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support – To my layman's eye this seems to meet all the FAC criteria. It is evidently comprehensive, and is easy to read and understand. Very enjoyable, in fact, with the pleasing historical extracts. The sources are varied and well cited. Only one minor quibble: the final para puzzled me a bit – after mention of the 1967 speculation we are then told that speculation ceased before the start of the 20th century, or am I misreading this? The OED, Chambers and Collins all prefer "coloration" to "colouration", but they all permit the latter: I just mention the point. – Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I could had worded it differently, one source states there were actual rumours until the 20th century, but I didn't count Greenway's 1967 assumptions as actual rumours, but there should be a better way to clarify this. I'll give it a try soon, and notify you here when I've done it. As for colouration, well, I've used that spelling in the other FAs I've worked on, so it's a bit of a habit now... FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the order of the sentences[6] to be chronological, does it make it clearer that rumours are separate from speculation? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarifies the matter nicely. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Will stop by shortly to review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. Small but perfectly formed and a very interesting and easy read. I've made a few very minor tweaks here and there, but feel free to revert if you feel differently. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments - looking over now -queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Anything we can do with the three lead paras, all of which start with, "Newton's Parakeet...." - just to mix up the prose and layout a little?

The second and third sentences of the lead both start with "It...." - thinking of ways to mix it up a little, maybe reword sentence #2 to " The Alexandrine Parakeet of the same genus is a close relative and probable ancestor." (?)

Newton's Parakeet was first mentioned by French naturalist François Leguat in 1708, and was only mentioned a few times by other writers afterwards. - two "mention"s - maybe "Newton's Parakeet was first written about by French naturalist François Leguat in 1708, and was only mentioned a few times by other writers afterwards." - or something equivalent?

link sternum

''Newton's Parakeet was about 40 cm (16 in) long, roughly the size of the Rose-ringed Parakeet. - I think a dash works better than a comma between the two clauses here.

Otherwise looking pretty on target for FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed everything except the first one, have some questions. Usually write the full name in the beginning of new paragraphs, just to make clear what I'm referring to. Any alternate proposals? FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just tweaked it like this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Just wondering about the sentence "It was mostly greyish or slate blue in colour" in the second paragraph. Does that just apply to the plumage or the feet and/or beak as well? Also, does Psittacula need to be linked (in the 2nd paragraph) when it's in the infobox? Not sure what you think about the two edits I did either. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add "plumage". Taxobox links are not enough. As for your edit, looks good, though natural selection is a given, and therefore not mentioned in the source, so will have to tweak that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I would like to see a sources and images review. Although I do not anticipate any issues. Graham Colm (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:LocationRodrigues.PNG: what base map or source data does this image use? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

All maps in that style are based on this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World-large.png FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- promoting without a formal source review; nothing stood out on my cursory inspection. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [7].

---

Natchez revolt

Nominator(s): User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC) & User:Jsayre64

This article is about the revolt of the Natchez people against French colonists in 1729. It describes the background to the conflict and its results, which was the annihilation of the Natchez as a separate ethnic group. Under the previous title, Natchez Massacre, the article has undergone two failed FA reviews here and the latest in December 2012. Through 2013 the main contributor, Jsayre64, and myself (who participated in the failed 2012 review, opposing it) have added a lot of new content and many new secondary sources - the article now includes citations by all the main works describing the massacre, focusing on the most recent ones by Barnett and Sayre. The article just passed the MilHist A class review, which was a suggestion by a reviewer in the 2012 review, as a precondition for a further FAC review. Jsayre64 and myself feel that the article is now ready for a third and hopefully final try.

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cdtew - I've read through this several times, and can't find much with which I can quibble. As one editor who's focused on colonial America, I'm impressed by the quality of what you two have produced. Below are a few comments, which I hope you will address:

• "They also built numerous large plantations and concessions" - Do you mean Concession (territory)? If so, it may be helpful to wikilink it, since concession is not a common English word.
• "it was the Natchez female chief Tattooed Arm" & "When the Great Sun died in 1728 and was succeeded by his inexperienced nephew Tattooed Arm..." - It seems, based on the article linked in the latter sentence, and the plain meaning of the first sentence, that Tattooed Arm was a female, and was not the successor to Great Sun. If this is correct, is this an accidental omission? Or were there two Tattooed Arms, one being female and the other male? Regardless, it would appear that the wikilink in the latter sentence is incorrect.
• "One woman's unborn baby was torn from her before she herself was killed" - It's always tough trying to determine whether European claims about barbaric actions are true or exaggerated. I haven't read the source on which this statement is based (although it's on my list to read), but I think it's usually best to qualify these sorts of statements by saying something like "Dumont de Montigny later reported that one Frenchwoman's unborn baby was torn from her before she herself was killed." Even that gives a little bit too much credence to a potentially biased statement, but at least it identifies the person who reported it, allowing a reader to doubt it if they choose make their own decision.
• "Some scholars argue that the fact that the Natchez spared the African slaves was due to a general sense of affinity between the Natchez and the Africans" - who are these scholars? I think this needs some direct attribution.
• "tortured to death at the frame in New Orleans" - this is a little unclear, you might want to explain or clarify this, particularly so a general reader will know what "the frame" is. Other than the later parrilla, I'm not sure I even know what you mean.
• "the Great Sun" Appears to refer to one individual, although it also appears to be a title. This is problematic when, after the death of the Great Sun, you mention "A subsequent expedition led by Périer in 1731 to dislodge the Natchez captured many of them and their leaders, including Saint Cosme, the Great Sun and the Female Sun Tattooed Arm." Some clarification would help greatly.
• "In 1734 Governor Bienville attacked the Chickasaw" - this seems a little thin. In what way did he attack them?
• I think the "Historical Interpretations" segment needs something extra. It should either be re-named "Contemporary Interpretations", or should include the views of scholars from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. In other words, presumably the way the event was viewed in the 18th century likely doesn't persist. How did chauvinist late 19th century historians view it? How did ethnohistorians of the mid-late 20th century view it? Is there a difference between how French historians and U.S. historians write about the revolt? I think expanding this would make it truly comprehensive. You appear to have the sources - and, having read Gordon Sayre before, I'm sure those sources in particular will be useful in this task.

Really, that's it. It doesn't seem like much, but the historiography issue may be easier said than done. I will look in my sources to see if I have something useful for you. Cdtew (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've adressed those of your concerns that can be handled without additional sources, some clarifications mostly. The historiography is trickier, Sayre definitely writes about it in the Indian Chief as Tragic Hero, but not in as much detail as you suggest outlining trends in historiography up untill the present. There is a clear trend regarding the early French depictions that is described both by Sayre and Balvay, perhaps more could be included on this. I don't think "contemporary interpretations" would be a good title, but perhaps simply "subsequent interpretations" or "historiography" might work?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you can keep the "historical interpretations" title, but all I was saying is that the title implies there will be historical interpretations, not contemporary observations and reporting (which is what's in there for the most part). I don't think it requires an overview of the historiography, but just insert some comments about how the various historians have interpreted the event in your sources. Cdtew (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We have almost addressed all your comments, Cdtew, just not entirely the historiography matter. Do you think that section in the article is looking better? Jsayre64 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I am a little slowed down right now by some other work, and it may be a week before I have time to start rereading Sayre. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jsayre64 Maunus The historical interpretations section is looking a little better, but a lot has happened in historiography since 1854 (your latest source cited in that section. Historiography can be the toughest part about writing an article like this, but given it is likely a subject of some controversy (as most Euro-Native conflicts tend to be) I would imagine there has been some difference of treatment in the past two centuries. Without a more extensive view of how historians have viewed the revolt (provided that information is out there, which I believe it is) I'm not sure this can pass 1(b) and 1(d) in my mind. Keep working, though, you're putting out a high-quality product. Cdtew (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have looked for some sources that explicitly describe the changing views of the Revolt, but they are not easy to come by. For example Balvays book could easily be seen as a revisionist account that emphasises the colonial aspect of the interactions, but even in reviews of the book I do not find this characterization explicitly made through comparison with other earlier accounts. Sayre only evaluates the 18th and 19th century views. I could easily write a summary of the historians who have worked on the revolt in the 20th century as it is only about half a dozen - but any comparison would in effect become OR. It is not the case that the revolt has been a subject of controversy, most ink spent on writing about the Natchez has touched their kinship system about which there has been some debate (if not controversy). The most important change in writing about the revolt has been to start emphasizing the role of French colonialism as the trigger of the revolt (as opposed to mere savagery) and to see the revolt in relation to the disproportionate response that devastated the Natchez as a people. I could write this but currently it would be a kind of original research.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jsayre64: Let me know when you've finished adding to historiography, and I will take another look. Cdtew (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Jsayre64 Maunus I have read through the historiography section, and I'm satisfied that it's as comprehensive as it needs to be. I did do some rearranging, so that there would be some thematic consistency here. Feel free to tweak or revert if you disagree or think there's a better way to arrange it. It just seemed like it went from "Conspiracy" to "proven not to have been a conspiracy" back to "here are some more authors that think it was a conspiracy." As it is now it goes from "General interpretation" to "Conspiracy" to "No Conspiracy" to "Americans have historically had no interest". Cdtew (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks great now, more organized. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian Rose -- Recusing myself from delegate/coordinator duties, this is not exactly my area of expertise but thought I might be able to offer an additional perspective on prose, readability, etc...

• Copyedited, so pls let me know if I've misinterpreted anything; outstanding points:
  • "By 1700 the Natchez' numbers had been reduced to about 3,500 by disease, and by 1720 further epidemics had halved that population" -- Diseases introduced by contact with the colonists? Might be worth clarifying either way, and perhaps naming some as examples, if known.
  • "giving the signal for a coordinated simultaneous attack on Fort Rosalie and on the outlying farms and concessions" -- "coordinated simultaneous" sounds redundant to me, suggest dropping "coordinated" as "giving the signal" effectively conveys that IMO.
  • "A year earlier, the French West India Company gave up control of the colony to Louis XV" -- I don't get the significance of this point; also, if it does remain, I think "had given up" works better than "gave up" since we're going back a year.
  • "Saint Cosme, the new Great Sun and his mother—the Female Sun, Tattooed Arm" -- Just like to clarify who's who here, are Saint Cosme and the new Great Sun the same person?
• Structure seems straightforward, and the article appeared comprehensive and sufficiently detailed, overcoming one of the main issues raised in at least one earlier FAC.
• No dablinks found.
• I'll take as read Nikki's image review; haven't reviewed sources.
• Overall, I found this well written and easy to follow -- good job. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The disease is difficult to clarify, ultimately it did of course come form European contact, but many Indian peoples were decimated by European diseases years before they ever saw one themselves, so it is difficult to know whether it was in fact the secific French colonists or just the general onslaught of disease on the continent brought on by contact. I'll remove "simultaneous" as you are correct it is redundant. Saint Cosme was the new Great Sun, I'll try to make that less ambiguous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I believe I have addressed the rest of your comments. I am still working on the historiography issue that Cdtew raised, mainly planning things off-wiki, and I know that Maunus is too. Thanks for your input. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the resolution of my comments above, and see no issues with other changes since I copyedited. Let me know when the historiography mods are more-or-less finalised (we may be at that point now, I don't know) and I'll take one more look before formalising my support. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Cdtew, Ian Rose, the last section of prose should be pretty solid at this point, but tell me if you have recommendations for tidying/organization, as the section has gone through almost a re-write. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now everyone seems happy with the final section, I'm pretty well ready to support too. One minor query: was Chepart's title/rank in actually that of "commandant"? If so, I think the last sentence of the first para in the historiography section should say "Commandant Chepart" (which you in fact use as the title of one section) not "the commandant Chepart". If "commandant" is an informal term, then I'd punctuate things, i.e. "the commandant, Chepart" (and you might even want to reconsider the section title). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. That was his title. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Good, all looks fine to me now -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• For passim refs, use the "loc" parameter instead of pages
• How are you ordering multiple refs by the same author? It's mostly chronological, but then Sayre isn't
• Second Balvay title needs endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me. I see that the earlier FAC complaints centered around too many primary source usage; assuming the listed bibliography & refs are accurate (can't really spot-check myself), that seems to be fixed now, so good work. My only complaint: the description of Chateaubriand's Les Natchez is incoherent. Who's Chactas? Does it matter that his name is the same as the Chocotaw tribe? (Checking the linked articles - which shouldn't count for this paragraph - he's supposed to be a Natchez Indian, not a Chocotaw.) Wait, Chactas has opinions on the French Revolution of 1789 but dies before the Natchez Revolt of 1731? Okay, I guess it means Chateaubriand has opinions on the French Revolution, but those opinions are being shifted back 100 years for more a loose parallel... maybe? I can understand that you don't want to spend 2 paragraphs on this, but this should either be expanded to explain Les Natchez in enough detail to make sense, or else not even bring up things that don't make sense without context. SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, that does need some clarification. I will try to work on that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the details about Chactas, because it probably isn't necessary to dive into the plot of that work of fiction and confuse readers. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [8].

---

Abe Waddington

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Abe Waddington was a particularly grumpy, but quite popular, Yorkshire cricketer from the 1920s. He tended to promise more than he achieved but to a point he had a good career. Off the pitch, he was quite unusual for the period, and got up to quite a bit. An interesting chap who fitted rather well into a team of social misfits who dominated English cricket in the early 1920s. This article was first expanded around 3 years ago, and has been a GA for a while. It had a peer review around that time, but has been expanded somewhat since then. It has had some excellent feedback on the article talk page from Crisco 1492, Brianboulton, Tim riley, SchroCat, Cliftonian and Giants2008. Any further comments would be greatly appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images (review was done). Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the earlier review and help! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support – meets all FA criteria for text IMO, and gives a full, balanced and most readable account of its subject. Fine range of sources and thoroughly cited throughout. Good stuff, and I enjoyed reading it again after the recent informal peer review on the talk page. We Lancastrians could do with a WP editor as scholarly and devoted as Sarastro is for Yorkshire CCC. Tim riley (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the earlier comments and your kind words. I seem to be on a run of Yorkshire articles, but I think the next ones will be something else, you'll be pleased to know! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Nice and interesting article. I was a fellow commenter at PR and had my concerns all happily addressed there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Seems to meet all FA criteria for text. Well written and referenced. Mackey23 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support – As Sarastro said above, I was one of the editors who provided a talk page review, although I admittedly didn't find much. While this is shorter than most of Sarastro's other work, it still reaches the same high standards I've come to expect from this editor, and deserves to have the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, support and kind comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I gave my tuppence previously as Sarastro noted above and in my opinion this article fully meets the FA standards. Well done Sarastro for an enlightening, well-written and most of all entertaining read. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for earlier help and your kind support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 57 lacks publisher location

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please look at ref 66. I don't think the article title is correct, as it duplicates that of the previous ref.

• It goes to show that copy-and-paste is not always the best way! Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this earlier, and have just one outstanding gripe. It is with the sentence: "In total, Waddington made four trips to Australia, apart from his visit as a player." A total is absolute; following it with "apart from" makes no sense. I suggest you delete the words "In total", or make it "five trips ... including his". Otherwise, a worthy addition to the cricket article corpus. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done as suggested. Thanks for your support and earlier comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Crisco 1492 did an image review here. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [9].

---

St James' Church, Sydney

Nominator(s): Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important sites of architectural, social and organisational history in Australia. The church has made a significant contribution to the city of Sydney since the earliest days of the colony of New South Wales and remains an important player in the city's religious, musical and official life. The article tries to capture the extent of that engagement over two hundred years and communicate the range of notable aspects (architectural, artistic, theological, musical, historical).

I have been working on it for a number of years trying to achieve a concise balance of these aspects. This is the first article I have nominated for FA. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Brief comment: One thing immediately noticeable is the lack of citations in certain areas. Nothing is cited in the "Location" section, and there are numerous instances in the rest of the article where citations are absent from paragraph endings. I also think you need to modify your opening line: "St James' Church, Sydney, commonly known as St James', King Street, is an Australian Anglican parish church situated in King Street in central Sydney." This clunks rather heavily, with "St James", "Sydney" and "King Street" all repeated – the final seven words seem entirely unnecessary. I have not read the article, merely glanced at it; the illustrations struck me as particularly impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

- I have modified the opening line and cited the Location section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Jim

Support Comments from Jim Having written a church FA myself, the least I can do is show solidarity! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Current practice at FAC is to avoid refs in the lead, since it is a summary, and everything should be referenced later in the text.

- I have moved all the references in the lead to appropriate places in the body of the article and also refined the text of some of the relevant sections. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Some text is unreferenced. There has been for a long time a completely OTT attitude to referencing here, you will need to reference or remove, however uncontroversial the claim. "Interior" is unsourced, and not purely descriptive —of the cool and restrained character... sympathetic addition...

- I have rewritten this part of the text to be more concise and more simply descriptive."Cool", "restrained" and "sympathetic" are gone. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• You will need references for everything, however obvious. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

- I have referenced it to within a inch of its life, but will continue to scrutinise for missing ones. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is a fair amount of overlinking, suggest running the duplicate link tool

- It took a long time to develop this article in the course of which, some links were repeated. I have de-linked what I can find. Not sure whether things in the captions of images ought to be linked in addition to their links in the text. Caption links would help the reader but is that overlinking? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I cleared the rest. The overlinking tool treats the lead and main text separately and ignores captions. Links in the latter are encouraged. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• A location map within Sydney and a ground plan might help readers

- A location map has been added. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Link Sydney, apse

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• St James' is also known for having— St James' has

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• and eponymous—stating the obvious

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• had plans for a large cathedral to be built on the present location of St Andrew's Cathedral but these plans—avoid repeat of "plans"

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• a Pound—lc

- Done. Should I put in a pound sign with "one" before it? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think either one ⋅pound or £1 would be better than a pound Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

- I agree. Replaced with symbol and numeral. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• ''Woodd—just checking spelling.

- Woodd is correct. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jackson's theological ideas did not make him popular with everyone, some conservatives regarding him as a heretic—We are given no indication of what heresy he may have been practicing.

- Apparently he was more intellectual and more favourable to the results of the German theologians than conservatives would have liked. I have revised the text and added refs. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• shell—more usual to have "scallop" or "scallop shell"

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Windows" is unreferenced, so is "Music"

- I have consolidated the text from the "Windows" section with the "Interior" section and added refs to "Music". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• NSW Environment & Heritage (2013). "St. James' Anglican Church". State Heritage researcher.—I see no indication that the publisher is State Heritage researcher. In fact the words appear nowhere in the text. NSWE&H is the publisher, AFAIK

- "Researcher" must have been a typo. I have changed it to "Register".

• Official website. Rector and Churchwardens, St. James Church, King St., Sydney. 2013. Retrieved 17 November 2013. —again, where does it give the rector and churchwardens as the publishers on the linked page?

- Fixed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• ''Angus & Robertson Publishers or Angus & Robertson?—stick to one version

- "Angus & Robertson". Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk)

• NSW or N.S.W.?

- "NSW". Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• '' Dan Cruickshank in the BBC television series Around the World in 80 Treasures (2005). —I think you can give at least the episode (3) and preferably the timings

- I have added "Episode 3" to the ref. As for timings, is that relevant, given that the broadcasts would have been done at different times around the world? The date of production/release is given. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was thinking more of timing within the broadcast, but I'll let that go unless other reviewers are unhappy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Architecture And Design (20 October 2010). "Sydney's oldest church spire saved" architectureanddesign.com.au —I wouldn't give the author when there isn't one, and I'd give the publisher as Architecture and Design. Similarly for bellringers ref. Also Design 5 ref (although there is a name associated with the page at the bottom). In general, I don't think publishers should normally be shown as a web site.

- In changing author for publisher, I think I have fixed this but I am not sure if I have understood correctly what is required. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony Jennings dates?

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's good practice to not have the article title in captions unless it's unavoidable. I think there are still some images where you could safely lose the name of the church, since it's assumed to be what is shown unless otherwise stated. As far as I can see, there is only the Jennings comment that is unresolved now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that this was pretty good in terms of content right from the start, and you have made every effort to follow our arcane policies and fashions at FAC. I've changed to support above now, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone

Welcome, Whiteghost. There is much excellent work here, and as Brian mentioned, the illustration of the piece is extraordinary. Agree with Brian that there is an unusual absence of references in many places, that will have to be rectified. Other comments:

• repetition in two different sections of the information that the Bacon brothers were responsible for windows installed in the early twentieth century.

Done I removed the repetition. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "St James' continues to maintain a formal and sacramental liturgy and has weathered the storm of criticism from a diocese with increasingly "Low Church" practices". This sentence appears out of place, isolated amongst material that is about more clearly historical aspects of architecture, heritage, use of the building etc. At the very least it belongs in the 21st century subsection, as it refers to "continuing" to do something.

Done Yes. I moved this to the Liturgy section where it seems to support a point rather than being out of place. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• "St James' is one of the few Sydney Anglican churches that has maintained the norms of mainstream Anglican tradition...These practices distinguish St James' from most Anglican churches in the Sydney diocese" The effect of this para seems to me to be of having a bit of a dig at the Sydney diocese. But it relies on a single source, who is an author who stands very much on one side of that particular debate. It might be better to begin the para to read that "Writer Muriel Porter has argued that..."

Done I deleted the part about the diocese's difference in style as it is mentioned elsewhere and left the other part to describe the liturgy after resequencing the points being made. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

May look at more later, once the referencing is sorted. Ping my talk page if you have any questions. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure why most of the text under "Location" is about the context of surrounding buildings and streets, some with no substantive connection to the church (eg. court, philip street). Some could be deleted, but I also think the material about the surrounding notable colonial buildings (barracks, mint building etc) might be better in the later section on architecture, establishing its heritage / architectural significance. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done I have rewritten and relocated much of the text in this section. Some has been moved to "architecture" and some has been deleted as suggested. I hope the relevance is now much clearer. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In general those changes are good, but the text "The church's ministry to Sydney's legal fraternity is facilitated by its proximity to buildings used by the profession..." is not supported by the cites - i see no evidence of some particular ministry to the legal fraternity. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done I have moved some content from the "Location" section to the "Community Service" section to support this claim better in the same way that some of the "Location" material was moved to the "Architecture" section. I also added an image. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is sometimes excessive information about the rectors in the text, which I would have thought should remain focussed on the church itself. You might want to write a related list article, List of rectors of St James' Church, Sydney, if you want to aggregate that information. It should mainly be kept where the text about the person ties in to what happened to the church (eg. commissioning alterations to reflect religious views, or major public controversy about the church). There is also duplication: there is all this detail about the rectors, yet there is also a list of them near the end. Suggest delete the list. Material about rectors that could go:

• "Robert Cartwright, appointed as Hill's successor, had served at Windsor and Liverpool. In 1838, after a short tenure at St James', he resigned to take up an itinerant ministry in the Riverina and Southern Tablelands[22] where he built his own church and from his base at Collector, "travelled upwards of 25,000 miles" in the course of his work.[25] Cartwright was followed by the clever but eccentric George Napoleon Woodd whom Broughton shortly transferred to Bungonia (a rural parish).[26][22]"
• Details regarding Allwood: "...educated at Eton College and the University of Cambridge, arrived in Sydney.[14][27] Although in very poor health upon his arrival, Bishop Broughton appointed him to St James',[14] in which parish, having recovered his health, ..." and "He served on the senate and as vice-chancellor of Sydney University."
• Details regarding Jackson: "...described as having "an alert and somewhat impetuous brain, at work in an atmosphere conservative and conventional".[31] "His sermons were not so much opposed, as simply not understood."[32] A young and comparatively inexperienced cleric from Cambridge,..." and "...lectured at Sydney University, addressed conferences, spoke at synod, was secretary to the newly established Sydney Church of England Boys' Grammar School[33] and introduced a magazine called The Kalendar - one of Australia's first parish papers..."
• Regarding Carr Smith, "Carr Smith worked with the Sisters of the Church and became the Chaplain of the Sydney Hospital."

Done I have tightened up the information on the rectors that was in the history sections as you and User:M.O.X both wanted. I moved the detail about Carr Smith to his article that I wrote earlier and have saved the detail about Jackson for when his article is written. The detail about Allwood was already in his article (a pre-existing one that needs work). I retained the information about Allwood's education for the reasons given earlier in this discussion. I think the list of rectors should stay because that is what a reader would refer to and it also gives their dates of service. It is true though, that detail about them in the general text is perhaps not on-topic. I thought about creating a list article for the rectors but I think their having individual bio articles would be more useful.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no substantive referencing for the para that begins "The patterns of worship and community service established by the first rector continue to the present..." The only two cites are to hundred-year old newspaper articles used to substantiate the claim about what used to happen at St James. We need an independent reliable source for the claims about current practice.

Done I have added two website refs - one to a tourist site which gives the service times and one to the church's official website which keeps special service times updated. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really. I looked at both sources. The St James source provided no text to support the contention for the claim of continuity in patterns of worship and community service; the second website did at least list the current pattern of services but it was a pretty poor-looking source that for all we know is aggregating data from places like wikipedia and organisation websites. Current practice is adequately dealt with in later sections in any case. I have removed the first two sentences.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If the continuity comes across in the rest of the article and we don't need the sentences, then good. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I believe the section on the choir should be deleted, unless there is historically significant information verifiable from reliable sources. (eg. the role of George Faunce Allman perhaps?) hamiltonstone (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done This section has been tightened. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done - the overwhelming majority of this text remains uncited - for FA it will need to be removed if reliable source citations cannot be found.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Re-done I have rewritten the section to show the continuity of the choir from 1827 till now and added citations. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, sort of. The following elements still have no cite:

• "The current choir is composed of about a dozen semi-professional adults. They sing on Sundays at the 11.00 am Choral Eucharist, Wednesdays at the 6:15 pm Choral Evensong, monthly at the 3.00 pm Choral Evensong held on the last Sunday of the month, as well as at a number of midweek feast days held during the year."
• "...performed with international touring groups such as with the Tallis Scholars' Summer School; broadcast on ABC Radio, both in their own right as well as with leading ensembles such as Australian Baroque Brass; given a recital at the Art Gallery of New South Wales; and toured the Southern Highlands. "
• "In January, during the summer holiday period, St James' presents three full orchestral Masses during which liturgical music composers such as Mozart, Haydn and Schubert is used for its original purpose and incorporated into the service. On these occasions, the choir is joined by a small orchestra."
• The list of choirmasters (bar one)

In addition, the way that historical material has been added represents a kind of synthesis of news sources being used as primary sources, rather than as secondaries, as WP requires. What I mean by that is: you are quoting a number of reports as proof the choir existed, but I feel that 4 of the 5 actual reports themselves are of unencyclopedic content - material that itself isn't relevant to or enhancing the article ("and a few months' later a singer is being publicly criticised: "If her pronunciation were as pleasing as her notes, she would be entitled to unqualified praise."[146] In 1829, there is a call for people "of either sex" to join the choir[147] and by 1897, the setting for the choral communion is specified in reports as Marbeck's.[148] By 1901, the choir's annual picnic is being reported"). I would suggest just "St James' first had a choir in early colonial times, when Mr Pearson in 1827 accepted the office of choir leader.[145]" and delete the rest of that para.

Fixed? I have rewritten the choir section again and found more references for it. Is it better now? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is significantly better. However, I can see three problems. First, I don't think the quote is very interesting or of encyclopedic significance in this context, and I would omit it. Second, i think your revisions have introduced inconsistency in the footnote / referencing style. Should not Pleskun be cited Harvard style and listed in the bibliography? Someone should have a run through to check this (but see next point). The biggest problem, though, is that I don't think Pleskun meets our criteria for being a reliable source. It is a self-published work by someone who does not appear to hold a significant post (not an established music academic, for example), and does not appear to have published other works on the subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am painfully aware that I was unable to match lovely consistent reference style. After engaging in some battles with it I was defeated. I could not yet the new book refs into the Bibliography without creating further problems. Need help with this coding!!! The books are good sources. (I have their physical copies before me.) It is a pity to have to remove Pleskun as the list of Australian composers whose work was premiered at the church is impressive. I rather like the quote as it is what the a contemporary choirmaster would say and since Pearson was the first I thought it showed the continuity and gave the tone but perhaps it should be shortened. Will think on it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The new Pleskun reference looks beautiful now. Thanks. I think if it has an ISBN number it must be good enough as a a source. I have removed most of the premiered composers from the list in the text. As I commented below, in response to User:99of9, there were too many and if that Pleskun reference stays, readers can easily look up the others, since the page numbers are there. I have also de-emphasised the Pearson quote, which is, as you say, not so interesting to justify a blockquote but I think good enough to run in the text. Do you agree?

Anyone can get an ISBN - it doesn't mean squat, I'm afraid. I would normally take a hard line against such a source, but let's see what others say - it certainly isn't a contentious subject area, so that at least counts in its favour. I'm afraid I find the quote boring and off-topic, so I am unmoved. But I'm just one opinion, and I'm not going to oppose FA on that ground! hamiltonstone (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, okay, I have reduced it substantially because it is a bit boring and because I am grateful for your ref fix. I have a citation about an unknown woman dropping dead during a wedding. I could add that for a bit of excitement? :) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I added this odd report to the "Congregation" section because it seemed to support the point. Then I removed it because was unhelpful. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this all Fixed now? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is all fixed, but I left this unstruck so people could see that I left open the issue of whether we accept the Pleskun source. It won't affect my support for the article.hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you also put the other new book source (John Whiteoak and Aline Scott-Maxwell, footnote #121) in the bibliography please? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done.hamiltonstone (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the para that begins "The church was constructed between 1820 and 1824..." there are two instances where a sentence contains a direct quote, followed by two citations. You need to separate the citations, placing immediately after the quoted words the cite from which those words come. At present, the reader cannot tell which of two works used those words. This can be particularly important in cases - such as this one - where one of those citations is not independent. The article relies at times significantly on church publications. This is OK for facts such as when a rector served or when a service takes place, but it is not OK for contested information or statements as to the significance of merit of the church or its buildings. We cannot rely on the church itself to assess its own merit, whether architectural or otherwise! Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed "Fine Georgian" are the words of the historians Judd and Cable; the other reference is to the 1963 history of the church which on p12 explains in detail the changes that were made by Carr Smith's plan. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I noted two instances above, but you appear only to have fixed the first.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see the second one. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Relying on the "virtues of simplicity and proportion to achieve his end",[81][82]..." hamiltonstone (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2014 (e nUTC)

Fixed "virtues of simplicity and proportion" is quoted from Freeland. Apperly & Lind are supporting the points about design. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• References (particularly references to websites recently added I think) need to be improved and brought into line with others. Best to use the {{citeweb}} template. They are missing things like the publisher and retrieval date.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Started. Fixed I fixed one of them and am looking for the others. I was tired and lost the ref plot. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done some more (diff). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MOSREF. There just aren't enough details here. And I'm not sure why this is being done as a harvard-style footnote using the {{sfn}} template, given that it isn't a reference ton item in the bibliography. The better approach is along the lines of footnotes 5 or 6 (though that is the bare minimum of bibliographic info). Here's a switch I did with one of them, using the citeweb template. Have a go at the others, and get back to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed? I believe these are now all swapped out from the sfn style to the cite web style. It took a while but here's the diff of all the edits. There are now no more of this type left as far as I can see. Hopefully this is what you've been looking for. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is much better. One further thing: Footnote 178 you have the retrieval date but not the date of publication. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Footnote 178 isn't a web reference so I think you don't mean that one. Nevertheless I checked through all cite-web references and ensured there is a year or date parameter in all of them (diff). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My mistake for not making my point as a separate bullet: I did mean the Peter McCallum article (now note 184) lacks a publication date. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Ref #84 (McCallum) now has a publication date. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote 103 states that a window was the gift of certain people. I'm not sure why their identities is important but if it is, we need a citation for the fact.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean footnote #106? It appears the Lloyd family were generous benefactors and they donated the altar in memory of their son who was appointed as the first server at St James'. There is a reference to this fact in the "Interior" section. I added the name in response to a reviewer request for it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The footnote states "Gift of Mr & Mrs L.T. Lloyd". My question is: what is the reliable source for the information that the window was the gift of the Lloyds?hamiltonstone (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed I added the source. I was previously daunted by adding a ref within a ref but when pushed, it seems to have worked all right. Yes? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote 24 (Dr Micklem) has this "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney: Fairfax Media)" but others have "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney)" and others eg 167 "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW)" and others again eg 29 "The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW: 1842 - 1954) (NSW)." There needs to be consistent treatment of these newspaper sources (sorry to keep raising this!). In this case the last of those four formats is one generated automatically by the Trove database of the National Library. For all articles that are linked to a trove copy (and i think that is most if not all -re-1955 news items), I would adopt that format. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

All done I have gone through now and made consistent not just SMH references but all references to newspapers. Here is the diff. When it is a newspaper article in Trove I have used the style that they recommend (e.g. [[The Newcastle Herald|Newcastle Morning Herald & Miners' Advocate (NSW : 1876 - 1954)]] ) and I have removed the "location" field in these instances since the town and/or state is always mentioned in the Trove title (see also for example "Illustrated Sydney News (NSW: 1853 - 1872)" or "Queanbeyan Age (NSW: 1867 - 1904)"). It would be redundant to repeat that information. By contrast, in the much smaller number of cases where it is a reference to a contemporary newspaper article online (e.g. smh.com.au) I have left the "location" field in place and used the simple, un-piped, link to the newpaper's own article (e.g. newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]|location=Sydney, NSW| etc.). The only exception to this is the Trove link to the Australian Womens Weekly which uses the formal trove title and a location field since the Trove title does not include any location information in it. I hope this is satisfactory. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Marvellous. (you gave the wrong diff, so I hope you don't mind but I inserted what I think is the correct one). hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• The final image of a bell appears to have lost its caption.

Fixed Somehow the pipe fell off. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no cited source for the entire last section of names of the bells and the final sentence re the Mears Bell. I realise it is self-evident that a bell called Lachlan Macquarie is named for the governor - what is not self-evident is that that bell has a name in the first place.

Ref added One news source gives the names of some of the bells. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but you a need a ref for all the facts, not just a selection of them. It can be a St James page in this case (and do keep that news item, it is an excellent source), but there has to be something.hamiltonstone (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref The two sentences about the bells (dedication and names) have been merged to show the reference to the pdf that gives their names better. The weights are also in the ref.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent and very diligent work by Whiteghost and colleagues. Incidentally, this is one of the best illustrated articles I've seen in a long while. Well done, support, assuming the bell names get a citation.hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to suggestions

Thanks, people. I will work through these problems. If you find any more, please advise. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I know you are new here, but please note that you should not strike comments yourself, it's for the reviewer to decide whether the response is adequate. Just write on the next line an indented "Done" (don't use a template) or a longer explanation if necessary, and sign each response. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. I thought I was supposed to do it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• "Changes" image caption should end in period, 2006 image caption shouldn't

  • All the image captions now have consistent punctuation. Wittylama 00:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• File:St_James_church,_Sydney.jpg: the museum isn't the author

• Could you clarify please? Both that file and File:1 St James Church lighter.jpg (the one that is used in the article) list user:Sardaka in the author field not a museum. Wittylama 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Er, no it doesn't? Here, author is listed as "Powerhouse Museum". Even if it listed Sardaka, that's not correct either...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was looking at a different image. I've now updated the metadata for that picture - taken by Henry King - including the category for the photographer, database record in the Powerhouse as well as Flickr Commons. (diff). Wittylama 04:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Does Australia have freedom of panorama for stained glass? It definitely doesn't for engravings or murals, so you'll need to provide additional licensing info for those. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• According to Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Australia "'works of artistic craftsmanship' such as...crafted glass" is ok so that should be fine. The contemporary stained glass in the 'holy spirit' chapel is in copyright, but is most certainly permanently installed in a public place. I've added a FoP license tag to the image. Wittylama 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• Comments I'll jot some queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

commonly known as St James', King Street -? never heard this....and I live here. Still, as an atheist I don't really dwell too much on these things...

- That's just the way it is. The address is King Street and the website starts with sjks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

wow, I learnt something then....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Since its early ministry to the convict population of Sydney, St James' has maintained a continuity in its service of the city's poor and needy. - not fond of the wording here - sounds weird....

Fixed I rephrased it. Is it better? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Across the square the Hyde Park Barracks building, Greenway's "masterpiece" designed to align with the church. - needs a verb?

Fixed Yes, you are right. It does. I added one. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

In the late 1820s, the St James' suffered from a major scandal. - "the" before St James? Also, it flows better if you flip the clauses and place the bit before the comma at the end.

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

and in 1827, on visiting St James', entered into a conflict with a parishioner - "entered into a conflict" is a bit wordy and flows oddly. Could be reworded more succinctly. Better yet, do we know the nature of the conflict...

Fixed Rephrased to be tighter and give a better explanation as well as a better idea of the nature of the conflict. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Missed "entered into conflict" before. Yes, odd. Now reads "came into conflict". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

and was in danger of being resumed as the site of a railway station - "resumed" is a funny verb here to my ears...

- "Resumed" is the correct technical term for this. It is the term used in the sources and also the term still used in similar circumstances when the government wants to acquire land for the purposes of public infrastructure. If the land on which St James' stood had been resumed for a railway, the church would have been demolished. Similarly, extending the railway terminus into the Park, according to Cable & Annable (1999), would have "render[ed] the position of St James' impossible". (p.26) I have used a more direct quote to clarify. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

St James' continued to be a participant in the life of the city throughout the 20th century and the locus of many notable events - people participate, not inanimate objects. In fact I'd let the facts speak for themselves and trim to, "St James' was the locus of many notable events throughout the 20th century"

Fixed Rephrased and tightened. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "As in previous centuries," as it adds nothing. Reads the same without it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

- I meant to write "as in the previous century" (since there was only one before the 20th). The idea was to convey that notable events were not new to the 20th century - they had been happening since the beginning. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

where he built his own church and from his base at Collector, "travelled upwards of 25,000 miles". - the last segment needs some sort of preposition I think...?

Clarified Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There were a number of threats in the 20th century to the church's historic environment - not happy with this segment either as I think it can be written better but concede nothing comes to mind straightaway....

Reworded I had another go at this to give it a better flow and make more sense. Hoping to have succeeded in showing that it kept on going in the 20th century, in spite of colonial architecture being unfashionable and the land being valuable. Oh, and the small matter of World War II. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

One expression of St James' long-standing concern with social justice is the Sister Freda Mission,... - this comes across as laboured. I'd trim and just write what Sister Freda Mission does

Fixed Yes. Added a fact about its date of commencement and re-phrased. Hopefully it is more direct and clearer. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

has been celebrated as an "architectural gem" - "celebrated" comes across as effusive; why not just "called"?

Fixed Was trying to emphasise the notability but perhaps waxed too lyrical. Changed to "called". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

While Sydney prospered, St James' had an acute shortage of money.. - I don't think "While" is a strong enough contrastive here...I think I might say "Although Sydney was prospering, St James' had an acute shortage of money..." or something similar.

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The stained glass fanlight depicting James and John, the sons of Zebedee - link the biblical figures and unlink further down.

Done Relocated link and added one to Zebedee. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just an encouraging note, I don't think there are a huge number of tweaks needed to tighten prose and I think this is doable over the course of this FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Overall, leaning support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending supports by others. The prose has tightened up considerably, which is a Very Good Thing - but have read it a few times now so may have missed some (so I can't rule out others finding prose issues) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from M.O.X

"In 1839 the Reverend Robert Allwood arrived in Sydney. He had been educated at Eton and Cambridge and had ministered in Bristol. Although he was in very poor health upon his arrival, Bishop Broughton appointed him to St James'. His health recovered and he served the parish for 44 years until his retirement in 1884. Allwood was an important patron of education in Victorian Sydney. Under him, the parish school expanded to 400 pupils and a training college was established for secular and theological students. He served on the senate and as vice-chancellor of Sydney University."

That is just one of many paragraphs which have little relevance to the Church itself. How is Allwood's background at all relevant to his ministry and service?

Response His education is significant as a reason for choosing him, as well as in light of the level of education of most people in the period and for St James' reputation for scholarly leaders. I have tightened the sentence to try to make it more concise and in doing so, have removed where he served earlier. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response Allwood's education. This is the Colonies, 10,000 miles from England. Allwood's education was highly significant in a place with no university. Allwood's ministry framed the ethos of St James.

Then there is the matter of lofty writing:

One of Greenway's finest works...

- There is a discussion on the Talk page about this - it is generally agreed and the consensus seemed to be just to accept that and say so. There is also the "fine Georgian" quote as a second source. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response: There is no question whatsoever about this being "one of Greenway's finest works". If it wasn't for the existence of St Matthew's, Windsor, we would simply be writing "Greenway's finest work". There are about ten (10) buildings or part thereof that can with reasonable certainty be attributed to Greenway, so "one of the finest is certainly not making too strong a claim.

Apart from these vestries, which retain the established style and the proportions, the church externally remains "fine Georgian" much as Greenway conceived it. Relying on the "virtues of simplicity and proportion to achieve his end", Greenway maintained the Classical tradition, unaffected by the Revivalist styles

- This may be controversial in terms of language in WP, but the "simplicity and proportion" part is quoted as a fairly standard piece of architectural criticism in order to highlight how the effect of the building is achieved and in particular, how it differed from what was going on at the time. Georgian style is rare here and this section is an attempt to explain what it is and how other architectural approaches, such as adding more decoration or copying other styles (known as "Revivalism") are different as well as more common in Sydney. Revivalism is also linked to help make this distinction. However, if there is consensus that this attempt to describe Georgian should be excised, we will have to do so. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response. It's Sydney. New South Wales has thousands of Victorian buildings, but only a tiny number of Georgian/Early Colonial buildings, of which three are churches of a refined Georgian style, and several more are vernacular Georgian or early attempts at Gothick (St Thomas's, Mulgoa, 1838) For someone outside Australia it is hard to conceive how a church less than 200 years old, and of an architectural form very common in England, and even reasonably common in the eastern states of the US, can be so rare that it is regarded as a national treasure of the utmost importance. The little precinct of buildings dating from 1811, 1819 and 1824 represents the material core of Australia's history. In the history of this country, the buildings are the equivalent of Westminster Abbey and Westminster Hall. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I see, however, that still doesn't change the fact that there are still present in the article, trivial facts like such as this one:

"In 1900, the Governor, Earl Beauchamp, presented to the church a number of embroidered stoles made by the Warham Guild of London, along with copes and chasubles."

These are not encyclopedic and are tangentially relevant at best. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:30am • 13:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response it' not trivial. Believe me, in Sydney, the possession of embroidered stoles, copes and chasubles is highly unusual. These are among the "treasures of the church". Describing a church's vestments (if they are rare) is common, execpt that in England one might be describing vestments that were from the 17th century, and possibly even medieval. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response There are two reasons for the Beauchamp and vestments sentence. The first is that Beauchamp was one of the many Governors who had specific dealings with St James' (in this case, he gave gifts). The article tries to show that such connections with the Governors are part of the church's relationship with "official Sydney" - a point which is made in the lead. The first Governor obviously was Macquarie who wanted the church built. Davidson is another mentioned, as is the current one, Bashir, who, nearing the end of her term, attended the church for this year's Festival of Nine lessons and Carols, as recently as last week. The second reason is that the matter of vestments has been an issue of some dispute in the Diocese for more than a hundred years and St James' takes a different view from the rest of the Diocese. So this sentence helps build up the picture with a succinct, citable fact. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Please do not remove maintenance tags, I applied those to the sections because the matter of weasel words was not isolated to one or two sentences:

Response: Obviously, the article is currently under close scrutiny and specific concerns are being addressed via this discussion. Adding tags is unnecessary, unhelpful and distracting. Please stop adding tags and instead consider the responses and amendments being made so the article can reach an acceptable standard. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The porticos are of Sydney sandstone; the roof, originally shingled, is of slate and the spire is wooden construction sheathed in copper.

The original interior differed greatly in layout from that of the present. There was no structural chancel, the focus of the church being a large pulpit.

At various periods, the crypt was neglected.

Response

1. The first sentence seems clear. I do not know what you are referring to as a problem.
2. This section is about to describe the church as it currently stands. Previously, in the section History there has been a detailed description of the previous state of the church, the triple-decker pulpit, and the aisles on three side. But all this is history. The reader, who gets to this sentence, has been informed of that stuff, and is now simply reminded that this is not the original layout.
3. At various periods, the crypt was neglected. The sentence can probably be omitted, and just state that the crypt was restored. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, per the quotes and the matter of lofty writing, I have applied {{peacock}} templates to the relevant sections. Until the writing style is inline with the stipulations of the Manual of Style, I'd ask that you refrain from removing these tags. Thank you. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:36am • 13:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response As we are all working on fixing it, we don't need tags right now. The article is not abandoned or unnoticed. It's under review, which is precisely what tags are hoping to achieve. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Its original ministry was to the convict population of Sydney, and it has continued to serve the city's poor and needy in succeeding centuries.

That statement is itself trivial as, on its own, no significance is lended to that sentence immediately after. I'd suggest revisions based on what is available in the given references. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:43am • 13:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response This sentence in the lead is an attempt to do two things: the first is to inform readers who do not know right at the beginning that a large proportion of the congregation were convicts (which is rather unusual); the second is to summarise the fact (subsequently developed in the body of the article) that the church continued to serve other marginalized groups as the centuries went on. If the sentence is failing in these purposes, it will need to be improved. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, I question the relevance of various statements located throughout the article, one of which is located in the lead. These issues need to be addressed and I feel this FAC is being rushed. I do not support the article's promotion at this time vis-à-vis these issues. James ^{(T • C)} • 3:15pm • 04:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree (regarding writing style) - I've found some examples to trim, and suggest "most highly-regarded" for "finest" (more neutral-sounding). I will try to find more to list and/or fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy to trim and make more concise - as I said, it's been a long time researching and writing and there has been a lot of things to check and work out how/whether to include them. However, the reviewers have specifically asked that references be removed from the lead which I did systematically and rewrote parts of the text at the same time. The citations and explanations for the claims made in the lead are in the body of the article. The lead tries to summarise the contents of the article which aims to cover the range of notable aspects of the topic. These aspects include architectural notability (things about the building) and organisational notability (things about the activities of the leaders and the congregation); notable events (things that happened at the church), as well as some historical/ biographical/ social aspects that are notable insofar as they are connected with it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why this sentence is necessary:

St James' provides a comprehensive record of Sydney history in both physical and documentary form.

There isn't exactly a shortage of Sydney history, why is the St. James collection at all significant or important? James ^{(T • C)} • 5:34pm • 06:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Response a comprehensive list of births, baptisms, marriages and deaths from earliest colonial times constitutes an extremely rare and highly valued primary source for historians. There is hardly another such record available. The fact that even though it is no longer the only record of these events, it is still a part of the record right up to the present day, makes this a truly remarkable document. The citation points out that at the beginning, these were hand written. The "physical " record is the architecture, whose rarity and value is discussed above. Perhaps it needs to be better expressed but it is very notable and important fact. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

An additional part of the historical record is provided by the memorials, which, as a collection, are of unique importance in Australia because of their number, their early dates, and the historic significance of the individuals who are commemorated. Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado

An interesting article which I am sure I can support once you have responded to a few comments...

• A few images are missing alt text, in Crypt and Children's Chapel, Memorials and monuments, Worship and ministry, Theology, Education, Description, Architecture, Chapel of the Holy Spirit, Music, Choir, Bells

Done All the images now have alt texts. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• • File:1 St James j.JPG, being really fussy here, the alt text could start with a capital letter

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:SydneyStJames gobeirne.jpg is missing the |alt= for its alt text

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• To comply with MOS:EMDASH, please use either unspaced emdash or spaced endash consistently in sentences.

Fixed I think these have all now been done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The article currently has xx — yy (xx — yy, spaced emdash).

We need either xx—yy (xx—yy, unspaced emdash) or xx – yy (xx – yy, spaced endash).

Depending a bit on the fonts being used, you normally can't see the difference in the editing or code view but the emdash is wider in the article, just as "m" is wider than "n" in a proportional typeface. endash and emdash are the first two items in the Wiki markup selection of the Insert dropdown which appears under the editing window (if CharInsert is enabled under Preferences -> Gadgets). --Mirokado (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone help with this? I understand the problem but I have failed to grasp how to make them consistent. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll do this now. --Mirokado (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done I changed them to spaced endash, since you would not have added the nbsp unless you wanted them.

I copied the two characters for ease of copying. You can then either search for each emdash and change it to endash or, as I did, use another friend, Preferences -> Gadgets : Advanced : Add a sidebar menu of user-defined regex tools. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Lead: The parish at St James' have a more liberal perspectives than most churches in the diocese on issues such as....
  • Firstly, grammar: you probably mean "The parish at St James' has..." and "... a more liberal perspective ...".

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• But I did not see the information in this sentence expanded and sourced in the rest of the article just by searching for it. It would help if the reader can search for "sexuality" or "ordination of women" and easily find the relevant text in the body of the article. (Womens' ordination is in fact covered adequately, sexuality is mentioned but the stance taken is implied rather than stated).

Fixed? A search for "sexuality" in the article will show that it appears in two places - in the lead and in the "21st century" section where there are two references about the church's attitude to the subject. "Sexual orientation" is also in the "Theology" section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern here may be more "how I would try to do things" than "something necessary for a FA". I will leave it unstruck in case we can agree to any update but am now changing the section heading to "Support".

Only by reading the first sexuality reference is it explicitly clear that St James' is taking a liberal view in the debate (a generous minister might welcome all while preaching strict traditional values). This could be briefly stated explicitly in the theology section. The second reference is to a rather clever sermon which is more relevant to the stance on refugees (also mentioned) than sexuality.

The coverage of women in the ministry is fine, but I would prefer to see the same text ("ordination of women" or whatever, with the current link) appearing in both the lead and the relevant section. --Mirokado (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• First years: 1824–38:
  • Archdeacon Scott ordered that Hall should vacate the pew he rented at St James' for himself and his six daughters. As Scott continued to occupy the pew, constables attended Sunday services to prevent his occupation of the pew by boarding it up and making it secure with iron bands. Looks as if this should read "As Hall continued ...".

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hall appealed to Reginald Heber, Bishop of Calcutta, and to the law for damages. No mention of Heber in the reference (currently number 20). Why to Heber? The ref says he won 25 pounds damages, we should say that or the reader will say "and...?"

Done I explained this oddity in the text. Sydney was in the same diocese as Calcutta at the time. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have also added a mention of the 25 pounds. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Changes: 1884–1904:
  • ... a new portico as and entrance to the tower ... Should be "as an entrance".

Clarified Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• An apse had been set into ... The tense implies that this change had already been made. If that is so, we need a bit more context about when and why and perhaps that bit moved earlier in the narrative. Alternatively, say "An apse was set into ..." if the changes were contemporaneous.

Fixed. Better now. Good call. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• 20th century: a luncheon at which the chief guest was the Governor and Lady Davidson. Should be ". the chief guests were ...".

Corrected and clarified. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 21st century:
  • Three services on Sundays supplemented by weekday services, remains the norm. Should be "... remain the norm", unless we say something like: "The schedule of three ...".

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... and an organ postlude of ... followed. "followed" is redundant here, that is what a postlude does.

Done. Good point. Thanks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... wife of a former Prime Minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam, ... is better as "... wife of former Prime Minister of Australia Gough Whitlam, ..."

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Architecture:
  • please wikilink the first occurrence of pilasters, I had to look them up.

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... its walls defined by brick pilasters into a series of bays with the same proportions as the wall itself. I think "divided" would be better than "defined". I'm having trouble trying to imagine how the bays can have the same proportions as the wall itself. Perhaps a picture would help, although we still need text for the visually impaired.

Fixed. Yes, the only possible answer to this description is that the bays are the same proportion as the wall, turned vertically. Too much! Amandajm (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interior: ... a commemorative gift from the family of the first server at St James'. Please add the name here, "... a commemorative gift from the family of whoever, the first server at St James'."

Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Crypt and Children's Chapel: ... in 1977-78. Needs an en-dash. Please check the rest of the article. User:GregU/dashes.js can be your friend.

Fixed I think these are all correct now. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Memorials and monuments: I suggest the lang template thus: "{{lang|la|a latrone vagante occis}}" for "a latrone vagante occis".

Done I didn't know about this template before. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Renovation, restoration, conservation: Please wikilink "The restorations were awarded the National Trust Built Heritage Award ...". Ah, I see it is linked a bit later on with the full title, but this is the first occurrence...

Link relocated Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Education:
  • Please wikilink Benevolent Society and Bible Society. Purists will say that we shouldn't add wikilinks to a quotation. I suggest, since this is just a list, restricting the direct quote to and "various convict establishments and a range of schools.", in which case you can clarify "the Hospital" and "Industrial Schools" too.

Done Links and quote amended. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• ..., presided over by the Rev. C. Kemp, "of inestimable value ...", ... This will flow better if the two comma-separated phrases are joined by a conjunction instead of another comma: ..., presided over by the Rev. C. Kemp and "of inestimable value ...", ...

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Choir: The choir have ... – and broadcasts regularly ... Probably "has" and "broadcasts" here, since later usages are also singular. (I think it is OK to use "they" when referring particularly to the choir members).

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year. --Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these helpful suggestions, Mirokado. You have picked up some things that do need fixing. I have been out of internet range for a few days and will work through your suggestions (and the others) as soon as I can. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I tweaked a bit in this edit. --Mirokado (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses and updates. The remaining unstruck issue can be dealt with by normal editing, so I am happy to support this excellent article for featured status. --Mirokado (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from User:99of9

Disclaimer: evangelical Christian from the same diocese

• I've rewritten and moved a sentence about being the oldest extant church. Since this article is about St James as an institution, it is not the oldest church institution, it is only has the oldest extant building. Feel free to further copyedit, but the distinction needs to be clear.

Thanks. Good distinction. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "moderate Anglo-Catholic"... the word moderate only appears in the lead. I agree it's probably a useful term, but because it could be contested, we need to leave it out or add a sourced sentence in the liturgy section.

Done I have sourced the word "moderate" in the "Theology" section and the 'anglo-catholicism" description is extensively discussed throughout the article. So I think such a summary in the lead is now fully justified. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is the word "liberal" in the lead equivalent to Liberal Christianity? If so, wikilink. If not, I think we need a link here and in the theology section to the applicable theological classification.

Linking it to that article would be misleading. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So is there a clear theological classification the teaching fits into? --99of9 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See above "Moderate anglo-catholic" ought to work for an article such as this. It is discussed and cited and "Anglo-Catholic" is linked. There is a great deal that could be said (and indeed has been) about the theology but I do not think this article can support much of that discussion, given its scope. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I have added some more text to try to give a sense of the history of this in the colony and the Church of England as a whole as well as some flavour of one relevant meaning among the many accorded to the word "liberal".Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The cites are more watertight now. It's a pity Carnley didn't specifically mention St James'. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added an extra reference to Carnley earlier in the article to give some support his involvement with this particular church. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Revd Susanna Pain - I've slightly edited this sentence for clarity for those not familiar with the diocese.

Yes. Good. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "a more liberal perspective than most churches in the diocese on ... sexuality" Can the different position on sexuality be spelled out better in the Theology section? "welcom[ing] ... regardless of ... sexual orientation" is a statement that most churches would support.

Reworded I made this more explicit and moved the reference. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Both cites used the term "same-sex marriage" not "sexuality", so I've switched it over. If you find any refs about their theology of sexuality per se, feel free to re-add it later. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The parish at St James' has a more liberal perspective" I think you need a better subject to this sentence... the parish is a geographic region. It would be hard to source "the parishioners", so perhaps simply "the current teaching" (or can you source a persistent historical difference)?

Deleted "the parish". Yes, that was sloppy. In fact, there has been a persistent historical difference which I hope the body of the article communicates. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happier with the current "St James' has..." but I still think "The teaching at St James' has..." is technically better, since evangelicals within the church may prefer not to be bundled in (just as many at St James' may not be happy with the statement "Sydney is an evangelical diocese"). --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Refined as requested. There are also several different meanings of "Evangelical", some of them historically significant in this context, but can't really go into that as well. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I presume the railway station was named after the church. If so, it would be good to say so and source (to a newspaper from the time?).

• Footnote number 1 in the St James railway station article (pointing to sydneyarchitecture.com) would be perfect for this purpose - and also to cite the fact that the precinct itself is often called "St James" (asking for a footnote for that fact was a reviewer comment from someone else) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_railway_station,_Sydney#cite_note-SAI-1 . Wittylama 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done The naming of the station and this reference have been added.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "At one time, the parish extended as far as Sydney Heads but St James' acquired its own parish in 1835" does this mean the area to Sydney Heads was initially shared (with who?)? "At one time" is vague - isn't this "until 1835"? Can you reword to make this clearer?

Done Tried to make this clearer by rewriting and adding another reference. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy with extra refs, but I find the current version confusing: "The geographical parish of St James' is one of the 57 parishes of Cumberland County, New South Wales, which in earlier times extended as far as Sydney Heads, encompassing other churches including those from different denominations."

Was it Cumberland County that extended as far as Sydney Heads, or St James' parish? What do you mean encompassing other churches? Surely St James can't have ever encompassed any Anglican ones, as they would have their own Parish? And I don't think it makes sense to encompass non-Anglican ones, because even if they're in an Anglican Parish, they're either non-parochial or they have an overlapping (e.g. Roman Catholic) parish of their own.

Tried to make this clearer by simplifying. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have the encompassing removed. I still can't parse which thing extended to Sydney Heads. Cumberland County still does. St James' didn't have its own Parish yet? --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've copyedited this to my understanding of the situation. Feel free to reword further. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• "box pews" is there an applicable wikilink for those not acquainted with these?

Done Yes. There is. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "there was no visual emphasis on the altar, which was a small portable table" ... so at the time it was better called a Communion table than an Altar?

Done Text altered to reflect this. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "a partner with Arthur Hill in [+ownership of] the newspaper The Monitor."

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• The start date for Allwood is inconsistent - 1939 in section heading 1940 in rector list.

Fixed Allwood arrived late in 1339 and started at St James' in 1840.

• We need a ref at the end of the first paragraph of the Allwood section.

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does "400 pupils" come from? I couldn't find it in the ADB article. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tightened Also, some of this is in the Education section, so I removed the figure. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford Movement and Tractarianism both redirect to the same place, so I'm not sure we need two wikilinks. But I'm not sure, because it's not obvious they'd be the same.

Clarified I have explained that they are the same thing and why in the text and smoothed some of the related chronology. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Henry Latimer Jackson. Served for 10 years, is there nothing in the sources about him personally/theologically?

Added There is quite a lot about him and I have restored some to give some continuity. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this info is relevant. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Carr Smith led St James' towards Anglo-Catholicism" the article said that Allwood already did that. Or have I missed some distinction between the Oxford Movement and Anglo-Catholicism?

Clarified Sacramental worship had been characteristic since Broughton and Allwood. Carr Smith carried it on, especially with all the changes to the building. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"setting "new standards of ceremonial"" needs a grammar fix. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The repetiton of "ceremonial" has been addressed as requested by Johnbod. The grammar is okay, I think. The "thereby" is understood in the sentence. That is, "so he was able to help St James' play a "notable part" in Sydney's revival of Anglo-Catholicism, [thereby] setting "new standards of ceremonial". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

But ceremonial is an adjective, unless you use it in a way I've never heard. What about "setting new standards of ceremonial [worship]" or "setting new standards of ceremon[y]"? --99of9 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a quote and the Macquarie Dictionary says the word is also a noun meaning "a system of ceremonies, rites or formalities prescribed for or observed on any particular occasion; a rite or ceremony." Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've never heard that usage, it's me who needs a grammar update! --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ecumenical is not wikilinked at its first occurrence.

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Organ recitals such as that in 1936 of music by Bach were given during weekdays." This sentence sticks out a bit, it could be left out I guess. But it also has to be reworded because it implies that organ recitals were only given on weekdays. In the whole twentieth century the organ was never used on a Saturday?

Rewritten I tried to make this flow better and be more accurate. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Challenging sermons continue to be preached in the 21st century when issues when issues of violence, refugees, marriage and sexuality are all topical." Sounds a bit puffy. Supported by only the text of a single sermon and a newspaper article which doesn't mention the word sermon. I think this needs to be reworded.

Reworded Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The church maintains a relationship with the government and the legal community as it did when it served a convict population under a military government." Unsourced, and vague. What is the nature of the current relationships?

Rewritten This was intended as a summary of things explained elsewhere in the article but I have tried to make it more explicit here and added refs to show continuity. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted I've actually jumped in here - see this diff - and moved the "relationship" claim down to the "community service" section and out of the "21st Century" section. I've also included a multi-sentence quote from 1936 which overtly praises the relationship between this church and legal community. Wittylama 05:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Its commitment to social justice and education, beginning with efforts to serve both convicts and settlers, continued with support for working people and those affected by war and, since early in the 20th century, by visiting those imprisoned or ill and offering practical help to the city's homeless" This is in the 21st century section, but both sources are from around 1900.

Added website for current source. Will look for others. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The new link doesn't have anything about "support for working people and those affected by war". --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref added and text clarified Tried to demonstrate that some services have been added in 21st century but the principles remain the same as do many of the recipients of those services. Ref to war service added. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with the point you're trying to make, but we need a ref on each aspect you claim. Glad to have a source on the war affected. Does Cable mention "support for working people"? --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote comes from Cable and Annable (p.16) where it is in the middle of a discussion about post-World War II problems, moral issues of war and peace, support for young people etc. I have tweaked the section to remove the word "working" but the main point of the 21st century section is about continuity of service in this young century to a range of different types of of people in a range of different circumstances. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• The article has two "Revd X" and one "Revd. X", so we need consistency, but I think you'd be better off either leaving it off entirely, or spelling it out as Reverend. I don't remember what the MOS says to do.

Fixed. The article "Reverend" consistently used it without a fullstop so I've used that as the standard. I've also changed all instances of "Rev." and "Rev" to "Revd". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Eucharist" is not wikilinked.

Done. Linked the first instance of the word and also the first time it is used in the "Liturgy" section (where it is most relevant). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Does Carnley 2004 specifically mention St James' as a subscriber to the quoted theological styles?

Reworded He does not specifically mention St James' but it is clear from the discussion in his book and the evidence of the liturgy at St James' that this is one of the churches to which he is referring. I have used the quotes for the benefit of the reader because Carnley is an articulate authority on the matter and his position as (ex) Primate is as relevant as it is possible to be. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is tricky to write then, but I like the new wording better. However the current wording sort of implies that Carnley thinks his tradition "goes back to the Elizabethan theologian Richard Hooker". I have no idea if he does or doesn't, but I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth. Can you finesse this too? --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reworded Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The congregation remains much the same as it was in 1900", but there are no sources for this after 1900.

Reworded to show how/why the congregation is an unusual as ever. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Still no recent reference. "in the 21st century, regular patronage by, and programs for, governors, politicians, the legal community and the homeless create a similar mix" These are referenced elsewhere, so at a minimum you can re-cite the same references. However, are you sure they "mix", are the recipients of Sister Freda program usually referred to as part of the "congregation"? --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten I tried to make clear that the people using the church are of a great variety and that this feature is both notable and historically consistent. The services and some of the programs for the disparate groups are all referenced and discussed elsewhere in the article so I did not want to repeat them. The point is that attendance at the place is for a range of reasons, including of course, worship, and that managing the congregation (which does contain many of these groups) can be a challenge, as the sixth rector observed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the text is ok now, but the refs don't support the text of this "Congregation" section. (And the refs that are there seem messed up... is the Lady Munro incident supposed to support Carr Smith's quote?) --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Lady Munro reference is now removed. It was a primary source example but not specifically mentioned in the text. Now, all sections of the congregation part have clear footnotes. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The church has also been associated with the Order of St Michael and St George since 1950." What does this actually mean? I read the wiki page, and it seems to be mostly an honour awarded to individuals. How is the church associated?

Clarified As with start of the law term, there is a special annual service. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me which references are citing each sentence in the following text (is it basically all Cable, with a Kemp quote one-off? If so, I'd suggest putting in some extra Cable links on key sentences): "By 1823 Greenway's school building had been erected in Elizabeth Street and the principal St James' School was situated there until 1882, becoming the Anglican "normal" school with more than 600 students and a range of experienced teachers. In secondary education, a Sydney branch of the King's School operated briefly in the Greenway building and Bishop Broughton operated the St James' Grammar School in a building erected in Phillip Street. The Grammar School, presided over by the Revd C. Kemp and "of inestimable value to the then youth of the colony",[126] lasted until competition from the new University of Sydney led to its closure in 1857. Bishop Broughton also set up St James' College to provide tertiary education for secular students as well as to prepare students for ordination. The St James' School closed in 1882 and the government resumed the Greenway building.[140]"

Ref added The ref to the "normal school" part has been added to separate it from the "inestimable value" quote.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• The education section skipped the twentieth century. I take it there's just nothing in the sources?

Fixed I expanded the section a little and added another link. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The link (St James "education" page) doesn't mention the 20th century, or the start date of any of the current programs. I have no problem if you leave out the 20th century as you originally did, I was just curious if you had overlooked relevant stuff in references. --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tightened Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll live with that. --99of9 (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Arthur Mason attended the annual choir picnic" is too trivial to be worthy of mention.

Fixed Have rewritten this. My original intention was just to show that Mason was one of the choirmasters. It is written better now. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "At one time, St James' was described as the "exception" ..." vague given the extent of its history and the fact that it's out of chronological order. I suggest stating the year.

Done The source (Rushworth) says "The Sydney Choral Society commenced at a time when standards of church music in England were at a low ebb, and with the possible exception of St James' Church, were probably as bad, if not worse, in New South Wales." I have added the date of 1845, which is when the Sydney Choral Society commenced, and re-ordered the section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "composers such as Gordon Kerry, Gillian Whitehead, Michael Atherton, Ann Carr-Boyd, Colin Bright, Clare Maclean, Jessica Wells and Kent Farbach" If these people are thought notable, redlink, otherwise don't bother naming them?

Deleted many of the names Yes. there were too many names but if the references in the Pleskun source stay, readers can easily find the other ones themselves. Gordon Kerry should have an article but doesn't.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "feast days" is probably not common parlance, so a wikilink might help.

Done I added the appropriate link about feast days in the Anglican church. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I will be on wikibreak for the next week, and it looks like things are wrapping up. I'm happy for others/delegates to evaluate my last issues. Otherwise Support. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Choir

Whiteghost.ink, there is a quote about the choir that is in the feminine. I take it that the critic is referring to a particular soloist. Could this be made clear? Also, I would drop the sentence about the organist attending the annual choir picnic. It is seriously un-notable, regardless of how well referenced. On the other hand, you could say something to the effect that the choir for many years held annual picnics at whatever location they held them. Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed The choir criticism sentences and the picnic sentences have been rewritten to make the points more clearly. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Support all points addressed.I'm close to support. I have been keeping half an eye on this as it has improved, but I need to find the time for a proper read through. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Lead - no link to "Anglican". The architectural style should be characterized here in a word or two.

Done A link to the Anglican church in Australia has been added and the link to Georgian architecture has been relocated. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• History - link for "convict labour"

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Link (or link at first mention): Bish of Calcutta, portico, vestry, Bish of Oz, Church of England, Sydney University, parsonage, spire, sanctuary, chancel, choir, organ, mosaic, parish hall, liturgy, Australian architecture?, shingled, slate, wrought iron, seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, crypt.

Links done including the difference between architectural choir and musical choir. (I should have done these links earlier.) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "restoration of ancient ceremonial" ceremonial repeated just after - use "liturgy"?

Changed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Register of the National estate" Estate, no?

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the Classical tradition" lk Neoclassical architecture I think. Don't capitalize "Classical" - various; do capitalize "Modernist"

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• more later Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• "The Grammar School, presided over by the Revd C. Kemp and "of inestimable value to the then youth of the colony",[19] lasted until competition from the new University of Sydney led to its closure in 1857." could do with some explanation. How did they compete - weren't they for different age groups? Does this actually mean the college?

Edited There was an error in the ref coding. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the prose in the sections on the ministry seems a touch peacocky, as mentioned above. I'm not sure the Bishop of Newcastle's anodyne remark is needed.

Re-written I have removed the Bishop's remark and instead tightened up and restored an earlier version of the way the legal relationship has endured. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Back in the lead, was there a ref anywhere for "has been described as one of the world's 80 greatest man-made treasures"? Frankly this would suggest a list which was felt to need an entry from Australasia, & it might be better to phrase it that way: "was the only Australian item on a list of the world's 80 greatest man-made treasures", if that was the case, with a ref of course.

Fixed I have made this appraisal more specific as requested. The refs, including to the article which contains the list are still there in the architecture section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's it I think. A very thorough article, very well illustrated. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Delegate note

Is there a source review for formatting/reliability buried in the above comments? If not I'll ask Nikki or Brian if they'd do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a comment from Hamiltonstone asking, "References (particularly references to websites recently added I think) need to be improved and brought into line with others." After a bit of back-and-forth this has now been struck out as successfully addressed. Is this what you mean Ian? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Something along those lines. The next question -- and I admit I probably should've noticed this before -- is whether anyone has spotchecked sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which is standard procedure for someone at their first FAC.

Also I note that several parts of the article appear uncited, including:

• Last bit of middle para of 21st century

I've now added a ref for this. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Last sentence of Architecture

Removed until such time as I can find a ref for this fact specifically at a later date. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• First para and last sentence of second of Interior

For the first para, this now has a few footnotes added - notably to the official heritage register which lists all renovations ever made. For the last sentence of the second para it has now been simplified and a specific reference for the remaining fact has been included. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• First para of Renovation, restoration, conservation

This paragraph has two sentences - the first is an introduction to the kinds of renovations that are talked about in greater length (with many footnotes) elsewhere. The second gives two specific major renovation dates (in which much of the renovations mentioned in the first sentence occurred), which are both now footnoted. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Last sentence of Bells

This has now been footnoted too. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, although the images are generally very nice, there's an awful lot of them, giving the article a very cluttered appearance on my 14-inch widescreen -- have no reviewers had any similar concerns? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding images, several reviewers commented favourably on the illustration and no one has expressed a concern about this. e.g. Hamiltonstone - "the illustration of the piece is extraordinary" and "this is one of the best illustrated articles I've seen in a long while"; Brianboulton - "the illustrations struck me as particularly impressive"; Johnbod - "very well illustrated". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked a fair few online sources I was interested in for veracity, and would have noticed if they were too closely paraphrased. I haven't checked any of the offline sources. Regarding images, all my screens are wider than yours Ian, but I had no problem. I'm generally in favour of pictures for a topic like this, unless they're covering the same concept twice. --99of9 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The First years subsection was the main culprit for clutter in my opinion, the rest not so bad -- a horizontal gallery of pictures at the end of that part might be better -- however I'm not about to override consensus on a matter of aesthetics. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that all of these comments are now all addressed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC) [10].

---

Nancy Mitford

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Mitford made her name as a writer of substance and wit with her postwar novels of upper class life and love. She was also an historical biographer of flair and originality, though it seems that her main joy in life was teasing—perhaps to deflect herself from the failure of her own pursuit of love. The eldest of the famous (infamous?) Mitford sisters, she fooled just about everyone in the 1950s with her notorious "U" and "non-U" division of the English language; there are still people who take that seriously. The Mitfords were interconnected to most of the main aristocratic families of the day, and there was plenty going on in the background (read the footnotes). Altogether, a rather interesting life, with equal measures of success and sorrow, and the books aren't so bad, either. Many thanks to Mr Riley for drafting the family diagram; comments welcome on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support I had my say at the peer review, and the version as brought to FAC shows my (minor) concerns were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Image review The lead image is fair use and there is an appropriate rationale. All others show appropriate free licenses.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the peer review and the image check here, and for your support, much valued. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support – after declaring a minor interest, viz the family tree which, as noted, I perpetrated. I had nothing to do with the text, apart from peer reviewing it, and in my view it clearly meets all the FA criteria. It is well proportioned, comprehensive but focused, extensively sourced and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am reliably informed that to "perpetrate" is to be responsible for a deception or a crime, etc. You did no such thing – I am very grateful for your input and other PR suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support indeed. I was another player at the peer review where my comments were satisfactorily addressed. A second read through this evening confirms to me that this article is of FA quality and I fully endorse its promotion to such. Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I've never cared for Nancy Mitford or her family, but this a great piece of work, easily meeting the FA criteria in my opinion. Eric Corbett 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Eric for the numerous small prose and punc tweaks. I agree with them all. I've also followed your lead and amended all the ODNB subscription templates to the specific for. Your input and support are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  That wouldn't be the first time I've been told that all I'm good for is moving a few commas around. Anyway, I hope you won't be cluttering up FAC for much longer with Nancy, as I've got a nomination of my own on the boil. Eric Corbett 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Support; another PRer coming back to support an excellent article. Just one small comment on note 6, the "Pilot Officer" should be in lower case, as per WP:MILTERMS, as it's not being used as a proper name here. (If it was as a proper name, it would be "Pilot officer", with a lower case o). Another excellent and informative piece - thanks for a very enjoyable article. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I stand corrected on this, will try and do better in future. Thanks for the support and (I suspect) for fixing the ellipses. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment. With so many rapid supports, I decided to look. The one concern I have is possible editorial additions, which is linked in some instances to how sources are given. For instance:

a. "His article, in a learned Finnish journal and complete with an illustrative glossary, used The Pursuit of Love to exemplify upper-class speech patterns. In a spirit of mischief, Mitford incorporated the U and Non-U thesis into an article she was writing for Encounter on the English aristocracy.[112]" The first sentence has no specific source, so I assume it either doesn't need one, or takes 112 from the next sentence. My questions are: 1. by whose assessment is the journal "learned" (if, indeed, a journal can be)? 2. Does Mitford (in the source) state that she wrote "In a spirit of mischief" or similar? I haven't seen it in a quick skim of the linked article, but perhaps it is there.

• The term "learned journal" comes from the source (Hastings). Frankly, it is such a common description that I didn't think it worth specifically citing, but I have added a citation to the sentence. The "spirit of mischief" is my paraphrase of Hastings: "Scenting in the subject a superlative tease...", and of Nancy's own description of the article as "an anthology of teases". I agree that the positioning of the citations has not made the sourcing entirely clear, and am looking at ways of dealing with this without too much disruption of the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

b. "Mitford was one of the few who was not intimidated by him, and saw the kindness and humour concealed behind his hostile public image.[24]". I see "Nancy saw past Waugh's persona of irascible old buffer" in the source, but is there something about being "one of the few who was not intimidated by him"?

• This was my interpretation of the source, based on a considerable knowledge of Waugh and the effect he had on people; for example his son wrote: "I have seen generals and chancellors of the exchequer, six foot six and exuding self-importance from every pore, quail in front of him". Nancy obviously wasn't one of these. However, I agree that the quoted source doesn't go far enough to justify my interpretation. I've modified the wording and added an appropriate reference. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

c. "It is unsurprising that Mitford should first attempt to write a novel in the early 1930s, since many of her friends were doing the same thing. What is surprising, according to Thompson, is the ease ". The surprising thing is according to Thompson, but the unsurprising thing is just unsurprising. If they are from the same source, then linking them with a semicolon would help, as the current structure implies that the article's author, not Thompson, is the person who found something unsurprising.

• Yes, Thompson is responsible for both the unsurprising and surprising aspects discussed, and I have slightly modified the wording to make this clear. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

d. "At times, however, a more serious undertone, entirely absent in the early works, becomes evident; Olivia Laing in the Guardian, discerns "a faint and beguiling pessimism about love's pursuit and its consequences" beneath the light superficiality.[145]" I see no text justifying "entirely absent in the early works" in the source given.

• The first part of the sentence should have been cited separately, to Hastings p. 129. I have reworded and cited. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In summary, and just using some of the sources that are available online, the largely admirable content of the article appears not to be wholly sourced. Perhaps some of these examples are attributable to the location of citations in the text, or to some information being obvious to those close to the matter. I'd like to see a comment on this, though, as not many of the sources are available online, and finding the above examples from them was not difficult. EddieHugh (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am grateful for these comments and for any more you care to add. Finally, with regard to your mention of "rapid supports", I would just point out that most of these come from reviewers who paid due attention at the article's peer review – they are not drive-by or reflex supports. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review:

• Ref 5 formats the "online edition" for the ODNB in a different way to the other ODNB citations in refs 11, 12, 13, etc.

• Done by another hand, now standardised. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 10 (Soames ebook): Is there any way to be more precise than "Chapter one"? I know various ebook readers have some sort of "location" number to allow for finding particular parts of the book, but I notice that the google link does not have this facility. If the information came from the google version, I imagine we're stuck with just the chapter.

• Regretfully, that is the case. If I come across the print version I can transfer the cite to that and include a page no. while still keeping the link. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 26 has pp for one page.
• Be consistent in using (ed) or (ed.). Ref 37 uses the former, the others the latter.
• Refs 111 and 113, which are to periodicals, do not use p or pp but just give the numbers. But 115, 116 and 151 also periodicals, do use pp. Possibly a template issue?

• All small fixes made. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything else looks fine, and sources of high quality. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The article is fine on prose and sourcing; I am not sure if the huge family tree is an asset. It overwhelms the early part of the article and breaks WP:ACCESS. I would just get rid of it. --John (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think your view is probably in a minority on the chart, but thank you for your comments and ce. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support, notwithstanding my dislike of the huge family tree image; this is an aesthetic preference and I accept I am in a minority. It's a good article, well written and well-sourced. --John (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment you should upload a better photograph.—indopug (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Indopug: I agree the original was a little fuzzy. I have replaced it with a sharper image - please cmt if necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That's tons better! A most Mitfordish portrait. Spot on. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC) [11].

---

The Coral Island

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my introduction to this article's first nomination, this was one of my two favourite books as a kid, and I want to do it justice. It's a Victorian boy's own ripping yarn of shipwreck, pirates, cannibals, self-sufficiency, you name it, and the inspiration for William Golding's dystopian Lord of the Flies. Unfortunately I managed to get myself blocked during the previous FAC – hard to believe I know – and so Drmies thought it prudent to withdraw the nomination. But now we're back for a second bite at the cherry. Eric Corbett 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

• "one of the top twenty Scottish novels at the 15th International World Wide Web Conference in 2006": why is the opinion of a bunch of tech nerds in 2006 so siginficant to the novel that this should close (or even be in) the lead? I'd think that other tidbits would be more interesting, such as that it was on recommended reading lists, or that it's had a number of adaptations as recently as 2000.
  • I don't disagree; let me ponder that some. Drmies (talk)
  • I've changed that. Eric Corbett 19:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• The third paragraph of "Biographical background and publication" jumps all over in time: published in 1858, but, oh, wait, actually 1857, and before that he wrote something else, and after that he wrote even more, meanwhile back in 1858 ... not that I can see anything wrong with it, but it can't discern the logic that has produced this ordering.
  • Hmm. If you put it that way, it sounds pretty disorganized, but I myself don't see the problem in the paragraph as it stands right now. I'll leave this for Eric to judge. Drmies (talk)
  • I don't really see the problem with that paragraph, but I've made a small change nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• "three of them published in 1858, the year of The Coral Island": is this meant to include The Coral Island, which as we've just been informed was published in 1857?
  • I wonder if this isn't simply the result of that source, Townsend, and how it phrases things; I don't have access to that at the present, but maybe Eric does. Drmies (talk)
  • OK, I simply cut the "the year of TCI" bit, which is a bit confusing for the reason you pointed out, and redundant, since the point about his productivity in that time is clear, I think. Drmies (talk)
• "The Coral Island was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.": Were they the first to publish it besides Nelson, or was this in some other way a milestone?
  • OK, I looked at the reference again: the point is that the novel is that it's not very popular anymore even though it's called a classic (and published as such): "In his now classic, if no longer popular, adventure story The Coral Island..." Perhaps someone with better rhetorical skills can tweak the sentence to make the point? Drmies (talk)
• "centre stage as the main characters": is "centre stage" not redundant to "the main characters"?
  • Tweaked. Drmies (talk)
• "the Victorian age based its imperialist ideology": can an "age" do such a thing?
  • In my business (English), yes. YMMV, of course. Drmies (talk)
• ""white, English superiority that was anchored in the notion of a civilized nation elected by God to rule inferior peoples."": is this a quote from the book?
  • I don't think Ballantyne could have conceived such a statement. I presume it's from McCulloch, reference in the next sentence, but I don't have that source here at home. We'll check, and perhaps add the old "according to". Drmies (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

    It is indeed from McCulloch, not Ballantyne. We could add the old "according to" if necessary, but I find it's overuse a bit stulted, particularly in cases such as this, where the statement seems to me to be entirely uncontentious. Eric Corbett 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The story is written as a first person narrative from the perspective of one of three boys shipwrecked on the coral reef of a large but uninhabited Polynesian island, 15-year-old Ralph Rover." I think it'd read better if "15-year-old Ralph Rover" came after "perspective of"
  • Good call: thanks. Drmies (talk)
• "an 1845 wedding in which a duchess was presented with coral ornaments": that's tantalizing—could we get the duchess's name?
  • I'll check the source. FWIW, that Victorian coral thing is fascinating, and I'm still surprised that my (Victorian and modernist) colleagues don't find it as exciting as I do. Drmies (talk)
  • I've been checking, and it was the Duchess d'Aumale, which I've added to the note. Turns out as well that the wedding actually took place in late 1844, not 1845, so I've corrected that as well. Eric Corbett 19:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• A capsule history of Ballantyne would be nice (even just a sentence or two). As it is, we're told that a bunch of tech nerds consider the book one of the top Scottish novels, but the body doesn't even mention that Ballantyne was Scottish.
  • Hmm. The opening sentence of the lead does... I don't remember the references making much of his Scottishness. Eric, do you? Or, can you satisfy Curly Turkey? Drmies (talk)

    The lead states quite explicitly that Ballantyne was Scottish, as you say, so I don't see the problem. Is there some doubt that Ballantyne was Scottish? Eric Corbett 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

    Normally a "capsule history" would contain more than a nationality—I was hoping for some context behind the man who wrote the book, not details on his Scottishness. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

    I'll see what I can do. Eric Corbett 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

    I've added a short paragraph giving a summary of Ballantyne's life up to the point he wrote The Coral Island. Eric Corbett 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    More than I was hoping for—it looks good. I don't know if you think it's worth linking or otherwise clarifying, but the Canada Ballantyne visited would've been the pre-Confederation colony the Province of Canada, assuming he arrived after 10 February 1841. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton

Brief comment: I'm pleased to see this here. At present I've not had time for more than a glance, but I notice that you say that after The Coral Island Ballantyne "subsequently only wrote about things of which he had personal experience." In 1858 he published Martin Rattler, which was set in the Brazilian jungle, and in 1861 The Gorilla Hunters, set in Africa. I don't believe he visited either of these places – in fact his ODNB entry states explicitly that he didn't: "He set other works in places he had not visited, such as Brazil (Martin Rattler, 1858) and equatorial Africa (The Gorilla Hunters, 1861), but he preferred to write from experience." So it appears your statement should be modified. I hope to take a closer look at the article later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An interesting observation. I'll look a bit more deeply into that and get back to you. Eric Corbett 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Tucker's book is not available enough in Google Books; Eric, was this on your shelf? We have it in the library, so I could have a look next week. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I paraphrased Tucker a little too aggressively. What he says is that Ballantyne "resolved never to write about things he had not come across first-hand", not that he never did again after his error with coconuts in this book. I'll correct that. Eric Corbett 17:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What you have now is better, but it still bothers me slightly, since he wrote two further books on places he'd never been to, before effecting his resolve not to do that. My guess is that it was a while before Ballantyne realised his coconut howler, after he had written the two books. To cover this, I would slightly amend so that the sentence reads: "A stickler for accuracy, when he realised his mistake he resolved never again to write about things..." etc.

To my mind the issue isn't about places he'd never been to but rather about things he had no experience of. Eric Corbett 03:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Things, places – the principle is the same. The statement as it stands doesn't exactly cover the actual situation, and should be amended so that it does. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed to "... he resolved that in future, whenever possible, he would only write about things of which he had personal experience." Eric Corbett 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a few further observations:

• I'm inclined to agree with Mr Turkey, above, that the Background section should include a little more background on Ballantyne himself, e.g that he was largely unschooled, and received his education from his mother and sisters, that he spent five years of his youth in the wilds of Cannada as a trader, that his writing career was based on the journals he wrote during his Canada days. These things would be of interest to the reader. They can all be cited to his ODNB article.

  OK, I've added a short precis of Ballantyne's life up until the point he wrote The Coral Island. Eric Corbett 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• In discussing the relationship to Golding's Lord of the Flies it might be worth noting that Golding even named his two main characters "Jack" and "Ralph".

  Ralph was already mentioned, but I've added Jack. And Peterkin/Piggy. Eric Corbett

• What is the source of the statement that "between £50 and £60" in 1858 is equivalent to £40,000 today? It sounds like one of Measuringworth's theoretical calculations which often produce extraordinary results. For example, the prime minister's salary at that time was £5000 a year, which on the same conversion basis would be £3.6 million today. This BBC article equates £5000 in 1830 with £425,000 today, which seems more reasonable and would make Ballantyne's £50 to £60 worth between £4250 and £5100.

  The calculation is explained and cited in note c. Eric Corbett 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry I missed the citation which, as I thought, is to Measuringworth. The problem with this site is, I believe, its over-theoretical approach. Its calculations do not take account of the entirely different wages structures and economic circumstances of past eras, and thus their comparative earnings figures always tend to give a distorted picture. Most readers will boggle at the thought that an income of £50–£60 then is worth £40,000 now. But it's basically a matter for you. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I don't share your reservations about Measuringworth, particularly when it come to project costing. In this case though I think we'd be on pretty safe ground just going with an inflation adjusted amount rather than comparing average earnings, which gives a figure of around £5800 according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator. Eric Corbett 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see much else I would choose to change, and look forward to supporting. I am doing a sources review and will add that shortly. Brianboulton (talk)

Support: All my concerns, expressed above, have been met in full, and my minor sources issues (see below) are satisfactorily resolved. There may be further tinkerings to improve the article, but as it stands it meets the criteria for FA status. And was enjoyable to read, too, which is something of a bonus. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's Eric's writing you're talking about. Thank you for your comments Brian, and Eric, thanks for taking care of issues while I was sleeping on the job. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sporadic comments from Anythingyouwant

• I took the liberty of slightly tweaking the lead by inserting the bolded word: "It was the inspiration for William Golding's dystopian novel Lord of the Flies (1954), which inverted the morality of The Coral Island: in Ballantyne's story the children encounter evil, but in The Lord of the Flies evil is within them." This easily distinguishes whether the 1954 thing was a novel, film, play, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Fine by me. Eric Corbett 03:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not fond of this sentence: "He wrote The Coral Island while staying in a house on the Burntisland seafront, opposite Edinburgh on the Firth of Forth, and according to Ballantyne biographer Eric Quayle borrowed extensively from an 1852 novel by the American author James F. Bowman, The Island Home." It's a rather long sentence, covering different subjects, and ought to be split in two at the second comma. Moreover, this material would become more user-friendly if the "Firth of Forth" were briefly explained for the dummies who would otherwise have to interrupt reading this article to go look at that one; just add something like, "which is the area where the River Forth flows into the North Sea".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  As you wish, changed. Eric Corbett 03:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Consider the next sentence: "He also borrowed from John Williams' Narrative of Missionary Enterprises (1837), to the extent that Rod Edmond has suggested that Ballantyne must have written one chapter of The Coral Island with Williams' book open in front of him, so similar is the text." In the previous sentence, you kindly said who Quayle is, and it's obvious that Bowman and Williams are novelists, but what of Edmond? Just some guy who said something? I'd recommend some slight identification, like "Professor" Rod Edmond.[12]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Edmond is just some guy who wrote a book isn't he? Anyway, I've now identified him as a "cultural historian". Eric Corbett 03:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• This sentence seems a bit odd: "Although the first edition is dated 1858 it was on sale in bookshops from early December 1857; dating books forward was a common practice at the time, especially during the Christmas period.[7]" Okay, but if this is worth mentioning then maybe it's worth explaining. Eric previously said at the talk page, “I could speculate that it was a marketing ploy to increase sales at Christmas time, and I'd be pretty sure I was right, but I've got no authoritative answer as to why it was common.” Well, if we don’t know then why burden the reader with it? In any event, postdating books was done so that books issued at the end of a year would not so soon lose their freshness.[13]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem odd to me. Eric Corbett 04:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  You lack objectivity. You're causing the reader to ask himself "Why the hell would they want to post-date books?" And you're not giving a clue as to the answer: so that the book would seem fresh the next year. Without giving an explanation, it seems more like useless trivia; it makes no more sense than saying "they postdated books published on Tuesdays but not on Thursdays". Make things easy on the reader, that's my advice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I lack objectivity? Then I'll have to leave this to Drmies. Eric Corbett 04:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  No offense meant.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  The reason I want to keep this is that it explains why some sources give 1857 as the year of publication and others 1858, and that such a practice was quite common during the Victorian period, not at all unusual. Eric Corbett 02:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  I don't mind if it's kept, but can you tweak the phrasing to very briefly explain the reason for post-dating? As I understand, it really had very little to do with Christmas, and much more to do with New Year's. If someone bought a book in late December (as a Christmas present, a Hannukah present, or as no present at all), then this post-dating custom made the book seem fresh even into the new year. So, I'd rephrase like this: "Although the first edition is dated 1858 it was on sale in bookshops from early December 1857; dating books forward was a common practice at the time, so that the book would seem fresh even into the new year.[7]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Eric Corbett 03:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• On to this sentence (emphasis added): "Ballantyne received between £50 and £60,[14] equivalent to about £40,000 as of 2011,[c] but when the novel's popularity became evident and the number of editions increased he tried unsuccessfully to buy back the copyright." You can probably guess my gripe here. Can we at least have the dollar amount in note c? I say this not as an Ugly American (which I am), but as a citizen of the world, whose leading currency is (still, for good or ill) the almighty dollar.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  The short answer is no, it's difficult enough to get a sterling equivalent. But maybe you or Drmies is cleverer than I am and can perform some magic. Eric Corbett 04:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Measuringworth can do the conversion for you from 2012 pounds to 2012 dollars.[14]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  The very idea of "2012 dollars" is mythical given how widely the exchange rate varies throughout the year—especially since a dollar's buying power desn't necessarily change when the exchange rate does, and I think it's buying power that a reader would want to know. I'd rather see the "today's equivalent" done away with as well (though I don't intend to make an issue of it). We can already see that two different "reliable" calculations have given us £40,000 and £5800. The value of money "means" different things the further the distance in time—given enough time that "meaning" gets lost in the "translation". "Curly" "Turkey" "("gobble")" 23:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  That's what the word "approximately" is for.  :-) But I agree with you, Curly, that getting rid of 2012 equivalents altogether would solve the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  The £40,000 was calculated on the basis of average earnings. What we're using now (£5800) is based on buying power, which is clearly explained. Eric Corbett 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other whether this Wikipedia article provides a 2012 monetary equivalent of the 1857 amount, but if it does provide such an amount of British pounds, then why not also include an approximate equivalent in US dollars?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it's enough of a distortion converting pounds to pounds—seriously it's a bad, bad, bad idea. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Per this source, during the year 2012, one British Pound would buy you between 1.54 and 1.62 dollars. That is, you could multiply a pound amount by slightly more than 1.5 to get a dollar amount. Saying so in a mere note to this Wikipedia article is not the least bit problematic, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's makework, and far less "unproblematic" than you think—for example, how does the calculation work out with regards to Purchasing power parity? The meaning of these figures is different from what a mere calcuation expresses—the rate at which units of currency exchange is not the same as their value to those who use them, and we're talking amounts of currency from a century and a half ago when the meaning of those figures was quite different again from what it is today. A further currency calculation is just adding distortion to an already distorted figure. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Curly Turkey. It's tricky enough choosing the best conversion for sterling amounts, never equivalent dollar amounts. Eric Corbett 13:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of uncertainty is in converting old pounds to new pounds, as compared to converting new pounds to new dollars. Putting the exchange rate in a note seems usual.[15]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's usual, as I've only rarely seen it done, and that only when the subject is clearly connected to the US, which isn't the case here. Eric Corbett 17:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You certainly won't be the first Wikipedia editor to knowingly make an article more difficult to understand. This is a small point, and probably won't affect my overall opinion of the article, but it will be interesting to see if anyone else has any comments about this small point. Per United States Dollar (the lead): "The U.S. dollar is the fiat currency most used in international transactions...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

But it wasn't in 1858. Your request seems no more reasonable to me than demanding that all US articles covering the Victorian period provide sterling equivalent values. Eric Corbett 19:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

All I'll say is that if you're a reader unfamiliar with spending pounds, then the value £5800 will not have meaning, and the reader will not understand that it equals about $9000.00.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It may equate to $9000 today, but what about in 1858? Eric Corbett 20:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote 15 says "Cite error: The named reference BOE was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• “He wrote bitterly to Nelsons in 1893”. Please check whether an apostrophe is missing from "Nelson's".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  No missing apostrophe, and no reason why there should be one there anyway. Eric Corbett 17:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for checking.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey and Drmies discussed this sentence above: "The Coral Island was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.[2]" I agree that a brief explanation would be useful of why this particular publication is singled out among many. I suggest, "The Coral Island – still considered a classic – was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.[2]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Eric Corbett 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Consider this sentence: "It preserves, according to literary critic Minnie Singh, the moralizing aspects of didactic texts, but does so (and in this regard it is a 'founding text') by the 'congruence of subject and implied reader': the story is about boys, and told by a (former) boy to an audience of boys.[17]" The congruence of subject and implied reader would be accurately described without the words "by a (former) boy", the subject being "about boys" and the implied reader being "an audience of boys". Crossing out the words "by a (former) boy" would also clarify and strengthen the sentence because readers might scratch their heads and ask what the difference is between a "(former) boy" and a man.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Rewritten as "... the story is about boys and written retrospectively as though by a boy, for an audience of boys". Eric Corbett 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good enough, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• "and in attempting to intervene are taken prisoner". By the non-converted ones?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• On reflection the battle isn't really all that important, so I've rewritten that bit. Eric Corbett 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Consider the way these two separate parts begin:

Literary and historical context
The Coral Island follows in a long tradition of Robinsonades, a genre initiated by Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe (1719). Published during the "first golden age of children's fiction",[7] it began a trend in boys' fiction by using boys as the main characters, a device now commonplace in the genre.[17]....

Genre and style
All Ballantyne's novels are, in his own words, "adventure stories for young folks", and The Coral Island is no exception.[11] It is a Robinsonade, a genre of fiction inspired by Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe,[27] one of the most popular of its type,[1] and one of the first works of juvenile fiction to feature exclusively juvenile heroes.[28][17]

This seems like almost the same material, and the reader may misdiagnose himself with deja vu.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now. Eric Corbett 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Maher notes...." This is the first and only mention of Maher, and many readers will be asking themselves, "Where was Maher mentioned previously? Did I miss something?" This could be avoided by saying "Dr. Susan Maher" instead. Alternatively, you could go through the whole article and ensure that the other experts are introduced using last name only, but saying "Dr. Susan" is better and easier IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Fixed. Eric Corbett 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Consider this sentence: "Romance, with its attention to character development, was only restored to the genre of boys' fiction with Stevenson's Treasure Island argues literary critic Lisa Honaker." Seems like you're introducing Stevenson's Treasure Island for the first time here, and without any wikilinks. Later on, you say "Robert Louis Stevenson's 1882 novel Treasure Island", and I think that should be moved to the first occurrence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Links moved. Eric Corbett 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• There seem to be quite a few pertinent images available at Wikimedia Commons, and I'd recommend more in the article (which presently has only two).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think that many of them are pertinent – Ballantyne is too old in both portraits to make sense here – but I've added one more to the Plot section. Eric Corbett 03:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  Nice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• At note "e" and accompanying text, there is discussion about how coral reefs form, as "believed in Ballantyne's time", and according to "generally received opinion". Presumably, that theory of coral formation is either correct or incorrect according to current science, and it would be nice if the note could somehow give a hint which (i.e. correct or incorrect). Darwin published a book about coral reef formation in 1842, as discussed in our Wikipedia article The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, and maybe that wlink might be sufficient in note "e" to enable readers to explore the matter some more. Generally speaking, if a scientific theory is well-known to be incorrect, a Wikipedia article referring to that theory ought to say it's been refuted or discarded or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I've attempted to explain what's going on here. The Victorians knew that coral reefs were formed from the remains of coral polyps, and the common term "coral insect" referred to them; nobody believed that coral reefs were formed by insects at the time Ballantyne was writing. The uncertainty about reef formation was the extent to which factors such as subsidence played in their formation, which seems to be way beyond the scope of this article, so I've simplified the note. Eric Corbett 19:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  Very well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• The section titled "Influence" is currently a single big paragraph, and I'd suggest putting a paragraph break after the second sentence. That would give Golding/Lord of Flies a paragraph of its own, which it warrants. Also, the implication of this Wikipedia article now is that Lord of Flies referenced Coral Island only once, which is incorrect. "Early in Golding's book, when the characters are still excited about being on the beautiful island, they mention Coral Island, hopeful that they can mimic its beautiful atmosphere."[16]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I've rewritten that slightly to avoid giving the impression that The Coral Island is mentioned only once in Lord of the Flies. Eric Corbett 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• This book was a major literary work, and I think it would be apt to include at least one extended quotation in blockquote format. My nomination would be this gruesome quote:

  I saw that these inhuman monsters were actually launching their canoe over the living bodies of their victims. But there was no pity in the breasts of these men. Forward they went in ruthless indifference, shouting as they went, while high above their voices rang the dying shrieks of those wretched creatures as, one after another, the ponderous canoe passed over them, burst the eyeballs from their sockets, and sent the life-blood gushing from their mouths. Oh reader, this is no fiction! I would not, for the sake of thrilling you with horror, invent so terrible a scene. It was witnessed. It is true—true as that accursed sin which has rendered the human heart capable of such diabolical enormities!

  As early as 1859, Ballantyne was criticized for making this up (as not "given in history or travels, or in any other book addressed to mature minds"[17]). However, Rod Edmond defended Ballantyne for saying that this stuff was true (see Representing the South Pacific: Colonial Discourse from Cook to Gauguin, pp. 146-147).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think I agree. Drmies? Eric Corbett 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  As Drmies appears to have gone AWOL I've made an executive decision to include that quotation in a quote box. It does at least give a good idea of the blood-thirstiness of certain parts of the book. Eric Corbett 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eric, I really appreciate that you included this. But, unfortunately, I have some concerns. First, Per WP:QUOTATIONS: "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote." Personally, I think quote boxes are cool, but are they kosher? My second concern is that the controversy about this quote is omitted. As mentioned above, Ballantyne was criticized in 1859 for making this stuff up (as not "given in history or travels, or in any other book addressed to mature minds"[18]). However, Rod Edmond said Ballantyne didn't make it up. See Representing the South Pacific: Colonial Discourse from Cook to Gauguin, pp. 146-147). Edmond writes: "Fiction or not, it certainly wasn't Ballantye's invention. This gruesome account had already appeared in J.E. Erskine's Journal of a Cruise Among the Islands of the Western Pacific (1853) as one of the many examples of the cruelty of Cakobau, chief of Bau in the Fiji group." Maybe that info might be okay for a note?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. See Seru Epenisa Cakobau.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to lose the will to live. Let's see if Drmies can improve on my pathetic efforts. Eric Corbett 21:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've not yet driven anyone on Wikipedia quite that far. Maybe there's a special barnstar. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be leaving you now to the tender care of Drmies, as I'm boiling over with fury and won't be responding here again. Eric Corbett 21:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were doing good work. Sorry if I said something wrong. Incidentally, the Erskine mentioned above was John Erskine (Royal Navy officer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We were. I was just being a little tired and emotional. Sorry. Eric Corbett 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Those are all the criticisms I have for now. Thanks for the interesting article, and I hope it continues to improve and becomes featured.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments. Eric Corbett 02:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The Wikipedia article is well-written, well-researched, and interesting. I crossed out all but two of my comments above, because I think a dollar value would be helpful (so that more readers would understand how little the author was paid), and because I'm not sure whether quoteboxes are good form. But those two things do not significantly detract from the Wikipedia article's excellence, and I'm grateful to Eric for bearing with me for so long.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources review

• All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability (my private reservations about Measuringworth notwithstanding)
• Ref 8: as you are using the online edition of this source, the ISBN does not apply
• Page range formats should be consistent. Generally you use the form as in ref 2 (105–22), but in 6 and 45 you use a shorter form (167–8 etc), and in 7, 22 and 35 you use the longer (137–145 etc)
• The format used for the short quotation in footnote (e) looks rather untidy and would look neater without use of the "quote" template.

Otherwise no sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. I think all of those have been dealt with now. Eric Corbett 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Looked at this at the first nom and I was impressed with how clear and concise it was. This certainly looks a worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Eric Corbett 21:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Images: File:Coral_Island04.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the US PD tag. Eric Corbett 23:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Support I took a quick look at this and it looks great. Definitely the best of Wikipedia and fully deserving of the star. --John (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. Eric Corbett 17:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed--thanks, John. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Support This article looks amazing. It is very precise and well-organized. Definitely worthy of of consideration. LeDrewww (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC) [19].

---

Franklin Peale

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about… Franklin Peale, a major figure in the history of the United States Mint, and a controversial one. Almost all of the coinage machinery used in the latter two-thirds of the 19th century there was designed by him or based on his work. And yet, in December 1854, he was fired for using his position for profit. The son of the painter Charles Willson Peale, Franklin's life was unusual, from getting his name (Benjamin Franklin Peale) from a vote by the membership of the American Philosophical Society to the end, and I think, with the possible exception of Roger Burdette's works on 19-century Mint technology, this may be the best resource anywhere on him. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments, lean support.

Large cent leads to dab page.

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hiring and Europe tour section:

"Second" mint is confusing. This should be expanded to show that it means the second building, or removed from the sentence.

Clarified. Numisspeak, I am afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph of the section, beginning with "Some of the machinery that would be . . . ." seems short at three sentences compared to the other paragraphs. Can this be expanded at all, or merged with another paragraph?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Return and results section:

The quote beginning with "the performance of the press . . . ." is 84 words and should be a block quote. A later quote of 77 words is done as a block quote, and you should be consistent in the article.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Melter and Refiner section:

Counting board needs to be wikilinked or further explained. Perhaps an image would be appropriate, if one is available.

There's a PD one in Burdette's new book, which also comes on CD-ROM. I'll do the upload later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Added a different one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Appointment and early years section:

How long did Eckfeldt continue to work? In other words, did he work up until his death? And when was that? It is explained later, but something needs to be where it is first mentioned.

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous:

Pattern coin wikilinked multiple times.

Fixed, though I intend to leave the extra one in the caption.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's appropriate in the caption. I was speaking of in the main body. GregJackP Boomer! 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources are needed for Notes b, d, & f.

Done, though I deleted f.

Reed ISBN shows an error. GregJackP Boomer! 13:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't know what the problem is on the Reed ISBN, as I said in a hidden note, I checked it against the physical copy of The Coin World Almanac (sixth edition) that I have and it is OK. I will work through the other comments later on today. I can email you the back cover of the book showing the ISBN if you send me an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. En dashes don't work in ISBN fields, so I changed it to hyphens. GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I think I've addressed your points.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You have my support. GregJackP Boomer! 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox - for example, the resting place - are unsourced
• FN24: page formatting
• Be consistent in where you include states and how this is formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look this over and take care of it in the next few days, I'm somewhat at sea right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've sourced the resting place. Most of the other infobox details are mentioned in the article, and so sourced. I think I've caught the other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Support: I carried out a lengthy peer review, since when an already first-rate article has been improved – some 400 words of text added together with a fine new image. Nothing further to add, really; an interesting story of professional competence and moral compromise. A great addition to the coin-related corpus. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I feared complaints about length, but I felt that it was best to carefully cover the things Peale did, rather than worry about arbitrary figures.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – I hadn't run across Peale before, and have enjoyed making his acquaintance. The text meets all FA criteria in my opinion. A well-balanced article on an interesting man, well capturing his personal mix of pioneer and buccaneer, and setting out his achievements clearly and without bias. Well sourced and cited, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco

• Have you had an image review yet?

I had asked Brianboulton recently, if you would like to do it that would be great but kindly let him know. Thanks either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• K, I'll do it in the morning (my time) if Brian hasn't gotten to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• The boy was born in the museum of curiosities that his father kept. - is this really necessary for the lede?

It's a judgment call, I suppose. I was trying to evoke the unusual childhood that formed a brilliant but unusual man.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• German mints of Dresden, Stuttgart, and Karlsruhe. - any articles?

I don't see any. The articles on the DM and on German euro coins don't show any links.

• Contamin - Got a first name?

Not offhand. Contemporary sources per google search say "Contamin of Paris" or else without a first name.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "and as these are completed, the coining by human labor be abandoned, and the work that can be executed in ... the Mint will be greatly increased." - Is the original quote lacking "can" in "human labor be abandoned"

• I cut and pasted it from the web page where I got it. I went and looked at it, it's the same. I don't see anything else online with that quote, so they may have mistranscribed, possibly, or else they just spoke funny back then. I don't think it's worth a sic template.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• More to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Contamin lathe, which had been imported from France after being seen by Peale there." Didn't you mention the Contamin lathe above?

Yeah, but I didn't mention its importation, just that he saw it and copied it. In one of the reviews, it was suggested I avoid saying what happened when he got back as much as possible in the trip section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Either of Peale's inventions worth articles?

Not to my knowledge.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• mal construction - space in the original?

Yes. The original has a sic which I decided against, it's clear enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Journal of The Franklin Institute - Notable enough for a redlink?

Not to my knowledge. Your mileage may vary.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Image of Taylor medal is (copyright-wise) fine. However, considering the blur I think scanning was not the best idea... photography would give more depth of field and thus allow the text to be legible. Similar to what I did here. (I note that this is not an FA requirement, just a suggestion).

I'll retake it when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is Richard McCulloh one Richard Sears McCulloh?
• I'm assuming Jonas McClintock is Jonas R. McClintock, as you have him in the infobox.

Above two linked.

• catalogued or cataloged in AmE?

I think it's OK.

• Overlinking: turning, Levi Woodbury, and gold dollar.

Gold dollar unlinked. The other two were all enough apart to be worth another link. The turning one is especially necessary. Woodbury was mentioned once in passing, and is being mentioned a bit more substantively about nine paragraphs later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's it... solid article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Crisco, Wehwalt, have the comments above been actioned? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Not yet, by the looks of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, must have missed it. All done now. Sorry about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Solid article, as usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review: All images appear to be in the public domain and are appropriately licenced. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(Note: while reviewing te images I noticed that something is apparently wrong with ref 2 - please check it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've fixed the problem you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -- There are repeat links for Levi Woodbury, turning, Martin Van Buren, and American Philosophical Society; won't hold up promotion but pls just check if they're necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC) [20].

---

How Brown Saw the Baseball Game

Nominator(s): Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. How Brown Saw the Baseball Game is a 1907 comedy film that has mostly languished in obscurity, which is a shame, because you'd think a film about a drunk guy watching baseball would have a cult following. The article, while short, is as comprehensive as possible, and it received a GA review by Khazar2 (talk · contribs) and has been through FAC before. Some copyediting work has been done between the two FACs. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Taylor Trescott. 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, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments Support from Crisco 1492

• As I have written several articles on lost or probably lost films already, I think this will be an interesting article to review.

• comprised 350 feet (110 m) of film - Perhaps a footnote about how long this would be at 16 FPS? Not necessary, of course, but most readers will not really understand feet of film.

• I'll see what I can do. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is Silent Era considered a reliable source? I've never used it, but then my specialty is the kind of films that would never get in.

Definitely yes. It always cites sources and is used in lots of FAs (The Carpet from Bagdad) and FLs (Charlie Chaplin filmography) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've copyedited, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your copyedits look good. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have been unable to find File:SiegmundLubin.gif in an online archive of Moving Picture World. I did find another picture, which I will post soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Here are the images. commons:Category:Siegmund Lubin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. I swapped the image. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Any of these useful? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've cited the non-advertisements in the article already. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's everything from me. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

List of complaints from the unpleasable Curly Turkey

Support. The only of my concerns left unaddressed from the previous FAC (publication date of the image) has now been addressed (with a different image). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Image check

• Only one file: File:Siegmund Lubin in 1913.jpg. Properly tagged and in the Public Domain (published 1913). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both for the review! Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support The image was the only thing to hold me back last time, and now that is obviously cleared up. (I think the new one is so much better though). One nitpick:

• You should have retrieval dates for all online sources. Right now I see a couple that dont have any.

Beerest 2 talk 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for taking a look! Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support from Comments by ColonelHenry

• Will be posting some comments shortly (10-11JAN14).--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a tough article to review as much as a tough article to write since (1) it is a very short article and might be the shortest FA if promoted (which means there's fewer places for less-than-FA-quality work to hide), (2) the article's subject has not survived and cannot be used to improve the article's coverage, (3) the article's subject is only known by the reports of others long dead and no one around now has likely seen the film, (4) there's not much out there about the topic outside of the film and the reviews.

I did a copyedit on the article to polish the writing and rearrange some material for better continuity (let me know your thoughts on my copyediting/revision). I consider the first polishing, since there are other things I need to reread and think about and I'll come back in the next day or two and give it another look toward copyediting. Structurally, there are a few things that need to be worked on--better organization. I don't know what would be better--but the arrangement seems a bit disorganized in a way that I can't put into words (but try to below).

• Hmm. It wouldn't be the shortest FA. Tropical Depression Ten (2005) and Miss Meyers are both shorter. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know...one of my personal challenges is to write the shortest FA.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Have you considered putting the image of Lubin in the infobox?

• Doesn't really seem relevant there. There's really no relevant image, like Si Tjonat. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I was just thinking the infobox looks odd without an image only to have an image further down in the article floating between two sections. I would disagree with it being not relevant (like if a frame from the film appeared and was usable, that frame would be more relevant), but I can defer to your judgment on that matter if other users don't see a problem.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Found a newspaper advertisement and added it to the infobox. What do you think? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I like that very much. Good work. One addition...if you have a year for that advertisement, add it to the caption--i.e., something like "Newspaper advertisement (1908)" You mention 1903 on the image's information, which I assume is a typo for 1908.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do any of the sources tell what kind of film stock was used? or the frame rate? If you knew that, you could estimate how long the film was. 8mm film can be 12-15 feet per minute, but modern 35mm film is about 90 feet per minute.
• I am actually surprised there isn't any single-frame stills of the film--many other lost films have them available.
• Release and legacy --> I think "reception" would be a better word than "legacy" because (1) it is largely a section discussing critical reviews and (2) how can a film that no longer exist really have a legacy?

• Agreed and done. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The last two paragraphs of the "Release and legacy" section might better belong with the material in the "Production" section.

• I'll probably merge some, but keep most of the critical discussion there. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Either way would work. I just wonder if some of the content would work better there and we'd only know by experimenting.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hope this helps.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the promotion of this article to featured article status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Beerest 2

Taylor Trescott needs a source spotcheck, so I will do it.

• Both sources in Ref 1 correctly suport the plot.
• Ref 2 goes to BFI. I had to click "show more" to see it, but yes Ref 2 is correct.
• Ref 3 is correct in both uses,but I changed the wording to represent the source better while avoiding copyvio.
• All instances of Ref 4 are correct.
• Usage of Ref 5 looks good.
• Ref 6 8 and 10 are not online, but I will assume good faith
• Ref 7 supports the film being shown in 1908.
• Ref 9, in both uses, is good.
• Ref 11 is used proparly; the review is in the source (which is PD)
• Ref 12 supports Edison's film being released in 1906
• Ref 13 is snippet view, but when I put the phrase into google books I was able to see it, so looks good.

I conclude that all sources are used correctly and there is no OR in the article. Beerest 2 talk 17:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks ColonelHenry for doing a copyedit and supporting, and Beerest 2 for the spotcheck. Both are very much appreciated. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC) [21].

---

A Song for Simeon

Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a 1928 poem by modernist poet T.S. Eliot. I started this article and brought it through DYK and GA, and after some additional edits to polish the article, I nominate it here. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria

Image review

• File:T_S_Eliot_1928_A_Song_of_Simeon_No_16_Ariel_Poems_Faber.jpg: why is this a non-free image? See Threshold_of_originality#Typefaces_and_geometry - this should be {{PD-ineligible}} or similar

• Done - Replaced with PD-ineligible and new description template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but I think in the permission line you meant does not qualify for protection? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done - added the very important "not" thanks for catching that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell_(1934).jpg needs US PD tag. Same with File:Sretenie.jpg, File:Pur_19_avari.jpg

• Done - File:Sretenie.jpg added PD-art-100 tag; File:Pur_19_avari.jpg added PD-art-100 tag --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Question @Nikkimaria: - RE: File:Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell_(1934).jpg - Since Morrell died in 1938, and it has been more than 70 years since her demise,[22] and I can't find any registration of copyright or publication of the photo in the US (Quick but intensive search of about 100 tomes on GoogleBooks for Eliot books I don't have, and quickly looking through the photo/illustration credits in the many volumes on Eliot that I have on my shelves didn't give any indication of publication). What would be the appropriate PD tag for a 70-years after the death what I think is an unpublished work? Would that be appropriate?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it's not unpublished, as it's on a website. Was it displayed or exhibited at any point prior to digitization, do we know? Depending on that answer and the date of digitization, Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished might apply. However, I suspect if it hasn't been published in the US we'll find it's actually still copyrighted there per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Four-point_test and so can't be included at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• The description on the National Portrait Gallery (UK) website says "Purchased with help from the Friends of the National Libraries and the Dame Helen Gardner Bequest, 2003"[23] so the scanning and probable date of publication would be 2003 or later (anticipating it took time to catalogue and scan over 1600 photos from that collection).--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Addressed @Nikkimaria: replaced with File:Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_1920_snapshot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell.jpg, a public domain image from 1920. Is that satisfactory?--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• File:Launcelot_Andrews_(1555-1626),_English_School_circa_1660.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done Changed image with File:Lancelot Andrewes by Simon de Passe 1618.jpg. Researching the 1660 portrait will take some time and there are alternative free, certain provenance images.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: are my changes acceptable?--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

Support:Leaning to support As always with Eliot, interesting and disconcerting. My points are chiefly minor prose quibbles, although one or two concerns emerge towards the end:

• The citation following "The Right Reverend Thomas Banks Strong, Bishop of Oxford" is somewhat over-complex ([4]:pp.18[6]:pp.20,212,223). Does Eliot's baptism need this much verification? Also, in general I am not sure of the benefit for including the page refs in the inline citation; I can see the point, but it does make reading the text rather disjointed.

• Reply - that's the problem when the sentence draws together facts from 4 different pages--and I have fallen into the habit of sourcing and citing under the "better safe than sorry" mentality. I don't see a problem with it other than aesthetics. As for readability, despite what the essays say, I haven't seen an interested reader stop reading because of a citation. As for the method, I'm not partial to the other citation methods--we chiefly have three different ways of doing citations, each has their drawbacks, none are absolutely perfect. I use the full reference citation with the rp template because it's worked the best for me--better and easier than the short footnote and other styles. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, each to his own – it's not a style I particularly like, but that's no reason to change it if you think it best serves its purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Writing and publication, 3rd para: I got a bit muddled – the pamphlets were to be sent to the firm's clients and business acquaintances as Christmas greetings, yet the "release" dates for the poems seem to bear no relation to Christmas. What does "release" actually mean in this context?

• Reply - I actually do not know the answer that question. I don't know if anyone ever asked that question before or answered it. Will check, standby. might take a few days to get an answer back. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to know the answer here, but it's not a sticking point, so don't spend too much time in search of an answer! Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Addressed - The dates were the dates the pamphlets were printed. They were distributed at Christmas. I changed the text to reflect their production, since "release" implied available for sale and distribution.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the "Gospel narrative" section the quotation: "for the last years of a grandfather whose faith his grandson has at last taken up for himself" is attributed to "some scholars" and is cited to two sources. Is a more precise attribution possible?

• Done I went the other way in revision...removing the phrase about scholars, because one of the sources is actually an Anglican cleric who is often called to comment on religious poetry, not a literary scholar in the formal sense.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the bullet-pointed list of biblical allusions, the words "That the..." in the fourth item are superfluous, and the fifth item is not formatted as part of the list (i.e. it does not run on from "...including:")

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "...not one of Eliot's significant poems" – a hint of editorial judgement here; maybe modify ("not considered by scholars to be"?)

• Done added "scholars and critics" to the suggested text --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "more well-known" is ugly: perhaps "better-known"?

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Conversion": in the fourth line, you need to be clear that by "the poem" you are talking about "A Song for Simeon" again, as you have just mentioned several other poems.

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am not entirely clear how the sentence: "However, in these poems, Eliot continues the progression of his themes of alienation in a changing world, and fuses with this the tenets of his newfound faith." is relevant to this article, unless it is implied that "A Song for Simeon" is part of that progression which, if his is the case, needs to be clearer.

• Done - It is part of the progression...I clarified it by saying However, in "A Song for Simeon" and these poems, Eliot continues... --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Could we know who Joseph Maddrey is?

• Reply - would just "writer" be o.k? ...He's not a scholar in the conventional PhD/Ivory Tower sense--he's a freelance writer and documentary producer from LA. Aside from his well-reviewed book on Eliot, he authored a few books offering near-scholarly analysis on American horror films, comics, graphic novels, etc.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "writer" would be fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done - "writer" added at first instance.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "But as he awaits and asks for his death Simeon's understanding, he sees the consequences of the turning of faith to this new child and his mission." Something wrong with the syntax here.

• Done - revised to "But as he awaits the death for which he asks, Simeon sees..." --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Should "principall" hve a (sic)?

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I got lost in the long sentence that begins "Eliot uses the image..." There should be a second mdash after "Ash Wednesday", and the sentence itself would benefit from being subdivided at some point.

• This issue not addressed yet. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Brianboulton - this one got lost in the shuffle, but it is now done - emdash added, I split it into two sentences with a minor clarification.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In Eliot, Simeon..." → "In Eliot's depiction...", maybe

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "lifetime" is one word

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Julius accuses Eliot of animating "the topoi of the Jew acknowledging his obsolescence." I rather doubt that many of your readers will understand what Julius is driving at here. Can the point be paraphrased into comprehensible form?

• Done - I rearranged the paragraph to better illuminate Julius' Topoi argument and added a link to an appropriate article that I wish were more informative...I added a clause explaining it that might need to be polished a bit--it's not an easy literary definition to encapsulate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm distinctly uneasy at the concept of anti-Semitism as "a creative force showing rare imaginative power and empowering his art", and the final sentence, quoting Ricks, is both disturbing and confusing. "Wit and commentary" seems an odd expression. Is it unavoidable that the article should end on a note which seems to imply that anti-Semitism is OK if done with wit and brilliance?

• Reply I don't know if it's "unavoidable" but it is definitely a sticky wicket and one that I battled with expressing...perhaps if you knew how I approached this, it would be easier to figure out the best way to resolve the uncertainty over the passage. My intentions with this section are based on this (1) Anti-Semitism is a tough label, and saying someone is anti-Semitic is a very charged accusation. I'd rather not paint anyone with so broad a brush when the anti-Semitism is largely harmless or nuanced. (2) Eliot's mentions of Jews and Jewish themes in his poetry is a very nuanced "other", and I'd want to avoid accusing him of being an anti-Semite....as Eliot calls the accusation a "terrible slander", I agree. (3) We'll never know why Eliot thought the way he did or how he thought or what he was getting at in his Jewish references and in many of his references in his poem, many of them are vague, many personal, and when asked he tended to avoid explaining--so it's hard to judge it after the fact (what we do know is that Eliot suffered when others criticized him for the anti-Semitic references, and (4) some of these critics (including his harshest) saw some merit and creative genius in Eliot's seemingly anti-Semitic passages however incongruent the criticism and praise are in this context. I wouldn't want to make such an implication--that it would be okay with wit and brilliance--but I thought it would be better to end on a lighter note and try to at least mitigate the harsh critique of Julius. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you've achieved a "lighter note", but your rationale is persuasive. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking generally good. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources review: All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. I have voiced a slight concern, above, about the formatting of some citations and the disruption to readability. A couple more small points:

• Ref 9: paging not clear (36:330–37)

• Done I assume you mean the 37 should be 337, which I corrected. Just to edify, the "36:" indicates that it is "Volume 36, page 330-337."--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've just noticed ref 10 which gives "186–93". Either paging style is correct, but one consistent style is required within an article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 43: requires a page ref.

• Done - it's now fn.42 - but I added p.72.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments and suggestions, Brianboulton. Just to let you know, I'm planning to be away for most of today and early tomorrow on account of the holiday, so I will get a chance to attend to them most likely tomorrow (02JAN14) at the earliest, but definitely before the weekend. Happy New Year!--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: - I think I've resolved most of the concerns that you've raised and a few others I'd like your feedback on before I tie up the loose ends. One (regarding the publication and Christmas) I'm still checking into. Sorry for taking a few days, it's been a busy week.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have checked through, and subject to the few brief comments I've left, I'm happy with your responses. I have upgraded to full support, as I don't think the outstanding matters are of any great significance. On the whole the article is an excellent critique of this poem, and well worth its FA star. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

Generally looking good. A few points on the prose:

• "Eliot's Ariel poems and "Ash Wednesday" all explore this new experience of conversion, and toward the progress of the soul. Scofield writes that Eliot's depiction of Simeon presents "a figure to whom revelation has been granted but to whom it has come too late for this life." But as he awaits and asks for his death Simeon's understanding, he sees the consequences of the turning of faith to this new child and his mission. Simeon wants nothing of this "time of sorrow", adding that the fate of persecution for the consequences of faith is not for him." - The structure of the first, third and fourth sentences of this paragraph seem a bit off to me.

• Done - all four sentences have been revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Virgil, in the Divine Comedy, leads Dante through Hell (Inferno) and Purgatory (Purgatorio), but cannot guide him into Paradise—as a symbol of non-Christian philosophy and humanities, can help him no further in his approach to God." Another off sentence.

• Done - Revised and reshaped into two sentences.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "... stating declaratively" - Tautology? What about just "declaring"?

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Julius' view is considered extreme by many critics, and is tempered by his own argument that Eliot's anti-Semitism does not detract from his poetry and assessment that his anti-Semitism is a creative force showing rare imaginative power and empowering his art."" Another off sentence with a single set of inverted commas at the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done - I revised it by splitting it into two sentences. Hope that clarifies the matter.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It now seems to haver a stray "by" in it and it still has an unwanted set of inverted commas after the word "art". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done and reply - Cwmhiraeth - I removed the stray "by" -- not sure about what you mean by inverted commas because I don't seem to see it (or I may have removed it while serving Curly Turkey's comments below at the same time you made the 18:22 edit).--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: - Many thanks for reviewing the article and for your comments. I apologize that it took a few days longer than expected to attend to them, but the four comments above have been addressed and are ready for your review. If you see anything else that needs to be fixed or addressed, do let me know.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• My concerns have now been addressed and I am happy to Support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I read poetry here and there, but would not claim expertise. Some of my feedback is just my preferences or general suggestions—feel free to disagree with anything—I'll only rebut if I feel it's important.

General

• Alt text for images would be nice, but apparently not required for FAC.

• Done - alt texts added. Hope I did it right. I usually forget to do this and never really learned about alt text.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is it "Faber & Faber" or "Faber and Faber"? You use both.

• Done - I went toward converting them all to "and" since that's what our article is named and I hear that ampersands aren't readily understood in certain countries.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• There are a number of quotations with punctuation inside the quotes, where I think by the logic of the sentences they should be outside: even if there is a period at the end of the quote and it happens to be the end of the sentence, often the period logically should fall outside the quote. Compare these sentences: (a) He said, "I'll be there right away." (b) He said that he would "be there right away".

• Standby - I'll have to take some time to do a close re-reading of the article to do this. I will get this done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hopefully done - @Curly Turkey: - Since Americans generally aren't accustomed to logical quotation style and I find it aesthetically unnatural and baffling given that habit, I'm not sure at all if what I did to address this was correct. Please review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• You use {{reflist|2}}. A hard number of columns results in a lot of whitespace on large monitors, and forces a column offscreen on small screens (such as on smartphones). If you used "|colwidth=??em" with an approriate width, browsers could choose an appropriate number of columns instead.

• Done - I went with 33em. Is that acceptable?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me. I wouldn't split hairs over the actual width chosen unless it was causing actual problems. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "written in 1928 ... Published in September 1928": if it was written and published in 1928, I don't think both need to be in the lead.

• Done removed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "that Eliot contributed for a series of thirty-eight pamphlets by several authors collectively titled Ariel poems and released by British publishing house Faber and Gwyer (later, Faber and Faber).": this is awful wordy and detailed for the lead—how about: "that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series published by Faber and Gwyer"?

• Done -- I revised it as "that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series of 38 pamphlets by several authors published by Faber and Gwyer." The 38 pamphlets and several authors I think is salient to mention--as the next sentence mentions A Song for Simeon was 16th.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not that I would withhold support over a detail like this—obviously the information should be in the article—but it does seem trivial to me at the lead level, and doesn't seem to contribute to helping the reader get their bearings before diving into the meat of the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Reply: True, but I don't want the line to imply that Eliot wrote the entire series and I think it's important to mention (a) there were 38 in the seriesand (b) written by different authors...since the lack of that detail doesn't give me enough meat to know eliot didn't write all of them or what did being part of the series mean.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "was accompanied by illustrations drawn by": illustrations are normally presumed to be drawn by someone, and "accompanied" could imply the illustrations were somehow separate, as in a two-volume set, the second of which was of illustrations. How about just "illustrated by"?

• Done - I simplified it to "and included an illustration by" since "illustrated by" implies to me that they're a functional part of the story, like a children's book, here is was little more than an accompanying image to fill a blank page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "American-born avant garde artist": personally I'd leave these details out of the lead unless you find them particularly pertinent.

• Done - I removed "American-born" - I think avant garde is appropriate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• When "A Song for Simeon" refers to the volume rather than the poem it should be in italics.

• Reply - Is a one-poem pamphlet considered a volume? I don't think the italicization of book titles applies to this situation.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The italicization of the titles of printed objects applies to magazines, comic books, and newsletters. Sometimes newsletters are a single sheet of paper. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Reply: Well, if I read WP:NCBOOKS correctly, every instance of the name of the poem should be italicized like a book. Yet of the articles of well-known poems I looked at to compare--most of which were published as pamphlets--only 1 of 30 used italics. Lot of work ahead of me then once I can decide which way is up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • It does say that, doesn't it? Googling around, quite a number of sites draw a distinction between "long poems" (italicized, e.g. Paradise Lost), and shorter ones, which are put in quotes. It might be worth bringing up on the MoS talk page to have it either changed or clarified. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Reply Curly Turkey - I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Italicising small poem names and WP:NCBOOKS. One editor indicated that NCBOOKS is in conflict with MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Names and titles. It seems the major style guides--MLA, Chicago, APA, and AP--all say poem titles in quotations, and having gone through several dozen poem articles almost none comply with the MOS on this one, and looking through the reliable sources on this and other poem articles, none of them italicize. So, pending the MOS discussion's outcome, I propose we leave the status quo unchanged for the interim. If the MOS discussion makes a change to NCBOOKS because of this, it will likely endorse the status quo. If the discussion advises to italicise, I'll come back and fix this article (and many others) to comply. Is that ok with you?--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
          • My experience is the same (quotes for poems), but that's still tangential to the point of whether the title of the printed object, should be in italics. I wasn't suggesting the poem should be italicized or not throughout—I was only saying that the title of the pamphlet most likely should (regardless of whether the poem itself is or not). Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not Done - Well, the article is going to look odd if half the mentions are in quotations, the other half in italics...consistency should rule out. Further I'm not going to italicise the name of a two-page, one-poem pamphlet when (1) none of the sources cited in the article italicises, (2) no style guide including our MOS indicates it, and (3) comparable articles that were also short one-poem pamphlets on Wikipedia do not italicise. Quotations seem to be enough, and no MOS page says directly that a one-poem pamphlet (essentially just one short poem) should be. It seems the short poem rules apply and are those generally in practice, and the fact that it was first published as a two-page pamphlet is largely irrelevant (since later publications, read by most people who've come across the poem, are two pages of a "poem" in a long book). q.v. MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Names and titles and MOS:ITALICS#Italic type#Names and titles. The consensus that seems to have arisen from my question posited elsewhere (above) is that NCBOOKS is a weak guideline and often inconsistent with MOS, that it is not the MOS and that NCBOOKS needs to be changed. If pamphlets are to be italicised, nothing says so. The one-page newsletter analogue does not apply, IMHO. Since it's a short poem, many places including the MOS say quotations. So, I'll consider this unactionable lacking a direct MOS statement to the contrary. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• @Ian Rose: - what are your thoughts on this issue?--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "in both editions of Eliot's collected poems in 1936 and 1963.": I might reword this "in both the 1936 and 1963.editions of Eliot's collected poems", though I'm not sure this belongs in the lead at all (especially since the refs are the books themselves—what makes this point so important? Do secondary sources draw attention to it?)

• Done and Reply I revised it as suggested. It is important because the collected poems is where they really reached the wider audience, really became part of the Eliot oeuvre, whereas the pamphlets only went to the publisher's circle of clients and friends.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "on a decidedly religious character": I'd drop "decidedly"

• Reply - I used the word "decidedly" because Eliot's poetry and life prior to 1927 was decidedly areligious and his poetry post-conversion was deliberately Anglo-Catholic in perspective and seeking a faith-based answer to the deep questions it addressed, and the definition "without question, means to a great extent and in a way that is very obvious" is apt given the stark divide between the pre- and post-1927 worldview and nature of his poetry.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If "in a way that is very obvious" is the given definition, then we have a problem—substituting the word "obviously", for example, would be unacceptable. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Reply: "decidedly" I think is more precise and appropriate--especially since after conversion he wrote poems titled "Journey of the Magi", "Song for Simeon" and "Ash Wednesday"--all of which were obviously and deliberately religious. They didn't just happen to be religious by accident or luck. There was a deliberate, decisive decision on Eliot's part to write religious poetry. I don't see the problem with using a precise adjective to describe a decidedly precise, obvious, & deliberate action. To not indicate this would reduce clarity (i.e. along the vein as omitting information about the Ariel poems series could lead someone to believe Eliot wrote them all)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Writing and publication

• "In 1925 ... and "The Waste Land" (1922).": Generally, one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, though long ones are sometimes excepted. I'd merge this with the next paragraph.

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Right Reverend Thomas Banks Strong": I'm not religious and can't be bothered to look this up, but should "The" be capitalized? Also, I can't find the guideline, but I thought we were supposed to avoid using prenomials ("Doctor", "Sir", etc).

• Done and reply -- lowercased "The" per WP:THE other uses. I think the prenominal prohibition is in article names, but if either you or I find the MOS provision, I'll remove it. I think it would be rather harmless to leave it in until we find out for sure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:HONORIFIC and WP:NCCL seem to apply. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Done - Removed per WP:HONORIFIC, NCCL seems to apply only to article titles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "a classicist in literature, a royalist in politics, and an Anglo-Catholic in religion.": is this not a quote?

• Reply -- It would be a quote if we were to mention Eliot's complete expression and context (which was described specifically the point of view he brought to his new collection of essays). When it's mentioned like this to place it in quotes would be misleading and effectively misquote the sentiment. The editors who contribute to the Eliot articles have typically agreed to leave out quotations in this limited context/syntax rather than to misquote.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The original quote is: "The general point of view [of the essays] may be described as classicist in literature, royalist in politics, and anglo-catholic [sic] in religion." The above, I'm fairly certain, would qualify as close paraphrasing—the difference appears to be in the use or not of the indefinite article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Reply: The usage in this article is permissible per the policy since it (a) is attributed to both Eliot and his book, and (b) cited with three different sources at the end of the sentence, per WP:PARAPHRASE Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text...together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmmm ... I guess it conforms to the MoS, so I'll have to let it go, but I can't say I like it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "would inform and influence": or "informed and influenced"?

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "with some critics asserting that the Christian themes": I always have trouble understanding the issue, but you may want to see WP:PLUSING

• Reply (1) Not sure this applies since the "asserting" is the gerundive (verbal adjective) not a noun-derived adjective, and (2) Not sure what Tony1's grammatical hangup is since the essay seems more a complaint asserting his preferred idiom that functionally seeks to correct something that isn't wrong.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "with some critics": since it's one critic being quoted, is it really "some" who hold this opinion?

• Addressed He's definitely not alone, added another view, of George Orwell. There are many others, but these two are among the prominent voices.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is not so much whether "some" ciritics hold the opinion as whether "some" critics held the opinion in the concrete form of the quote. The specific quote needs attribution (not just citiation). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Done and Reply: I think the best way of approaching this is to split the sentences--with minor revisions. I think the way I revised it should be sufficient.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I think this is good. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "while others recognised it": ditto

• Addressed ditto. Stead devoted half a book to it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "one of the partners in Faber & Gwyer,": I think this is superfluous, since we know he's a Faber and were just told he was Eliot's employer

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "would release": did the series release itslef?

• Done - revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "from 1927 through 1931": were the poets "from 1927 through 1931"?

• Done - revised passage.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "this pamphlet, the sixteenth in the series on": comma after "series"?

• Done - comma added.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Faber & Gwyer, Ltd., printed "A Song for Simeon"": at this point I'd drop the "Ltd"

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "8½" × 5½" Demy": not all readers (especially international ones) will be familiar with the quote symbols used for "inch"—I'd spell it out (and a conversion couldn't hurt)

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Demy Octavo": "Demy" and not "Demi"? If so, is there something that could be linked to?

• Done It is "Demy". Linked it to "Paper size#North American paper sizes#Loose sizes#Other sizes" --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "(8vo)": again, is there something that could be linked to?

• Reply - since 8vo would link to the same place as Octavo, wouldn't that be overlinking? Example: if I write "earned a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree" I wouldn't link up "M.A."--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "pamphlet "in blue paper wraps with title in black ink"": Is there some reason this is quoted and not paraphrased? If so, shouldn't quotes be attributed in-text?

• Done removed quotations as superfluous. it was a fact of bibliographic information from the sources cited. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "accompanied by Kauffer's colour image,": "accompanied by a colour image by Kefauver"?

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "text was "Walbaum" created": looking at pages on fonts (e.g. Times New Roman), I don't think fonts are normally put in quotes. Also, I'd put a comma after "Walbaum".

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation and analysis

• "characterized by deliberately Biblical language interwoven with actual phrases from the Gospels.": quotes need to be attributed

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "traditional "Gospel Canticle" of Night Prayer": "Night Prayer" is capitalized—is there something that can be linked to?

• Reply - Night Prayer leads to a disambiguation page where there was only one relevant article, the Roman Catholic office of Compline which is already linked in the same paragraph. I've since added Anglican Evening Prayer which is also in the same paragraph.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• ""A Song for Simeon" is seen by some scholars as a tacit tribute by Eliot to his grandfather, "for the last years of a grandfather whose faith his grandson has at last taken up for himself."": again, is it really "some"? and we need an attribution

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Conversion

• "the pre-conversion poem": sounds almost like a poem about "pre-conversion"

• Done - revised/clarified.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "that the imagery "A Song for Simeon"—including the": "the imagery in" or "the imagery of"?

• Done - "of" added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "image of the feather to statement by": "a statement"?

• Done - revised sentence. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Ariel poems and "Ash Wednesday" all explore": drop "all"

• Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "But as he awaits and asks for his death Simeon's understanding": I can't make sense of this sentence

• Done - That was fixed in serving earlier comments.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Simeon wants nothing of this "time of sorrow",": "time of sorrow" is a quote from where? Eliot's poem?

• Addressed - Line 14 of the poem. Cited.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

• "Eliot denied the claim in his lifetime": "in his lifetime" can be taken for granted

• Done removed it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• ""the topoi of the Jew": what's a "topoi"? We're not supposed to link from within quotes, but can this be expanded or paraphrased to make it clear?

• Done - I addressed this in the process of serving the comments above. I linked it to Literary topos and did so despite that we're not supposed to generally since this is an exceptional case. Hopefully how I rearranged the section provides a better explanation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "rare imaginative power and empowering his art."": There is an endquote here—where does the quote begin?

• Reply I should probably remove the quotation mark since this is a synopsis of Julius' thesis. "rare imaginative power" is the only part verbatim from the source (p.28) --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

See also

• "also known as "Candlemas"": why are we being told this?

• Reply: Per WP:ALSO - "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known"...I would venture to say that most people in Western civilization/Christendom know the holiday as Candlemas--it's the name that appears on most mass cards, missals, the book of common prayer (esp. older editions), calendars, etc. The various Christian denominations have several different official names for the festal day on the liturgical calendar, and the name used here for the article is only one of several names employed (Candlemas, which should win as common name, is just a redirect). I added it the note because I think more would know Candlemas, whereas much smaller groups of readers would be knowing of the various official names for the feast, including Presentation of Jesus at the Temple or Presentation of the Lord, etc., most of which are recent (i.e. post 1960s renaming of the feast) and haven't usurped the place of "Candlemas". If I mention February 2nd is the "Feast of the Presentation" most people would scratch their heads...if I said Candlemas, a few more would know what I meant. Sadly, Americans only know it as Groundhog Day and are clueless on the theological significance of the day.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess I didn't notice this, since my religious knowledge is pretty thin, but shouldn't Presentation of Jesus at the Temple be linked at "bring the infant Jesus to be presented in the temple" in the "Gospel narrative and the Nunc dimittis" section rahter than in the "See also" section? And if "Candlemas" really is the common name for the topic, you might want to propose a page move on the talk page there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I've thought about doing a page move, and it's in the back of my thoughts...just my priorities haven't fallen in that direction just yet. have to get my ducks in a row.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I didn't think it was appropriate to link that lengthy passage to the article about the liturgical observance. Either way works, I just thought it worked better as a "see also".--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll get a chance to take care of these and the remainder of comments from Cwmhiraeth and Brianboulton this evening (06JAN14) or early tomorrow (07JAN14). I apologise for the delay, I had a busy weekend with some family matters.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: - I think I've addressed your comments--there are a few that I'd like have your feedback on my replies, and one will take me a few minutes to do but I will get done. If you see anything to add that I might have missed, do let me know. Thanks again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Curly Turkey: - Thanks for keeping an eye on this over the last two weeks, I really appreciate your attention. If you get the chance, as you review my other responses, in particular let me know if I did the logical quotation stuff right. It's not something I'm entirely confident about and want to make sure I addressed it correctly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The quotes look fine now. One thing I just noticed, though—given that it is disputed whether Eliot was anitsemitic or not, maybe the subsection title should be changed to "Alleged Anti-Semitism"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • @Curly Turkey: Probably would be a good idea to mitigate the accusation given the circumstances..."Alleged" sounds like a crime has been committed. Would "Debate on possible Anti-Semitism" or some other phrase work better? Perhaps even taking the loaded term "Anti-Semitism" out and saying "Simeon as a Jewish figure"? (What are you thoughts on this @Brianboulton: since we discussed the Anti-Semitism issue above?)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't have a strong preference. Maybe "Possible anti-Semitism"? "Arguments over anti-Semitism"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I like "Arguments over anti-Semitism" (Done)--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose. I'd still like to see the italics issue sorted out (third opinion, please, somebody), but I can't see opposing over such a hairsplit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

• Comment No links to the image captions, some of which really need them (but all suitable links should be added). Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Johnbod: -- do you mean linking terms in captions? like you did here--[24]?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done @Johnbod: I added a few (I very rarely link a term in a caption). Most of the other terms in captions are already linked in the article body near the image, so I'd rather avoid an WP:OVERLINK issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Henry, you have a few duplicate links (I presume you have access to the checker, ping me if not); I won't hold up promotion but pls review and see if you really need them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: I don't know how to use the checker or where to find it (I've never used it before, usually did it manually). Many thanks for the promotion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dup link script here (it displays the second and subsequent links, and treats the lead and the main body separately). Another useful one is the Harv error script here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC) [25].

---

Blue's Clues

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the groundbreaking children's TV show (and my son's favorite thing in the universe). It's been through some major changes since its last FAC, and I feel that it's ready to be scrutinized. Enjoy! And remember, you can do anything you want to do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll try to take a closer look at this later on. I remember that I opposed one of the past FACs for this article, and a cursory inspection looks better. One issue that jumped out at me was that the citations in the explanatory notes are not consistently formatted. The way they are done in note 2 is ideal, since that matches the rest of the article. The MOS doesn't allow mixing parenthetical references (like in notes 3–5) with footnoted citations. The direct external link in note 1 is right out. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that I'd appreciate it. You're right; your opposition, SO, was the reason for its last failure, and rightly so. You were correct in saying that this article needed more content summarized from studies, and since I didn't have the time to work on it, I withdrew the nomination. When I finally found the time, I did some more research, added some important content, and the article is much improved as a result. I also fixed the MOS problem; I believe all notes are consistent now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Charles and Matlin captions should end in periods

Done.

• Burns image: summary states that copyright holder gives "full privilege of this image to Wikipedia under the terms of fair use", which would seem to be both non-free and inconsistent with the given licensing tag - can we clarify the status of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, the statement you quoted was made by the creator of the image, and he created the licensing tag, too. Perhaps he tagged the image incorrectly? I suppose I could just go and correct his error, but would that be appropriate? Or do we have to contact him and ask if it could be done? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the statement suggests he doesn't really understand how licensing works, at least not in the Wikipedia context; however, as the account hasn't edited from 2008 I don't know that there's much chance of asking him. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So does that mean we should AGF, assume that he meant to release it, and just go and change the licensing? To be honest, I'm also good with scraping it, since it's not a very good image anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Change it to what, though? I'm all for AGF, but it's not clear to me under what license he intended to release it. It's also tagged for transfer to Commons, but with that summary on it would likely be deleted there. Any ideas? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your word that the image would probably be deleted at Commons, so I went ahead and removed it from this article. I think it's for the best. This article has in common the same issue with many articles about children's television programs: lack of images, due to protective copyrights. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, images look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Source for Emmy noms?
• Be consistent in how multi-author works are formatted, both in short cites and full refs
• Be consistent in how short cites using et al. are formatted

Above fixed/checked.

• Check for duplicate cites, for example FNs 1 and 11

Actually, this wasn't a duplicate; it was a typo. Ref 1 is part 1 and ref 2 is part 2. D'oh! ;)

• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
• FNs 86 and 87 should use endashes not emdashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

All done now. Wow Nikki, it always amazes me--the things you catch! Your attention to detail is remarkable. Thanks so much. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now - free time is patchy so this may be a bit piecemeal....queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In 1990, Congress passed the Children's Television Act, but the legislation did not specify how many hours of programming broadcasters were required to air. - you need to explain what the act was supposed to do, as is, article jumps into specifics rather suddenly.

'Kay, didn't think it was possible since it's linked, but have done as you asked.

Yeah, I know it was linked, but just a little explanation like what you just added helps the flow alot. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The character Blue was originally conceived as a cat, and the name of the show was to be "Blue's Prints", but Blue became a dog and the name was changed because Nickelodeon was already producing a show about a cat. - what was that?

People have asked that before. I can't tell you because none of the sources tell what it was.

Damn, I was curious to know....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Casting was an important part of the success of Blue's Clues. - be good to have some follow-on explanation here.

Um, I do explain it, when I describe the casting of the different characters. I can see that the statement's a little vague, so I can omit it if you like.

Not just yet - am thinking about this bit. Did muse upon moving para 1 down to para 3 and moving paras 2 and 3 up. If this is done, the sentence could be removed. But not sure if this is an unequivocal improvement....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea, so I went ahead and did it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Traci Paige Johnson was cast as Blue's voice because, of the show's crew, she sounded the most like a dog. - ??? how/why?

Um, she went, "Bark-bark-bark". What are you asking here?

Well, it is an odd statement that begs for some embellishment - if none can be added, so be it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Behind the Music documentary says that they decided to use staff as Blue's voice, and so they went around the conference table and she was chosen because she sounded most like a dog. Is that the embellishment you're talking about? I didn't include it because it seemed so weird, but I can make it work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Outside comment: I understand what is meant, though it sounded odd to my ears at first too. Does "she was able to sound the most like a dog" work? I've boldly changed that, but please feel free to revert if you don't like the wording. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also according to Johnson, Joe's character was more like a preschooler and more innocent than Steve. - needs a ref.

NB: mdashes are unspaced.

Where? Could you please give me examples?

I meant they should be - fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing them for me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a smash hit, largely due to the intensive and extensive research its producers employed - "intensive and extensive" comes across as laboured. I think one adjective is enough here, just choose a good one.....

All the above addressed. Thanks, looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

To conclude - have read over this more - I think it is looking pretty good. Will read again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support in comprehensivenessa and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

Resolved issues

Some places use the serial comma (e.g. "children's programming, educational software, and licensing"), while other places omit it (e.g. "Producers Angela Santomero, Todd Kessler and Traci Paige Johnson"). I don't mind helping fix this as I proofread, but which do you prefer? I prefer the serial comma. I'll go through and check too. Thanks for the catch. I don't understand why the 1997 FCC ruling is relevant. Blues Clues had already premiered by then, and it did not affect Nickelodeon's programming obligations. It establishes that Nick had already done the right thing in regards to children's programming. It serves as background for the setting and situation of the time. Ah, I see. What if you started the History section with this? "Blue's Clues was developed during a transitional period for children's television. In 1990, Congress had passed the..." That way, the relevance is completely clear to the reader. (If you can think of more accurate wording than "transitional period", that's fine.) – Quadell (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I like your wording just fine, so I added it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Who was Johnson quoting in the interior quote of "he didn't want to be a children's host..."? That was an error in how the quote was presented. I fixed it, and it's more clear now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) I feel like the following clause, while grammatical, are a tad confusing and could use rewording. "most other US TV shows made for young children were violent and created for the purpose of selling toys"—"Made" looks at first like a verb, though it's a description; "young children were violent" look like a meaningful segment, though the juxtaposition is accidental; "created" looks like a verb saying what the shows did, but you're saying that they were created. I see your point. Changed it to: "...and most other US educational TV shows were violent and were created for the purpose of selling toys." I wanted to be specific about the audience of these shows, but after thinking about it, I don't think it's necessary to be so specific, since the statement probably also applied to shows for older kids. That's very clear and concise, thank you. – Quadell (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "but Blue became a dog and the name was changed because Nickelodeon was already producing a show about a cat"—This sounds like the name was changed because of the existing cat show, but it sounds like the species was changed for this reason. (It isn't obvious why the name changed, but it doesn't seem related to the species.) Another good point. I simply added the word "show's" to make it clearer. I changed the order of the phrases to improve clarity. (As with all my changes for this review, please feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree.) – Quadell (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "a DVD compilation of "milestone" episodes that included first host Steve Burns' 2002 departure and a 12-minute retrospective..."—I think you mean the DVD included these things, the compilation of episodes included them. I re-structured the sentence, so that it's clearer now. "His role was to empower, challenge and increase the viewers' self-esteem"—he wasn't there to challenge their self-esteem. Later comment: I see now that this is very close to a direct quote at the top of the "Educational goals" section. I think that sentence should be entirely reworded for two reasons: it's grammatically unclear, and it's too close to the source's wording. I cut the offending phrase because you're right, it does essentially say the same thing as the next sentence, and then did some cutting and clarifying. Hopefully, it's satisfactory now. The text says the each episode was tested "in preschool environments such as Head Start programs, public schools, and private daycare centers". Two sentences later, it says the pilot was tested "at daycare centers, preschools, and Head Start programs throughout the New York City area". That feels a tad redundant. If you simply said "at various locations throughout the New York City area" would any information be lost? No, it wouldn't, and of course you're right about the redundancy. In the sentence about the pilot, I cut everything except "throughout the NYC area". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) "who had to translate and embody the vision of the show on-screen"—I don't really know what that means. I changed that before, by striking the sentence because it seemed repetitious to me. Oh yeah... Okay, that's resolved. – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Does cite 53 (Tracy, pp. 42–43) cover the statement about Fruit Stripe gum, or just the quote about textures and colors? Yes it does, but I went ahead and inserted the extra ref. The sourcing is now much improved. – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Does cite 73 (Tracy, pp. 54–57) cover every claim in the second half of that paragraph, from producer and director credits, to soundtrack info, to the claim that "young audience enthusiastically accepted [Tom Mizer]", to script changes, to sorts of humor used? I want to doublecheck, because the "enthusiastically accepted" claim in particular needs support. I added more refs and changed the wording a bit. Excellent, the sourcing is quite tight here. – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Note 4 includes a direct quote: "Not even the developers of the software knew it could be used to create character animation on scale Blue's Clues was using it". There seems to be a missing article before "scale". Was that error in the source, or in the transcription? Most likely in the transcription. Thanks for the catch. "As of 2002, over 2 million people had attended over 1,000 performances [of the live production]." Is there any data more recent than that? (A five-year-old that saw the show in 2002 would be 17 now.) Yes, that's the most recent information. I wasn't able to find how long the show ran, or if it's still in production. Remember that BC is aging; if a child was five when the show premiered in 1996, he or she would be 23 now--a college student. Yikes! ;) Ah well, we can't go beyond the sources. – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC) "...with five-to-ten signs used consistently in each episode"—at first I thought that meant signs for the numbers 5–10. It would be clearer if reworded as "with between five and ten signs used". Ok, whatever you say. ;) Fixed as per your request. The penultimate paragraph (beginning "David Gesler...") is brief and problematic, made up of two unrelated parts. The first two sentences are about a Murray prof who "used Blue's Clues" (somehow) to introduce research methods to undergraduates. It's not very well described, and leaves the reader unsure of what went on, or how it relates to the rest of the section, which is all about preschoolers. The second part is a single sentence about how Blue's Clues is not technically interactive. I think the part about Gesler's use at Murray should be omitted, since it feels like confusing trivia that doesn't fit in well with the rest. Then the sentence about Shalom M. Fisch would be more at home in paragraph 2 of "Influence", which describes three different studies and directly relates to whether the show is interactive, and in what ways. Done as you suggest, although I separated the 2nd paragraph after inserting the Fisch comment because the rest of the paragraph, about the Bryant study is a different topic. Excellent. But there seems to be a Cite error now... – Quadell (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Oops, fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC) The lead mentions "rumors that surrounded his [Steve Burns'] departure", but I don't see where this is mentioned in the article body. Thanks for the catch; it was an artifact of a previous version that went more in depth about Burns' departure. This brings up a question for me, though: I made an editorial decision to exclude any details about it (i.e., that there were persistent rumors about his death, possible drug overdose, ect., and that was the reason he left the show) because I thought it better belonged in Steve's bio. To be honest, another reason, I decided to not include it here was that the vandalism about the rumors is a pain to deal with. (I swear, it amazes me how, almost ten years after the show stopped production, how persistent it is; to this day, we still have to deal with people--usually anonymous IPs--who believe it and insist that it's true, despite evidence to the contrary.) Anyway, do you think that we should include it here, anyway? In my opinion, the debate/confusion applies directly to the actor, but does not directly apply to the show. So I think it's most appropriate to keep it in the biography article, not here. – Quadell (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC) I agree, I don't think it applies to the show either. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC) I'll continue reviewing over the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate it muchly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Finished with your comments thus far. Thanks, looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your patience. I'll finish the review as soon as I can. – Quadell (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your input thus far. Helpful as always! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, I've finished my review and copyedit. Those last two issues are all that remain. – Quadell (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC) All done addressing them. Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. After a careful review, I think this passes all our FA criteria. All my concerns have been addressed, and I'm impressed with the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

History

• "PBS was one of the few sources for children's educational television programming in the U.S., and most other US educational TV shows were violent and were created for the purpose of selling toys." needs a WP:IC and clearer context (the beginning of the paragraph is talking about 1990 and the end 1997).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Added both; ref 4 applied to everything before it, but I added the extra one anyway.

• "show about a cat", which one?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Already addressed above; the sources don't tell us.

Format

• This section is oddly devoid of wikification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Added a few more. I try to avoid over-linking, and many of the terms in this section have already been linked. Please, if you think I've missed any, go ahead and add them.

Done with Tony's comments; waiting eagerly for more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Educational goals

• When you say viewer participation are you talking about kids standing up and talking to the television?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yum, yeah. The statement says that the kids "actively participated with what they saw". What is it you want me to do?

The first time you use the phrase you need to say viewer participation (exhibited by oral or physical response), IMO. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Added the phrase "in the form of spoken or physical response from the audience" the first time it's mentioned.

Production

• When you say "Each episode . . . took approximately one year to complete" do you mean that scripts were worked on individually. It would seem to me that since there was such a repetitive element to the show that maybe they worked on several scripts at a time in production or at least some elements of them were worked on in that way. Otherwise, I can't fathom 1 year/episode.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what the source says. The process it took to complete an episode was a year. Yes, I'm sure they didn't work on just one episode at a time, but I don't think that's what this is saying here.

Well later they say that they played the same episode every day. I am a bit confused here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I can help you with that. ;) I think that this is a case of being unfamiliar with television production. What do you think of this: "Each episode was in development, from idea development to final production, for approximately one year."

Reception

• It is 2014 and nothing in this section seems to detail anything about the last 10 years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember, although the show still runs on Nickelodeon, it ended production in 2006. The most recent study conducted on it was in 2009. The show is aging, and as it ages, it's receiving less and less attention.

Where in the main text does it say when the show ended?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you say original production ended but repeats continue to air somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't, since there's no source out there that states that the show still re-runs on Nick Jr. or that Amazon Prime or that DVDs are still sold. I guess I could add it, but wouldn't that be OR? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• At this point, I am ready to Support this article for promotion, although I would encourage further wikification in general.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria

This is a nice article and I'll be supporting, but a few nitpick - haven't read all the way through yet:

History

" largely due to the extensive research its producers employed" > largely due to the producers' research? For some reason "employed" stopped me in my tracks.

That's research-speech; changed.

Casting

• Mention the year/date Patton replaced Burns?

It states in the previous paragraph that Burns left in 2002.

• Thanks, I glazed over! Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Format

• Consider moving the long blockquote from the very top of the section. It renders in very small font and I skipped right over it!

I'd like to keep it there, if I may. This section has been through different formats, and other editors have advised me to put the blockquote first, since its current organization (a description of the format followed by explaining its purpose) makes most sense.

• Okay, I had a sense it was probably something you've worked on a bit. Not a problem really. Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Educational goals

• The parenthical about Wilder joining later - maybe make that a note?

Done.

• "They found that as the pilot progressed, not only was children's attention captured and sustained, but they became excited and actively participated with what they saw, to the point that they stood up to get closer to the television and spoke back to the host.[42]" > something wrong here: I'm having problems with the "not only was" (were?)

Technically, it's grammatically correct, since the "was" modifies "attention", not "captured and sustained". But I've learned to trust editors' instincts, especially if they're native speakers. I changed it to: "They found that as the pilot progressed, children's attention was not only captured and sustained, but they became excited and actively participated with what they saw..."

• This reads better, thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The production of Blue's Clues was based on research that showed that television, a "cultural artifact" accessible for most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent".[36]" Maybe rewrite to remove repetition of "that" that and something is missing in front of a "cultural artifact"

Reworded to: "Twenty years worth of research had showed that television, a "cultural artifact" accessible to most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent"." I think it's improved.

• Ref needed at the end of fourth paragraph

Done.

• "Like what had already been done in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, which also inspired the producers" > maybe "similar to Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, which also inspired the producers"

Ok, done.

Production

• day care or daycare?

Day care.

Fix daycare in this section? Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Lots of use of subjunctive "would" > I removed some, but maybe check for more

I saw that, thanks. I'll look for more myself when I return in a little while. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Came back to complete; I think that things are improved in this area now.

• "The music, produced by composer Michael Rubin and pianist Nick Balaban, was unlike that in most other children's shows. The music was simple, had a natural sound, and exposed children to a wide variety of genres and instruments." > suggest simplifying and combining: "The music, produced by composer Michael Rubin and pianist Nick Balaban, was simple had a natural sound, and exposed children to a wide variety of genres and instruments" to leave out the comparative "was unlike ...."

Done.

I'll finish reading through tomorrow, but wanted to mention that at a quick glance, the "Influence" section seems stuffed compared to the other shorter sections. Any way to split it up? I haven't read it yet, so no suggestions. Nice job! Oh, and by the way - for some reason I did not know Blue was female! Victoria (tk) 01:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about putting in some subsections? I'll wait until you get to your comments about this section before I proceed. Ha ha, you wouldn't believe how many people don't know that Blue's a girl! I actually almost got into fisticuffs with another mom about it! ;) Thanks for your comments; looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, don't see how you can, answered below (got caught in an edit conflict). Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Reception

• "Other countries have produced regional versions of the show" > flip, so as to read: "Regional versions of the show have been produced in other countries"? (make the show the subject?)

Done.

Influence

• I've read it now and see that all this material goes together, but am wondering whether a more appropriate section title might work to highlight that much of the section explains the underlying research on childhood development and media? Is that a way of characterizing? Anyway, it's an interesting section and haven't found any nitpicks there.

This is pretty standard practice for articles such as this. I suppose we could re-name the section "Research findings". Does anyone else have an opinion?

Quick question: does the research influence how other such pre-school TV shows are developed? If so, then I think influence is fine. If the sources specifically say that research about Blue's Clues is valuable in terms of developing similar productions, might be worth leading the section with a statement to that effect. I should probably have a look at your other articles to see how it's done there before making a mess here! Victoria (tk) 17:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

BC research hasn't really affected children's TV all that much, and there hasn't been much in the literature about it. Sesame Street research definitely affected the production of BC, and that's stated in this article. The practice of moving from a magazine format to a more narrative one influenced SS, which is also stated here and in those articles, which I also work on. It's standard practice for Nickelodeon to use research in the production of all their shows, but it's almost always been that way, although that's not something I've seen in the literature, either. So the reason why your suggestion isn't in this article is that there's nothing out there about it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining - I think, more than anything, I was simply curious. It's interesting stuff and you've done a nice job presenting. You've taken care of all the issues I had. Victoria (tk) 13:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Support: As I said, nice job! Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [26].

---

Early Netherlandish painting

Nominators: Ceoil, Victoria

c 15th century school largely responsible for the Northern Renaissance. This follows a few years work from both nominators, and ends a long lost collaboration with the now sadly retired Outriggr and Kafka Liz, both of whom made significant contributions to the page. Thanks to Brianboulton, Tim riley, Johnbod, Riggr Mortis and Fram for their exhaustive help in the lead up and PR. Ceoil (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Lamgods_open.jpg needs more complete source information - artist, date, etc
• File:Agnes_van_den_Bossche_Flag_of_the_City_of_Ghent.jpg needs US PD tag. Same with File:Nassau_book_of_hours_Folio_133r.jpg, File:The_Mystic_Capture_of_the_Unicorn,_fragment_(2).jpg, File:Weyden_madonna_1440.jpg, File:Looting_of_the_Churches_of_Lyon_by_the_Calvinists_1562.jpg
• File:The_Magdalen_Reading_-_Rogier_van_der_Weyden.jpg: can we use creation date instead of upload date?
• File:Cambrai,_Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_de_Grâce,_icône_F_581.jpg: licensing, date and author given are incorrect - should use the info for the original work, not the upload. Same with File:Hans_Memling_025_et_026.jpg, File:Seguace_di_dirck_bouts,_dittico_con_mater_dolorosa_e_cristo_coronato_di_spine,_1450-1500_ca._01.JPG
• File:The_marriage_at_cana1_wga.jpg needs full source info
• File:Ghent_altarpiece_at_Altaussee.jpg: can we be more specific on the source? Is this from their website, does it have an ID number? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, Nikki - thanks so much for these. The most difficult will be the last. I used it for the Alps and had a really hard time finding it (and of course forgot to upload the record!). The closest I can come now - after tons of searching is this [27], but I'd like to spend some time figuring out which record group it belongs to. If I can't, I'll contact NARA next week for help. Victoria (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Re File:Ghent_altarpiece_at_Altaussee.jpg, I've also found this record [28] which suggests it might have been removed from the Digital archives. For now, I'll remove from the article and follow up with NARA after the holidays. Victoria (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Have fixed the other files. Ceoil (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: I am really pleased to see this article here, as I believe it is a considerable feather in the encyclopedia's cap – the product of in-depth research, and true dedication to the subject. My only caveat is my own unfamiliarity with the subject-matter; I reviewed the article at PR largely from a presentational and readability standpoint, and I would very much like to see comments from someone with the specialised knowledge that I lack. I will add a sources review presently (unless someone gets there first). Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, and again for the lenghty PR. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• That's very nice of you to say Brian! Thanks again for the close reading in the PR and for your support. Victoria (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod I will be supporting this impressive piece of work, but I do have some comments. My contributions, mainly on the talk page, are noted in the nom. Apologies for missing the peer review, which I kept half an eye on without doing full comments.

• "the decline of the International Gothic style..." (my bold)- in Italy maybe, in the north the EN style developed nicely out of IG springboard-fashion, I'd have thought.

• Yes, adressed now. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The period is also noted for its tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass, carved retables and sculptures." Isn't sculpture of the quality to match the painting rather puzzlingly absent, at least from 1420-1500? The "tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass" have quite an overlap with painters working as designers, & it might be good to say so - I'll see what is said later. But there is quite a contrast with 15th-century Tuscany, which produced outstanding work in many media.

• Sculpture mentioned now in the lead. The overlap is address further down, but considering mentioning it here also; its a crucial point. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• "when the Low Countries became a political and economic centre noted for its crafts and luxury goods" - hmm, it was I think the economic powerhouse of the period, wealthy as much from trading basic commodities as manufactured goods. "In the workshop system, art works were produced on commissions from foreign princes ..." yes but this was only at all typical for manuscripts, tapestries etc, not panel paintings. "Religious art in general was not well regarded from the early 17th to the mid-19th century..." - I would have said "Northern art in general was not well regarded from the early 17th to the mid-19th century", except for Durer maybe. Italian religious painters, many now wholly out of fashion, did very well in criticism in this period.

• I see Victoria has addressed these. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• "These artists became an early driving force behind the Northern Renaissance and the move away from the Gothic style. In this political and art-historical context, the north follows the Burgundian lands which straddled areas that encompass parts of both modern France and Germany. It excludes eastern Scandinavia, Poland and areas bordering Russia – cultures that were pursuing their own artistic and quite separate heritage, reinforced by the Orthodox Christianity of Russia." - bit jumbled up somehow, especially "the north follows". Surely we have to mention Belgium here?

• Yes, Pacht mentions Belgium and all the geography as does Ainsworth and others. Will take another stab at this. Seems to me that some parts here are remnants from a very early version of the page. Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• I've added Flanders and Artois. Can pipe Flanders to Belgium if you think that would be wise, or add Belgium separately. Also not sure we need the following sentence about Scandinavia and Russia. If you and Ceoil agree, I wouldn't mind seeing that one pruned out. Victoria (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that somewhere it should be made clear we are largely talking about what is today Belgium. There are various places it could be slipped in. Agree about the Central Europe sentence, which strays from the central subject & might confuse the reader. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree - Belgium and Holland work best at this point in the page. I've snipped out the other sentence. Victoria (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Illumination reached its peak in the region in the decades around 1400," and "By mid-century, demand for illuminated manuscripts declined" not views MS specialists like McKendrick would share I think - they'd say later in both cases, as far as the top end is concerned. Printing impacted demand for luxury MS very rapidly after about 1465 though.

• Have made a start on this, but think I need to find wider sources. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• I've brought out to Charles the Good and beyond per Kren at the Getty. Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Resolved down to here Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've edited the printmaking bit for terminology, but (quarreling with Nash as cited again) if you are going to talk of opening a new market, Israhel van Meckenem is the name to mention, and he may at least have been originally Netherlandish, and grew up & died in Bocholt, Germany, only 4 km over the modern border, also working in Dutch-speaking Kleve on the border. Unlike the other 2 who were Germans through & through (though Schongauer would be French in modern terms).
• "Two events symbolically and historically reflect this shift: the transporting of a marble Madonna and Child by Michelangelo to Bruges in 1506, and the movement of Raphael's tapestry cartoons to Brussels in 1517" - the Raphael cartoons were sent to the north to be woven (as the article says lower down), then sent back to Rome, because the northern workshops had pretty well always been the best. I don't think this was a new thing for Italian patrons to do. Nash again (not seen the book).

• Ainsworth seems to think the presence of the Raphael cartoons in the city were noteworthy and mentions them as influencing styles, so I've tweaked the section only slightly to slip in another source. Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "A full break from the mid-15th-century style and subject matter was not seen until the development of Northern Mannerism around 1590." - Hmm, that article (mainly by moi) dates the start of the Netherlandish/Rudolfine phase to the 1580s, and ignores Pieter Aertsen & the like, which perhaps it should not. "arrival in the Netherlands" might be better than "development", especially with the Fontainebleau School running from the 1520s.
• "During the Middle Ages, Gothic and later Romanesque [!!] architecture were the dominant art forms. The 14th century saw radical developments in painting as architecture stagnated, and by the end of the century painting had overtaken it in prestige and demand." - can we just cut the first sentence & find a politer word than "stagnated" which is very arguable?

• I cut that sentence and the bit about stagnation. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• This all seems to have gone. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the Franco-Flemish Limbourg Brothers" - they were Dutch northern Netherlanders, born in Nijmegen, not Flemish at all, though they worked there but more in France I think. Small "b" for brothers?

• Fixed these. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Now "Illumination reached a peak with artists from what is now France, epitomised by the Limbourg brothers and later by the Netherlandish artist known as Hand G..." which isn't really right, as the examples are not "artists from what is now France", though most other top artists probably still were. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Trimmed out a bit. Victoria (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "A number of artists traditionally associated with the movement had linguistic origins that were neither Dutch nor Flemish in the modern sense. The Francophone van der Weyden was born Rogier de la Pasture." Hmm, another very touchy issue. The court & nobility I think all used French in company and in writing. Are we sure what Rogier's mother tongue was? That he is first recorded in a French translation means nothing - English and German baptismal registers tended to use Latin until the 18th century.

• Francophone gone at least. van der Weydens orgions are obviously obscure yes. Material on the different spelling of his and others names is interesting, but very hard to find. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Pacht says born in Tournai. Would that work? Victoria (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly :) Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Added and tweaked. Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

More later Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. Working through these, some are easier addressed than others. Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod - a very good set of comments! Victoria (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I can do any/much more until 1/1. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry - you've done a lot today. Happy New Year! Victoria (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Part 2
• "Gerard David linked the styles of Bruges and Antwerp, often travelling between the cities. He moved to Antwerp in 1505, when Quentin Matsys was the head of the local painters' guild, and the two became friends. David's style is more fluid than van Eyck's; his lines are easier, avoiding diagonals in favour of balanced verticals and horizontal strokes, and his paintings often have deep and harmonious colouring." All true I'm sure, but the 2nd sentence comes a bit oddly since the article hasn't been doing much in that way. "and his paintings often have deep and harmonious colouring" is a bit limp - isn't that true of van Eyck too?

• I've pruned it out. Not sure this is the place for it, and you make a good point. Victoria (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Albrecht Dürer emulated van Eyck's precision while focusing on the secular" a bit odd as his paintings were small portraits or large religious works, & his prints were a mix also, with the religious ones the big sellers in his own day.

• Again, pruned the "secular" phrase. Victoria (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Bosch followed his own muse, diverting from the Renaissance humanism that inspired the art of the period" - didn't we say EN didn't draw from Ren Hum, unlike the the Italians, higher up? Depends on date I suppose.

• Rephrased as did not draw from Italian painting. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Reformation brought changes in outlook and artistic expression, as it became usual to depict biblical figures in a more human and approachable manner, and moralism and didacticism increased." - yes, but most importantly the main religious subject-matter of EN painting previously became virtually extinct in the Protestant world as far as panel painting was concerned. There are precious few Protestant paintings of "biblical figures" for the rest of the EN period. It's a complicated subject & I haven't read Ainsworth, but it isn't obvious that Aertsen is an example of "moralism and didacticism increased". The "mannerist inversion" of his work & the world landscape can as or more easily be seen as the religious content having to take what is really a secondary role to the secular background and genre material.

• I've rewritten a bit and removed Aertsen because I think it's too specific for this page which should be more of an overview. I tried to stuff too much into a few sentences there. Ainsworth does say exactly what you say about Aertsen, (that he shows an "inversion of the premise of devotional painting") but it follows a much longer explication of moving from devotional to secular. (I do like The Egg Dance) though! Victoria (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. Is "provisionally" the best word later (re Brueghel)? Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Innovations in the handling and manipulation of oil paint define the era" - should the Vasarian myth that van Eyck invented painting in oils be mentioned? Maybe - ok in a note I see- maybe promote? As I understand it oil paint was originally mainly used as it is today in house decorating, to give a tough waterproof cover for woodwork, especially outside. That the EN artists were the first to make it the dominant or exclusive medium for panel paintings should be said, & isn't quite. The benefits are nicely covered, but it might be mentioned that it was now usually necessary to paint in several stages, often days apart.

• I've too wondered whether we should slip Vasari in (also on the to do list!) and have added it as a note on the first mention of van Eyck's use of oils. Haven't developed the rest though. Victoria (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes its better now! Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tweaked round here to "The innovations of Campin, van Eyck and van der Weyden established naturalism as the dominant element in the style of 15th-century northern European painting" - "motif" is usually best avoided, imo. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Most surviving panels are painted on both sides" - "most" surprized me; should once except polytch panels from this?

• Clarified as many surviving panels are painted on both sides or with the reverse bearing family emblems, crests or ancillary outline sketches. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know why we have 2 decent articles on Glue-size and Tüchlein, which are surely the same thing? "a technique usually known by the German term tüchlein" - I'd query that (for English). The NG don't I think use it at all.

• That was on a to do list for a while; both articles had taken different approcahes so thankfully the now merged article is double what we had with either. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. Will check that some time. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "even the more affluent patrons had little say in the design of the final product.[60]" Hmm. Usually we just don't know, but there are often signs that, as you would expect, those paying could if they wanted have a considerable influence.

• Presumably they requested the specific saint(s), setting and asked that they might appear in it. But cut, it was a weak statement. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see Ainsworth has stuff on this. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, she does. Thought it was in. Will either try to find and retrieve or rewrite. Victoria (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• It's still in the "Patronage" section: "Members of the merchant class typically commissioned smaller devotional panels, containing specifically desired themes, images or motifs.[6] A different process applied to the upper end of the market.[7]" > I think for an overview this is probably fine, but could expound more in the diptych/triptych section if you think necessary and not too duplicative. Victoria (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I spun out more in long series of edits, but can be seen here. Victoria (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Although it ensured a high level of quality of membership it drew from a narrow pool as the self-governing bodies usually granted membership to wealthy applicants"- not very clear what this is saying.

• a self-governing body that tended towards other wealthy applicants, thus drawing from a narrow pool. The last bit could probably go. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "continue to produce variations of his original designs without informing patrons of the master's death." - was this that common? In the very small cities you'd think the death of a master would be known to customers anyway.

• I meant more for internation trade, but it does need to be clarified, if not cut. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Cut for now. Victoria (tk) 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "These painters sold much of their work during the six-week fairs in Bruges and Antwerp, as well as selling out of their workshops.[69]" - and working uncredited for other more popular masters. At least in later periods this was probably the most common.

• I see Wehwalt is on to this bit, so I'll leave it to him. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Specific works were not usually produced on commission;" - should specify "smaller works", and possibly common manuscript titles. Not true for big altarpieces.

• Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Burgundian dukes tended towards extravagance" - sounds a bit limp! They were all VERY extravagant, but could afford to be.

• Sly dig, now removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "While Early Netherlandish paintings were not so heavily lined with gold that they had intrinsic value, they were perceived as being of the first rank of European painting" - messy. What 'lining'. I see what is meant but not well put. Also "The consolidation of ducal households under Burgundian rule created a large class of courtiers and functionaries" needs a bit of clarifying. The Count of Holland was not a Duke etc.

• Started to rephrase but could be better: While Netherlandish panel paintings did not have intrinsic value as did for example gilded sculpture, they were perceived as precious objects and in the first rank of European art. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I changed the example to "objects in precious metals", as the recoverable gold from gilding wasn't that much, and the non-recyclable materials for paintings were probably more expensive. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The paintings of the first generation of Netherlandish artists are often characterised by the use of symbolism and biblical references, typically expressed through iconography". Bit limp - how else would it be expressed? Also "Each of these artists tended towards the dramatic,..." and "realism appears to blend with symbolism" - "symbolism is expressed through realistic detail" maybe, or cut the next sentence pretty much says that.

• All reworded now. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "From the 16th century portrayals of the life of Christ tended to be centred on the iconography of the Man of Sorrows" - earlier than that surely?

• 15th century Netherlandish portrayals... but not very happy with it. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Part 3
• error message at note 41

• Not seeing this, and probably no longer note 41. Is it still there? Victoria (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's sorted Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "According to art historian Susie Nash, the region led the field in almost every aspect of portable visual culture, "with specialist expertise and techniques of production at such a high level that no one else could compete with them"" - that would make a Florentine snort, now or then. Does she limit it by period or area? Perhaps not too contentious for after 1500 in northern Europe (and esp. say after 1550), but very much so for all Europe in 1430 I'd say.

  Early 16th century. Ceoil (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• "... whereas ducal patrons commissioned fewer portraits. Those that were commissioned functioned to document lines of succession, such as van der Weyden's portrait of Charles the Bold; or for betrothals as in the case of van Eyck's lost Portrait of Isabella of Portugal" Hmm. "fewer" than who? There are, I'm pretty sure, more 15th century versions of portraits of Phillip the Good than of anyone else. "document lines of succession" sounds a bit odd - they had family trees, illuminated or not, for that. "celebrate" maybe. What is noticeable about French & Netherlandish royal portraits is that they were slow to take up the Italian lead in making royal portraits an extra-grand hieratic genre, which started in Italy in fresco, & moved to oil. The portaits of Philip (and his circle of magnates) look pretty much like those of merchants, except in the Rogier miniature you illustrate. Don't know if sources cover that. I might have something.

  Okay, I'll re-read the source. Victoria (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Tweaked somewhat according to the source I have and attributed. Victoria (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorted. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• " Van der Weyden designed tapestries, though few survive" - makes it sound like he was the only one, but weren't most tapestries with elaborate scenes designed by painters, even if we don't know who? You say that below. Vrancke van der Stockt did some, and later on Bernard van Orley was a specialist.

• Seems to have gone, so ok. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Single leaf miniatures - the way the Christus example is placed, and is followed by "These artists", makes it sound as if he is one of the Paris boys. Clarification & maybe rearrangement needed.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Philip the Good, the latter of whom collected more than a thousand illuminated books before his death" - indeed, which seems to have been a far bigger number than any previous secular illuminated library, and he encouraged his circle like Louis de Gruuthuse to collect, who in turn influenced Edward IV when he stayed with him in exile. A bit more might be added (I could help here).

  Yes, have been searching for more on this but have found little so far. Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Just read about this! In Kren maybe? Will check. Victoria (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I have the very fat: Kren, T. & McKendrick, Scot (eds), Illuminating the Renaissance - The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, Getty Museum/Royal Academy of Arts, 2003, ISBN 19033973287, which covers this. Also McKendrick, Scot; Lowden, John; Doyle, Kathleen, (eds), Royal Manuscripts, The Genius of Illumination, 2011, British Library, ISBN 9780712358156, which is very full on Edward IV. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• For some reason I'm able to read Kren online (at least for now!) and I've taken notes that I'll stream in later tonight or tomorrow. I think the intro has a good overview that can be used here – not sure how much detail to use. Won't know until I start digging in. At hand (and not yet consulted) I have: Husband, Timothy. (2008). The Art of Illumination: The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean Berry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13671-5 which from what I remember is quite detailed but might also have a useful overview. Victoria (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, important point, have spun it out a bit. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok sorted nicely Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Limbourg brothers's ornate Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, perhaps marks the high point of illumination" - this whole para is rather oddly placed, as they were right at the start of the period, and worked for a French Valois. One could move earlier and say they marked the emergence of EN illuminators as top dogs perhaps?

  Rejigged somewhat. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "By the early 19th centuty inserts had again become fashionable, this time amongst connoisseurs. Prints and originals were highly sought after, a revival that helped the rediscovery of Netherlandish art in the later part of the century." "inserts" need clarifying, & the whole thing might need rewording. How do the prints relate? They weren't normally copies of miniatures, if original prints are meant. Manuscript collecting was much less subject to fashion than paintings, & MS in a library were much safer than paintings on a wall.

• Unsure about this - maybe shove to a note? I haven't read that source in a while, so will have a look. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Re-read the source - apparently it became popular to cut the paintings and even the margins from the books, for example John Ruskin writes in his diary about cutting up missals. After libraries were looted during the French Revolution a large number of books made their way to the open market in England and it became fashionable to cut out the images. Probably worth keeping; have reworded a bit. Victoria (tk) 16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've edited to "During the early-19th-century collecting cut-out 15th and 16th century Netherlandish miniatures or parts of them in albums became fashionable amongst connoisseurs such as William Young Ottley, leading to the destruction of many manuscripts." then next sentence as before. I don't think inserts is the right word here. There's a good article on Ruskin et al somewhere - his albums survive. The antiquarian book trade is still cutting up intact books of hours, though not top-quality ones - naughty of them. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks, that's better. Ruskin's albums are in a museum in the Isle of Wight - if I remember correctly. Thanks for sorting this. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tapestry: "During the mid-15th century tapestry was among the most sought-after artistic product in Europe" "Sought-after" is a bit lame. It was the most expensive 2D form, and if only because of that the most prestigous, and this remained the case till painting overtook it around 1500 with the most advanced patrons, but stick-in-the-muds like Henry VIII preferred tapestry for decades after that. It was also the largest and most visible in palaces. The expense came from the size and the need for a large input of highly-skilled labour, and expensive raw materials, extremely expensive ones once precious metal thread get used. One might also say it played against the strengths of EN painters, not being a medium for precise realistic detail.

  expensive now used. Do you know of sources that mention "against the strengths" etc, would be very interested to see. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Added a bit more. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've added "prized" though not entirely sure that's the right word either, but it can be changed. Perhaps either Cavallo or Souchal might have something about "against the strengths" etc from the above comment, but I can't download files at the moment or read long documents online (very fussy computer!) and so can't get to those. I did go to the library today with hope of finding something but came up empty (but did come away with a decent overview book about Medieval and Renaissance art which might be helpful). Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Triptychs and altarpieces/diptychs: I think this needs to distinguish more clearly between large works for churches, and smaller private works, which ENP was I think the first to make common (influenced by Cretan School mass-produced icons?). The Braque Triptych is only 41 cm / 16 inches high, and folded up would fit in a carrier bag. Of course the whole matter of purpose & usage is a bit muddy through lack of evidence. There is a distinction between an altarpiece (which obviously needs an altar) and a small devotional work used to say prayers at home, and perhaps functioning as an altarpiece on occasion, for example if someone was very ill, & a priest came round to say mass. The small size (mentioned) and private nature (not quite) of most diptychs needs bringing out more - "diptychs typically functioned as less expensive and more portable altarpieces" - needs a rejig I think. "Being able to close the wings afforded protection of the inner images" - and they could be taken when travelling, especially important for the very mobile elite, and many merchants.

  This section needs a bit of a rehaul, agree. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've tried to spin this out a bit without adding too much detail, [29]. Can do something similar for triptychs if necessary, or move this edit there. Victoria (tk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, we say Preoccupied with religious subject matter, they come in two broad types: smaller, portable private devotional works, or larger altarpieces for liturgical settings.[126] Ceoil (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Portraiture: mention the Arnolfini Portrait? It may not have had much influence for decades, but is rather an exception to some things being said likewise Rolin Madonna, which takes the donor portrait to rather a new level.

• Yes, probably. Not gotten to it yet. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, done. Another long series of edits, and I trimmed away mention of Rolin in an earlier section so as to avoid repetition. Edits are here. Victoria (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, though personally I'd drop Panofsky's "which he perhaps painted as a witness to and certificate of a betrothal" which nobody seems to believe these days. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Got a little carried away, it's gone now. Victoria (tk) 17:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Netherlandish artists were responsible for the move away from the profile view, the standard since Roman coinage and medals" Hmm, bolded bit seems very dubious to me - a not very effective full frontal view of the face was standard for medieval coins and usual in portraits in illumination and painting (eg the Westminster Richard II though there is the prifile Wilton Diptych). But a variety of angles were used in narrative scenes, & also Virgin & Childs. Looking at for example Matthew Paris, Meister Bertram or Duccio on Commons shows this. Theodoric of Prague painted imaginary portraits of religious figures with a variety of facial angles before about 1380, mostly 3/4s (Commons). It was the profile portrait that was an Italian Quattrocento fashion, imitating Roman coins, which the north largely ignored.

• One of us will work on this. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• I cut this in the end. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Landscape: I think 2 things need adding - 1) the Hand G Turin/Milan landscapes, mostly in the tiny bas de page, which Kenneth Clark & others have seen as huge leaps forward, hardly caught up with before 1600 and 2) the calendar labours of the months in books of hours, which is where EN landscape painting really developed, mentioning the very famous Tres Riches Heures calendar scenes at the start of the period, but also Simon Bening right at the end of the period. He still seems to have been producing miniatures during Brueghel's early career.

• Yes, added the early part. Forgot to check Pacht for Bening but seem to remember reading it. Will return to this. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Added Bening - very interesting, thanks for mentioning - managed to sneak in Grimani Breviary too. Victoria (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, done, Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Relationship to the Italian Renaissance: The biggest difference, I'd say, is that the ENP didn't have the interest in reviving classical style that was so crucial in Italy - overwheming on someone like Mantegna.

• Answered below. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Italian influences on Netherlandish art are first apparent in the late 1400s, when some of the painters began to travel south where Mannerism was by then the predominant style." summat wrong here. "Mannerism" proper begins about 1520-30 in Italy, & took a deal longer to impact the Netherlands. The very confusing Antwerp Mannerism is really 2 styles - one in painting from c 1500, another in architecture from about 1540 (that actually reflected Italian Mannerism, sort of). Or so our articles say, I think correctly. "the late 1400s" is 1405-1410 per MOS.

• Will have to trawl through history or rewrite; somewhere I'd written that the influence was circular > Netherlands to Italy and then Italian influences back to Netherlands. Essay in Ainsworth says (with extensive examples) that the classical style was shown in painters such as Gossaert's Adam and Eve. I think this should still be worked in somehow, but won't get to it immediately. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, took a crack at this (result here after many edits). Not sure it works and can be reverted if wrong, but I wanted to close the circle so to speak. Victoria (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Struck above. I think it needs some more work. Will try to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Took another crack at it, [30]. Victoria (tk) 17:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Iconoclasm. Technically the Reformation was not a schism (unlike the Catholic/Orthodox split) as there were significant doctrinal issues. To Catholics the Orthodox were schismatics, but Protestants heretics. Needs a link to The Reformation and art (mostly mine) & other things aren't right. I'm happy to tackle this for your approval.

• That would be greatly appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Let me know if more refs needed. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for this - can't get to these pdfs either! Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Documentation: Adriaen Isenbrandt is a classic case, worth a mention maybe - Bruges records show he was an important figure but there are no clearly documented works & for a long time art historians tended to attribute everything unknown of quality from the period to him, but now he tends to get nothing. We have a lopsided view of Aertsen because virtually all his Antwerp altarpieces went in the brief Calvinist coup there.

• Yes, had this in at one point but now lost in the extensive history. I've added where you suggested but not sure if it works there. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "By the early 17th century, no collection of repute was complete without 15th- and 16th-century northern European works; the emphasis however tended to be on the Northern Renaissance as a whole, more towards the German Albrecht Dürer, by far the most collectable northern artist of the era" - no northern collection maybe, though I'm not so sure. I don't think Italian collectors felt the need, or had the means to easily fulfill it. EN paintings people liked were often attributed to Durer, btw.
  • Phew, nearly there! I'll finish tonight.

Thanks. These are very substantial and insightful comments; will take quite a while to work through, source and incorporate, but I think are very worthwile and will greatly improve the article. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the art historians in the last 2 sections seem to need links, or 2nd links.

• Yep, done. Victoria (talk)

• I think that's it for now. I hope to review the changes tomorrow & will maybe ce & add per above. But a very thorough piece of work you should both be proud of. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod! I thought I could get to these today or tonight but my computer went belly up earlier today and I'm working to restore. Hopefully tomorrow I'll be in full working order again. Victoria (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A few of these points now addressed. I'll try to get through the ones I have sources for as soon as possible. Victoria (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• One more: there are two Ainsworth (1998)s - use a & b perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've bolded the start of my o/s points, if only for my own convenience. I think everything else sorted - nothing crucial left anyway. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod, that's helpful. Thanks for the catch on the two Ainsworths! Victoria (tk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support The couple of remaining points are minor & can be sorted later. Very happy to support (though I've edited the article a bit more than when I began my comments). Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod, for the support and for the insightful review. Much has been added and clarified and the article is better for it. I've sprinkled a few comments above as to why I couldn't get to some of the sources to clear a few of the points. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• This was a very rewarding review, thank you. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt A long article so I will do this in tranches, but it seems a very worthy one. Here's the first set. :

• "sometimes known as the Flemish Primitives" Consider switching this and the following clauses. Could we say "the artists active …" or does the "the" make it over inclusive?

• "It lasts at least" Consider "The period of their work lasts at least …"

• Fixed. Victoria (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Early Netherlandish painting overlaps" perhaps add "in time"

• Fixed. Victoria (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• " the Renaissance humanism" consider striking "Renaissance" and piping to the full term. It's a repeat use from earlier in the sentence. The cognoscenti will bet that it's hidden bund the pipe, those who do not know of it will be just as able to learn about it by clicking, and won't miss it otherwise.

• Looks like Ceoil got this. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "artists attached to the French court" Is there a one word thumbnail that can be used to describe these artists? Conservative? Traditional?

• Added "lavish". Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "one that reflected the visible rather than the metaphysical world" I'm not sure reflected is the best word. Possibly "depicted"? That's a surprisingly useful word.

• Used "depicted". Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "and prints, both engravings and woodcuts found a new market" Some means should be found of telling the reader that this was a larger market at a smaller cost than previously, but that doesn't all have to be said, the reader should take a hint and understand it. Possibly call it a "new mass market"?

Or if that's too much, then "new, larger market" or some such.

• "Mass market" works. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "transporting of a marble Madonna and Child by Michelangeloto Bruges in 1506,[13] and the transport" Too much transporting. Suggest "arrival" for one of them.

• Ceoil fixed. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "a plethora of copies" You mean like reproductions of earlier works (something I as a reader unversed in topics of art would assume?)

• Clarified that works painted by the earlier generation were widely copied. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The 14th century saw radical developments in painting and by the end of the century painting had overtaken it in prestige and demand." I think there's a problem in the comparison.

• Ceoil got this. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can you toss a date into the discussion of the Turin-Milan hours?

• Yep, good catch. Ceoil added it. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "he was allowed more time and given far more scope" Maybe, "it allowed him more time and more scope … "

• Ceoil fixed it. Victoria (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the structure of the paragraph beginning "A number of artists". Following the discussion of Marmion, it is unclear if the next sentence is intended to refer to Marmion and his times or generally to the time when the EN painters were active.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Wehwalt! Getting to them slowly. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, have some of these, working...Ceoil (talk)

Resume second tranche, I'll have the third and final done late today or tomorrow.

• I would link Bosch in "Chronology". Since you describe him as one of the most important of the EN painters, I think it's worth another link.

• Done. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• " but rather courted the artists themselves" The "rather" gives me pause. "also"?

• I trimmed it out. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Guilds

• "Overall, panel painters enjoyed the highest level of protection" What kind of protection? Obviously guilds tend to be anti-competitive, but it's a bit unclear what is meant by "protection" Ditto the regulations (for some reason or other that passage from Meistersinger where David explains the rules keeps going through my head). Possibly a hint to the reader of what they were trying to do by regulating. Assure quality? Keep out competitors? Both or neither?

• Both but mainly the latter. Only local guild members could sell in a city. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can spin this out. For instance in Bruges manuscript illuminators weren't allowed to use oils whereas panel painters could. And, as Johnbod says, selling was strictly regulated. Victoria (tk) 13:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Clarified here, I hope. Victoria (tk) 17:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• " A master had to serve an apprenticeship in his region," I'm not sure the tense is right here. Wouldn't it be "had to have served", since it has to happen before he is a master.

• Tweaked. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "that tended towards other wealthy applicants" Perhaps, "that tended to favour wealthy applicants"
• "Workshops typically consisted of a family home for the master and lodging for apprentices, who were either starting out and gaining experience, or fully trained journeymen who had not yet paid the dues required to establish their own workshops." This implies that journeymen are apprentices, which (though my knowledge of guilds is limited), I understood not to be the case. Perhaps "Buildings with workshops also often had a residence for the master and his family, and lodging for his assistants, who were either apprentices starting out and gaining experience, or fully trained journeymen who had not …" If accurate and verifiable of course.

• Yes, though I'm not sure a journeyman was quite regarded as "fully-trained". They were perhaps the undergraduates of the field, or maybe the masters students... Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Johnbod. Better to trim out mention of journeymen so as not to confuse. Victoria (tk) 13:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Simplified here. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• The term "first rank" is repeated close to itself in the last pp of section,

• I've trimmed out that last sentence. Not sure we need it. Will see what Ceoil thinks. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Patronage

• " a great rise in international trade and domestic wealth" Great rises, possibly?

• Yes, tweaked. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, it is not clear if what is being talked about is a wholesale or retail process.

• Mostly retail, as far as we know. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Art markets as such didn't exist in the early part of the period and only began toward the end of the period. Paintings were either commissioned directly, sold from workshops or stalls during annual fairs. In that sense it was retail, and I'm not completely convinced, though a little conflicted about it, that we need to spin too much more. If necessary, would be fairly easy to do. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Although less expensive cloth paintings (tüchlein) were more common in middle-class households, but records show a strong interest in domestically owned religious panel paintings" The but is causing a problem in sentence structure.

• Yep, copy/paste error. Thanks for catching it! Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Iconography

• "Groups of symbols were employed such that, seen as a whole, they "appear to enact the meanings they symbolise."[83] " Not clear on what this means.

• Difficult to explain, hence the quotes. I've pulled it and replaced. Hopefully slightly more clear? If not, will have another go. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "This blend of the earthly and heavenly evidences his belief" I think you should clarify it is Van Eyck you are referring to.

• Yes, thanks for pointing out and done now. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "while the very wealthy could also build churches (or extent existing ones)" extent?

• Fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Those who could afford to commissioned donor portraits" does this differ from the inclusion of the donor as one of the saints, mentioned earlier? Or are you saying the donor's (or wife's) features are given to the Mary in the painting?

• Yes, with overlap. A donor portrait most often shows the donor(s) in their modern dress, typically kneeling. Giving a sacred figure the features of a modern person was mainly restricted to royalty (or near-so), most often in small diptychs etc, not to be seen outside the palace. But in a piece for a church you wanted your portrait visible but distinguished from the sacred figures. Other works had portraits among the less specific figures in a scene, but usually in modern dress. All a bit complicated to explain here, but covered in the article. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Formats

• "but also as form of indulgence." May I assume that this manner of marketing went out with the Reformation?

Not entirely, indulgences carried on in Catholicism, but you couldn't buy them and they pretty much cease to be a factor in art history. The illuminated MS was a very narrow market by the time of the Reformation, but prints took over. I expect you can still get modern printed images which carry indulgences if the prayers given are recited, but the rates have seen considerable deflation since the heady days of the 15th century. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• " tapestry was among the most expensive artistic product" should be products? (sorry, I'm doing this offline and will cut and paste when I'm done)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• singular seems right for a type, but some rephrasing might be better. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And the final comments

• "relatively few of Italian manuscripts" superfluous "of"?
• "By the early-19th-century inserts had again become fashionable, this time amongst connoisseurs." You mean by the collecting of EN originals, right? There wasn't a revival in production?
• "Isabella of Valois and Isabeau of Bavaria and Philip the Good" and … and.
• "pointedly rejected" I'm not sure I understand why it is "pointedly" and thus, for me anyway, the word did not add anything to my understanding.

Diptych

• "They consisted" The problem with this is the subject of the previous sentence is "diptych format"
• "In the workshop system some panels were interchangeable, and the religious panels may have been paired with newly commissioned donor panels." the word panels appears three times in this sentence, also once in the preceding and subsequent ones. Is there any way to lower the frequency?
• " popular since Roman coinage and medals and popularised" Ahem. I did see the discussion above re coins, and I don't know enough about medieval numismatics to comment much.
• "Yet the gaze of the sitter rarely engages the viewer" I don't think it does in profile view either, therefore question the "Yet"

Landscape

• "which, according to Pächt" you have "which" beginning consecutive clauses. Suggest splitting the sentence at the start of the quote I've extracted and change the word "which" to "These,"

Relationship etc.

• "As in Florence" I'm not quite getting the "as in" part
• "the Italians dominated the northern artists who had moved away from their roots of the earlier century" I'm puzzling rather over this one.

Destruction

• "for about 130 years" Suggest delete, overdetail. Obviously that had implications for art that made it through the first 130 years, but I think it's more than the reader needs, and the sentence works better without the phrase.
• " When The Louvre" I would use the French term, "The Louvre" looks odd to me, especially since you've mentioned it by French name in image captions.
• "sought to increase their prestige" Who is being referred to here?

Conservation etc.

• "Panofsky developed the language" hm, maybe "terminology" for "language"
• A mention of what became of the paintings Albert purchased could be interesting.

• The ref note mentions "Queen Victoria donated the best of them to the National Gallery after the Prince Consort's death." Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You might be able to link to a "by donor" search on the NG site. Others remain in the Royal Collection. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now referenced to this. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. All of this last batch done except the third and last (for now). Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Wehwalt, particularly for reading this long page, and for the comments. Very helpful and good catches throughout. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

First off: wow. A few comments from a first readthrough:

• The first sentence is too long. I think you should break after Renaissance.

• I'm conflicted about this because the movement grew from Burgundian dominance in the Burgundian Netherlands and was confined to a specific area, which I think needs to be mentioned. Will leave to Ceoil to see how to fix this. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I gave this a shot, linking to Burgundian Netherlands and shoving the cities into a note, but I'm not crazy about doing that. The Burgundian Netherlands is a late-medieval construct of sorts, the movement was confined to a specific location (which I think is important to mention in the lead sentence), and I can't think of a way of splitting the sentence as it was without making it unnecessarily wordy. Would want Ceoil's agreement re this, or have him give it shot as he's the better lead-writer than I am. Victoria (tk) 18:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "separate from the Renaissance humanism" but "incorporation of Renaissance ideals". Huh?
• "The period is also noted for its sculpture, tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass, carved retables and sculptures."—"period" is the Northern Renaissance, yes? I don't see the relevance of this sentence in the lead of this article about painting. It's better suited for the NR article. (Also, you have sculpture twice)

• There was a lot of cross over, which is explained in the article body, but perhalps might need to be emphasised in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mid-sentence "Early Netherlandish" or "early Netherlandish"?

• Good catch! Fixed. Victoria (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• You should centre that gallery in Landscape.

• Yes, done. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "24 works confidently attributed to him, a number often challenged"—isn't that a contradiction? And I wonder if repetition, "Works attributed to Jan have since shrunk to around 26–28", so soon after can be avoided.

• Ceoil clarified this. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Similarly, a discussion on "notnames" features twice.—indopug (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ceoil removed it. Victoria (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks! All good points. Working .... Victoria (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and my quibbles (minor on the whole) were thoroughly dealt with there. Since then, I see from the formidably expert input above, the article has improved further, and insofar as the opinions of the layest of laymen are of use here I observe that the page is certainly of WP's highest standard, meeting all the FA criteria. It is an example of how an enthusiastic and scholarly article on a topic of which a reader may know nothing can communicate the editors' scholarship and enthusiasm, and enthuse and inform the newcomer. Top-notch stuff! Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim, for you support and all the helpful and diligent insights at the PR, they were much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Tim for the support, the very kind words, and, as Ceoil says, the PR work. Victoria (tk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Note There are a few duplicated links mainly in the second half of the article. Please check that all are justified. Graham Colm (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [31].

---

Hydrus

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This article got a thorough going-over at GAN by Sasata. Am working my way through constellations and I reckon it is the equal of others that have successfully passed FAC to date. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

Highly agreeable stuff. You have an envious knack of even making the most difficult subjects easy to read. My comments surround the lack of definite article uses which occur frequently throughout.

Thanks for the praise - yeah, I'd normally put the definite article but did start to drop it some time ago (was asked?? not sure now....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

History

• "Hydrus was one of the twelve constellations established by Dutch astronomer Petrus Plancius..." – Definite article for Plancius.

inserted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• ...same for Keyser and Houtman.

inserted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• ...and for Bayer and Lacaille.

inserted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable features

• Do we really need to link Earth and Sun?

Hmmm, ok delinked earth and sun - what is interesting is the concept of Solar mass, so have linked there instead. Wondered if it was a bit too easter-eggy and whether putting (Solar mass) in parentheses was preferable, though flows better as is now I think..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deep-sky objects

• Danish astronomer John Louis Emil Dreyer

inserted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per above resolved comments. Other than those, Great stuff as usual! Cassianto^Talk 00:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support and comment Looks good, one comment which won't affect my support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• It remains below the horizon for most Northern Hemisphere observers—sounds as if it's lurking with intent, "is" instead of "remains"?

Awww, see I like "remains" as most constellations (bar the circumpolar ones) spend time below and above the horizon each day, hence "remains" clarifies that it is there and stays there, which isn't quite captured by "is".... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, not a big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN10: double-check publisher name, I think it's missing "University"
• FN11: location? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

fixed both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: Issues fixed, so providing support. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: There is some inconsistency in the citation formats. In particular, the references "Brandão, I. M. et al. (March 2011)" and "Naef, D. et al. (2001)" use abbreviated author lists while other citations do not. Please choose one or the other approach. Could you link 'Moore, Patrick' and remove the duplicate link to 'Kaler, Jim'? Otherwise, the article seems fine. Praemonitus (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

all done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [32].

---

Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty

Nominator(s): Khanate General (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it passes the criteria for FA. It's a significant series of wars that ended the Northern Song Dynasty. The article has received a GA review and has been through the peer review process.Khanate General (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Simon Burchell Just had a quick glance and will add more if time allows. First impression was that the lead begins rather abruptly with "A series of Jurchen military campaigns against the Song Dynasty began with a declaration of war in November 1125". It would be better to start with a context - something like "The Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty were a series of campaigns in the 12th century (or whatever) between the Jurchen of (wherever) against the Song Dynasty of (wherever). Simon Burchell (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• In fact the lead is rather on the short side and does not appear to effectively summarise the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have written a longer lead, doubled its size, and it should be more comprehensive now.--Khanate General (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Much better, but the first sentence should really summarise what the conflict was about, not begin with its outcome. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The first sentence has been revised.--Khanate General (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry I haven't had time to come back to do a full review but I note the article has been picked up by others - I had a quick glance today and noticed that the article has been renamed to Jin campaigns... - however the lead text and the infobox still refer to Jurchen campaigns - these need to be changed to reflect the new article title. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 16:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why is it called Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty instead of Jin-Song Wars, like the Greco-Persian Wars article? Vctrbarbieri (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I like the "X campaigns against/conquest/invasion of Y" format better than the "X–Y war" format. Both formats are common on Wikipedia (Han–Xiongnu War vs Mongol conquest of Western Xia), and there are no rules for one or against the other if there is no established name for the event.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 06:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• File:Sung_Dynasty_1141.png: can we clarify the provenance here? Was this copied from the given source, created based on the given source...?
  • Now fixed. It was created based on the given source, according to the sourcing information on other maps submitted by the same author.--Khanate General (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• File:MongolHuntersSong.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
  • Now fixed. Labeled author as unknown.--Khanate General (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• File:Wanyan_Wuqimai.jpg: is the statue's creator known? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Difficult to verify the actual architect, but the statue was built for the Museum of the First Capital of Jin.--Khanate General (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

Resolved issues

Although the prose and sourcing are excellent, I am concerned that this article may not be comprehensive enough to fulfill criterion 1b. When I look at the summary of the conflict as given in the infobox, it looks like many aspects of the conflict have been left out of the article or are barely mentioned. I'll give some examples. The infobox says that one of the three most important results of the various campaigns was "Song court moves south to Hangzhou". This is backed up by the Hangzhou article, which states "Hangzhou was chosen as the new capital of the Southern Song Dynasty when they regrouped after their defeat at the hands of the Jin in 1123. It remained the capital from the early 12th century until the Mongol invasion of 1276", which clearly covers the period discussed here, and that article gives lots more information about Hangzhou during that time period. But Hangzhou is not mentioned in the "Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty" article at all. (In fact, it claims the Southern Song made Nanjing its first capital, and then moved it to Shaoxing, which seems to contradict the infobox and the Hangzhou article.) If the Song's move to Hangzhou was one of the most important results of the conflict, shouldn't it be fully mentioned, and explained in contrast to Nanjing and Shaoxing? Now fixed. Skipping the history of the Song retreat from Kaifeng to Nanjing to Hangzhou was a major oversight. I have expanded it to a full section, which it deserves. There's no contradiction, Nanjing was the first in a long series of temporary capitals. Hangzhou was the last and most important. The Song ruled from Hangzhou for the next 150 years.--Khanate General (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Thank you, that issue has been fully addressed now. – Quadell (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC) The infobox lists the Battle of Caishi, the Battle of Tangdao, the Battle of Yancheng, and the Jingkang Incident as the four most important battles in the conflict. This analysis seem to be backed up by the sources. The Jingkang Incident is mentioned in the lead and is fully described in the text, with a large section of its own and a link to the main article. That seems quite appropriate; it's what I would expect for coverage of a major event. But the Battle of Caishi is mentioned only in one short paragraph, despite the fact that the article says "Traditional Chinese accounts consider this the turning point of the war". Additionally, the article only mentions the Battle of Tangdao in passing, when noting the use of bombs in the "Gunpowder warfare" section, but nothing is said of the battle's importance, influnce, which side won, etc. I would think it would be fully described in the "Campaigns" supersection. And finally, the article fails to mention the Battle of Yancheng at all. Can this article be said to be comprehensive when some of the most important battles are not fully covered? Now fixed. The Battle of Caishi was an important battle in Hailingwang's campaign, and has been expanded into a full section. Now fixed. The Battle of Yancheng was a decisive victory for Yue Fei, and does deserve a longer summary than a single line. It has been expanded into a full paragraph. Expanded the Battle of Tangdao the outcome of the conflict. Tangdao was not a significant battle in terms of territorial gains or political aftermath. Tangdao is an important event in the history of Song maritime technology and warfare, which is why I left it out of the campaigns supersection. The battles in the campaign box are technically not the most important battles, just the ones with Wikipedia articles.--Khanate General (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC) The infobox lists the Alliance on the Sea and the Treaty of Shaoxing as the most important treaties in the conflict. The Treaty of Shaoxing in described in detail in its own section (though it is not mentioned in the lead). But the Alliance of the Sea is not mentioned at all in the article. Now fixed. The Treaty of Shaoxing has been named in the lead. I've expanded on the Alliance Conducted at Sea in the background of the article, increasing it to a full paragraph. The alliance had been discussed in the article, just not named.--Khanate General (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Oh, okay, great. This issue is now resolved. – Quadell (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I'm leaning oppose for now, until I can be sure that all the most important aspects of the conflict are fully covered. – Quadell (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I am impressed with the recent additions, and hopeful that the issue on coverage of battles can be resolved. – Quadell (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC) My initial concerns have been fixed. I have not yet performed a full review, but I hope to have time to do so in the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

After the recent additions, I have carefully read through the entire article. I am convinced that this article is now complete. The quality of the prose is very high; I made a few copy-edits, but found nothing that requires further collaborative work at this FAC. The lead is excellent, adequately summarizing the article. The article is well-organized. The "Citations" and "Bibliography" sections are impeccably formatted, and the "See also" section is appropriate. I was able to perform spotchecks for cites 1 (a, b, c, and d), 10, 23, 29, 47, and 65; in each case, the article's claims were fully backed by the sources, and there was never even a whiff of close paraphrasing. I'm happy to Support this article for featured status. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about halfway, at Jurchen_campaigns_against_the_Song_Dynasty#General Yue Fei's counteroffensive. These are my edits. One question: "The economic transformation of Hangzhou meant the government had to partially abandon its status as a "temporary" capital by constructing more permanent structures.": I don't know what this is saying, apart from "With the economic transformation of Hangzhou, the government began building permanent structures." - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hangzhou was created as a temporary capital. The Song government intended to move back to Kaifeng once the Jin were defeated, so government buildings in Hangzhou, like the imperial palace, were constructed for short-term use. Once retaking northern China became less plausible and Hangzhou grew into a significant city for trade, the imperial buildings were extended and renovated to better befit its status as a genuine imperial capital and not just a temporary one.--Khanate General (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to go with that in the article; that's easier to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It has now been fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I know nothing of this history, and haven't clicked through to any of the "main" articles to see if this one properly sums them up—I'm just looking at the prose.

• Can we get some alt text for the images, per WP:ALT?
  • The request is fine, Curly, as long as you remind people that these are not required for FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• forces to defend the prefectures: is there something "the prefectures" could be linked to?
  • Now fixed. Linked to History of the administrative divisions of China.--Khanate General (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• forming the "Alliance Conducted at Sea": given that "Alliance Conducted at Sea" is capitalized, does it also need to be in quotes?
  • Now fixed. Quotes removed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• and annual tributary payments: worth a link to tribute?
  • Now fixed. Linked to tribute.--Khanate General (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• to retreat twice back to the Song capital of Kaifeng.: this is the first time Kaifeng is introduced in the body, so it should be linked here
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Horses were an exception,: at first reading, this reads as "horses were an exception to the state's poor management of assets", but I suspect you mean that it was exceptional for them to have had horses?
  • Now rewritten. Horses were an exception to the Song's otherwise plentiful resources.--Khanate General (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• the mounted steppe nomads: is there a good link for "steppe"?
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• a newly established Da Chu dynasty: is "Da Chu dynasty" worth a redlink?
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Zhang reigned a short time before being coerced into suicide.: is there no story behind why he was coerced into suicide?
  • Now fixed. Expanded with background on the suicide.--Khanate General (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• reduced the Southern Song into a Jin vassal: is "into" rather than "to" normal here?
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• recognized as the "superior state.": kick that period out of the quotes
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wu Xi, the governor and general of Sichuan: is Wu Xi worth a redlink?
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• from the neighboring state: I had thought this was in Commonwealth English ("travelling") until now—"neighboring" or "neighbouring"?
  • The dates were also in Commonwealth English. Everything has now been switched to American English.--Khanate General (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• the two to three million ruling Jurchens: should "two-to-three" be hyphenated?
  • Not usually, Curly. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• the Jin were gradually sinicized: anything to link "sinicized" to?
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• bomb called the huopao: should "huopao" be italicized?
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions that will not affect support in any way

• since you use {{sfn}}, have you ever looked at {{sfnm}} for bundling refs?

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Everything looks solid to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved issues (images)

Comment on image captions. This seems like an excellent article as a whole. For now let me just comment on image captions, because this is what many users of Wikipedia like to read, if nothing else. For these readers' sake, most captions could be made more accurate, more informative, or both: File:MongolHuntersSong.jpg: the Chinese explanation on Wikimedia Commons says that this painting dates to the Five Dynasties, that is, the period that preceded the Song. The current caption "A Song Dynasty painting of Khitan hunters" is therefore incorrect, though I understand that it's based on the equally incorrect English-language description on Commons. It would also be nice to explain to the readers why this painting is used here. I tried to track down the origin of the image, but all the pictures of the painting on the internet lead back to Wikipedia. It was first uploaded by a Bulgarian editor on the English Wikipedia, who purchased the photograph from a private company, so it's equally likely that the Chinese-language description is incorrect. There's no way of ascertaining the provenance of the image without contacting the original uploader, User:Kosigrim, who hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2008.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I did a little more digging. A letter on the Falcon Heritage Trust site claims that it was painted by the Khitan artist Hu Gui, in the 9th or 10th century. The painting is owned by the National Palace Museum in Taiwan.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 09:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC) [Ooops, edit conflict! What I was going to post confirms your finds.] The painting can be tracked through its Chinese name: 五代 ("Five dynasties") 胡瓌 ("Hu Gui," perhaps Hugui, the name of the painter, who was reputedly Khitan) 出獵圖 ("Going out for a hunt," the title). The original is kept at the Taipei Palace Museum. This page from the museum's electronic archives and this discussion in Chinese confirm the date and authorship. Madalibi (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) File:Wanyan Wuqimai.jpg: a temple name like "Taizong" has to belong to a dynasty, not an ethnic group. "Jin emperor Taizong" would therefore be preferable to "Jurchen emperor Taizong." It is also worth mentioning that this is a purely modern statue of Taizong, not a statue from that period. This is for readers who are used to seeing sculptures of Roman emperors or French kings that were made by artists who could see their subject. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) File:Huizong.jpg: the caption reads "Emperor Huizong abdicated as the Jurchen army approached Kaifeng": add date of his abdication and link to Emperor Huizong? This is actually a Song-era painting. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) File:Songgaozong.jpg: Emperor Gaozong supported negotiating a peace treaty with the Jurchens: same as above. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) File:Battleofzhuxiancounty.jpg: this is either a Qing-era (19th century?) painting, or something even more recent. This fact needs to be mentioned. Now fixed, linked to Summer Palace. I tried to track down the date for the mural when the article was nominated for GA and the issue was raised, but not much turned up. A link to Summer Palace will have to do for now. I did find a source for when the murals of the Summer Palace were painted, but not for this by itself.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) File:Jurchen woodblock print.png: this woodblock print appears in a Ming-dynasty book dated 1609. Is represents how a seventeenth-century Chinese would have seen a Jurchen warrior, but is it representative of what Jurchen men would have looked like almost 500 years earlier? I'm not sure, and that's why the date of the print needs to be mentioned. If you need a reference for the date and the text of the original caption, see Shunzhi Emperor#Historical background. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC) File:Bushell Juchen 21.jpg: this image is missing a public domain tag for the United States. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) File:Chinese Fire Lance with Pellets.JPG: the significance of this image should be mentioned in the caption, otherwise the reader will just see a weapon and have to guess at why it is pictured here. Again, this is a Ming representation, in this case probably early 15th century. An additional caption like "the first recorded use of such a weapon dates to" or something would solve both issues. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Ok, that's all I can do for now! Will do more on other aspects of the article if time allows. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved (title)

Comment on title. I'm not sure "Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty" is the best title for this page. It's true that the rulers of the Jin dynasty (1115-1234) were of Jurchen ethnicity, but while it's convenient for stylistic reasons to alternate between "the Jin" and "the Jurchens" in the text, the title can only have one form. If the Jurchens had conducted campaigns against the Song before founding the Jin dynasty in 1115 or after the fall of the Jin in 1234, we would have a good reason to keep "Jurchen" in the title. But the campaigns discussed here all fall between 1125 and 1234, so "Jin" seems more precise than "Jurchen". And because the Song Dynasty is a political entity, using the parallel form Jin dynasty in the title would also seem preferable. This may not be a good time to propose a move, and ***this is definitely not a reason to oppose FA status***, but I think a title change would make the article even better. (By the same reasoning, Manchu conquest of China should be renamed Qing conquest of China, but that's another issue.) Note that this issue was raised on Talk:Timeline of the Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty#List name about a month ago, and the current nominator granted there was a possible inconsistency, but the commentator who raised that issue did not reply to Khanate General's (who was then editing under the name "Typing General") request for advice, so the issue was dropped. Madalibi (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC) What did you think of the alternative titles that I proposed in the talk?--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I was thinking of Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty, short and sweet. Jin-Dynasty campaigns against the Song Dynasty sounds too heavy (as would "Qing-dynasty conquest of China). Jin campaigns against Song China is another possibility, and Jin campaigns against Song is already a redirect. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I support the move. It's shorter than the current one.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments on sources and content

Resolved (sources and content)

I'm starting to read the content more closely, but let me start with a few comments on the sources. The title and page numbers of three articles from edited volumes are missing. I took care of Franke 1994, but Hymes 2000 and Needham 1987 need to be completed too. Now fixed. The page numbers and chapter titles have been included. The Mote ISBN is for the 2003 paperback and not the 1999 hardcover.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I changed the date back to 1999. Unless you used a newer edition (not a new printing), the date of a book should be the date of its original publication. In other words the date of a book that first came out in hardcover shouldn't change when it is later printed in paperback. Of course if the 2003 paperback printing turns out to be a new edition, then I'm wrong! In that event, let's indicate "Second edition" somewhere in the bibliographical entry, and I will change all the footnotes back. Madalibi (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) And good job on the other entries! Madalibi (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Most of the narrative is derived from Mote 1999 (an excellent survey of Chinese history that has detailed coverage of military campaigns), Franke 1994 (a long and detailed article on the Jin dynasty), and Lorge 2005 (a short survey of Chinese military history). All three are fine and reliable sources, but I'm not sure they give a complete picture of all the issues. Ari Daniel Levine's coverage of "The reigns of Huizong and Qinzong and the fall of the northern Song" in vol. 5, Part 1 of the Cambridge History of China (2005) is detailed and more up-to-date, and sometimes presents different interpretations. Among other things, it states that Contrary to the teleological narrative of traditional history, neither the profligacy of Huizong's court nor the policies of the Cai Jing ministry were responsible for the fall of the northern Song. This claim goes somewhat against our current text, which says that Corruption marred the reign of Emperor Huizong, enthroned in 1100, who was more skilled as a painter than as a ruler. Huizong was known for his extravagance, and funded the costly construction of gardens and temples while rebellions threatened the state's grip on power. These two sentences are referenced to Mote 1999, and the rest of the paragraph explains more reasons for Song failure, but there still seems to be more complex views out there. For the sake of WP:NPOV, we probably need to integrate these other points of view in the narrative, perhaps by harnessing Levine 2005. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Levine attributes the decline of the Song to its military incompetence and lack of leadership. To continue from page 614: While the Sung armed forces were not outnumbered by their adversaries, they were ineptly commanded from the center, by an imperial court overconfident of certain victory... More than any inherent disadvantages, a lack of will and leadership caused the collapse of Northern Sung. The article does cover the incompetence of the Song leadership, The state had plentiful resources, with the exception of horses, but managed its assets poorly during battles, but the details should be expanded. I'll work on it right now.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 02:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC) The problem has now been fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 03:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, the new additions are fine. Madalibi (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Comment. The Sixteen Prefectures were at the core of the anti-Liao alliance between Jin and Song, and later became the core of contention between the two dynasties. Could you explain their significance in the lede, or at least mention them in more specific terms than "territories previously ruled by the Khitan"? These crucial fortified prefectures come up again as just "territory" in the Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty‎#Background section (The Jurchens .... offered territory to the Song in exchange for military support against the Liao and the Song intended to seize a larger share of the territory than had been promised). When they are finally mentioned explicitly in the fourth paragraph of that same section (The Jurchen success against the Khitans and control of the Sixteen Prefectures gave them more leverage than the Song during the negotiations), the reader will have trouble understanding why possession of the Sixteen Prefectures would give the Jin more leverage in negotiations. Could you solve this problem please? If you need quick sources, check the first three sections of Sixteen Prefectures, which I edited myself some time ago. :) Madalibi (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. The background for the Sixteen Prefectures has been provided.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 05:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Comment. The last paragraph of the Background section may be better placed elsewhere. It explains why the northern Song failed, but this analysis is not really part of the "background": it should come after the the Jin campaigns that made the northern Song fall have been explained. For the sake of narrative fluidity, could you find a better place for this paragraph? It would be also nice to integrate an explanation of Song failure against the Liao into the narrative of the Background section. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. The paragraph has been placed further down the article, and there's a longer description about the Song war with the Liao.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 06:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Comment on narrative clarity. I think the narrative still needs to be made clearer! Many events are presented in non-chronological order, but because the dates of these events are often omitted, it may become difficult for readers to understand what happened and in what order. The third paragraph of the "Background" section mentions Jin 1122 battles after Song military preparations, but before a Song campaign that started in 1121, and it mentions the 1126 execution of Tong Guan in the middle of a story that ended in 1123. The Siege of Taiyuan section is also confusing: Now fixed. The sequence of events in the Background should be more straight forward.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, this much better, thank you! Madalibi (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC) It involves Tong Guan again when we have already heard that he was executed. (Incidentally, Tong Guan was a eunuch and represented eunuch power at Huizong's court: this fact may be worth mentioning somewhere!) Now fixed. Omitted entirely, Tong Guan's fate is better left to his own article, or to History of the Song Dynasty.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC) If the Liao fell in 1125, how could a Jurchen army have been sent to capture the Liao Southern Capital in 1126. Could it be that the Jin recaptured it from the Song, and it was therefore the former Liao Southern Capital? But how could that take place in 1126 if the Jin armies that seized the Southern Capital reached Kaifeng in January 1126? Could you clarify? Now fixed. The Liao Southern Capital was looted by the Jurchens, handed over to the Song, and then captured again by the Jurchens.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC) "By December": the text seems to imply this is 1126, but I think it's 1125. This is what the source says, In January of 1126, the Jurchen army overran Song defenses and besieged Taiyuan. The other Jurchen army captured two Song prefectures in December, smashed a Song army in January... and then drove straight down through Hebei to the walls of Kaifeng. It may mean the end of 1125 and January of 1126.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. It was the end of 1125 and January of 1126.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Jin armies reached the city of Taiyuan in January 1126 and defeated Song forces. But didn't they seize Taiyuan only in November 1126? The source says that In January of 1126, the Jurchen army overran Song defenses and besieged Taiyuan. But Mote 1999 on page 197 says that Taiyuan in Central Shanxi, Zonghan's Western Army, in its much slower progress through the mountains, was just approaching in March 1126. Levine doesn't state when the Western Army arrived in Taiyuan, but he does say that the strategic garrison valiantly held out until the ninth month of 1126.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) I did some research on the Taiyuan siege in the History of Song (chapter 23) and History of Jin (chapter 3). What seems to have happened is that Wanyan Zonghan, the Jurchen general who led the Jin's western army, took Shuozhou 朔州 on 29 Dec. 1125, and Daizhou 代州 on 6 Jan. 1126, and besieged Taiyuan on 16 Jan. 1126. On 11 April of that year [in the third month of the Chinese calendar], he was relieved by Yinshuke 銀术可 and returned to the Jin Western Capital (Datong). On 26 August, Zonghan was ordered to leave for a new campaign against the Song. He departed south on 5 Sept. and took Taiyuan on 21 Sept. 1126. This is lightning-fast considering that Taiyuan is about 250 south of Datong! There's another source of confusion with the dates: Mote converts all dates to the Julian calendar, but Levine doesn't. When Levine's speaks of "the 12th month of 1125" he means the 12th month of the Chinese lunisolar year (Xuanhe 7 of Song Huizong or Tianhui 3 of Jin Taizong) that roughly corresponds but does not perfectly overlap with the year 1125 of the Julian calendar. But the 12th month of "1125" actually spanned from 27 Dec. 1125 to 24 Jan. 1126. I hope this clarifies a few things! Madalibi (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC) How did Mote get the March 1226 date? Anyhow, if Lorge is right about the January 1126 date for the Julian calendar, then nothing needs to be changed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 17:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC) I propose a combination of two solutions: (1) add dates where they would be useful (treaties, battles, executions, etc.); (2) present the events in strict chronological order. Madalibi (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. I have done so for the Siege of Taiyuan. The sequence of events is more straight forward.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved (more content issues)

Other issues: The text says that in the first siege of the Song capital Kaifeng, the city's inhabitants resorted to cannibalism after the city's supplies were exhausted. Yet the siege only lasted 33 days. I don't have Hucker 1975 at hand to check his claim about cannibalism, but is it plausible that a city's supplies would be exhausted after just a month? Could it be that Hucker is talking about the longer second siege? He was talking about the first siege. When the city ran out of supplies and its citizens were reduced to cannibalism, the Sung government capitulated. The Jurchens then withdrew... When the Chinese gave up trying to make the required payments, the Jurchen returned and sacked the city in 1127.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC) I see, thank you. Could you compare Hucker's story with the detailed account in Levine 2009, pp. 637-38, which doesn't mention Song food supplies? It even seems that some Song ministers were advising to wait until the Jin troops ran out of supplies! The Song eventually chose to attack the besieging Jurchens directly, but had to capitulate because their attack was a complete fiasco. It's quite possible that Hucker was simply wrong. Not sure what to do in such cases... Maybe that sentence should just be removed? Madalibi (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. Hucker's version has been replaced with Levine's.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC) The abdication of Song Huizong is not explained anywhere. It is mentioned in the lede (briefly, as should), then the next time Huizong is mentioned, we only hear that On January 28, Emperor Qinzong was enthroned after the abdication of Emperor Huizong. Fearing the approaching Jin army, Huizong departed the capital and escaped southwards. Could you fill that gap? Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Speaking of the accession of Qinzong... This is a minor detail, but let me mention it anyway. The current text says that Song Qinzong was enthroned on *28 January 1126* (ref: Mote 1999, p. 196). Ari Daniel Levine's article in the Cambridge History of China volume on the Song (2009), on the other hand, says that Qinzong was enthroned on the 23rd day of the 12th month of "1125," that is, the seventh year of Huizong's Xuanhe 宣和 reign era, the lunisolar year that corresponds roughly to 1125 in the Julian calendar. A Chinese-language website that converts Chinese and Western calendar dates tells me that this date corresponds to *18 January 1126* in the Julian calendar. The official History of Song says that Huizong summoned his son to the palace and ordered him to become emperor on January 18, but Qinzong refused and was only enthroned the next day, on *19 January 1126* (7th year of Huizong's Xuanhe era, 12th month, xinyou 辛酉 day). [Original Chinese, from History of Song, chapter 23: 宣和七年十二月戊午，除開封牧。庚申，徽宗詔皇太子嗣位，自稱曰道君皇帝，趣太子 入禁中，被以御服。泣涕固辭，因得疾。又固辭，不許。辛酉，即皇帝位，御垂拱殿見羣臣。] This means that Mote is the only source that gives us a western date for Qinzong's enthronement, but it's the wrong date! Should the Mote citation be kept?--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC) I think so, yes, but maybe by switching the order of the sentence to say that "On January 28, Huizong abdicated and left the throne to his son Emperor Qinzong." That way we get the date of Huizong's abdication right, and we follow the right sequence of events. Speaking of sequence, I think Huizong's abdication should be mentioned at the end of the paragraph, not at the beginning, because it was the result of Huizong's deliberation with his counselors, which you explain in the paragraph. Madalibi (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC) What about the date that Mote provides? Should it be switched to January 18?--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Oh, yes, sorry. I forgot to mention that Huizong did leave Kaifeng on January 28, and that's probably where Mote got the date. The date of Huizong's departure (Jingkang 1.1.gengwu 庚午 day, which can be converted here) is confirmed in both History of Jin (chapter 23, p. 54 of the common Zhonghua shuju ed.) and History of Song (ch. 23, p. 423), so there shouldn't be any mistake about it. What I see is that Mote confused date of abdication and date of flight. If I were editing the article outside the scrutiny of a FAC, I would say something like this: "In January 1126, a few days before the New Year , Huizong abdicated in favor of his son.[ref to Levine] He fled Kaifeng on January 28, leaving the newly enthroned emperor Qinzong in charge."[ref to Mote] I think this manages to be accurate without falling into original research! Would that be all right? Madalibi (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC) That works. The sentence has been placed in the article. Thank you.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Madalibi (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Another clarification needed: speaking of the progression of the Jin eastern army, the "Siege of Taiyuan" section claims that They easily took Yanjing in 1125, where the general Guo Yaoshi had switched his allegiances to the Jin. One paragraph lower, the narrative has moved on to 1226 and we hear that In that same year, the Jurchens captured the former Khitan Southern Capital, modern Beijing, which had been handed to the Song after the defeat of the Liao. But wasn't Yanjing the former Khitan Southern Capital? Could you clarify please? Madalibi (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. The two have been combined, the second sentence was in an older revision of the article that should have been combined with the newer one.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Comments on the first siege of Kaifeng. Franke 1994:229 and Mote 1999:196 claim that the siege of Kaifeng was lifted on 10 February 1126. Lorge 2005:53 says March 5. Levine 2009:639 says 10th day of the 2nd month. Could you clarify what happened? I can check the primary sources if needed. Madalibi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC) This problem remains to be addressed! Madalibi (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Update: the date given by Levine ("10th day of the 2nd month") corresponds to 5 March 1126 in the Julian calendar, which is also the date given in Lorge. And I checked the primary sources: History of Jin (HoJ) ch. 3 and History of Song (HoS) ch. 23. HoJ states that the Song court first agreed to the terms proposed by the Jin (cession of three prefectures, payments, etc.) and that the siege was lifted on February 10 (this is the date mentioned by Franke and Mote). HoS doesn't mention that. It seems in any case that the Jin army didn't leave right away. HoJ and HoS agree that on the night of Feb. 24 the Song tried to attack the Jin encampment but was defeated. This is the failed ambush our text is talking about. HoS: on Feb. 25 the emperor fired Li Gang (the official who had advocated the attack). HoJ: the next day the Jin besieged Kaifeng again. (The resuming of the siege is not mentioned in HoS, which seems to assume that the siege was never lifted in the first place.) After some more talks, the Song agreed again to the same terms. Both HoJ and HoS say that the Jin armies left Kaifeng on March 4. I think this clarifies what happened, though we do see that both sides recorded this event differently. Madalibi (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. If Lorge and Levine are right about the month, but off by one day on the date, then only the day of the month needs to be redacted.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I think They botched an ambush against the Jin that was carried out at night, and were replaced with officials who supported negotiating for peace and the defeat of a Song army near Kaifeng pushed Qinzong into meeting the Jurchen demands refer to the same failed attack on Jin forces by Li Gang, yet they are presented as consecutive events. Madalibi (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. The sentence has been switched around.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved (narrative continuity and other issues)

Comment on narrative continuity. At the end of the "first siege of Kaifeng" we read that a Jin army arrived in Kaifeng in December 1126. In the following section, on the "second siege of Kaifeng", we go back to general Song preparations and we hear that the Jin "launched a second military expedition." But this is the very expedition, launched in early September 1126, that led to the fall of Taiyuan (discussed two sections above) and to the arrival of armies near Kaifeng (mentioned in the previous section). This means we lose the chronological thread by going back in time again! One solution would be to divide the Jin campaigns into "First campaign" (December 1125-March 1126) and "Second campaign" (September 1126-January 1127). That way you would avoid presenting the fall of Taiyuan (Sept. 1126) before the first siege of Kaifeng (Jan. 1126) and the launching of the second campaign (Sept. 1126) after the arrival of Jin armies near Kaifeng (Dec. 1126). Once again, the goal is to avoid confusion by presenting events in strict chronological order. Madalibi (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC) One way of justifying a division between first and second Jin campaigns would be this sentence from Ari Levine's article on the reigns of Huizong and Qinzong (2009:615): Concluding peace at any price in 1126, the Sung extricated itself from its first war with the Chin only to have its diplomatic incompetence provoke a second, fatal conflict. He is referring to the peace treaty of 1126 following the first siege of Kaifeng, and to the fatal conflict that led to the capture of both Huizong and Qinzong. Madalibi (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. The solution I went with was to divide the initial siege of Taiyuan from the fall of the city.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 04:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Comment on the second siege of Kaifeng. We have the following sentences: The Song did not dispose of the corpses of those who had died during the siege. Morale among the Song soldiers declined as the siege continued. Coming right after the Jin's launching a second military expedition (presumably in Sept. 1126, though the date is not indicated), the context in which these two sentences make sense is unclear. The source cited (Lorge 2005:53) is clearer: On 9 January the Jurchens took advantage of a great snowfall to overwhelm the city's defenders. In an initial assault on the walls with three siege towers, the Jurchen suffered more than 3,000 dead and the defenders only about 300 killed and wounded. But the Jurchens collected and concealed their dead, while the Song left their dead and wounded atop the wall. The remaining defenders were completely demoralized, and when the Jurchen renewed their assault, they broke.. Could you clarify? Madalibi (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Now done.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Comment on the capitulation of Kaifeng. The city did not capitulate on 9 January 1127, the date when its walls were breached and the Jurchen started looting. As Levine (2009:642) has it, Qinzong officially capitulated on the second day of the last month of "1126" (Jingkang 1/12/2), that is, 16 January 1127. Madalibi (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. The order of the events has been switched.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Comment on the status of the captive emperors. The text says they "lived the rest of their lives as commoners" (Mote 1999:197). It's true that they were first demoted to the rank of commoners, but they were eventually given minor titles and allowed to live more comfortably (says Franke 1994: 232–33). Madalibi (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed, I have included the treatment of the captives. However, the initial titles they were given were meant to insult them. The former emperors were enfeoffed as marquises (hou) with the insulting titles (Muddled Virtue) and C'hung-hun (Double Muddled). Huizong did not receive a genuine honorary title until after his death. Hui-tsung received the posthumonous rank of prince of T'ien-shui chun Qinzong was treated better, but only after Huizong had died.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

More comments by Madalibi

Resolved (Northern Song and early Southern Song)

Good job on solving the previous issues! Here are some more I've noticed, though I'm starting to run out of time, here... On "Nanjing". "Nanjing" 南京 means literally "Southern Capital". When Huizong, and later Gaozong, fled to the Song southern capital southeast of Kaifeng (still in modern Henan), it was called Yingtianfu 應天府 (Levine 2009:643). The Jin later called it Guide prefecture (Guide fu 歸德府), which ironically is the same city the last Jin emperor fled to in 1233 after the Mongol siege of Kaifeng, a few months before he proceeded to Caizhou (Franke 1994:264). Anyway, calling that place "Nanjing" is confusing, because the much-better known Nanjing (which became the "southern capital" of the Ming dynasty after they moved their main capital to Beijing), is a whole different city. Madalibi (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC) The modern name for the city, Shangqiu, is given in the article, but if it is confusing, we could switch it around.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC) There are many unclear points in the southern flight of the Song court and surrounding sections. I realize that the secondary sources use different dating systems, different Romanizations, and even different names for the same places, but I still find these sections messy. Once again, a few specific explanations and a strict chronological order should solve most of our problems, but there's a lot of work to do! Since you seem to have the Song volume of the Cambridge History of China handy, I recommend you use Tao Jing-shen's article on Gaozong for the events as a new detailed source concerning post-1127 events like Yue Fei's campaigns, the Treaty of Shaoxing, and the campaigns of Prince Hailing. The future emperor managed to evade the Jurchen troops tailing him by moving from one province to the next. Where was he to begin with? Xingzai: Chinese characters? Enthronement of Gaozong: mentioned redundantly both at the beginning and at the end of the first paragraph. The Jurchens approached Hangzhou in 1130 and pillaged the city. The court returned in 1133. But we also hear that Hangzhou was declared the capital of the Song in 1132. Was the recently pillaged city declared the capital while the court was away? From Coblin 2002: The Southern Court settled in Hangzhou in 1129... this place was formally declared the new capital in 1132. I'll check other sources to verify the accuracy of Coblin's statement--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Similarly, we read that Hangzhou was pillaged in 1130 (first paragraph of "Wars with the Southern Song"), yet was chosen in 1132 for the natural barriers that surrounded it, including lakes and rice paddies, which made it more difficult for the Jurchen cavalry to breach Hangzhou's fortifications. Not sure this makes sense: would the court choose a city because it was out of reach from the Jurchen cavalry right after it had been looted by the Jurchen cavalry. Clarify? Same problem as above. Coblin gives 1132 as the date for the establishment, but he could be wrong. I'll check my other sources.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Once again the chronological narrative is interrupted, either by redundancies or by the artificial separation of things that belong together: I think the last two paragraphs of "the second siege of Kaifeng" belong after an explanation of the fall of the northern Song, probably at the beginning of the southern Song section. In addition to restoring the chronological thread, you could then explain why we find two very different kinds of statements after the fall of Kaifeng: The Jin Dynasty did not expect or desire the fall of the Northern Song Dynasty. Their intention was to weaken the Song in order to demand more tribute, and they were unprepared for the magnitude of their victory. And 3 paragraphs lower: The Jin sought to completely destroy the Song after their victory at Kaifeng. This is not necessarily a contradiction, but right now the two statements are too far apart to be reconciled. Zhang Bangchang's suicide. It sounds very implausible that he would have listened to the Song court's order to commit suicide after accepting to become a puppet ruler in the first place! The article on Gaozong in the CHC volume on the Song says that Zhang was actually executed at the behest of Li Gang (the same guy who had attacked Jin encampments during the first siege of Kaifeng) after he submitted to Gaozong, who was still in north China. One more reason why we need to know more about Gaozong's whereabouts right after the fall of Kaifeng. From Franke 1994: He was killed, or rather forced to commit suicide, on the order of the Song court. This showed that Chin domination was by no means absolute. Now fixed, context is important, and I have provided it with more details from Tao 2009.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 05:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC) We read that Hangzhou was named the Song capital in 1132, but only in the next section do we hear that it was raided by the Jurchens two years earlier. The Jin advance stopped at the Yangtze River, but the Jurchens continued to stage raids against Song settlements further south (in section on the "southern retreat of the Song court"). After the fall of Kaifeng in 1127, Jurchen forces continued to cross the Yangtze River and invade southern China (in the section on "wars with the southern Song"). Should be in one place. The continuing insurgency in northern China hampered the Jurchen campaigns south of the Yangtze (wars with the southern Song). But the section on the "second siege of Kaifeng" had A number of Song commanders, stationed in towns scattered across northern China, retained their allegiance to the Song, and militias were organized by armed volunteers opposing the Jurchen military presence. The insurgency slowed the southern advance of the Jin Dynasty. These statements belong together. This is a lot of work, and I'm not sure I have time to continue reading so closely when every section suffers from this kind of narrative disorder. Could you skim the rest of the text and then go through every section slowly with your sources in hand to identify other similar problems before we go on? Cheers! Madalibi (talk) The organization of the article was, from the outset, based on thematic and not chronological sequence. This does create some repetition in the article, so changing it to the latter is a good idea. I'll work on the article, cross-checking Franke's and Coblin's dates and narrative with Levine's and Tao's. One of the problems that I have faced, and that you can attest to, is that my sources sometimes contradict each other!--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, I've been reading the secondary sources closely, and I've also found contradictions. Once again, outstanding job in addressing the issues! Madalibi (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A new round of comments

More resolved issues

I'm now moving to the second large section, on Jin wars with the Southern Song. Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty#The enthronement of Emperor Gaozong looks fine, so straight to the next section called Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty#The move south: "riding down the Grand Canal": could you make it clearer that they were on boats? :) Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 05:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC) The events in that section are not presented in chronological order. It's the secondary sources' fault, because they get two very important dates wrong: Tao (2009:650) says that Gaozong moved his capital to Yangzhou in late 1128 (it was actually 1127), and Franke claims that Liu Yu was proclaimed emperor of the Great Qi in late 1129 (it was actually late 1130). Because of that, the sequence of events gets messed up. Let's take them one by one: [Not an issue, but premise to the next points.] Move to Yangzhou: I specified the date of the move to Yangzhou as "late 1127", which is the date given in Mote. Tao (2009:650) says 1128, but this is wrong. The History of Song confirms that Gaozong left Yingtianfu on 6 Nov. 1127 and reached Yangzhou on 2 Dec. 1127. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC) The Jin troops moved rapidly. By the time Gaozong was at Yangzhou, the Jurchens had advanced to the Huai River. Tao (2009:650) says that the Jin vanguard reached the outskirts of Yangzhou in early 1129, but this was more than a year after the court's move, so the speed of the Jin army is exaggerated. (Once again Tao is to blame because he just said that Gaozong moved to Yangzhou in late 1128.) Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC) The court spent over a year in the city before moving to Hangzhou in 1129. It should be made clear that they moved to Hangzhou in quite a hurry precisely because of the Jin raid of early 1129 (see Tao 2009:650). Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC) In that same year, the Song army vacated Kaifeng, allowing the Jin to capture the city. Not super important, but you could specify that Kaifeng was vacated in the summer (sixth lunar month: here June or July) of 1129, which was a few months after the Song court fled to Hangzhou (see Tao 2009:654). Tao (p. 657) , however, claims that the city was only captured in the second (lunar) month of 1130. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Jurchen forces continued across the Yangtze River, and staged raids against Song settlements in the south. As far as I could determine (though I may be wrong), in early 1129 the Jin army retreated without raiding south of the Yangzi. They came back to do that in late 1129. Speaking of which... Tao 2009:654 says "In the late summer of 1129 Chin forces were preparing for a decisive assault against the south." This entire campaign, which lasted from late 1129 to June 1130 and almost ended up in the capture of Gaozong, is missing from the text. One Jin army went deep into Jiangxi and even into Hunan and then looped back north through Hubei. Meanwhile the main Jin army, led by Wanyan Wuzhu (aka Zongbi), went straight for the Song emperor. It crossed the Huai River and in less than a month it had reached Hangzhou, then Shaoxing, then Ningbo, closely following the emperor's trail. Gaozong took the boat and escaped in February 1130. After he abandoned pursuit, Wuzhu went back to Hangzhou and pillaged it in March. He started to be challenged by Song armies in April, and was even defeated once by Han Shizhong, who should definitely appear somewhere in the text. On 1 June 1130, Wuzhu managed to cross back to the north bank of the Yangzi River. Only in September 1130, after the end of the whole invasion, did the Jin declare the foundation of the Great Qi. These events are clearly presented in Tao 2009: 653-659. They could actually be narrated in one short paragraph just like I did here. Now fixed. Expanded with the entire eastern campaign and the capture of Jiankang.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) This comment by Tao Jing-shen on the "Great Qi" should probably be integrated somewhere: "These armies of Da Qi carried the burden of much of the fighting from 1130 to 1138." (Tao 2009: 658) Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 09:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Jin campaigns in western China (Tao 2009: 659-660) probably deserve quick mention. To be clear, by this I'm not referring to the Jin invasion of Jiangxi in 1129-1130, but to fights that took place further west in Sichuan. The main Song general there was Zhang Jun 張浚 (1097–1164; not to be confused with the homophonous Zhang Jun 張俊 [1086–1154] who defended the Lower Yangzi). Tao 2009:660 says that "in 1131–2 the main military operations between the Sung and the Chin continued in the western theater." These operations are not mentioned in the article. Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Doesn't Tao state that the Jin never penetrated Sichuan? Tao 2009:660: Unable to penetrate Szechwan, Wan-yan Wuchu himself returned to headquarters in Yen-ching. Zhang Jun was in command of Sichuan and Shaanxi, but fought the Jin near Xi'an. In the following campaign between 1132 and 1134, the Jin invaded Shaanxi and Hubei, but were halted at Xianren Pass before they reached Sichuan.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 16:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Now fixed. Expanded with the 1131-1132 campaign and the 1132-1134 campaign.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Reason for the choice of Hangzhou as capital: I see that you cite Tao (2009:696) to explain why Gaozong chose Hangzhou as his capital after 1132 (incidentally not 1133!). The same Tao (2009:661-2) has a few more interesting things to say about why and when Hangzhou was chosen. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC) As you said yourself, the secondary sources are often contradictory, but I think we can disentangle them and finish this FA review successfully in the next few days! All best, Madalibi (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up questions also resolved

Follow-up on the above comments. This section is much improved, thank you! Could you push that effort further to resolve a few remaining issues? What happened when the Jurchens renewed their attacks on the Song in 1127? The next thing we hear about them is that they reached the Huai River in 1129: how about the two years in between? (One or two sentences should be enough.) I took care of this one by mentioning that they regained control of northern China. Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC) When the Jurchens advanced to the Huai River,[61] the court moved to Hangzhou in 1129. The sources I've read say that Gaozong fled almost alone, on horseback, a few hours before Jin troops reached Yangzhou, which they could have done only at least a day or two after crossing the Huai River. Mote 1999:295-96 has a vivid account of Gaozong's hasty flight, with more specific dates. Two days before Gaozong departed on February 23, Mote 1999:295 says that Some courtiers nevertheless were ordered to proceed south with the emperor's infant son and others of the imperial household, to take up residence at Hangzhou. It was not the entire court, but some members had already left for Hangzhou prior to Gaozong's own escape.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) It's true that the court left before the emperor, but an emperor fleeing alone on horseback is in my view a much more notable event! No need to get into the details as Mote does, but this kind of unique event should be mentioned. Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 17:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC) In that same year [1129], the Song army vacated Kaifeng, allowing the Jin to capture the city in the following year. Jurchen forces continued across the Yangtze River, and staged raids against Song settlements in the south. Several points: as it Song armies or just the main Song official there (Zong Ze) who vacated Kaifeng? (I'm not sure myself.) It was Du Chong who withdrew, not Zong Ze. Tao 2009:654 says that In the sixth month, Tsung Tse's mediocre successor, Tu Ch'ung decided to withdraw from the formal capital Kaifeng. He also says that this was despite the protest of his generals, especially Yue Fei, which implies but does not explicitly confirm a military withdrawal. --Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) If the Jin captured Kaifeng in March or April 1130 (the second month of 4th year of Gaozong's "Jianyan" reign era) and they neared Hangzhou (much further south) in January 1130, the text's suggestion that they continued south after capturing Kaifeng is misleading. Now fixed. In the older revision of the article, it was stated that the invasion south happened in 1129, after the Song withdrew from Kaifeng, but a newer edit that brought up Kaifeng's capture in 1130 messed up the sequence of events.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) The Jin attack in February 1129 that almost caught the Song emperor in Yangzhou can probably be called a raid. But later Jin attacks south of the Yangzi were more than raids. At the end of 1129 or early 1130 (eleventh month of the Chinese year: 13 Dec. 1129 – 11 Jan. 1130), the Jin invaded with two large armies, including one led by a Jin imperial prince. These campaigns are still not well described (see long paragraph of my previous comments above). Now fixed. Expanded with both the western and eastern offensives of the Jin campaign.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) The paragraph on the Da Qi is in the wrong place, because the Da Qi was founded in late 1130, after the end of the Jin campaigns that are described in the following paragraph. Now fixed. Placed below the Jin campaigns.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) When the Jin forces neared Hangzhou on January 26, 1130, the Song court fled on ships to islands off the coast of Zhejiang, and later to the city of Shaoxing. The Jin sent ships to chase after Gaozong, but failed to catch him and gave up the pursuit. The Jurchens plundered Hangzhou and departed. The flight to Shaoxing is in the wrong place. Gaozong did flee there, but at the beginning of his retreat, not after fleeing to islands off Zhejiang. His "flight route" in early 1130 was Hangzhou-Shaoxing-Ningbo-Zhoushan Islands-Taizhou-Wenzhou. He came back to Zhoushan and then Shaoxing in May 1130, after the Jin armies had left (see Mote 1999:298). Now fixed, corrected to Wenzhou.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) The Jin had been caught off guard by the strength of the Song navy, and withdrew from the Yangtze River front. This sentence makes little sense on its own. In Tao 2009:655, a similar statement comes after a long paragraph explaining how Jin armies had difficulties crossing back to the north bank of the Yangzi River. These battles (some of which the Song won) are not mentioned in our section. Now fixed. Expanded with Han Shizong's battle on the Yangzi.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC) There are 18 sentences (in three paragraphs) on how Hangzhou became the new Song capital and on how it fared during the Southern Song. Only a few of these sentences are relevant to the military campaigns that are the main topic of this wiki. Would you agree to cutting about half of them? Now fixed. The economic growth of Hangzhou has been cut from the article.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC) I'll stop here for now! Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

More resolved issues

Comments on General Yue Fei's counteroffensive, Further campaigns, and Rise of the Mongols I think this section is too centered on Yue Fei. It recounts his background in more detail than for any other people mentioned in the article, then analyzes his legend for an entire paragraph, and the account of Jin-Song battles between 1131 and 1140 is entirely centered around him, as if he had been the only Song general involved. The paragraph on his legend says this was not the case, but the article still does not present anybody else. Yue Fei's role was important, but I don't think he deserves the entire section for himself! The paragraphs on Yue Fei's background and modern legacy have been cut from the article.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 13:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Now fixed. Expanded with the roles of Han Shizong, Zhang Jun, Liu Qi, and Yang Qizhong.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 15:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC) How would the section pan out if it were renamed "The Song counteroffensive"? Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 13:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Things that get neglected: a peace proposal agreed upon by both sides in 1138; all the battles won by other Song generals than Yue Fei; Gaozong's constant pushing for peace from the time he sacked Li Gang in 1127 to when he signed the Treaty of Shaoxing in 1142; and the role of Qin Gui at the Song court. Now fixed. Expanded with the battles won by Han Shizong, Yang Qizong, and others, Gaozong's planning a Song counteroffensive and then cancelling it for peace negotiations, and the career of Qin Gui and his role in Yue Fei's execution.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 15:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Huainan ("south of Huai") is usually the generic name of the region between the Huai River and the Yangzi River. Are you sure it is a city? Now fixed. It's circuits, not city, and there were technically two, Huainan East and Huainan West.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Hailingwang means literally "Prince Hailing", and this is how both Mote and Tao call him. He was an emperor, but I don't think he can be called Emperor Hailing. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 11:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Prince Hailing should probably be introduced in some way before we hear that he began an invasion in 1161. This sounds a little too abrupt. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC) The war did not end in December 1161. According to Tao (p. 707), it ended when the new Jin emperor ordered his armies "to withdraw from the Yangzi front" in early 1162, and "fighting went on in both Huainan and Sichuan until a peace treaty was negotiated in 1165." Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC) To be complete, you should probably integrate information from Richard Davis's article on the reigns of Guangzong and Ningzong into the section on "Song revanchism". Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC) The section on the "Rise of the Mongols" seems too short. Davis's article has almost four pages on the Jin campaigns against the Song, which took place on a very large scale and on several fronts from 1217 to 1220. In an article on Song–Jin relations we could remain vague, but in this wiki on the Song–Jin wars, I think we need more details on the campaigns themselves. Now fixed. Expanded with all three campaigns between the Jin and the Song.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Even if the "Rise of the Mongols" section ends with the defeat of both the Jin and the Song at the hands (or under the hoofs) of the Mongols, it should focus on conflicts between Jin and Song, and should probably have another title. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC) I think all three sections should contain the names of more protagonists. A wiki on French wars in the seventeenth century could not conceivably fail to mention Mazarin, the Cardinal Richelieu, and Louis XIII, yet the text rarely mentions which emperor was in power during many of the Song-Jin conflicts, and which influential prime minister was dictating policy at the Song court. I've mentioned Qin Gui and the missing generals in the section on the Song counteroffensive. We also need to hear about Han Tuozhou in the section on Song revanchism (he is referred to as "the Chinese minister who had instigated the war"), and about the main people involved in the 1217-1220 wars. The CHC articles contain all the necessary details, so we shouldn't have too much trouble with this. And it's all right if we get red links, since they're not forbidden in featured articles. Now fixed. Qin Hui, Han Tuozhou, Bi Zaiyu, An Bing, Shi Miyuan, Emperor Lizong, Emperor Aizong, Han Shizong, Zhang Jun, and others have all been named in the article.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 21:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC) All right, almost there! Happy Holidays everybody! Madalibi (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

More comments by Madalibi (2)

Also resolved

Comments on the Da Qi or "Great Qi": Date of its creation. The secondary sources are once again not very clear on this. Franke (1994:230) says that Liu Yu was "appointed as emperor of great Qi" "toward the end of 1129". Tao (2009:657) is a bit ambiguous but seems to point to 1130: "Liu Yu secured Wanyan Zonghan's backing and, at the end of 1129, the Jin emperor's permission to set up another puppet state in 1130, called Da Qi (Great Qi), with Liu Yu as its emperor". Lorge (2005:55) doesn't mention a date. Once again they're each getting one side of the story. After Liu Yu submitted to the Jin in 1128, in March or April 1129 (third lunar month) he was put in charge of a number of prefectures in northern China (History of Song [HoS], chapter 475, in Liu Yu's biography). The HoS says that the Jin did so after hearing that Gaozong had crossed the Yangxi River [from Yangzhou on his way to Hangzhou]. But only on 12 October 1130 (Jianyan 4/9/9) was Liu Yu enthroned as emperor (HoS, ch. 475, p. 13794). The History of Jin (HoJ, ch. 3, p. 62) gives the exact same date. This means that Franke is wrong, and that until October 1130, Liu Yu was only a regular Han Chinese official serving the Jin. The article cites Tao and not Franke for the year of Da Qi's creation in 1130.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Place in the text. Right now the creation of the Great Qi is discussed in the third paragraph of the section called "The move south" and again in the second paragraph of the "Song counteroffensive" section. I think these two paragraphs would belong better together. Even the last sentence of the first one (It was responsible for supplying a large portion of the troops that fought the Song in the eight years following its creation) and the first sentence of the second one (Da Qi invaded the Song in 1133 supported by the Jin) seem to be perfect for a smooth transition. Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Proposal: I propose to regroup the formation of the Qi state and the campaigns in which Qi troops were involved under its own section between "The move south" and "Song counteroffensive". The section would go from late 1130 (formation of the Da Qi) to one of four dates (you be the judge): 1134 (beginning of Yue Fei's military success), 1135 (death of Jin Taizong), 1137 (dissolution of the Da Qi), or 1138 (beginning of a strong Song counteroffensive and of the peace process at the same time). Advantages of such a move: (1) The Qi troops did most of the fighting for the Jin (says Tao 2009:658), so devoting a section to the Qi seems to make sense. (2) The structure would be improved, as most of the material on the Great Qi would be presented in a single place and chronologically. (3) The two current sections ("The move south" and "Song counteroffensive") are pretty long already, so an extra section in the middle borrowing text from both would cut the article into more manageable chunks. Excellent idea, it has been regrouped and given its own section.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC) What do you think? Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Comments on "Cultural and demographic changes" This entire section is devoted to the Jin. For the sake of both balance and completeness, which are important criteria for featured articles, you should find something to say about the Song as well. Now fixed. The Hangzhou paragraph and the paragraph on Southern Song demographics has been placed below Cultural and demographic changes. That kills two birds with one stone.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC) This would be a nice place to put the comments on Hangzhou that are (or used to be) in "The move south"! Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC) The capital of the Jin Dynasty was moved to the south from Manchuria to Beijing in 1153. Watch out for the passive voice. Someone must have moved the capital for specific reasons, but the passive hides the agent. The capital was actually moved by Prince Hailing in the context of the reforms you discuss in the next two paragraphs. In 1157 he even razed the palaces of Jurchen nobles in the former capital to force them to move south (Franke 1994: 240). Discussing all these changes together would make things clearer. Now fixed. Grouped together with the rest of Hailing's changes.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 12:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC) The theme of "China among equals" should probably appear somewhere. Unlike the Han and Tang and later the Ming and Qing, who had a number of tributary states, the Song was a tributary of other powers like the Liao, the Jin, and then the Mongols. There's an edited book called "China Among Equals" (by Morris Rossabi), and "China Among Equals" is a chapter title in Patricia Ebrey et al., East Asia: A cultural, Social, and Political History, a widely used textbook. No need to call it "China Among Equals" just like them. The point is that China at the time was either equal or inferior to its surrounding states, and Jin campaigns directly fed into that trend. Now fixed. Expanded with Rossabi's "China Among Equals".--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Madalibi (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by vctrbarbieri

• Just wondering about how Da Qi was the second puppet state created (in the Da Qi invades the Song section). Wondering if Chu was the first one and if so that should be clearer. E.g. "the Jin decided to create Da Qi, their second attempt at a puppet state in northern China". "The Jin allowed more autonomy for the Qi then they had for the Chu". Vctrbarbieri (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I added "their second attempt at a" from the former example so it doesn't imply there is another puppet state in North China that also exists at the same time. You also added a reference to the state of Great Chu so now I think the Da Qi section fully works. You have my Support. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Madalibi's last comments

One last round, almost all on the recently enhanced "Song revanchism" and "Song-Jin war during the rise of the Mongols" sections. Almost there!

• I think it would be interesting to close the narrative on Gaozong by mentioning his abdication after the campaigns led by Prince Hailing.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 01:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Elegantly added, thank you! Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• The section on "Song revanchism" mentions "a Yellow River flood in 1194". The source cited (Franke 1994), however, states that many serious floods happened in the previous years (1166-68 around Jinan, 1171-77 north of Kaifeng, etc.), and culminated in the 1194 floods, which resulted in (or from) a major change in the course of the Yellow River. Could you make it clear that this was more than one flood, and more than an ordinary flood?
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 17:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Where are (were?) Guanghua and Zaoyang? (Too tired to take care of this now, but I can do it before the week-end if you need.)
  • Guanghua and Zaoyang are in modern Hubei I believe, but it's not in the source.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I used Tan Qixiang's historical atlas of China to specify modern locations when they were not obvious. Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• The Song were obligated to pay an annual indemnity... Do you mean this was an additional indemnity?
  • Now fixed. It was technically an increased indemnity.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• The Jin Dynasty shied away from further military expansion and was content with appeasement through tribute, similar to the practices of the Song. As the first sentence in a new section, this sentence is probably misplaced, because we haven't heard about the Mongols yet, let alone the need for appeasement and tribute.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• The Song court debated ending the tribute to the Jin, now weakened by the Mongol invasions. Now we hear about the Mongols, but not about their invasions. A tiny bit of background would be helpful, and shouldn't be too hard to include in the narrative considering that these events started in 1208, right after the end of the war with the Song. Davis 2009:818-19 gives good background on the Xi Xia and Mongol attacks on the Jin, and on the way these events impacted Song-Jin relations. The move of the Jin main capital to Kaifeng in 1214 should probably be mentioned.
  • Now fixed. Expanded with the breaking of tributary relations in 1210, the invasion in 1211, and the move from Zhongdu in 1214.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Where are (were) Suizhou, Xihezhou, and Dasan Pass?
  • Suizhou is in Jingxi South circuit, modern Henan and Hubei. Xihezhou, renamed from Minzhou, was located in Xihe circuit, modern Gansu. Dasan Pass is in Shaanxi, but the location is not included in the CHC.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 03:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• The paragraph on the fall of the Jin should probably mention the fall of the Jin capital Kaifeng in addition to the siege of Caizhou.
  • Now fixed. Expanded with the departure from Kaifeng to Caizhou.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• There is no transition from the fall of the Jin in 1234 to the fall of Song in the 1279. The last sentence of the section ("The Song Dynasty fell in 1279...") therefore looks a bit abrupt. Could you add some turns of phrase like "After decades of war and negotiations, the Song dynasty also fell..." or "The Mongols eventually conquered the Southern Song..." or something like that? Or maybe you could mention the last Song attacks on Kaifeng and Luoyang before they were repelled by Mongol troops in 1234 (see Davis 2009:858-63)?
  • Now fixed, for the most part. The naming of Mongol–Song battles in the aftermath of the Jin collapse does not directly pertain to the Jin–Song wars, but should instead be brought up in Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty, where the event is currently missing.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 17:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right. I just thought some kind of coda would look good, and that short new section on the Mongol–Song alliance does the job. Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• The Jurchens became fluent in the Chinese language, and the philosophy of Confucianism was used to legitimize the ruling government. Could you be more specific about how Confucianism was used to legitimize the Jin government? Are we talking about a cult of imperial ancestors? Civil examinations? Political institutions based on the Chinese model? Education in the Classics given to the heir apparent? Etc.
  • Now fixed. Expanded with the adoption of Confucian rituals by the Jin state, the creation of imperial exams based on the Classics, and the translation of the Classics into the Jurchen language.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Very clear, thank you. Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• The source "Rossabi 1983" cited in two notes does not appear in the bibliography.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• The siege of De'an, which is mentioned in the lede and in the section on "Gunpowder weapons" is not mentioned in the rest of the text. Could you add a sentence on this siege to the relevant section of the article?
  • Now fixed. The siege was just one of many battles in the Jin invasion of of Hubei and Shaanxi in 1132. I brought up the Hubei campaign in the text, but I don't believe that the battle at De'an needs to be directly named outside of the context of military technology.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Just checked a few sources to see where De'an was. The only De'an I could find in Tan Qixiang's historical atlas is south of Jiujiang in modern Jiangxi. This means that De'an County is the right link. The only problem I have with this is that the section where De'an is mentioned says that the siege of De'an took place during the Jin invasion of Hubei and Shaanxi. Could you clarify this? Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • The De'an in Jiangxi and the De'an that is (was) in what is now Hubei are two different cities. Turnbull says that The Southern Song city of De'an in Hubei withstood no less than eight siege attempts. The De'an in the article is now modern Anlu, in eastern Hubei. This can be confirmed by the footnotes for Don Wyatt's chapter "Unsung Men of War: Acculturated Embodiments of the Martial Ethos in the Song Dynasty" on page 364 of Military Culture in Imperial China, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo: Wang Hou was the son of the earlier Song military man Wang Shao... they hailed from De'an (modern Anlu in eastern Hubei)--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 03:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
        • You're right, and it's my mistake. The location in Hubei makes much more sense. I must have been tired two days ago, because Tan Qixiang's atlas also has the Hubei De'an in it. Issue solved, sorry for the confusion! Madalibi (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Not a specific request, but two sections of the excellent History of the Song Dynasty — Jurchen invasions and the transition to Southern Song and Defeat of Jin invasion, 1161 — discuss the same events this wiki is about. They cite interesting sources that you did not use, notably on military technology. I think some of them are usable here.
  • Now fixed. Expanded with content based on the sources from History of the Song Dynasty.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 07:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Nice additions, the last section now looks very professional! Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• As a final improvement in presentation, once these issues have been solved, could you consolidate the footnotes so that we don't get two inline citations in the same sentence?
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 00:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Finally, could you re-read the lede very closely to see what you could add or remove after all the modifications we've made in the last few weeks? My only specific comment for now is that the last paragraph is a bit messy and is missing something on the Southern Song. Maybe you could move the mention of firearms to another paragraph?
  
  • Now fixed. Expanded with the abortive 1206 war and the join Mongol and Song alliance against the Jin. I kept the cultural, technological, and demographic changes to a single paragraph, because they share the theme of analyzing the legacy of the wars.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 17:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, the lede looks excellent! Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

After these issues are solved, I will be glad to give my formal support to this spectacular article! Madalibi (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I just gave the article a thorough last reading. I made a large number of small edits to correct footnote formats, remove duplicate links and some passive voices, add language templates, etc., solving as many issues as possible on my own. There are a few remaining issues I wanted to submit here:

• The source "Ebrey 1999" cited in note 173 has no equivalent entry in the bibliography.

• Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• One section says that the Jin never tried to cross the Yangtze River again after 1130, but we read that Prince Hailing did just that in 1161.

• Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• The section on the Treaty of Shaoxing says that peace was broken twice after 1142, yet there are three more campaigns in the article.

• Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Needham (1987:156) mentions two different huopao: one is a trebuchet firing burning projectiles (火砲), another one is an explosive bomb (火礮): which one are we talking about here?

• Now fixed. The Chinese names have been included to disambiguate the two bombs. The former was employed at Kaifeng and and the latter at the battle of Caishi.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok that's it! Considering the nominator's fast and effective work on all my previous comments, I wholeheartedly Support the FA nomination. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes

Well this has been a marathon but I think the additional time we've given it to achieve consensus has been worthwhile, so thanks all for your efforts; some housekeeping for Khanate:

• The year-only date ranges in the infobox don't need spaces surrounding the dashes, they should be formatted the same way as in the text.
  • Now fixed. Spaces removed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• You have a dablink for Han River.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• There is a Harv error that needs to be resolved (FN173) -- you can find these in future by installing this script.
  • Now fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• You have some duplicate links in the main body of the article (incl. Han River) -- again you can check these yourself by installing this script; in a detailed article such as this, repeated links to key items may be justified if there's a good deal of text between them, but pls review in any case and lose what you can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I had somehow skipped the infobox. :) Two Three dates in there need to be adjusted: 1141 should be changed to 1142 (the year of the Treaty of Shaoxing), and 1164 to 1165 (the Longxing Treaty), and 1216–1219 to 1217–1221. 1142, 1165, and 1217–1221 are the dates indicated in the article. Khanate: do install those two scripts if you have not already. Since Ian Rose taught them to me a year ago in my first FAC review, they've proven immensely useful! And if I may incidentally ask Ian: do you have another nifty tool for detecting dablinks? Finally, thank you, Khanate, for writing this article! As I realized when I re-read the secondary sources, it was quite a difficult task, and I learned a lot during this review. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The toolbox at the top right of this page for the dab checker -- "Disambig links"... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! First the infobox, and now this. My blind spot must be on the top right. :-) Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dates in the infobox have now been fixed. They come from the Chinese Wikipedia article, and it was my mistake that I didn't double check them.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose and Maladibi. I'm new to scripts, but these tools will come in handy.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again Simon Burchell, Nikkimaria, Quadell, Dank, Ian Rose, Curly Turkey, Vctrbarbieri, and especially Madalibi for your work reviewing the article!--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome, Khanate. Let me know the next time you open a FAC review, and I'll be glad to help again! Madalibi (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [33].

---

James Hogun

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The last in the series in which I've been working, this article covers the least-known and least-referenced general in the Continental Army from North Carolina. James Hogun was a relative unknown, picked almost (but never explicitly stated as such) as a compromise candidate among North Carolinian politicians feuding over who should be made the next general from that state. Hogun served a brief period of time, before being captured. He allegedly chose to remain in captivity rather than being paroled (although I personally question whether or not he wasn't paroled either because he wasn't considered a gentleman of property, and thus his word would have been worthless, or because he was native Irish). He died in a prison camp outside of Charleston. My busy work schedule is forcing me into a form of semi-retirement, but I wanted to see this project completed at the least. Thank you in advance for your review! Cdtew (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made a few tweaks. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Dan, thanks for taking a look at this one. Cdtew (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. FN14: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done. Thanks for having a look. Cdtew (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

I've got an immense soft spot for comprehensively-researched articles about subjects like this, that are notable, or even important, but with comparatively little extant documentation. In general (pun probably intended), this is in great shape, and I've only got a few quibbles:

• I'm not entirely sold on the relevance of the Halifax area map, but there's admittedly limited options for illustration here. I don't suppose an image of the area where the historical marker suggests his home stood is both available and actually interesting?

• I've looked, and I don't see an image that seems worthwhile, including on Flickr. I'm a fan of the map just because its a common element to the other four articles I've done (a map of their home areas from the 1770 Collet work).

• Gloss Haddrel's Point if you're going to mention in the lead? It's almost certainly not notable as a place, but we don't receive any context as to its location until the section on his imprisonment.

• Done.

• Perhaps consider combining the Early life and Political involvement sections? They're both pretty stubby, by necessity, and it's at least reasonably defensible to discuss the pre-War material in a single section. I can probably be convinced otherwise if you'd rather not go this route.

• I agree, and have combined.

• I'd try to reword the Early life section to avoid the "It is known that..." construction if possible. Since the state seems to have known where he lived, perhaps that's worth mentioning at this point?

• Done, re: "It is known". Also, added that information, which is relevant.

• "...relative rise..." Relative to what?

• Not sure what I was going for there, but I removed the offending word.

• I'm not sure how much weight it deserves, but perhaps flesh out the debate over his promotion a little more? It's one of the handful of events in Hogun's life where there's a lot known, and I'm inclined to feel the article should make use of that.

• Fleshed out with what was in the footnote; I'm not sure I want to go too deep into the debate, however, for fear of messing with the summary style. The reasons for the controversy aren't well fleshed-out in the sources, which would be the only other thing this is really missing.

• This book mentions his burial was in an unmarked grave (it's implied in some of your sources). Consider adding that to round out the discussion of his death?

• Done. I've used that source in other articles, not sure why I didn't here.

• The grant of 12,000 acres of Davidson County land to Lemuel by the North Carolina government was apparently explicitly done to honor James and surely counts as part of his Legacy.

• Agreed, and added.

• The caption for Clinton's map might want to indicate the location in question is "at far right", or something; I wandered around the map for a little while looking for it.

• Done.

• I know sources don't agree on Haddrel's Point/Haddrell's Point, but you should. It's got two l's in the map caption, but one elsewhere throughout the article.

• Standardized to one-l.

• You aren't consistent about whether you short-form page ranges. Compare footnote 6 (162–63) and 14 with footnote 16 (167–170) and the Rankin reference.

• Standardized to short-forming them.

I don't think this is very far off from meeting my standards for support, and most of these are very easy tweaks. Admirable work with material limited by history. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thank you so much for your kind words, and for your thorough review. I have addressed your comments (as is my custom) in italics below each discrete remark; if that's inconvenient or distracting for you, let me know and I will bunch my responses together below. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs work! My edits are here. Cdtew (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Just a note, as you appear to be aware, that this user hasn't revisited this FAC, among others. I believe I have addressed all of Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs)'s comments, for the record. Cdtew (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support by Ian Rose

• Copyedited as usual, pls let me know if I've misunderstood or broken anything; only one outstanding query:
  • "Hogun's regiment served on a work detail tasked with building up the fortifications at West Point. Hogun found the task distasteful..." -- Not having looked at the source, is "distasteful" (meaning "repulsive", "offensive", etc) definitely what's meant? Or was it simply boring, beneath him, or something else? Just checking...
    • @Ian Rose: As usual, I appreciate all of your copy-editing (especially in light on an embarrassing "en route" error), and have no problem with any of it. As for distasteful - the source isn't explicit, but it appears it was a combination of "boring" and "beneath him". I've edited the article to reflect that [ here]. Thanks again for your help! Cdtew (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Structure, comprehensiveness, and neutrality seem fine to me.
• As far as referencing goes I'll rely on the source review above.
• Image licensing looks okay but be happy to have that confirmed by Nikki or another specialist. Allowing for that, happy to support another in Cdtew's fine series of ARW bios. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:1780_map_of_Charleston,_South_Carolina.jpeg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria:: Thanks again for looking at this, Nikki. I have added a fresh, working link for that source (note: I wasn't the uploader, and had to hunt for it myself). Cdtew (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hchc2009:

• "Despite being offered the opportunity to leave internment under a parole that was generally extended to other captured Continental officers, Hogun remained in a British prisoner-of-war camp near Charleston, perhaps in order to prevent the British Army from recruiting Continental soldiers for its campaign in the West Indies. " - quite a long sentence, particularly in the lead. Worth breaking after officers, or Charleston?

• Reworded somewhat, and broke in two. let me know what you think.

• "Between August, 1775, and November, 1776, Hogun represented Halifax County in the Third, Fourth, and Fifth North Carolina Provincial Congresses, demonstrating an interest in military matters" - "demonstrating" here could mean two different things; either, that his representation of the County demonstrates that he was interested in military matters, or that, while representing the County, he demonstrated an interest in military matters.

• You're right. Fixed the wording to "and demonstrated".

• " returned to West Point with the first regiment so recruited" - I'm not sure you've said that he had been to West Point, making the "return" a bit odd here.

• Corrected. Got lost in the narrative with that.

• "Hogun was not satisfied with this task, but his men lacked sufficient weapons to allow them to serve as a combat unit until approximately 400 muskets were requisitioned for them" - this feels like it should have a date at the end - i.e. he lacked sufficient weapons... until XX date". This would differentiate it clearly from a generic requirement.

• I think the "end date" comes with the next paragraph; I see what you're saying, though, and so I've modified some of the language to be closer to the source. Let me know if this is sufficient.

• Worth linking Philadelphia.

• Philadelphia is linked in the body, just not in the header.

• as a result of the "distinguished intrepidity" he had exhibited at Germantown. - I'd be keen that the source of the quote is in the main text (i.e. who said this)

• It was Burke; moved up his introduction and reworded to fit.

• " had nominated" - "had already nominated" might make it smoother here

• Done.

• "who received the support of nine of the thirteen states (as each state delegation voted as one)" - I'm not convinced you need the bracketed bit here.

• Moved to a footnote.

• "where he was to be placed under the command" - why the conditional here? (i.e. why not "where he was placed under the command..."?

• Agreed, changed.

• "Because of Charleston's location on a peninsula, Lincoln aligned his Continental units in defensive works such as redoubts, redans, and batteries, connected by a parapet that ran across the "neck" of the peninsula, with a concrete hornwork that served as his command post jutting out from the parapet." - not the easiest sentence, as the link between the peninsula and the "neck" gets lost. I'd recommend something like "Charleston was located on a peninsula, and Lincoln positioned his Continental units to block off the "neck" of the headland using a line of redoubts, redans, and batteries. These defences were linked by a parapet, and commanded from a concrete hornwork that jutted out from the defensive line."

• Agreed, changed.

• "from the civil authority" - "civil authority", or "civil authorities"?

• I chose the plural, and changed.

• "the British and Patriot forces exchanged artillery and rifle fire throughout the days and nights, the British bombardment whittling down the American breastworks" - I'm not sure about the phrase "throughout the days and nights"; it might work better at the start of the sentence perhaps, or in the singular - e.g. "through the day and night"

• I guess I was trying to convey that it occurred over multiple days and nights, but I have changed to make a little more sense.

• "When these were rejected," - this doesn't quite match with the preceeding sentence, which talked about negotiating terms (you can proffer or propose terms, which are then rejected by the other side, but you can't negotiate terms which are then rejected, unless the rejection is by a third party).

• Agreed, changed to "offer" instead of "negotiate".

• "Despite this, the British held only the officers at Haddrel's Point" - doesn't quite make sense; the British decision (I presume) wasn't despite Hogun's decision to refuse parole. I'd suggest, "The British, however, decided to hold the officers separately at Haddrel's Point..."

• Agreed, changed.

• "denied permission to fish for much-needed food" - "to fish to catch much-needed food"?

• I think that makes it a little clumsy, but I've reworded - let me know if it sounds alright.

• "North Carolina jurist and historian Walter Clark noted" - I'd date this in the main text, given the age, e.g. "noted at the start of the 20th century that..." Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, and done.

• @Hchc2009: Many thanks for your review! I have addressed all your comments above in italics; if you are not comfortable with me doing so, feel free to refactor my comments so that they are entirely below yours. Please let me know if there is anything else you see that needs changing, and I will be happy to take another look! Cdtew (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: For some reason the FAC page summary isn't accurate; this article has now garnered 3 supports from reviewers (not 2), I have completely addressed the comments from one viewer who has apparently dropped off the face of Wiki since December, and the only other comments are a Source Review and Image Review from Nikki, which I believe I have addressed fully. I'm happy to address more comments or concerns, but this one has been sitting stale for a couple of weeks. It's not looking like more reviews are forthcoming. Cdtew (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [34].

---

Charlie Chaplin

Nominator(s): Loeba (talk) and TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is one of the most famous men who's ever lived. Chaplin was a genius: not everyone realises that along with being a performer, he's the only person in history to direct, write, produce, edit and even compose the music for his films. He also has a fascinating story, rising from the poverty of Victorian London to become a Hollywood superstar...and then being shunned because of his political views and (effectively) forced out of the United States. We want him to have a featured article, and after working on it (intermitently) since Spring 2012 and receiving detailed GA and PR reviews, we believe it is finally ready. It's been both a challenge and a pleasure to write, and we hope you'll enjoy. -- Loeba (talk) and TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto

Support – I reviewed this fine piece of work at WP:GAN and the PR has only improved it further. The nominators should be congratulated for their hard work and thorough research. The prose is both informative and engaging, and the tone is as neutral as you can get, especially on a subject which would be very easy to become sycophantical about. I have read the article again and can see no issues. I do have a couple more questions though:

• The second paragraph of the "Legacy" section starts with Christian Hansmeyer... Who was this? Who was he writing on behalf of? I cannot see a nearby introduction of him to this paragraph.
• Do we know the location of his star on the Hollywood walk?

Certainly nothing important and it will not effect my support. Congratulations on a wonderful article! --Cassianto^Talk 09:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and support, and for all your help! I've introduced Hansmeyer and added the address of his star to the caption. --Loeba (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandbh

Lede

A few optional suggestions:

• '…rose to fame in the silent era.' Perhaps add (time period) after the silent era?

Just to clarify that I understood this correctly, do you mean you would like to see a time period, i.e. 1888–1928, added in brackets after 'the silent era'? I'm concerned that it would make the sentence look cluttered, especially as there is a link to a page about it. Also, as he didn't start making films until 25 years into the silent era adding those years could be confusing as the silent era pretty much began around the time he was born... Loeba, what do you think?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Yes I don't really think adding the time period would add much...I imagine even readers without any knowledge of film history have a general idea of when films were silent. And if they're really not sure, "silent era" is linked (as you say). --Loeba (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind: 1888-1928, or something like that. It's a difficult judgement call. When I read it I straight away wondered when the silent era actually ran from. As you note, there's a link to it, so as you're both happy with that, it's good. Sandbh (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• '…from childhood in the Victorian era until a year before his death...' Perhaps this could include a period for the Victorian era, and a year of death.

• 'He was sent to a workhouse twice before the age of nine; his father was absent, and his mother was committed to a mental asylum.' Are these events in chronological order?

I've rewritten this now, hope it's better: "As his father was absent and his mother struggled to make ends meet, he was sent to a workhouse twice before the age of nine. When he was fourteen, his mother was committed to a mental asylum." TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• 'Chaplin directed his films from an early stage…' in his career?

Added this!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hmm I personally think "in his career" goes without saying and is a bit redundant? Not a big deal though, I don't mind much either way. --Loeba (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, when I read this I had a mental picture of Mr Chaplin directing his films from a stage! The theatre-words tend to blur into one another. Sandbh (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• 'Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, wrote the music, and starred in most of his films.' One 'wrote' may be better. Perhaps 'composed the music'? Sandbh (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Background and childhood hardship

• '…taking his mother to the infirmary.' Is the infirmary the same as the asylum?

No, she was taken from there to Cane Hill; I've clarified this in the text now.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• I found the last two paragraphs of this section a little hard to follow in terms of the sequence of events. Perhaps the fact that Sydney enrolled in the Navy could be added to the end of the penultimate paragraph? Then the last para. cld say something like, 'He lived alone for several days, searching for food and occasionally sleeping rough, until Sydney returned from his time with the Navy.[24]
• BTW, was their any significance in Sydney returning from the Navy, on Chaplin's domestic situation apart from no longer having to live alone? Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article and commenting! I have incorporated some of your suggestions, a couple of the others I'm worried would increase wordiness without really increasing clarity? Regarding Sydney being in the Navy etc, I can completely understand how it may seem awkward to mention it where it is currently, but I also feel like it'd be a bit weird to mention it in the previous paragraph, ie "Sydney left home and enrolled in the Navy in 1901". It's not a significant event in Charlie's life, so it would stand out as odd detail IMO. The only reason we need to mention it at all, really, is so that (as you say) readers understand that Charlie was left alone for a while. If you definitely think it would improve the text to mention Sydney leaving in the prior paragraph then we can do that, but I wanted to give an explanation first. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Seconding the thanks! Many good points raised; I've also corrected a couple, will get back to this soon!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Yes, the comment about Sydney joining the Navy was a response to being surprised that he had returned from the Navy, without what precipitated this having been foreshadowed. Another difficult judgement call to do with information presentation. It's small beer really, so I leave it up to you as to which way you'd like to go. I won't mind either way. Sandbh (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Young performer

• 'He recalled making his first amateur appearance at five years old…' Was it 5 or 4? The Hannah Chaplin article says 4.

• We decided to specifically state it as Chaplin recalled it, and he claims he was 5. It's pretty likely he was a couple of years older than that (A. J. Marriot has done extensive research into Chaplin's performances, and age 7 is his conclusion) but it's all speculation so best to explicitly write "Chaplin recalled that..." and give his account. --Loeba (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, we should go with 5 since it's Chaplin's words. There's no actual evidence that the performance ever took place – I personally believe that it's just part of the myth of his childhood that he created to support his image as an artist. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• 'The manager sensed potential in Chaplin and he was soon on the stage.' Was the manager on stage or Chaplin? :)

• I think that since the last male name is Chaplin's, it's fairly clear that "he" must refer to Chaplin? --Loeba (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

United Artists, Mildred Harris, and The Kid

• 'Harris was by then legitimately pregnant, and on 7 July 1919, she gave birth to a son.' Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Done.

Support: A fine piece of work. Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Loeba (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources review and Brianboulton

• Refs 170 and 223: Same sources, different formats ("Encyclopaedia Britannica" and "Britannica (online)")
• Ref 286: check page ref format
• Ref 317: requires pp not p
• Ref 322: "BBC News" should not be italicised (non-print medium)
• Ref 326: Ditto
• Ref 329: Which Weissman?
• Ref 332: Source needs clarification - the linked site is in Norwegian.

• Ref 338: check page ref format
• Ref 340: Ditto
• Ref 367: Which Weissman?
• Ref 381: "Weissman 1996" does not exist
• Ref 401: Source should not be italicised - see e.g. 319, 444 etc
• Ref 427: What information is being cited to this source, which seems to contain no Chaplin-related material?
  • Ah, it used to contain the address ("1 Charlie Chaplin Walk") but they've changed the layout. I found a new source for this. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 429: It should be noted that this is in French
• Ref 438: The source is "Charlie Chaplin Stamps", not "Blogger". What makes this a reliable high-quality source?
  • "Charlie Chaplin Stamps" is the name of the blog, so that's in the "title" field, but the publisher is Blogger. I know that this doesn't really meet the "high quality" criteria, but it's undeniably reliable because it includes images of all the stamps...I was hoping it would be acceptable for this reason? --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cousins book: pub location missing
• Kamin book: pub location given as a state rather than town/city. Is this as per the book?
• Sklar book: pub location missing

Otherwise, all sources look good. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for doing that Brian, you have sharp eyes! Should all be fixed. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: I recently carried out a detailed peer review and am satisfied that my concerns raised there have been fully addressed. This is a most impressive article which, once the sources quibbles have been fixed and a media review carried out, will I think fully warrant its status as among Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Enormous thanks for giving your support (and a lot of your time) to the article. --Loeba (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you Brian for all the work you have done to help us improve this article! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

jimknut

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments "His first feature-length picture was The Kid (1921) …" → Chaplin's first feature was actually Tillie's Punctured Romance (1914). The Kid was his second, but the first that he wrote and directed as well as starred in. Oops, changed it now. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 Hmm but no-one really thinks of Tillie's Punctured Romance as "a Chaplin film" do they? He'd already appeared in a feature before The Kid, but it wasn't his feature IMO. --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC) That's true as well. I did have problems wording it and I think the modifications that I made make the sentence a bit 'clumsy'... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 As it currently stands the intro section states: "In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which gave him complete control over his films. His first feature-length was The Kid (1921)…" while the Keystone section says "In November 1914, he had a supporting role in his first feature length comedy film, Tillie's Punctured Romance …" This just seems too contradictory so I think some rewording will be needed.Jimknut (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Ah, the Keystone bit is meant to say "the first comedy film"! It must have been changed when Brian was copy-editing, I hadn't noticed or I would have changed it back (which I have now). --Loeba (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC) "He refused to move to sound films in the 1930s, instead producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936) without dialogue." → Actually both films have soundtracks consisting of music and sound effects and Modern Times has some dialogue scenes, including Chaplin singing in a gibberish language. I've tried to improve the sentence, it now looks like this: "Although he adopted the use of a synchronised orchestral soundtrack and sound effects with the advent of sound films in the 1930s, he refused to include dialogue in City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936)." I agree with you that we need to clarify that he did not completely refuse to use sound technology, but I still would not say that the films have dialogue, at least if dialogue is defined as two characters discussing something. In both films, there are snippets of speech, but these always either come from a machine or are distorted; hence I think it is better to see them as sound effects rather than dialogue. The exception is of course the gibberish song, but even that is not really proper dialogue. What do you think, Loeba? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 Personally, I think it's getting too specific for the lead. We go into details when discussing the films, but for the lead I think it's reasonable to say "he refused to move to sound films". City Lights and Modern Times aren't pure silent films, no, but essentially they still feel like them. So I think for the lead, which should be nice and brief, that's all we need to say. --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC) That's true as well. My only concern is the people who don't bother to read the whole article – but then again, I don't think we're really misleading anyone by saying that he refused sound films as most people probably equate sound films with films with spoken dialogue rather than think of the different aspects of sound. I think I might have been to quick to edit things! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 That's okay, you were just trying to address Jimknut's concerns. I'm going to change it back for now - Jimknut, let us know if you think it's a real problem. --Loeba (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC) OKay, I can live with the way it is now. Jimknut (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC) "Charles Spencer Chaplin was born on 16 April 1889 to Hannah Chaplin (née Hill) and Charles Chaplin, Sr. ." → Only one period needed. Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 "Saintsbury secured a role for Chaplin in Charles Frohman's production of Sherlock Holmes, where he played Billy the pageboy in three nationwide tours." → How about mentioning that Saintsbury played Holmes on these tours?. I think Saintsbury played Holmes on only one tour though. But yes, it could potentially be a good idea to add a line about him, given that Saintsbury was a famous actor at the time. What do you think Loeba? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 Yeah, I'm pretty sure Sainstbury was only on the first tour. It used to be worded to mention this, but as part of my trimming efforts it was removed...I don't think it's too important, personally. --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC) According to the Robinson biography (pp. 682-685), Sainstbury played Holmes in the first tour, followed by Kenneth Rivington and H. Lawrence Layton, respectively, in the second and third tours. Perhaps this could be added as a footnote. Jimknut (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC) "The use of pathos was developed further with The Bank, in which Chaplin created a sad ending." → Just what was that sad ending? The article on The Bank doesn't say so could we include it here? I'll add it to The Bank article later today? ;) --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC) In the Essannay section there is nothing about his legal battles over Burlesque on Carmen and Triple Trouble. It used to be mentioned (see this version for instance) but it was cut...you definitely think it's important enough to mention? --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Should we perhaps have a footnote about it? I do agree that it could be useful to have a mention about it because at least Triple Trouble wasn't really a Chaplin film but was compiled by the studio from material shot by him; but then again, I also do agree that it might make the main text too cluttered. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 Yes it would be good to have it in a footnote, but I'm struggling to see a way of fitting it in...if you or Jim can think of a way, the referencing info is available in that previous version I linked to? --Loeba (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I'll get back to this after Christmas if that's ok? I'd also like to add something about Triple Trouble as well. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 Yes, I think it's worth mention since Chaplin strived to have full artistic control over his work. Jimknut (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Done! I'm slightly confused as to how the issue was finally resolved, Robinson only says that the legal battle continued until 1922. I assume Essanay just gave up? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 "... and his treatment of the Tramp as "a sort of Pierrot."" → Link Pierrot. Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 "... it was announced that he had married his newest protégée, 18-year-old Oona O'Neill." → I feel it is worth noting that she was the daughter of famed playwright Eugene O'Neill. Moved from the footnote to the main text. --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Section title: "Limelight and banning from US" United States should be spelled out. Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 About A Countess From Hong Kong: Should it be mentioned that it is Chaplin's only film in widescreen and color? Yes, I think that's a good idea, added these details. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 I think it should be noted (possibly in the "Legacy" section) that almost all of Chaplin's films have been released on DVD and many on blu-ray as well. Jimknut (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Done --Loeba (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking time to give us feedback, it is much appreciated! You've raised many good points, I've changed some bits in the article already and will get back to making more changes soon. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 Yes, thanks from me too. --Loeba (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC) More comments Lead section: "In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which gave him complete control over his films. His first feature-length was The Kid (1921)" For the second sentence can we alter it to read "His first feature for UA was The Kid"? This way we do not contradict the statement made later in the Keystone section that Tillie's Punctured Romance was his first feature. I'm sorry that I'm being stubborn over this (!) but I really think the first "Chaplin feature" was The Kid. It's pretty much always spoken about in that way. Even our own article on the film states "This was Chaplin's first full-length movie." In the Chaplin article, the fact that it comes after the statement about founding UA seems to make it pretty clear that it's his first personal feature (which is what counts)...I toyed around with adding "his first directed feature" but it just looks redundant and unnecessary to me...plus it makes it sound like he could have appeared in several other features that he didn't direct, whereas it was only one - and with only a supporting role at that... --Loeba (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Keystone section: "During the filming of his tenth picture he clashed with director Mabel Normand, and was almost released from his contract." Can we source this? And why not identify the film in question? (i.e. Mabel at the Wheel, which, by the way, should now count as Chaplin's eleventh picture due to the recent [2010] discovery of A Thief Catcher) It is covered by the next subsequent reference. I added the film title and fixed it to "eleventh". --Loeba (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC) With this issues dealt with along with the others above I am set to give my support for the article. Jimknut (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Support — Excellent article that I consider feature worthy. Jimknut (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Big big thanks. --Loeba (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat

Support. An excellent article and one worthy of being an FA. There are three minor suggestions for you to consider:

Lead

• "struggled to make ends meet": is this encyclopaedic? Would "struggled financially" be more suitable?

Background and childhood hardship

• "Hannah Chaplin was committed": Chaplin not needed here—we already know her surname.

Young performer

• "The manager sensed potential in Chaplin, and he was soon on the stage": which "he"?

These points are nothing too onerous and nothing that will stop me supporting this excellent article. – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Those points have been fixed - major thanks for your support! --Loeba (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

Support This is quite an excellent, engaging piece. Given the amount of sources on Chaplin, it would be easy to go into an excessive amount of detail. Covering a topic as big as Chaplin in one article is very difficult and challenging and I believe you've more than done a fine job of researching and summarizing his career. I was particularly impressed with the filmmaking section in particular which illustrates that the writers clearly know what they're talking about and have much experience of his films and techniques. Only one thing surprised me though; in the writing and condensing of the article I'd have expected you to split into sub articles and then cut down. Early life in particular I'd expect a sub article on somebody like Chaplin and I think it would be a positive thing to cover periods of his career in more detail in sister articles for the cinema buffs like myself who might want to read further. Something to consider in the future perhaps. Loeba and Susie in particular and others who've copyedited and been involved with the peer review I congratulate you on producing such a valuable well-written article on a cinema giant like Charlie Chaplin! Superb! Just a few minor things below:

In the lead is it possible you could state the name of the film of his debut on the screen? Something like "Chaplin was scouted for the film industry, and made his first appearance in 1914 in Keystone Studios's xxx." Also after "He abandoned the Tramp in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), and A King in New York (1957), while continuing to deal with serious themes." is it possible you could add "His last film, a Countess from Hong Kong, was released in 1967? Just a suggestion which I think would give the reader an immediate idea of his debut and final film and scope. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Early life is excellent and appropriate for this main article but I'm surprised given his status and the amount of material existing there isn't a sub article "Early life of Charlie Chaplin". I think a lot of readers, myself included, would find such an article interesting and valuable. Something to consider at a later date perhaps!

• " The manager sensed potential in Chaplin, who was soon on the stage.[35] His first role was a newsboy in H. A. Saintsbury's Jim, a Romance of Cockayne. It opened in July 1903, but the show was unsuccessful and closed after two weeks." I think it would read a bit better if you wrote the first part as "The manager sensed potential in Chaplin, who was given his first role on a stage as a newsboy in H. A. Saintsbury's Jim, a Romance of Cockayne."

• "Chaplin soon found work with a new company" -do we know what company this was?
  • It's the company that ran the Repairs sketch (mentioned in the same sentence). I don't think there's a name given for them (maybe they exclusively did Repairs?) --Loeba (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• "When the act finished touring in July 1907, the 18-year-old was an accomplished comedy performer." I'd probably write this as "By the time that the act had finished touring in July 1907, the 18-year-old had become an accomplished comedic performer", something about the tense I think, you might disagree!
• "His most successful role was a drunk called the "Inebriate Swell", which drew him considerable recognition" Can you reword "considerable" here as it still repeats on me from what you said just a few lines earlier, or perhaps reword to "significant" in the earlier instance?

• Travels, Paulette Goddard, and Modern Times paragraph has inconsistency in the spelling of focussed/focused. Personally I prefer focused, I'm sure both are generally accepted in British English as the article appears to e using but it should be consistent of course!

♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, your kind comments have made me very happy. :) All the above points have been dealt with I think, thanks for reading through the article. I've actually thought myself that "Early life of Charlie Chaplin" could easily be its own article - one day, maybe! --Loeba (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very late on this, but wanted to comment on the idea of having sub-articles for different phases of Chaplin's life. I agree that it is a good idea, especially for his early life as there's so much uncertainty about it. I'd definitely be interested in tackling that, but alas, I don't have the time for it at the moment :( TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thanks, You've balanced the article out wonderfully I think, reviews on the more significant films where needed and also covers the things like monuments and tributes very well. You should be very proud of this one! Somebody like Chaplin should have detailed sub articles covering his life in stages like Early life and career, then articles on his terms at each studios perhaps but I can understand you wanting a long break from Chaplin editing after this magnificent effort! Politics of Charlie Chaplin would be an interesting one too!! You've done the hardest thing first though and have written an article which I had intended to work on since 2007 but was too intimidated by the scale of it and the possible sources!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Notes (Ian Rose)

• Need an image review, unless I missed it.
• Just skimming the article, I was glad to see a brief mention at least of criticism of the subject as an artist, but didn't notice much or anything in the way of comparison with other silent comics like Keaton, Lloyd, etc. Of course you have to reflect the balance in the sources but I assume they discussed his work in relation to his contemporaries -- just a few sentences might be useful.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Re images, User:GermanJoe checked them out for the GA review and seemed to think they were all fine. I have asked him to add a review here though. As for comparison with the other silent comics, there used to be a comment about the modern popularity of Buster Keaton in the Legacy section (see this version, but this was removed at the advice of User:Brianboulton during the PR. I do rather agree with him now: for instance, (as I reasoned at the PR) I wouldn't expect to see a comparison with The Beatles on The Rolling Stones article (or vice versa). What do you think? --Loeba (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Loeba, I don't think there's much need to compare Chaplin with other stars.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Yes, I've seen the PR discussion and there is a fine line between getting into a general discussion on silent comedy or who's considered 'better' now, which is not the goal, and placing the subject in proper context, which is part of the FAC criteria. Since (as I'd expect in such an article) you discuss his influences, and his influence on others, it seemed logical to hear something of how his style contrasted with some of his contemporaries, particularly as so many of them got their break at Keystone. As I say, though, it does come down to reflecting the weight/balance in the biographical literature you're working from. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, texts on Chaplin don't seem to compare his style to the other comedians...There are obviously books that do this, but not really the dedicated Chaplin biographies. They often mention his popularity compared to Keaton, which is why we initially included a reference to this, but not so much the stylistic differences...I suppose it would be good to have a sentence or two in the relevant section though. I'll see what I can find. --Loeba (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. At the very least, since we discuss his influence on later film makers, it might be worth noting (reliably sourced) influences Chaplin had on famous contemporaries. For instance isn't Harold Lloyd's 'Lonesome Luke' character considered derivative of Chaplin's 'Tramp'? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd initially tried to imitate Chaplin, but he changed to his own unique character and this is the one that brought him success. See this clip for instance, from roughly 6 minutes in. So I'm not sure it's quite right to say Chaplin was a major influence on Lloyd, outside of the general influence CC had in slowing down comedy etc that is mentioned in the Legacy section. --Loeba (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Returning, I'm still a little surprised by the resistance about this point... Loeba mentioned it might be good "to have a sentence or two in the relevant section" so have you abandoned that thought? Further, no-one said Chaplin influenced the character that brought Lloyd fame, it just seemed an interesting tidbit that Chaplin's stature within a year of developing the Tramp was strong enough for another budding comic to rip him off (perhaps Lloyd wasn't the only one, I don't know). Anyway, I think I've involved myself enough in this content discussion that I should recuse myself from delegate duties. I certainly wouldn't oppose promotion over this but I will let the comments stand, and am happy to let Graham close this in his own time, whether we come to an agreement or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree that we could mention Lonesome Luke (neither Robinson nor Maland mention Chaplin's influence on Lloyd though; does Louvish? I think Lynn mentions this, but given that he is quite eccentric when it comes to his use of sources, I would not like to rely on his book) given that the character was such an early imitation. Perhaps we could also add to the section about The Kid that after Chaplin started making features, other comedians followed (I think we even had something like this before?). But those are really the only instances where I think it makes any sense to add comparisons between Chaplin and other comedians of the era within the main text. We've already mentioned that he was imitated by many other comedians, to the point that he began suing them for copyright infringement – i.e. he was hugely influential to silent comedy at the time. If we want to compare Chaplin and contemporaries further, we would have to somehow convey that it's really the post-1950s film historians who have been interested in comparing them so intensively. We could mention this, but what exactly should we write? That film historians have liked to compare Chaplin and Keaton because they made slapstick comedies in Hollywood in the silent era, and although Chaplin was FAR more popular during the silent era, after the 1950s some scholars have liked to argue about which one was the greater artist? That scholars A, B and C think Keaton is the superior, but X, Y and Z think the complete opposite? I guess what I am trying to say is not that I completely oppose mentioning the rivalry, but I just cannot come up with an idea of how to go about doing it without having the article to contribute to the anachronistic idea that a Chaplin/Keaton/Lloyd rivalry existed in the 1920s...TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Apologies Ian, when you wrote "Fair enough", I took that to mean that a stylistic comparison wasn't necessary, and then you seemed to move on to talking about CC's influence on his main contemporaries, which I said I felt was inappropriate. Certainly many comedians did imitate Chaplin, but (as Susie says) this is mentioned in the Mutual section ("In 1917, professional Chaplin imitators were so widespread that he took legal action") and I feel that is sufficient? Like her, in theory I'm not necessarily resistant to an explicit mention of Lloyd/Keaton, but I'm struggling to see a way to fit it in smoothly (and I certainly don't think it is essential information)...@GrahamColm: I'd certainly be grateful if you could let us know if you think this or anything else is necessary for promotion. The goal is to get this on the mainpage for February 2nd, so it would be great to get this wrapped up as soon as possible. Many thanks --Loeba (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Image check (GermanJoe)

Image check - all OK (PD-age, PD-not renewed, own work). Sources and authors provided.

• As noted, an initial image check has already been done during GA, quickly checking all images again.
• Where necessary, uploads have been provided with detailed commentary about the original copyright situation and missing renewals - great work, OK.
• A problematic gallery and one caption have been fixed during the GA-review - OK.
• Statue photos are always a point of discussion on Commons, but the only image of a UK-statue should be OK copyright-wise (having checked the current Commons situation) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much Joe! @Ian Rose: just pinging you to let you know this has been done now. --Loeba (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Kailash29792

I do not have much to say, except for these:

• Shouldn't the infobox have a more popular and better recognised image of Chaplin? I'm not used to seeing him without a moustache.
• Any info on his height?

More coming soon. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the talk page about the lead image, where it was agreed that it's best to show Chaplin out of costume. He was a real man, not just the Tramp, and this is a biography about his life. I kind of understand your point, but there are plenty of images of him as the Tramp within the article (and everyone knows what his costume looked like anyway). As for his height, umm I could probably find a statistic but I'm not sure how useful/necessary that is? Thanks for looking and commenting. --Loeba (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback! It is true that Chaplin is more recognisable when he is in the Tramp costume. However, like Loeba said, given that the article is about Chaplin as a person, I think it is preferable to have an image of him as himself rather than in costume in the lead. As for his height, I'm not sure if anyone is completely sure what his height was (I've heard anything from 5'3 to 5'7). I'm not sure if we should include it – I think it's necessary information only in the case of runway models and people who are specifically known for their height (e.g. people who have been declared the tallest/shortest people on earth etc.). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Ok good work guys! I have no other suggestions to improve the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC) [35].

---

Hugh Walpole

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In the 1920s and 30s Hugh Walpole was one of the best-selling novelists on both sides of the Atlantic. Praised as a young man by Henry James, Joseph Conrad, Arnold Bennett and others, he produced a wide range of fiction and non-fiction between 1909 and his death in 1941. After he died his novels went out of fashion, and much of his work was neglected. There has been a modest revival of interest during the past decade, with a dozen or so of his best books reprinted in Britain and the US, and the author's own life story is remarkable in many ways. The article has had a very thorough peer review, and is now, I believe, ready for consideration for FA. – Tim riley (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was active at the peer review and thought then that this was clearly a contender for the coveted gold star. Being a Tim Riley article, there was very little room for improvement, and the few comments I had to offer were quickly remedied to my satisfaction. Top notch article and worthy of FA status. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow! That was quick. Thank you very much for the support and your (too) kind words. Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support, I was a fellow traveller on the path of FAC and my few concerns were dealt with admirably. A further read through shows no further issues for comment. Lovely piece of work: interesting, insightful and a pleasure to read. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Greatly indebted for your help and for your support here. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Yep, I also looked at the article for its PR and have no concerns. Very high quality article about an interesting man, thanks for your hard work Tim. --Loeba (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Loeba, for the very thorough peer review and for your support here. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by the Dr.

Lead

• In the lead you state "Among those who encouraged him were the established authors Henry James and Arnold Bennett." I'd like to know instantly how he came into contact with such men and where they encouraged him. Was it at school, university, Sunday school etc? Also "His skill at scene-setting, his vivid plots, and his high profile as a lecturer" I'd also want an indication of where he lectured at and "After his first novel in 1909" I'd expect you to name his debut novel.
  • He encountered James by way of A C Benson to whom he had earlier attached himself, whereas Bennett was the instigator of their friendship. All in the main text, but a bit detailed for the lead, I think. The lecture tours were in America, which I have mentioned. Name of novel added. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Why have you linked Petrograd but not London? - think globally...
  • The MoS (WP:OVERLINK) bids us avoid linking well-known places such as London. Petrograd, I think, is not so generally known, and a link may be helpful. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I believe it advises not to link global cities, but St Petersburg isn't exactly a small city either!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the temporary alias of "Petrograd" it might be unfamiliar to many. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "He eventually found one, and settled in the English Lake District." Who?
  • I tried putting Harold Cheevers's name here when I was writing the lead, but it didn't seem to be helpful, and so I removed it. When a partner or spouse is famous in his/her own right it makes sense to give the name in the lead (e.g. Peter Pears in the Britten article) but Harold was a private citizen whose name will mean nothing to anyone. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Afterthought: would it be helpful to add "a married policeman", after the comma? Tim riley (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see, I presumed he was famous. A married policemen I think would be more useful then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Worth considering, certainly. I'll see what other contributors think. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Having as a young man eagerly sought the support of established authors such as James, he was in his later years a generous sponsor of many younger authors. " Such as?
  • Hart-Davis lists nearly forty of them. I have given a few as a footnote, but I don't think their names should go in the lead. The problem is that though we know the names of those who wrote letters of thanks to Walpole, we don't know which of them he helped with money and which in other ways (contacts, encouragement etc). Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Footnote is fine.

• He worked in Hollywood writing screenplays for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in the 1930s, and played a cameo in one film. Such as? You see I'd expect the lead to be informative and concise and at present it's a bit vague. Obviously you don't need to real off massive lists but some examples I think really help the reader more.
  • Added name of film. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can you add (1935) after David Copperfield?
  • Bit excessive, as we say 1930s just before it. It's in the link, of course. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, it is the norm to link the year in brackets when citing a film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Early years

• "In 1889, two years after the birth of the couple's daughter, Dorothea ("Dorothy"), Somerset Walpole accepted a prominent and well-paid academic post in New York." -You seem to assert the position but it would really help more if you knew what it was!
  • He accepted the Chair of Systematic Theology at the General Theological Seminary of New New York City. I could add this, but I don't know that including this eighty-nine-character job title would enhance the section. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just "accepted a prominent and well-paid academic post at the General Theological Seminary of New York City" then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Can do. Not an improvement, in my view, but not objectionable. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Link Truro? Only Bishop of Truro linked to date.
  • Good catch. Linked. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments so far. I look forward to more when you have time. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will continue this evening!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge

• "Benson gently forbade Walpole's advances" , I'm not sure forbade is the right word here.
  • Ceoil suggests "declined", which I am happy to adopt. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• "From April to July 1907 Walpole was in Germany, tutoring the children of the popular author Elizabeth von Arnim." Do you know where in Germany?
  • Nassenheide, near the current Polish border. But the place doesn't run to a WP article, and I think I'll leave it unmentioned here. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is now called Rzędziny. I'd be happier with knowing where he was, I'd assume it was somewhere like Berlin or Stuttgart otherwise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Note added. I wonder if we should add a new redirect page Nassenheide>Rzędziny: what do you think? Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Already done it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I say! Thanks for that. Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Early lit career

• "Walpole published his first novel, The Wooden Horse, in 1909. " do you know what publishing house? - might be worth mentioning.
  • All HW's UK and US publishers are given in the new sub-article listing all his books. The publishers were Smith, Elder, but I don't think there's anything very remarkable about them for present purposes. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough but I think you should mention the publisher once in the article somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Note added on all his early publishers. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Observer gave the book a favourable review: "The slow growth of the poison within [Perrin] is traced with wonderful skill and sympathy ... one feels throughout these pages a sense of intolerable tension, of impending disaster";[33] The Manchester Guardian was less enthusiastic, praising the scene-setting but calling the story "an unconscientious melodrama".[34] and the San Francisco Chronicle praised its "technical excellence, imagination and beauty – Walpole at his best."[35][n 5]"

Not a fan of the colon here and that you go from positive to negative to positive again. I'd word it as "The Observer gave the book a favourable review: "The slow growth of the poison within [Perrin] is traced with wonderful skill and sympathy ... one feels throughout these pages a sense of intolerable tension, of impending disaster", and the San Francisco Chronicle praised its "technical excellence, imagination and beauty – Walpole at his best." However, the Manchester Guardian was less enthusiastic, praising the scene-setting but calling the story "an unconscientious melodrama". " -just a suggestion for continuity's sake, I vaguely remember you saying something about not liking "However" or something though...

Indeed. At an earlier FAC, I forget which, John convinced me that nine times out of ten "however" is unnecessary and undesirable. I think this is one of the nine, and would rather stick with the existing wording. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can you link persona non grata if an article exists or point to something for our less well-bred readers who will not be familiar with a non English term...
  • Not persuaded that someone to whom such a phrase needs a link would have penetrated this far into an article about a little-known novelist, but will add a link nonetheless. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

WWI

• "The "Sanitar" is the part of the Red Cross that does the rough work at the front, carrying men out of the trenches, helping at the base hospitals in every sort of way, doing every kind of rough job. They are an absolutely official body and I shall be one of the few (half-dozen) Englishmen in the world wearing Russian uniform." Not sure why this is worth quite a long quote when it doesn't really seem biographically informative, I'd write in your own words and only quote in part if you think it's really essential.
  • I think the ipsissima verba convey Walpole's excitement as no rewording of mine could. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• "The book won the inaugural James Tait Black Memorial Prize for fiction" You should probably mention it was in 1919 not 1917.
  • Good idea. In fact I feel an informative footnote would be of interest at this point, and will add one. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Post war

• " an attempted putsch" - a link?
  • Definitely. The fairly well-known Beer hall putsch. Can't think why I didn't have one. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Walpole later admitted that he had despised Hitler but also liked him" - I'm never a fan of "but also", you might disagree. but I'd probably word it as "Walpole later admitted that he had both despised and liked Hitler".
  • I agree about "alsos" on the whole, and I prefer your wording. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean by " but that he was probably only consulted about them".
  • Just Agate's little joke. Rather funny, I thought. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• "During the mid-twenties Walpole produced two of his best-known novels in his macabre vein, exploring the fascination of fear and cruelty." I don't like " in his macabre vein" here as many readers won't know that he had such a vein, I'd write it as "During the mid-twenties Walpole produced two of his best-novel novels, macabre works which explored the fascination of fear and cruelty"
  • I'll have to ponder this. I can't call them two of HW's best known novels tout court because they aren't. They are probably the two best known in his macabre vein. I think perhaps I'll change "his macabre" to "the macabre vein that attracted him from time to time." Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

1930-

• Delink (that rag :-]) The Daily Mail, already linked previously.
  • How very odd! I have run the dup link finder yet missed that one. A particularly unfortunate candidate for a second link, I agree. Shall amend. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It was worse than you think. There were two superfluous links to the paper. Now expunged. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• You should pipe the link to the film where it says "film adaptation" rather than in the next paragraph.
  • Can do. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Looking on imdb it might be worth mentioning that around the same time William K. Howard's Vanessa:Her Love Story was made based on his novel (a decent source ) and Mr. Perrin and Mr. Traill after his death in 1948 (a decent source just to be more comprehensive. I'm happy to rid of any red links. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll add a footnote. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Added note on those and one other film adaptation. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• "He completed a fifth novel in the Herries series and began work on a sixth" -worth mentioning the titles?
  • Ditto Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

I'd have expected such a section to be the one to discuss his influence on others and tributes to him in detail. I feel it is a bit misleading given that most of the section is about is philanthropy and art collecting. Can you think of a solution? I'd be tempted to merge In his adopted home of Keswick a section of the town museum was dedicated to Walpole's memory in 1949, with manuscripts, correspondence, paintings and sculpture from Brackenburn, donated by his sister and brother.[103] into the end of the main bio and rename the section "Art collecting and philanthropy". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there are many kinds of legacy. I believe you are the only reviewer here or at PR who has expressed any reservations about this point, and I'll stick with the layout, I think. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Works

• Shouldn't "Walpole's books covered a wide range. " be "Walpole's books cover a wide range. " or "In his books, Walpole covered a wide range of topics"? - I think I prefer the latter.
  • Yes, better. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reputation

• "It is an overstatement to call Walpole's works completely neglected. " says who? - a little essay-like and pedantic perhaps, can you reword?
  • One needs something to which to segue from the Hitchens quote. I redrew this sentence several times, finding it difficult to get the right phrase, and am decidedly open to further suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That will be all. Await your response before leaving my final comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these additional suggestions. We disagree here and there but there are some excellent points. I shall enjoy acting on them later today. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Thanks Tim. A pleasure to read. I was tempted to oppose initially based on the fact that it has no infobox - just kidding! Very well-researched and has obviously already had considerable input from many of the website greats here with FA experience. Clearly meets the criteria for FA in my opinion. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your support and input are very much appreciated, Doctor. Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support: I've nothing to add to my peer review comments of a week or so back, except to suggest that the sentence above, that troubled the Doctor ("It is an overstatement to call Walpole's works completely neglected"), could be simply rewritten as "Walpole's works have not been completely neglected in recent years", to remove the possibly didactic element – but this is a suggestion, not a request. Otherwise, superb work. I will throw in a sources review, for good measure. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested rewording adopted with thanks. Tim riley (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources review:

• Refs 17 & 20: It would be consistent with the rest if the Lyttelton/Hart-Davis collections were designated by their respective dates rather than by volume numbers.
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, damn and blast! I realise I misinterpreted what you said above. Shall further amend. (So sorry.) Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Now done. Tim riley (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Ref 82: The only Maugham book listed as a sources is Cakes and Ale, a novel, and it looks odd that this is the source of Maugham's admission that he lied to Walpole about the basis for Alroy Kear. Presumably Maugham revealed this information in a preface, and it might be worth clarifying this.
  • Indeed so, and done. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Ref 92 (Driberg) needs pp not p
• Ref 132 which Steele?
  • Both these two attended to. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That is all. The sources all look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian. I am in your debt for input at PR, for support and your suggestion above, and for the source review. Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

:Leaning to support A few comments:

Lede

• "and settled in the English Lake District" Given the stress that is being laid on the first part of the sentence, I think that a "they" should be added before "settled", or else "with him" following "settled".
  • Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Having as a young man eagerly sought the support of established authors such as James," True, but possibly too long considering it's only been two paragraphs since we were told that, I would think there's room to shorten it. Perhaps "Having received support from established writers in his youth" (or some other noun implying "salad days".)
  • Pruned. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Bio

• "On Benson's advice he accepted." This sentence, rather short, is surely foldable into the previous one.
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• "when the parents decided that he needed an English education."
• "Hugh and Dorothy were taught by a governess until the middle of 1893, when the parents decided that he needed an English education." I would assume that the decision would precede the sending of Hugh by some interval, especially if he was entered for the grammar school at some earlier date.
  • Their original idea was to have HW educated in New York, but they changed their minds, and the decision wasn't made long in advance. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• " He was afflicted by occasional nightmares" might be more effective without "occasional" unless there is some strong stress in the source about the episodic nature of these.
  • Now I check against the source I think my drafting is not correct. Walpole said that occasionally he had horrible moments of panic that his real life was a dream and that he would wake up and find himself back at Marlow. I have removed the sentence. So glad you mentioned the point. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• " and that Bede College was the subject of snobbery within the university." I see it might be relevant to Somerset, but how is it relevant to Hugh?
  • Children are apt to be very sensitive to slights on their parents' prestige even now, and much more so, I'm sure, in those snobbish days. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• "According to Somerset Maugham, Walpole made a sexual proposition to James, who was too inhibited to respond,[29] but in their correspondence the older man's devotion was couched in extravagant terms." The "but" here bothers me somewhat. It is technically proper, I suppose, playing off James' inhibition, but what the reader will be noticing is, of course, the proposition, to which the "but" is really not germane. Consider splitting it and substituting "Nevertheless" for "but".
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I suspect that the lack of a link to "First World War" is intentional, but just mention it in case it is not.
  • Indeed. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Walpole returned to Petrograd. The city was made more attractive for him" This seems to contradict somewhat the earlier statement that Walpole preferred Petrograd to Moscow.
  • Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• ", his obvious and genuine liking for his hosts" I wonder if "his" should be preceded by an [and]?
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• "$1350 apiece." needs a comma after the thousands place per MOSNUM. (normally I'd fix it but I'm reviewing offline and will cut and paste my review)
  • I prefer the comma, and always use it in anything I write away from WP. I had it in my head that we don't use the comma for numbers less than 10,000, and am happy to be told otherwise. Changed accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• "The success of his talks led to increases in his lecturing fees, greatly enhanced sales of his books, and large sums from American publishers anxious to print his latest fiction." There seems to be a verb missing in the final part of the sentence.
  • I think this is what I meant to say, the main verb "led" covering fees, sales and sums from anxious publishers. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• From passing references, I gather Walpole became very well-to-do in the 1920s, but perhaps this should be explicitly stated.
  • Added a bit at the Brackenburn/Piccadilly para. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I wouldn't comment but for the fact you mention it twice, but we probably have an article on the 1939 papal election somewhere. By the way, suggest replacing one of the "election"s with "conclave".
  • Excellent. Simply hadn't occurred to me. Now linked. First "election" now "conclave". Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

• "After his death the pick of his collection, other than his bequests to the Tate Gallery and Fitzwilliam Museum, was exhibited" This is one of the more difficult points of British English for me, but given that "pick" encompasses multiple works, should the verb be a plural form"?
  • Redrawn.
• "his love of art and old books and manuscripts" the multiple "and"s is slightly jarring.
  • The familiar "fish and chips and mushy peas" problem. I've added an extra "of" which may cushion the jarring. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Works

• "Mr Perrin and Mr Traill, 1911, and the Jeremy trilogy) that delve into the psychology of boyhood;" I haven't read the former (or the latter, for that matter, but let's stick with the former", but your earlier comments about MP and MT focus on the psychology of the schoolmasters, not the boys.
  • The masters top the bill, so to speak, but there is plenty about the boys too. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• "With the Herries stories Walpole restored the popularity of the historical novel," granted, but given that much of your focus on the Herries stories seems to be on the Lake District setting, it might be well if you somewhere mention when it is set.
  • Very good point. Now done. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"willing to go into court and give evidence for the defence after the obscenity trial after the novel The Well of Loneliness was published.[120]" Presumably the first "after" is meant to be "during".

• • Slip of the pen now amended. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• "a dozen recent reissues of Walpole's works, including The Wooden Horse, The Dark Forest, The Secret City, Jeremy, and The Cathedral." The cynic in me wonders if that's more to do with the copyright expiring 70 years postmortem.
  • Very possibly, and not having to pay royalties must be an attraction to publishers, but they still wouldn't print new editions if they didn't think they'd sell. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellently done. I have not read his works, but I've read R. F. Delderfield's To Serve Them All My Days and I suspect him to be a Walpole admirer given that the Perrin book is mentioned a couple of times and he also named one of the main characters "Herries".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Some excellent points there, and one of them has saved me from a quite misleading statement, for which, in particular, I am most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Support This was enjoyable and very interesting to read; the main writer brought across the context and contradictions very well, its very juicy in places and is certainly comprehensive. The sourcing is impeccable, more please. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil, for that support and for your thoughtful edits of the text. Tim riley (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – Never heard of him but, even so, a great read against the backdrop of interesting times. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that support and kind comment. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

• Several images are not suitable for Commons yet, but properly tagged as en-Wiki only - OK.
• The "Carl Van Vechten" images are out of copyright (according to the Library of Congress), so the request to limit possible derivatives is just that, a request for voluntary courtesy, and not against Commons policies - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged to GermanJoe for the review. Tim riley (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tks Joe. On that note, Tim, I think it's time to curtail your Walpoling activities -- in the best possible way, of course... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! I deny everything. Well most of it. Tim riley (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [36].

---

Roekiah

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm back from a very productive trip to Jakarta with a new article. I know I've previously said that I expected Asmara Moerni to be our next Indonesia FA, but I guess I was wrong. While at Sinematek I gained access to several articles which gave more information about Roekiah, the biggest film star of pre-independence Indonesia. This has helped me build the most detailed biography of her available (in any language).

This article had a GA review from Grapple X and a PR by SchroCat and Cassianto. As far as I know, we have never had an FA on an Indonesian woman. Time for a first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – PR reviewer who was satisfied then and more than satisfied now. This is a nicely composed article on a subject which is seriously lacking at FA. I congratulate Crisco 1492 for his work and for bringing this here. Cassianto^Talk 14:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the PR and support, Cass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN28: doubled period

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why is Imong after Poesaka

• Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Got two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikki, I think I got everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. A fellow traveller at PR, where my concerns were happily dealt with. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for everything, Schro. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Just a couple of queries before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Rd Djoemala, Rd Mochtar — Is "Rd" a name, a honorific or an abbreviation (it's followed by a full stop in Djoemala's article)? I'm confused.

• Honorific (short for "Raden", a title used by the Javanese nobility). I'll add a footnote. The full-stop in Djoemala's article is from my Canadian fingers trying to type the Queen's English.

• couple took a month hiatus —reads oddly "month's hiatus" or "month break" perhaps?

• Went with the first one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• extensive amount of money. —I don't think amounts can be extensive; "large" or "very large" perhaps?
• Sure, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Without a source of income, he fell ill, and died —is this intended as cause and effect (that the lack of money led to his illness)?

• The source (page 11 in that file) says "Di dalam hidup kemelaratan itulah, Kartolo sakit-sakitan, dan suami Roekiah itu kemudian menyusul istrinya ke alam baqa tanggal 18 Januari 1949 di Yogyakarta" ("In that life of poverty, Kartolo fell ill, and Roekiah's husband joined her in the hereafter on 18 January 1949 in Yogyakarta"). Appears to have been a bit of cause and effect, though I'm not sure if he was ill before leaving RRI. Though we don't have a year of birth recorded for him, he certainly wasn't that old when he died... no later than 40, 45 tops I should think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• OK, all is good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, and hope you found this an interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Another very impressive piece of work, and I can readily believe it is the best biography out there. I cannot speak as to comprehensiveness, but there is certainly nothing obviously missing. I have a few prose nit-picks, some of which may be too pedantic, but Crisco tends to set the bar quite high! I also did some minor copy-editing; feel free to revert anything you don't like, or which I've messed up. Otherwise, this looks good and I will be happy to support once my ramblings are answered. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Around this time she met her future husband, Kartolo”: A minor point, but we call him her “future” husband here, but then never say that they marry. But of course he wasn’t her husband when he met her so I’m torn between accuracy and pedantry here! What about “Around this time she met her future husband, Kartolo; they married in 1934.”

• I went with "Around this time she met Kartolo, whom she married in 1934.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Through these films, Roekiah and Mochtar became the colony's first on-screen couple.”: We’ve only mentioned one film so far, so films (plural) seems a bit strange. Could this be switched somehow with the next sentence?

• Massaged it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”During her life Roekiah was recognised as a fashion and beauty icon, featuring in advertisements and drawing comparisons to Dorothy Lamour and Janet Gaynor.”: Part of me feels there is too much -ing here. What about switching to “…and featured in…and was compared to…”? And I always wonder about “recognised”. Who recognised her?

• Have reworded "recognised", though I prefer the flow with the "ing" form. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”and a 1969 article wrote that "in her time…”: I don’t think an article can write anything. Maybe “a 1969 article stated that …“

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• ”By the mid-1920s they were with Opera Rochani”: Which was what? I think it’s worth being explicit.

• Have added "troupe". Does not seem to have been a particularly significant troupe. I could add a footnote about "Opera" being common in troupe's names at the time (there's Miss Riboet's Orion and Dardanella, which both used "Opera" in their advertisements, and Dhalia's father Tengku Katam ran the Dhalia Opera), though I'm not keen adding three separate references for such a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”She was recognised not only for her voice”: Again, recognised by who? And recognised in what sense? Honoured? Admired? Feted? Or just “oh, I know her!”

• Admired, as I have never heard of any formal awards from the period. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the first two paragraphs of Film career, we have “which led to this success.” at the end of paragraph one, and “Despite the film's success” at the start of the next.

• How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”stopped all work on theatrical productions”: Possibly some confusion for the reader here. Theatrical often means “in the theatre”, and given that we have been talking about her career with a troupe, it could be read that the Filmsyndicaat decided not to do any more stage work.

• Have rephrased "Despite the success of Terang Boelan, Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, the production company, stopped all work on fiction films.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”much of the cast switched to Tan's Film”: Much is a bit vague; do we mean “most” or “many” here?

• Most. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Fatima was a massive commercial success, earning 200,000 gulden on a 7,000 gulden budget.[17] Following the film's success”: Repetition of “success” again. And two sentences later, we have another “success”.

• Removed based on below comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Roekiah and Kartolo, meanwhile, continued to act for Tan’s”: Meanwhile to what? We haven’t really talked about anything else here.

• How do you feel about "Roekiah and Kartolo, for their part, continued to act for the company"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Kartolo would often have small, comedic, roles, and Roekiah would sing songs her husband had written”: Is there any particular reason that we need “would” here?

• Removed. I hope you don't mind the alliteration of "sang songs". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”was ultimately unable to return similar profits as Terang Boelan or Fatima”: Should this be “similar profits to” rather than “as”?

• D'oh! Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”though Djoemala had never acted before, he had had some experience singing with the group Malay Pemoeda in 1929”: I know that “had had” is perfectly acceptable, but I always think it lacks a little elegance! Could this be rephrased?

• How's "he had sung with the group Malay Pemoeda in 1929?" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”good looking”: Should this have a hyphen?

That it should. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Though Roekiah's films continued to be financial successes,[19] they did not see as large a profit as her earlier works.”: Could the films ‘’see’’ anything at all??

• "Attain", perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the Djoemala section, I’m not sure we need a paragraph for each film. It makes it a little choppy.

• This was meant to mirror the structure of the Mochtar section, though now I've tried to rework it. Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Check for using “success” too much again around here.

• I've gotten rid of three or four instances. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Her funeral was attended by several luminaries, including the then-Minister of Education Ki Hajar Dewantara.”: Given that this is the only time he comes up, do we really need “then-Minister”? Would “Minister” not just be OK?

• Good point. Removed "then". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I assume we don’t know why she died?

• Nothing explicit in the sources. Overwork, quite likely. Going from Jakarta to Surabaya (for instance) would not have been a fun trip during the occupation, especially for a pregnant woman or one who had just had a miscarriage. May have also been a lack of nutrition, considering it was an occupation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Kartolo refused to collaborate”: Perhaps specify with whom he didn’t collaborate. It may seem obvious, but it might not be to everyone.

• I've gone with "returning colonial forces", though I'm tempted to use "overlords". Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'd prefer the wording you have now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”During the peak of Roekiah's popularity”: I don’t think a peak can have a duration. Maybe “At the peak”.

• You're right, peak is a certain point in time. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ”Imanjaya credits her as one of the industry's first beauty icons; he also credits her and Rd Mocthar with introducing the concept of bankable stars to domestic cinema”: I don’t think we need “credits” twice in one sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Changed one to "describes". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, and hope it was an interesting read! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Support: Changes looking good, supporting now. And yes, it was very interesting! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Just a few comments.

Lede

• " played the love interest of Rd Mochtar." Technically she didn't, she played the love interest of Rd Mochtar's character.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think the lede should have a little more about her career during occupation and death.

• Added a sentence. How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Partnership etc.

• " after one is almost forced" The woman, I assume?

• Right... but saying "the woman" would be awkward, and "Roekiah's character" is just terrible. Tried rephrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• " this snapped" "this included" I would change one or the other of the similar phrasings.

• Tried rephrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• " similar profits to" perhaps "profits similar to"

• Aha! Much better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Partnership redux

• "As such" perhaps "accordingly"?

• D'accord. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Japanese etc.

• "film for the studio, the short Japanese propaganda film" Too many "films".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Rephrased.

• Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-1996, Indonesian PD). Sources and authors provided.

• Note: Interpretation of the current copyright situation between US and Dutch/Indonesian law is based on this discussion. Most of us aren't lawyers, but the current understanding and handling looks OK. GermanJoe (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the image review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [37].

---

Perseus (constellation)

Nominator(s): StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the last FAC (where issues raised included prose and sourcing of Chinese section), the Chinese section has been sourced with better sources and the prose copyedited by two editors. Hopefully it flows better this time folks. Have at it - the two of us will try to deal with concerns promptly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• From "History and mythology", subsection "In non-Western astronomy", paragaph 1: "The Double Cluster, h and χ Persei." Is the latter the Greek symbol Chi? Earlier in the paragraph, Greek symbols were spelt out in English. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

well spotted, we must have missed that one. Fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume that "h" is accurate? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. When they ran out of greek letters, they started on lowercase roman letters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• From "Notable features", subsection "Stars", paragraph 1: "These two are separated by only 5% the distance between the Earth and Sun.... The tertiary component... is located on average 2.69 astronomical units (AU) from the other two stars." I had to click the link to "astronomical units" to find out the difference between these two distances. Why not use astronomical units for the first measurement? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

annoyingly, finding a ref for the distance in AU has proven tricky, so left it as a percentage (for which we could supply a source) so that it was a more familiar figure for the reader. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, since 1 AU is 100% of the distance from the Earth to the Sun (I don't think this would need a cite, as it's common knowledge really), could we just do a little math and convert both to either percent or AU? I personally don't consider that WP:OR, since it's just math. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Casliber, is it really synthesis to state "0.05 astronomical units" instead of "5% the distance between the Earth and Sun"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No. We can change it to align done changed - left the 5% in to show how close they are to the lay reader Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed "5%" to "five percent" because of the preceding dash. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

ok, that looks fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• From "Notable features", subsection "Stars", paragraph 4: "If the system does indeed contain a black hole, it would be the smallest black hole ever recorded as of 2003." Is there an update on this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

got some now - not surprisingly, creates more mystery (I didn't add this in the first place) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition of the new sentence is an improvement. However retaining "as of 2003" still makes the statement seem outdated. Given that there is no new source to explicitly state an update, how would you feel about deleting "as of 2003"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• From "Notable features", subsection "Stars", paragraph 4: "It faded to 13th magnitude around 30 years after its peak brightness." What does "13th magnitude" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, "magnitude" (when abbreviated) is always Apparent Magnitude - destination articles are not well written - best chart for 13th magnitude is at Magnitude_(astronomy)#Apparent_magnitude, or alternately Apparent_magnitude#Table_of_notable_celestial_objects - which one of these do you think is better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the second. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with you - examples make it more accessible. changed to second one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The table itself does not state what "13th magnitude" means. While I understand what "apparent magnitude" means, I had to read the text here (your first link) to understand what "13th magnitude" means. Would it be reasonable to say "magnitude 13" or "about magnitude 13" instead of "13th magnitude"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

ok - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• From "Notable features", subsection "Stars", paragraph 6: "The Double Cluster contains three even larger stars; S, RS, and SU Persei—all of which are semiregular pulsating M-type supergiants with radii of above 700 solar radii." How about "The Double Cluster contains three even larger stars, each over 700 solar radii: S, RS, and SU Persei are all semiregular pulsating M-type supergiants." Also, should "Double Cluster" be capitalized? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Named astronomical objects are capitalized - so yes it should be capitalized. changed sentence as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• From "Notable features", subsection "Deep-sky objects", paragraph 2: "The clusters are both distinct from their star field and are clearly concentrated at their centers." Do the two clusters share a single star field, or does each cluster have its own star field? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The star field is just the background of stars that one sees around them - changed to " from the surrounding star field " if that helps (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• From "Notable features", subsection "Deep-sky objects", paragraph 4: "It is very difficult to observe visually because its low surface brightness makes it appear dimmer than comparable objects." What are "comparable objects" in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It means from most other emission nebulae. Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• From "Notable features", subsection "Deep-sky objects", last paragraph: "These bubbles create sound waves that travel through the Perseus Cluster, sounding a B flat 57 octaves below middle C." I'm not convinced that this statement is worthy of an encyclopedic article, but this is not a strong opinion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have strong opinions either way. Would it help to drop the second clause of the sentence, which seems like it might be undue weight on this? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember the quote about the sound note when it came out as being pretty notable (might be in Guiness Book of Records IIRC), and i think it helps greatly to make the prose more engaging. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

StringTheory11, it certainly would help to delete the second clause. Anyway, let's leave it for the time being. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This is an excellent article, nicely illustrated and supported with good-quality references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks! much appreciated... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• From "Notable features" > "Stars" > paragraph 1: "...it was called Rosh ha Satan ("Satan's Head") by the Hebrew people, to whom it represented Lilith." (Emphasis mine) This sentence needs to referenced (and probably can be, see below) and the emphasized portions need fixing. My analysis:

The corresponding passage in article Algol has: "In Hebrew folklore, Algol was called Rōsh ha Sāṭān or "Satan's Head", as stated by Edmund Chilmead, who called it "Divels head" or Rosch hassatan. A Latin name for Algol from the 16th century was Caput Larvae or "the Spectre's Head". Algol was also linked with "Lilith"." (The Latin phrase interpolated between two Jewish beliefs is rather odd, and is ordered differently in the source.)

The source cited is Allen (1899) from whom I quote the relevant passage: "The Hebrews knew Algol as Rōsh ha Sāṭān, Satan's Head, Chilmead's Rosch hassatan, the Divels head; but also as Līlīth, Adam's legendary first wife..." This could be a reference to cite in this article as well.

However, I'm having difficulty finding the source in Chilmead's writings; I've checked chapters 9 through 11 (those relevant to Jewish astrological beliefs) of Unheard-of Curiosities (which seems to be the work of Chilmead used by Allen); so far no success.

The term Hebrew, in any case, is problematic. If the ancient Hebrew people is meant, Chilmead and Gaffarel are not reliable sources for their beliefs; if Gaffarel contemporaries were meant, the term to use is "Jewish people" while "Hebrew" is antiquated.

Despite Allen's use of Chilmead, a better source is called for in a modern work. Searching Hebrew sources, I find that ראש השטן‎ Rosh ha-Satan was seems to be the medieval Hebrew name for Algol or Medusa (Perseus is called נושא ראש השטן‎ Nose Rosh ha-Satan "Bearer of Satan's head") but I cannot find any reliable source stating that Algol was connected to Lilith.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I only like to use Allen where it is straightforward really - his writings have been criticised by subsequent researchers. Aren't there any sources in Hebrew discussing star/constellation beliefs/folklore? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll write a detailed reply later—some information you may find useful—I'm just busy now. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - we've got some other stuff to sort below too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As you use Allen as a source for unremarkable claims, let me analyze how plausible the "Satan's head" and "Lilith" claims are. (Unfortunately I'm no expert on medieval and early modern Jewish astronomy, and I've found nothing in sources on Jewish folklore, so this is the best I can do:)

1. "Satan's head": Plausibility: High. Though I haven't found any sources that give the Hebrew names of individual stars, Algol's can be inferred: sources consistently list a constellation called "The Bearer of Satan's Head" between "The Woman Sitting on a Chair" and "The Shepherd with Reins in his Hand". If Perseus is the "bearer", then Algol is "Satan's head". Also, Jewish astronomical are ultimately translated from Arabic, where Perseus is hamil ra's al-ghul "bearer of the demon's head"[38] and Algol is ra's al-ghūl "the demon's head". Sources that name Algol as Rosh ha-Satan specifically, as found at Google Books, are mostly based on Allen and none predate Chilmead. This 1836 source attributes the same claim to a "Commentary on Alfraganus" and Hyde's commentary on Ulugh-Beigh but I cannot find either book scanned online to check.
2. "Lilith" Plausibility: Low. The term Lilith usually refers to She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, which is how Allen understood it here. It seems distinctly out of character for Jewish astronomers to assign her a starl; rationalists (which most medieval Jewish astronomers were) did not believe in the existence of demons, kabbalists, though they considered her the second most evil entity in the universe, ranked her as a demon, not an angel, which seems the necessary rank to earn a star. It is possible that the word lilith is used here in its rarer sense of "female demon" in general, and thus a rough equivalent of Medusa, but this is not likely historically. All the sources I can find cite Chilmead or Allen.

My suggestion: either replace the problematic phrase (in article Algol too) with "it was called Rosh ha Satan ("Satan's Head") by the Jewish astronomers", with no mention of Lilith, or omit the phrase entirely: even if true, there really is nothing remarkable about the Hebrew name, except that the Arabic term for "demon" was translated as "Satan". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 06:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - removed Lilith Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim usual sound effort, but a couple of queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• who was so ugly that every living creature who gazed upon her turned to stone—She may have been ugly, but even your source doesn't say that it was that which turn people to stone. Depending what you read, it was the evil/terror/supernatural power of her eyes that did the business

took the ugliness out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• paranatellon.—red-linked and unexplained despite multiple usage

Pinging @Keilana: for this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

they are small asterism - "subconstellations" as it were. The best would be to have some mention of one of the Chinese_astronomy page or one of its subpages. Just trying to find a decent definition to write up Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a see also link to chinese astronomy, as well as a short definition of paranatellon. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"asterism" is an equally technical word, unlinked and unexplained, but I've added a link myself which I think solves the problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• The stars are not visible to the naked eye; SU Persei, the brightest of the three, has an apparent magnitude of only 7.9[50] and thus is only visible through binoculars.—doesn't make sense as written, it can be seen through a telescope too. Best to lose both the "only"s

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• good naked eyesight—"naked" is redundant here

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed that this is in AE, Cas's previous constellation have been in BE. Is there a standard variety of English for constellations?

no - Stringtheory11 did the bulk of the early buffing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason it's in AE is because I was the one who started work on the article first, so it was already in AE when Casliber came along, so we're just following WP:SPELLING. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are happy with my edit to the paranatellon section (see further comment above), I have no other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

looks fine/thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just glancing at the lead I don't think it is quite detailed enough to effectively summarize the article. It should be both informative and concise and I think you've missed out some important details. I think "Perseus is bordered by Aries and Taurus to the south, Auriga to the east, Camelopardalis and Cassiopea to the north, and Andromeda and Triangulum to the west" for a start should be mentioned in the lead. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tinkered with the lead a little bit; how do you think it is now? StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's better, thanks. I'll give it a read later but in glancing I think it's come quite far since I last looked at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the first things I'd want to know if how far is it from Earth. Perhaps move "The constellation gives its name to the Perseus Cluster (Abell 426), a massive galaxy cluster located 250 million light-years from Earth." nearer the top?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

But that's only that galaxy cluster, which is much further than (and unrelated to) the stars and things that make up what we see in the sky. The constellation areas serve as grids or addresses for all stuff that lies within their borders from Earth. The overall way I lay out these articles is all the visible stars and nebulae, then moving further out to nearby and then remote galaxies etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts pretty much align with Casliber's. I think that providing this information in the lead would be undue weight towards a relatively minor aspect of the constellation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but don't you think the distance from earth is relevant to inform the reader in the lead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, as of now the distance of the Perseus Cluster is cited in the lead. I am ok with it there, I just wouldn't move the sentence any further up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I applied a few fixes, but overall it's in good condition. Note that NGC 1260 is a member of the Perseus Cluster; the matching distances give this away but I confirmed it independently. If you would, please place the two in juxtaposition. Praemonitus (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Rejigged as requested. Agree it helps with the flow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Cautious support. I think this looks better now (I had concerns re Chinese astronomy last time). The Schlegel reference is extremely old; are we confident that more modern scholarship has not led to any reinterpretation or better understanding of how the Chinese constellations are to be interpreted? The last FAC i think ironed out prose issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think there's any modern scholarship that has changed our views on this, but if anyone finds something (I already took a look at Google Scholar, so I'm not confident), then feel free to add it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I really trawled thru stuff - it is identified as the definitive work by others and has been summarised by Staal, so yeah it seems to be it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review -- I'm sure I haven't been as thorough as Nikki or Brian but we can't keep this one open forever...

• Inconsistency in page-range formatting, e.g. 277–88 in FN32 and 579–592 in FN53. Personally I prefer the latter style although I don't think there's a law against the former...

funny - I've always used last two digits - can't remember where the rule came from now. inconsistencies where two of us are adding. streamlined now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• FN44: Link is dead.

fixed - typo in url Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• FN72: Is the page number really identical to the issue number? Just seemed so coincidental that it might've been a typo...

well spotted, was an accidental duplication - can't find issue but is volume 2 and page 350 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [39].

---

Interstate 805

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 04:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been quite a few months since I've been here, but here we are. This article is a GA and just passed HWY's ACR, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. This is an Interstate Highway in San Diego, and one of the city's most important highways. Rschen7754 04:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel it is well-written and meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 04:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support and Image review - I also reviewed this article at ACR, and believe it meets the criteria. I also did an image review at ACR (I would still advise adding alt text for accessibility, but understand it is not actually included in the FA criteria). - Evad37 [talk] 04:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Support You have two dead links in the article per the link checker tool. --AdmrBoltz 16:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the link addresses just changed slightly, [40] and [41] seem to be the new link locations. - Evad37 [talk] 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Well that's incredibly annoying, because it means that the links across all California articles need to be changed. :/ I've fixed this article for now. --Rschen7754 19:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • On reference 10, the data appears to be from 2012, but your date in your reference shows 2005–2006. I think once this is cleared up I am in favor of supporting the article. It is well written and referenced. --AdmrBoltz 19:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed, seems to be an artifact from my combining refs. --Rschen7754 19:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Supporting. --AdmrBoltz 20:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support—I've made some minor formatting changes and I'm content with the prose and the quality/reliability of the sources plus their formatting. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Note -- As usual I'd like to see a review from outside the roads project for accessibility to the general reader; also looks like we need a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I noted above, but maybe it got lost in the shuffle: the sources are all reliable items (major local newspapers, appropriate gov't sources, etc.). They're all consistently formatted save one minor issue I've just pinged Rschen7754 about off-wiki. Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I conducted a spotcheck at the ACR, so they should be good on verifiability and lack of plagiarism, if that was an issue. (Just thought I'd note that here somewhere.) TCN7JM 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: I will be away until late Tuesday December 31, only having phone access. --Rschen7754 16:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. The article reads well to this non-transportation expert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 14:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [42].

---

Interstate 70 in West Virginia

Nominator(s): AdmrBoltz 04:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Interstate 70's travels through the state of West Virginia. I had wrote a majority of this article before a long pause in activity on Wiki, however it is a Good Article, a WP:USRD A-Class article, and has been copy-edited previously by the Guild. AdmrBoltz 04:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - When I reviewed this article at ACR back in 2011, I supported with a disclaimer noting that the history seemed to be missing details on the construction of the highway. Is it still possible to add a little more detail about the construction of the highway? The history provides completion dates, but seems to be missing details about groundbreaking. Dough4872 04:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have expanded some, but there is limited information available. --AdmrBoltz 00:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - I do appreciate the addition of information about the pre-Interstate routes through the area. I will let the information about the construction suffice for now given the nominator has exhausted all reasonable efforts to expand the section. Hopefully, an editor with better access to West Virginia resources can possibly expand the construction details. After all, even FAs can be further improved. Dough4872 01:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

I mostly leave these roads and highways articles to their own devices, but thought I'd take advantage of this small one, for a tiny little stretch of highway, to dip into reviewing them. I've got a few observations as an outsider to this whole genre of articles. In general, I think the prose needs tightened up.

• I'm an admittedly terrible lead writer, and it's tough to summarize short articles besides, but you might need a little more from the history section in the lead; it leans pretty heavily on the Route description material.
  • The lead has been rewritten. --AdmrBoltz 20:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The freeway passes above a light commercial zone as U.S. Route 40 (US 40) and US 250 become concurrent with I-70 as it travels east toward the Fort Henry Bridge." This is something of a garden path sentence. I initially read "as U.S. Route 40" as providing a synonym (which is true, so far as it goes, but isn't how the sentence is structured). The two clauses with "as" don't help readability, either.
  • Tweaked opening sentences to the Route Description. --AdmrBoltz 15:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The bridge crosses the main channel of the river and the main branch of the Greater Wheeling Trail, a rail trail that parallels the eastern banks of the river." Does the trail have branches? The sentence is laid out in a way that made me expect "main branch" was going to introduce a stream or tributary until it mentioned a trail instead.
  • Perhaps branch isn't the right word for where the bridge crosses the trail, as the branch happens further south, but there are two parts to the path, one that continues south, and one that pushes east. (see map). "main branch" has been removed. --AdmrBoltz 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• A comma is needed after "Traveling eastbound".
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The intersected highways travel through downtown Wheeling on a one-way pair, with the southbound lanes passing under the freeway and the northbound lanes passing over the freeway." I assume that the "intersected highways" are US 40 / WV 2, and the "freeway" is I-70? I think this would be better with a different wording. For one thing, is it appropriate to call US 40 an "intersected highway" here; it meets I-70 at an interchange, not an intersection, yes?
  • Correct. This has been tweaked to remove "freeway" and "intersected highways". --AdmrBoltz 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• "A stub ramp is present at this interchange that would have carried WV 2 north of I-70 had it been extended." Room to tighten the prose here. Perhaps "A stub ramp present at this interchange would have carried WV 2 north of I-70 had it been extended." ?
  • Changed to your wording. --AdmrBoltz 14:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The entirety of I-70 to this point has been elevated." Several problems here. First, no, clearly the entirety of I-70 until Exit 1B isn't elevated. Perhaps the section in West Virginia, but that's not what you're saying here. That aside, I'm dubious of the claim and its sourcing. As written, this comes after the Wheeling Tunnel, and I just cannot see how an interstate can be elevated through a tunnel. Also, this isn't cited to a reliable source for the claim, or any source at all, but just to a Google maps route that neither shows nor tells anything about the elevated status of the highway.
  • Removed, as I had not thought about the tunnel. --AdmrBoltz 14:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The interchange just west of the Wheeling Tunnel and this interchange are complicated due to the fact that both are abutted by hills." Prose needs to be tightened here, and do you have a reference for this that says the topography made the interchange more complicated? There's a lot of lane-layout type information that's in here more or less uncited, in fact. And again, I'm not sold on the use of Google Maps as a reference; it assuredly does not tell us that the highway passes "through woodlands".
  • The satellite view could tell us about the terrain, however. --Rschen7754 21:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Would that be a reliable source for the claim, though? Has this sort of thing been accepted in any of the many previous roads FACs? Were it entirely my determination, I'd be inclined to call that original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I believe that it has been, yes. --Rschen7754 22:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• The sentence about AADT can lose "which is" at no cost.
  • Removed. --AdmrBoltz 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• In the history section, if there's going to be time spent discussing the National Road as the forerunner to I-70 through this area, it should be made clear that the interstate doesn't follow the same route as the older road. Are there any sources which discuss the impact of I-70's construction on the economy along the National Road? Perhaps not, as they're fairly close together, but if that's available, it would seem relevant.
  • I have expanded a bit on the history, explaining that the National Road and I-70 do not share the same path. I was unable to find any sources to talk about the impact of I-70 on the economy of the area. --AdmrBoltz 20:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Not an actionable objection, but I'm not sold on this dark, grainy image of the tunnel entrance. Perhaps consider the overhead view (File:Wheeling Tunnel overview 1994.jpg) that appears in the tunnel article, instead?
  • Fair enough. I have changed it to the overhead view. --AdmrBoltz 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• The history section feels like there might be more to tell. Groundbreaking? Official opening, if any? Also, the events aren't depicted in chronological order. I guess they're in west-to-east order again, but I'm not sure that's the best way to approach history. There were "parts" built by 1963; do we know what they were? They're certainly not the 1968 bridge, the 1955 other bridge, or the 1967 tunnel.
  • I have reworked the paragraph to be in chronological order. --AdmrBoltz 14:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• "After opposition from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which was representing residents who live on Wheeling Hill and other groups,..." Worded this way, it sounds like residents live on other groups. Probably need a comma after Wheeling Hill. And need to tighten the prose. Perhaps "residents of Wheeling Hill" or even "Wheeling Hill residents". I assume since the NAACP was involved that the Wheeling Hill community has a substantial or majority minority population?
  • Updated the sentence. --AdmrBoltz 15:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• If Wheeling Tunnel closures are sufficient parts of history to rate inclusion here, what about the 2005 closure of the Fort Henry Bridge due to flooding and loose barges?
  • Added in. --AdmrBoltz 15:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The total cost of the tunnel reconstruction project was over double the original bid, totaling $13.7 million, due to the numerous delays." The only cost numbers we've seen previously were the estimates for scrapping the tunnel and going over the hill, which are much higher than $13M. The reader is forced to work out that those figures aren't being referred to here, that this is a reference to the repair bid, and that, as this is double, the bid must've been around $6M or so. Probably.
  • Added original cost of $5.7M --AdmrBoltz 15:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• The "As a Matter of Fact" reference has the page(s) cited styled as pp. I–2. But that's a single page, I-2, not multiples, and I'm fairly confident that takes a hyphen rather than an en dash. You do that again with page II-2 later. Oh, and although those references are both to pages of the same publication, they're formatted very differently.
  • They are actually two seperate documents if you review each carefully. And they both have dashes, not en dashes. --AdmrBoltz 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Right, but they shouldn't be dashes at all, they should be hyphens. Just like the highway is I-70 rather than I–70, the page should be I-2, not I–2. Also, your template is set up as though you were citing multiple pages (pp.), but you're not. That said, the more I look into these sources, the more concerned I am about their origin and reliability. I assumed that they were two sections from a longer document (thus the I- and II- page numbering). But I can't find that document, if it exists. The site they are hosted on, www.milleniumhwy.net, is not a reliable source; that wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if it was just republishing government documents (although ideally we'd link to an official source). But I'm not entirely sure how, or if, these were ever published in an official capacity. Do you have any further information? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The document does appear to have been published officially. (See here.). I will update the page numbering. --AdmrBoltz 15:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't have access to that, obviously, but I'm fairly certain it means that the two sections cited separately were originally part of the same document as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Nor do I - how would you recommend I cite the document then? (As a Matter of Fact. West Virginia Division of Highways. January 1998. pp. I–2, II–8. OCLC 45763179.?)--AdmrBoltz 16:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
            • Seems mostly reasonable. Except for those pesky horizontal lines (I hate them, too). Should be I-2, II-8 (instead of I–2, II–8). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
              • Cite updated. --AdmrBoltz 18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
                • A comment, but the citation templates are converting any hyphens in page numbers to en dashes, and the only way around it is to override the hyphen with a code for a hyphen. I discovered this while working on U.S. Route 31 in Michigan, and the code to override to proper hyphens is ‑ and I just fixed a few I missed with this edit if you want to see what I did to fix things. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
                  • Thanks. I was thinking I was going insane. --AdmrBoltz 20:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Right now, I'm leaning oppose. I think there's a lot of polish to be given the prose, which stands out as a comparatively bigger problem when there's not very much prose to polish. I'm also concerned about the sourcing; there are some unsourced or poorly sourced statements that sort of slide in here. Equivalents in other FA highway articles, such as the Colorado version of this one, seem to find government publications to support most of the highway structure and layout claims. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I believe I've addressed your concerns. Can you please re-review the article? AdmrBoltz 18:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) has not responded to my talk page notification or my @ reply here on this article page. The editor has made no edits to Wikipedia since this review. --AdmrBoltz 19:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted. The nom is still relatively young, so he may yet return before we consider closure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) still has not been editing on Wikipedia, and it has been 15 days since he reviewed my article. --AdmrBoltz 19:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I realise you've done your best to action his concerns but a quick scan suggests there's still room for improvement in the prose. I'll ask around for someone else to take a look, so sit tight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Prose and source review from Imzadi1979

Comments are forthcoming. I reviewed this a few years ago at the ACR stage, but I will take another look in the next few days as time allows for this review stage. Imzadi 1979 → 03:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The sentence beginning, "The portion of the route in West Virginia..." seems superfluous after the one before it. Maybe they can be combined, or this second mention eliminated?
  • Tweaked. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The Fort Henry Bridge carries I-70 from Wheeling Island, across the Ohio River and into downtown Wheeling before entering Wheeling Tunnel." That could use a little tweak because otherwise it implies the bridge (as the subject of the sentence) enters the tunnel. Maybe: "The Fort Henry Bridge carries I-70 from Wheeling Island, across the Ohio River and into downtown Wheeling before the freeway enters the Wheeling Tunnel." ?
  • Changed to your wording. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "auxiliary interstate highway" should have the I and the H capitalized; an interstate highway just crosses state lines, but an Interstate Highway is part of the specific system named for President Eisenhower.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "When the United States Numbered Highways system" should have the s dropped on highways and the word system should be capitalized and moved into the link since it is part of the system's name.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

RD

• "Entering West Virginia from Ohio, Interstate 70 (I-70) crosses..." I'd drop the full name and just use the abbreviation since it's been established in the lead. A bit further down, US 40's abbreviation is established, but that should be done on first mention in the lead so you can skip repeating it in the RD.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "After the interchange, I-70 enters the approximately 1⁄4-mile (400 m) long..." you should use |adj=mid|-long in {{convert}} so it reads "1⁄4-mile-long (400 m)". Any other similar constructions should be updated as well.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "In 2012, WVDOT calculated that..." I would add "the lowest and highest counts along I-70 in the state" or something to indicate that these are the edges of the range of traffic counts.
  • Added "These counts are of the portion of the freeway in West Virginia and are not reflective of the entire Interstate." --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

History

• "...reached then Wheeling, Virginia was..." a comma is needed after the state name. Ditto the mention of Cumberland, Maryland, in the next sentence.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• The 1926 sentence has the same issue as its sibling in the lead.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "the I-70 designator was first designated" has some unnecessary repetition here. I'd use "the I-70 number was first designated" instead.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• An inflation adjusted value for the cost of the tunnel would be nice. U.S. Route 8 uses the templates if you'd like to take a look on how to do so using the appropriate inflationary measure for large capital projects.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• This following comment is in the realm of personal preference mostly. I hate "due to ... verb-ing" constructions. I think it would sound better to reword "...few days due to barges breaking loose during..." to something like "...few days because barges broke loose during..." YMMV.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Exit list

• All looks good.

References (source review) Overall all of the footnotes use reliable sources of high quality, so no qualms there.

• FN 1: I would unlink the location and consider using the postal abbreviation for the state.
  • Changed to Penna. (the AP style) as I've been told to avoid postal abbreviations before when not writing a letter. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 2: Kevin Adderly is listed as the author/contact for the page, so I'd list him as the author, updating the dates as needed.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 3, et al.: books normally have their place of publication listed.
  • The Google Books preview does not include the copyright page that would list that. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN5: Richard Weingroff is the FHWA historian who put together that page, and I'd add |work=Highway History and drop the specific office (no longer seems to be credited to that office anymore).
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 9, et al.: I normally suggest listing the location for TV stations when citing their online news articles, just as we'd list a location for a newspaper that lacks its city in the name.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 11: I'd silently insert the missing hyphen into "I70" for consistency with the rest of the article and convert the spaced hyphen (faux dash) into a colon to separate title and subtitle.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 14 & 29: I'd use |author=Staff for consistency with other footnotes by corporate authors.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 16: When I found a higher-resolution copy, I found more information to be used to cite it. U.S. Route 8 (FN 22) has the full cartography, scale and other information that we couldn't read on the previous copy uploaded to Commons. (Note, based on my readings and dealings this past semester with MLA citations and The Chicago Manual of Style, I now recommend always including a scale, even if it's "Scale not given", for a map except for variable scale online maps like Google, etc.)
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 17: That map was published by the Public Roads Administration, not AASHO, and the full title should be: "Official Route Numbering for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways as Adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials" with PRA credited as the cartographer and a "Scale not given" indicated.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 19: This should have the page number included, if possible. (Not all archives list it though.)
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 20: This doesn't need FHWA wikilinked.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• FN 21: This newspaper is published in Hopkinsville, KY, so that should be listed.
  • Done. --AdmrBoltz 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise the citations are in good shape, just minor details that are easily fixed. I'd be happy to support promotion after the article is updated. Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Support—all of the above was quite minor, and I'm satisfied with the article now. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support I did a newspaper database check, and found a few more articles, which Admrboltz has since added. I'm satisfied that this article is comprehensive. --Rschen7754 01:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Image review:
  • File:I-70 (WV).svg, public domain/trademarked and properly marked as such.
  • File:I-70 (WV) map.svg, CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL license with freely available source information indicated.
  • File:Wheeling Tunnel overview 1994.jpg, public domain from the USGS
  • File:Interstate 70 near Wheeling West Virginia.JPG, CC-BY-SA 2.5
  • All captions are appropriate for the usage in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments and cursory source review

• I edited the lead for clarity and took a few cues from the lead of Interstate 75 in Michigan, which I find to be a good example of how to write about a specific segment of a longer freeway.
  • Thank you. --AdmrBoltz 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• "US 40 and US 250 become concurrent with I-70 at this interchange, before traveling east toward the Fort Henry Bridge." I wanted to review the source for this statement before editing it, but there is no relevant citation. The next citation (ref 4) doesn't seem to apply.
  • Added in the map citation that goes along with that. Typically I have left these at the end of the paragraph, but I can start adding them in when I cite other sources for other facts in the same paragraph. --AdmrBoltz 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• The second para of "Route description" has the same issue. I wanted to edit the opening sentences for clarity and went to consult the first citation I saw (ref 7), which doesn't cover most of the text leading up to it. It appears to be a source for I-470 being "the only auxiliary interstate highway in West Virginia", but what about all the other text in that para?
  • Added in map citation. --AdmrBoltz 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 4b, verified.
• Reb 2b, verified.
• Ref 18, fails verification. The source supports the bridge being built in 1955, but not that the bridge was "The first portion of I-70 to be completed across West Virginia". I've often encountered this issue in road articles: You've supplied a primary source supporting a piece of data, but no source supporting the historical context.
  • Tweaked the sentence as technically the Interstate Highway program didn't get started till '56. --AdmrBoltz 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• The same problem exists for ref 17, actually. You provide a map supporting the freeway's existence in 1957 (although the map scale makes it almost impossible to see) but there is no support for "Passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 brought the Interstate Highway System to West Virginia"
  • The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 is the public act that made the Interstate Highway system, before that act passed, there was no such thing as the Interstate Highway System, thus the state could not have had one before the passage of that law. The map that was cited was the first documentation stating that I-70 would be routed through the northern panhandle. --AdmrBoltz 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Added additional reference referring to the creation of the Interstate Highway System. --AdmrBoltz 00:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the article needs further copyediting but that is not possible if I can't verify all the facts. Admrboltz, please have a look at your citations to ensure that all text is cited and that you haven't inserted contextual statements that aren't supported by the given citation. As the article stands, I don't believe it meets criterion 1c in that it is not completely verifiable. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Admrboltz for getting started on this. To be clear, I don't consider my feedback about sources for contextual statements to be addressed; this will require finding and adding substantive sources other than maps. --Laser brain (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to references 17/18 or...? --AdmrBoltz 00:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Laser brain: - Can you follow up with what exactly you are looking for? I have moved to address your concerns. --AdmrBoltz 21:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I was citing 17 and 18 as examples, but I hoped you would check your other map citations to ensure you aren't stating anything that's not clear from looking at the map. I am in and out today, but I can come back tomorrow and do some more spot checks. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will ensure the citations are in order this evening. --AdmrBoltz 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am ready at any time now @Laser brain:. Thank you. --AdmrBoltz 02:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I'd like to see if you had time to re-review these concerns? --AdmrBoltz 18:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments:

• I did a few further source checks and didn't find any other issues with missing citations. I also did not find any issues with close paraphrasing.
• I've tried to do some more copyedits, but I've run into things that need editing but I'm not quite sure of the intended meaning:

• "The first portions of what is now known as I-70 to be completed across West Virginia was the Fort Henry Bridge" You have written "portions ... was" indicating something may have been edited out or otherwise missing. Is there one portion, or are there multiple portions?

• The Fort Henry Bridge was built just before I-70 was officially designated as a highway. I was trying to get across that the bridge was one of the first pieces of the highway, that wasn't yet official, to be completed. --AdmrBoltz 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, consider "The first portions of what is now known as I-70". Would removing "what is now known as" change the meaning of the sentence? It suggests something was built but was known as something else before it was known as I-70.

• I don't suppose it would. --AdmrBoltz 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Construction of I-70 across the panhandle was almost completed in September 1971, with a single carriageway completed in the final one and one-fifth-mile-long (1,900 m) segment of freeway near Elm Grove." I got lost here. What is a "single carriageway"? I clicked the link and went down a rabbit-hole of different articles including separate ones for "carriageway" and "single carriageway". Some of them say "carriageway" isn't NA English, so I don't know why we're using it here. Are you trying to say that traffic was only allowed in one direction, and the road was therefore not officially complete?

• Only one of the two roadways (just seems like a clunkier word than carriageway) was open. Either the road was only open in one direction there, or traffic was seperated with cones on the one side of the higwhay - the source was not clear. --AdmrBoltz 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the opening of this $17 million ... portion off freeway" Off freeway? Typo or something else meant?

• Typo. Corrected. --AdmrBoltz 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Fort Henry Bridge, along with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge, which carries I-470 and the Wheeling Suspension Bridge were all closed in January 2005" I can't unravel this. What carries I-470? Carries it where?

• I-470 spans the Ohio river further south of I-70 along the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge. --AdmrBoltz 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

More work is needed on the prose. Despite how short this article is, almost every section has needed attention. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm done checking sources and going through it. It might be helpful to get someone fresh to do another read-through for flow. I need to step away from it for a bit to get a fresh perspective. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your copyediting and sourcing expertise. --AdmrBoltz 19:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Tks Andy, briefly checking the changes since I last had a look, the prose has improved a good deal -- just made a couple of very minor alterations myself, so I think we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [43].

---

Tiruchirappalli

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Comments from Mattximus (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• 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)
• Instead of saying as of 2011, can you say as of 2011 census of India, or even 2011.
  • 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)

--Mattximus (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • 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)
        • 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)
            • 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)
                • 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)

• 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)
    • 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.
      • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    • "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.
      • Good catch! fixed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Agreed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• "The city is believed to be of significant antiquity" - what does this mean? Is this phrase adding anything?
  • It implies that the city has a vast history dating back to over 2000 years. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I see you addressed this below.
• "city has earned it the nickname," does that comma belong?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology  Done

• 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".
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • 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 [44] —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
        • 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.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
    • Changed to considerable —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • 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)
        • 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."
          • I'm removing the claim —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
            • Added a FN —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
              • 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)
• 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)
  • If you want I shall remove this too. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No it's ok, best leave it in. I was just hoping for some statistics. I didn't know they are unavailable. Withdraw comment.

Resolved comments from User:Dwaipayanc

Comments from Dwaipayanc "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) 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) Hope I've clarified —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "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) Fixed the rest. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "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) "... 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. Rephrased —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) In the same sentence, "... for the whole region". Ehat region? city, district. other geographic region, state? Fixed —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "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. Agreed —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Spell out BHEL at least once in Economy. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) What is "seamless steel"? Wikilink? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "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. Removed cost —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) " 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, Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "The Indian software company Infosys is planning to start its operations in Tiruchirappalli" Needs "as of". Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "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) 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) 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) "Aadi Perukku, Some other prominent festivals held locally are" Semms to be some grammar error. Fixed —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) " Bakrid is also widely celebrated, owing to the substantial number of Muslims in the city" Why just Bakrid? The other Eid is not widely celebrated? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "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) "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) 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) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "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. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "Even during British rule, Tiruchirappalli was recognised in India as an important educational centre" Why use "even"? Rephrased —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "The |St. Joseph's College" typo? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) " 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) 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) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "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. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "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) I also do not know what "sports hostel" could mean. Mattximus (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 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) Perhaps "hostel for athletes" instead of "sports hostel"? Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC) "... 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) 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) My bad, never thought that way. Fixed —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 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) " 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) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "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. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "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. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "About 400 tonnes (400,000 kg) of solid waste are produced in the city every year" Needs as of; the data is from 2004. Done and updated —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "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. Rephrased —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "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) 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) "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. I think you're right. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 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) "...10,000 lorries in the Trichy—Chennai stretch every night" This should not be emdash. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "A semi-ring road connecting all the National Highways is being constructed to ease traffic congestion in the city." Needs year. It's an ongoing project with uncertain dates of completion. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Great Southern of India Railway Company" Is this "of" extra? Nope, the company goes by the name —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 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) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 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. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "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) "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) "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) "The most prominent historical monuments in Tiruchirappalli ..." "most" can be removed without any loss of meaning.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC) This idea was suggested by Casliber. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

An impressive piece of work, and of a high standard, but some quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Agreed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• British and the French East India companies, BHEL—link at first occurrence
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• nickname "Energy equipment and fabrication capital of India"—is "nickname" correct? Hardly the short and snappy phrase you would expect from that.
  • Changed it to "title" —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• ''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.
  • Moved to "History" —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• when it was invaded by the Nizam of Hyderabad who bribed Rao to hand over the city—invaded or handed over?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• decadal population growth rate of 36.9% during the period 1941–51—"decadal" seems pointless when you only have one ten-year period
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• shelved by the successive governments. —either shelved by successive governments or shelved by the succeeding government.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Kaveri and its tributary Kollidam —Kaveri and its tributary, the Kollidam
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled tribes —why is "tribes" lc?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Gandhi market—why is "market" lc?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• American diamonds —link or explain, or some readers will think these are actually diamonds, and from America.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Mandapa —why capped?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• With limited sources of entertainment in the city, parks monitored by the corporation suffer from maintenance issues —apparent non sequitur
  • Done I think. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support, no further queries, good luck. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

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)

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)

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)

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

..."is believed to be of significant antiquity" - fluffy phrase. Adds nothing. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Removed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Done as suggested —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good catch! Fixed now —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

Done I think —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Gradually, the Vijayanagar Empire began to establish their supremacy... - "began to" redundant here I think

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been occasional outbreaks of violence against the Sri Lankans. - I'd take out the 'the' here

Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.
  • Agree and removed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Either use Indian or Western numeric system when expressing the revenue figures, etc. ("Economy"; 3rd paragraph uses millions and 4th uses crores).
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Want to express some comments on section "Education" will continue later. Regards :)- --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "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)

• Fixed all. Thanks Giants for offering your time amidst busy schedule —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

I've no objection -- happy holidays... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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
  • Fixed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}
• The second and third paragraphs are too listy. The lead is supposedly a summary, and lengthy lists are inappropriate
  • Trimmed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

• 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..."
  • Done I think —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Early and medieval history

• 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)
• "Following that,..." – following what?
  • Removed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• "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)
    • I would replace the words "ended in stalemate" with "was unsuccessful". Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Done as suggested —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

British rule

• 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.
  • Tipu was the enemy of British. On the other hand, Umdat Ul-Umra, the Nawab, was under the influence of British East India Company. Thus, the British took over. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• Can you find a better word than "carved"?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• "it relocated to Chennai in the early 20th century." Surely, in the early 20thC, "Chennai" was known as Madras?
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary and modern history

• 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.
  • Fixed I think —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

Image check

• 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.JPG might 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)

• Fixed I think —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

All image concerns have been fully addressed. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Cite 39 uses a hyphen for a page range.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this was fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Have a look now —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! There were a few straggling problems, but I fixed them. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

Done I think —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's something wrong with the date in citation 4.
  • Fixed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

You're right —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

Fixed —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

Okay. What is it? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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.
  • Done I think —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these are fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

All source formatting issues have been fully addressed. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Yes, the new page numbers support the claim. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

Yes, the information is at that other source. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 96: The source says the hottest months are May and June, rather than March through May, and the source does not mention dust storms.
  • Restored with original ref. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since I can't read Annesley, I'll have to take your word for it. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 213: The source supports the information about P. Madhuri, but not Vaali.
  • Added a ref —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, great, it's covered at that link. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's all sourced now. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

No, that's fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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.
  • Done as suggested —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

That's much clearer, and correctly sourced. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Will look into all the issues tomorrow. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks Quadell for your guidance and edits. Both are much appreciated! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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. Eric Corbett 15:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eric, for all the time spent to improving the prose. So kind of you! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [45].

---

William Hayden English

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
• "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)
• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Not sure what you mean here. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• What makes the thesis a high-quality reliable source under WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

Leaning to Support 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)

• True. I made the prose less purple. Thanks for the comments! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• "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)

• 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)

• Yeah, I'd do that. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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.

• Alt text would be nice for the images
  • Done.
• "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)
        • OK, I changed these. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• "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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

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
  • Done.
• anything good to link "consitutional convention" to?
  • 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)
      • 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)
        • Comment: Curly Turkey, you Canucks use different terminology, and they're rather low-key affairs, but you have had them. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "to achieve a compromise on the admission of Kansas as a state.": sounds like something there might be an article about—no?
  • Good point. I linked it to Bleeding Kansas.
• "the simmering disagreement between the free and slave states heated up": link to Slave and free states?
  • Done.
• Lexington, Indiana definitely needs a link
  • Done.
• link "minority report" to "Dissenting opinion"?
  • The Minority Report disambiguation page suggests that, but the Dissenting opinion is all about court cases, not legislatures.
• "to his son, William Eastin English,": already linked at his birth
  • Done.
• you link certain states and cities, but not others (Cincinnati, Delaware)
  • I think I got them all. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Thank you for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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) Quite excellent. – Quadell (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC) United States House of Representatives is linked twice in the lead, though neither time by that name. Indiana is as well; why not link the entire phrase Indiana Democratic Party in one instance? And Indiana Historical Society is linked twice in the "Post-election career" section. Fixed these. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) I improved this slightly. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) I would reword "shrunken land grant", since it's language used by the source, and is not as encyclopedic as "smaller land grant". Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 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. Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC) I was wondering how you'd work it in there. You did so excellently. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) I replaced it with a picture of the English Bill's co-author, Alexander Stephens. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Excellent. There are no problems with this new image. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) I can't decide, so I linked it for now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

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)

Thanks very much for the thorough review. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)
    • 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)
• "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)
• "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)
    • 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)
      • Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
    • 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)
      • I switched it around so it's more chronological. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
        • That sounds much better. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Family and early career

• "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)
    • 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)
• "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)
    • 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)
• "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)
• "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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• "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)
• "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.
  • Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• "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)
• "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)
    • So, no idea if he was also a delegate? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
      • According to this list, he was not. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• "[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)
• "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.
    • What about the incumbent? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• "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)
• "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)
      • I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• "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)

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)
• Can you combine the second and third sentences of the first paragraph?
  • Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• "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)

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?
  • Fixed these. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• "There was a twist to the choice, too, as the Bill..." This seems too editorial to me. Maybe just "The Bill also required Kansas to..."
  • Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• "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)
  • 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)
    • Perfect. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Business career

• "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)
      • Sounds good -- changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Vice-presidential candidate

• "In the end, English was proved wrong" Should this be "was proven wrong"?
  • Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

All done, guys. Sorry for the long delay. Holiday stuff. Feel free to promote. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [46].

---

Air Rhodesia Flight 825

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Support Comments by 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Perfect

• how has this event been characterized since independence by the government and press?

- Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• Will do. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [47].

---

Jimi Hendrix

Nominator(s): GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

FunkMonk, if I had my way I probably would; I added them at Paul McCartney, but they were recently removed by an editor citing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section, which states: "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Comments - taiking a look now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

at his girlfriend, Betty Jean Morgan's house in Seattle - comma makes it scan oddly - I'd remove it...

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

NB: two "guitar"s in the sentence...can we remove one?

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

He toured with them through mid-1964, when he quit after a gig in Nashville - leaves me wondering why......can we add?

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose - not finding much to complain about at all....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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".)
  • Does this edit address your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It does, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

      If I find any more omissions, I'll add the serial comma. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

      • Thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  • 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)

      That might have been the only such problem. I'll keep an eye out. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I suspect it should be "Hendrix's cousin" rather than "Hendrix cousin" in note 4.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

    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)

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)

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)

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)

Does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quite, though it's still an issue in the first sentence of the "US success" section. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Through Gypsy Eyes has an ISBN, 978-0752827254. I think it'd be useful, even if the book isn't used as a source.
  • Added to further reading. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• "as Johnny Hallyday's support act" – Do you mean "supporting act" (Opening act)?

Yes, that's what I meant. Nice catch, thanks. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. I made the same change here as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The London press calling Hendrix the "Black Elvis" is hi-lar-ious. (No change needed.)

• In nb 19, I'm not sure what "four-track technology" means. If you mean Stereo-Pak, RCA tape cartridge, Quadraphonic sound, or Multitrack recording, then a link would be useful.

Link added. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

I've removed the recent addition pending attribution and detailed sourcing info. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's probably best. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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.
  • Does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, great. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Yep. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

I'll continue reading and reviewing this tomorrow. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, sure. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Thanks again for the kind words! Ref 305 is now fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Pedal caption shouldn't end in period
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

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)

Sounds like a fine course of action to me. Thanks, Quadell! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion is here. Feel free to comment, if you like. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg: not seeing a strong rationale for use of this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • Image removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
        • The image was reinstated by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
          • 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)

The consensus here is that it should not be used. Graham Colm (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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. Doc talk 04:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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. Doc talk 04:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [48].

---

Crocodilia

Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased this sentence which I thought could be quoted verbatim as a standard definition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

I'll get to this. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. I know that would have been a fiddly job. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking forwarding to seeing how this goes, and revisiting other sections at a future date...hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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."

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Locomotion: footnote 24, Grigg and Ganns page 229 - this is not within the page range for that source. I think it should be 329.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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?

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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"?

Yes, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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?

Wikilink added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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?

Merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• References: Consistency in references - use of ampersand: "Alcala & Dy-Liacco" but "Grigg and Gans".

Replaced all ' & ' with ' and '. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Support Query 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"

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Thanks, much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Aah well, maybe that can be changed at template level. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Added their dates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Read more. LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Perhaps the "Respiration" subsection? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The "Respiration" subsection doesn't really answer my questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Looks good to me. Where does it come from? LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

From an internet search. This is the website's home page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the statement and reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Do the references support the statement? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, changed. It doesn't name them that. Its says "parts of the intercoastal muscles". LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• "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)

Done. Mazzotti and Dunson 1989 use the term of the 'electrolyte composition' of the urine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed the second instance to "osmolality". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Replaced quotation with paraphrase. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

Yes, changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• Image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

The quality and formatting of the references is of FA standard. Graham Colm (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC) [49].

---

Frank Headlam

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Images - Plane and helicopter captions should end in periods, but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do, tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments - will take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think piping the link is fine - whole new idea to me.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ok - I sorta guessed if there was anything, you'd have found it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Tks for your support (and understanding)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• "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)
  • 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)

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC) [50].

---

Hattie Jacques

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

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

Tim Riley

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

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

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

Source Review – NikkiMaria

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN176, 187: page?

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

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

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

• FN180: formatting

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

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

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

• Be consistent in whether books include locations

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Boulton

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

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

Crisco 1492

Comments From Crisco 1492

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loeba comments

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

Lead

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

Early life

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

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

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

A couple more sections...

Early post-war work

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

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

Increasing fame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carry On

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

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

Private turmoil

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to Carry On

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

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

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

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

Final appearances

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reputation

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

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

• Maybe a few too many quotes here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

• I've reworked the FUR, so it should be more focused towards where it needs to be (I hope!) - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [51].

---

Henry III of England

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

Changes made to files. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [52].

---

Two-cent piece (United States coin)

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

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

Feedback from Curly Turkey

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

Inception

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

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

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

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

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

Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Design

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

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

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

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

Production and collecting

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

Image check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources review

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

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

Support with a few prose quibbles:

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

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

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

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

I've done all those things, other than researching the Reverend Watkinson, who will have my attention next time I'm at the ANA library, which may be late this winter or early this spring. I'm not aware of any impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [53].

---

Waveguide filter

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

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

Comments from Mark Viking

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to the rest of your points;

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

Thanks for addressing my points.

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

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

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

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

Comments from Catslash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you wanting to write,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I would have written

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

or perhaps

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image check

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

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

More comments from Catslash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Quadell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I patched up a final few details. The source check is complete, and everything checks out. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [54].

---

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

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

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

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

Images

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

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

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

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

• Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Sturmvogel 66

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

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

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

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

• Remove italics. Added the.

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

• Added comma after powerful.

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

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

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

• Removed quotation marks.

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

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

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

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

• Replaced.

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

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

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

• I don't see why not.

• Seems a bit detailed for an enyclopedic article.

• Link financial year.

• Linked.

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

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

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

• Updated with recent Taiwanese request for F-35.

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

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

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

Now for the Design section:

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

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

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

• Reworded.

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

• Reworded.

• McDonnell Douglas overhauled how about redesigned instead?

• Replaced.

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

Comments from Ian Rose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing where I left off...

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

• Reworded.

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

• Removed hyphen. Sorry for the confusion.

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

• Converted to numbers.

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

• Fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reworded.

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

Comments from Nick-D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Replaced.

• Why did the UK re-enter the program?

• Added.

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

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

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

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

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

• Replaced.

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

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

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

• Reworded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

Comments from Hurricanehink

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

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

• @Hurricanehink: Done.

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

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

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

• Reworded.

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

• Reworded.

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

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

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

• Reworded.

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

• Reworded.

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

• Replaced small with insufficient.

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

• Changed tense.

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

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

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

• Yes indeed.

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

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

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

• Done.

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

• Altered throughout.

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

• See below.

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

• Reworded.

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

• I've linked availability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Quadell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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