Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2010: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→April 2010: promote 2
promote 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== April 2010 ==
== April 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ganoga Lake/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Canning/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zapata Rail/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zapata Rail/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Taejon/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Taejon/archive1}}

Revision as of 13:35, 10 April 2010

April 2010

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 SandyGeorgia 13:35, 10 April 2010 [1].

Ganoga Lake

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is an article that grew out of a red link in Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park. It recently became a GA (thanks Arsenikk) and I want to thank Dincher and Jackyd101 for their reviews too. None of the reviewers found major problems, so I thought I would bring it to FAC as I believe it meets all the featured article requirements.

I want to note that because this is a privately owned lake, current sources on it are limited. I also want to thank Ben Kouba and Justin Mowery on Flickr for freely licensing their beautiful images for use in this article. Thanks in advance for your comments, which I will do my best to respond to quickly. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review by Charles Edward
    • "However, according to a 1917 Pennsylvania Water Resources Inventory Report, in its longest dimensions it is 3,720 feet (1,130 m) long (0.705 miles or 1.135 km) by 1,025 feet (312 m) wide.", should probably have a citation there
    • "It has an average depth of 10 feet (3.0 m) and a maximum depth of 13 feet (4.0 m).", should probably have a citation there
    • The alt text for File:Ganoga Lake Map.png is very long. It should probably be cut back.
  • Images all check out good
  • References are great
  • Prose is outstanding
  • Alt text present
  • No outstanding MOS issues

Support, this article is fantastic. Great job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your kind words, support, and suggestions. I added the same ref (p. 70 of the 1917 Pennsylvania Water Resources Inventory Report) after each of the two sentences. If they all use the same reference, my preference is to have one ref at the end of a series of sentences, but this makes it very clear where each sentence gets its data. I also tried trimming the alt text some. Hopefully these are better now? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 13:35, 10 April [2].

Elizabeth Canning

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 22:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Elizabeth Canning was an 18th-century 18-year-old maid who went missing for a month. She returned and claimed she had been abducted, the supposed perpertrators were arrested, tried, and found guilty. Some thought it all very suspicious, investigated, found some serious problems with the case, and had Canning arrested and tried for perjury. She was eventually found guilty and shipped off to what is now the US. It's all a bit of a mystery, but it was one of the most famous legal cases of 18th-century England, and I present it to you now. Parrot of Doom 22:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Do you think 'hayloft' needs to be wikilinked? Also, shouldn't "Background" be separated from the "History" section, even if it is very small. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hayloft isn't really a helpful article, as it doesn't mention the use of loft space in living areas (as was common at the time). I don't think it's possible to separate the background from the history section as Canning's upbringing and employment status was important to the story. Parrot of Doom 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Houndslow (blue-linked) is in Scotland. Do you mean Hounslow? A long way from the City even so. Houndsditch is near Aldgate – is that what is meant? St Botolph's Aldgate is on the corner of Houndsditch – you mention a (red-linked) Aldgate church – which makes one suspect that "Houndsditch" and "St Botolph's Aldgate" are correct here. This is an important point in the narrative and needs to be cleared up.
      • It was Houndsditch, fixed.
        • Good. That was the only point causing me to withhold support - now given, below. Given that Houndsditch is correct, the red-link for the Aldgate church is a bit forlorn: there isn't another candidate than the blue-linked St Botolph's, so nobody will ever write a new article to turn the red-link blue. I'd remove the link, I think, or change the wording to blue-link to St B's. Tim riley (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fortune nor Judith Natus were were…" duplication
      • Fixed
    • "fish-monger" – the OED does not list this hyphenated version of "fishmonger"
      • Fixed
    • "the The Bottle Conjuror…" duplicate word
      • Fixed
    • "the Reverend Harris" is good American usage, I believe, but is a solecism in English usage (just as one wouldn't say "the Honourable Smith" or "the Right Honourable Jones"). Either "the Reverend James Harris" or else "Mr Harris" or just "Harris" is needed here.
      • I've removed most of "The Rev..." and changed to "Rev...", with so many names I think its easier for the reader to be reminded who Harris was.
    • "the Squires had very likely been travelling..." – plural of the name Squires should be Squireses shouldn't it, cf. Jones and Joneses?
      • You've got me there, I find it all quite confusing. Both sources use s's.
    • Possessive of Squires: consistency needed – at present the article has both "Squires'" and "Squires's". The latter is the conventional English form.

Most of these comments are of minor moment, but the first really does need putting straight if this fascinating article is to be promoted to FA. – Tim riley (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Parrot of Doom and I have written a few articles together, but I've had nothing to do with this one, which I think is excellently written, comprehensive, and fully meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The article is in good shape, but going through this, I see some potential problems. For example, "When Canning failed to return to her lodgings at Lyon's house, he twice went looking for her at her mother's home." Who is the 'he' referring to here? There's an aunt and uncle mentioned in the previous paragraph, but it's implied they left her.
"She was forced to walk to a house, where an old woman asked if she would "go their way"." What does this mean?
Basically it means that they wanted her to be a prostitute. The article does mention this but I've clarified it Parrot of Doom 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Canning was still extremely weak, but her supporters took the risk of moving her so she could identify her captors, and the room in which she had been held, before she died." Seems confusing. She didn't die; presumably they thought she would die.
I agree, I've changed it to in case she died Parrot of Doom 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "stays" is wikilinked at its second and third occurrence, but not its first.
Fixed. Parrot of Doom 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More later. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There, before the two kidnappers, Lucy Squires,[nb 4] and Hall, the old gypsy had assaulted Canning, before forcing her up the stairs, where she remained until she escaped." The six commas lead to a choppy, fragmented sentence. I suggest something along the lines of "There, in front of the two kidnappers, Lucy Squires,[nb 4] and Hall, the old gypsy assaulted Canning and forced her up the stairs. She remained there until she escaped."
We're speaking in past tense here. I can't write "in front of" because that may not have happened, so I made this change Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC) - just to add - I changed the "she remained" to "the young maidservant remained" Parrot of Doom 07:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can write "before the two kidnappers" you can substitute "in front of the two kidnappers"; I was hoping to avoid confusion, but am happy with how the sentence turned out.
Another example of fragmentation and "snakiness" (50 words): "Squires, charged with assault and theft, and Wells, with "well-knowing" what her accomplice had done, were tried on 21 February at the Session House of the Old Bailey, before the Lord Mayor of London Sir Crisp Gascoyne, a panel of other justices, and a gallery packed with interested spectators."
Made this change Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"said that the Squires' had visited his house..." Apostrophe here?
It was the Squires family that had visited his house, not Squires alone. I think the US style here would be "Squireses" but the British/US sources I've used both agree on "Squires's" for the possessive, and "Squires'" for the plural. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add apostrophes to make names plural. This is not an example of BrE/AmE differences. This is Grammar 101. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Little Jemmy, "a poor man who cries sticks about the streets"..." What does this mean? Is this a BrE phrase, or an old euphemism for something antiquated? It sounds (to me) like he was selling sticks. Not truly a FAC objection, but please pity the poor American readers. ;)
No idea. One of those things, although it'd be interesting to know :) If I come across it elsewhere I'll add a note. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Through January, he thought, the Squires' had very likely been travelling through Dorset..." Apostrophe here?
See above. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add apostrophes to make names plural. This is not an example of BrE/AmE differences. This is Grammar 101. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Reports began to emerge, of sinister goings-on..." No comma here.
Well...I'll have to disagree on that one, but it isn't a big deal. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"she was given a month's imprisonment, to be followed by seven years' transportation." This is explained in a later section, but will not make sense to readers who don't read down that far.
Linked. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 05:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 11:33, 9 April 2010 [3].

Zapata Rail

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Viva Zapata!. Now you hear it, now you don't. Join the real James Bond and Fermín Zanón Cervera in the steaming swamps of Cuba Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are four results in the Zoological Record, and of those you missed:

Title: Exhibition of a specimen of the Petehora Pipit (Anthus gustavi) from Fair Isle ; also a British-killed specimen of White's Thrush (Turdus varius) and a rare Rail Cyanolimnas cerverai from Cuba.
Author(s): Hartert, E.
Source: Bull. Bt. Orn. Cl. Volume: 49 Page(s): pp. 57-58 Published: 1929

I doubt there will be anything of value in that.

Images look good, except that File:Clgar_u0.gif is missing evidence for the claim that drawings by Cada are free to use.
Sources:
  • What makes the Arturo Kirkconnell piece a reliable source?
  • Arturo Kirkconnell is co-author of Birds of Cuba, Andrew Mitchell is Director of the Global Canopy Program, which is referenced in the Birdlife International Cuban Kite evaluation.
  • The Tierramérica and IPS News sources don't seem to be the highest-quality reliable sources, but I suppose they could be used if there is nothing better.
  • Tierramérica is a joint project of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The World Bank (WB), with IPS serving as the executive agency, so not bad Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments:
  • Is "limnas" really Latin? It sounds rather Greek to me.
  • Perhaps leave the phrase saying it is almost flightless out from the description, since the point is discussed more fully later.
  • Ridgway cite should be completed with the title of the contribution &c.
There is little to tell, but what there is told well. I look forward to supporting after the above issues have been resolved. Ucucha 03:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for the replies. Ucucha 10:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for support and for completing the Ridgway ref - I wasn't sure whether the family stuff should be included - it's a bit of an odd one for me, where a journal has a single item as its contents Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment The article information seems comprehensive; I just have a couple specific notes:

*The intro might be helped with a few more sentences, e.g. size, diet, and reproduction, even if it's just to note that there isn't much information. I for one like to see where information gaps exist, rather than think that the intro is incomplete

*A minor point, but could the range be changed to a more obvious color, like red? It took me a while to find it on the thumbnail map.

  • Nah, like I said, a minor point

*"...and become a professional naturalist"

  • become->became, unless you meant "he had stayed on to become an ornithologist"

*"...he sent the Spaniard on a series of trips into the region, where he eventually found the rail"

  • the two uses of "he" here seem to refer to two different people? Perhaps rephrase or split into two sentences

*"...his name is commemorated by the new centre in the Ciénaga de Zapata National Park"

  • centre of what?
  • ecological, added

*"Barbour did not believe that the three swamp bird species..."

  • What three species? Do you mean that the rail fossils at Havana, Pinar del Río and the Isla de la Juventud were not all Zapata Rails but belonged to different species?

*"...conditions similar to those found today may once have extended over the large submerged area now represented by the shallow banks, with scattered mangrove keys, which extend towards the Isla de la Juventud and perhaps eastward..."

  • The two uses of "extend" here make the sentence read a bit odd; perhaps rephrase?
  • oops, sloppy - second occurence now replaced with stretched

*"The fossils from Isla de la Juventud are small compared to the limited samples from the extant bird, but the paucity of available material makes it impossible to establish whether the populations were genuinely different."

  • The wording of this sentence makes it seem you're comparing the sizes of the actual fossil remains (bones and such); perhaps rephrase to something like "the birds fossilized at Isla de al Juventud are smaller than the few extant specimens..."

*link rainy season

*"The few records in subsequent years suggested that numbers remain low..."

  • verb tenses should agree on "suggest" and "remain"

*"...but after no official sightings for two decades, a 1998 survey found two more locations in the Zapata Swamp"

First, the conjunction "but" doesn't seem to fit here, as the discovery of 70-90 birds doesn't seem to contradict the statement that their numbers are low. Second, do you mean "found the birds at two new locations"?
  • but to although, rephrased as suggested

*The name of the catfish is all-capitalized in the image caption, but not in the prose

*Also, perhaps one of the images of a living catfish here would be more informative?

*"The Zapata Rail is restricted to a single area, with an extent of about 1,000 km2 (386 mi2), and its small population of between 250–1000 individuals is assessed as decreasing"

  • Are these population figures extrapolated from the 1998 sightings above, or have there been more recent surveys?

*"There are plans to encourage more tourists to visit the Zapata area, particularly from Europe, and if the United States allows its citizens to visit Cuba in the future, this could further increase the demand for ecotourism"

  • Would "impact of ecotourism" be more appropriate than "demand" here? Also, the way the sentence is phrased makes it seem that ecotourism levels are only contingent on whether the US allows travel to Cuba
  • now effects of ecotourism. (impact is first verb in next sentence). The interpretation you take is what was intended. The US is large, wealthly and very close, so if US citizens are given the right to travel freely, it's bound to outweigh all other tourism Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Rising sea levels due to global warming could contaminate the wetland saltwater"

  • Contaminate the wetland with saltwater, or contaminate the saltwater in the wetland? If the latter, how?

*"...the debris left by hurricanes could lead to further damaging fires once the fallen vegetation dries out."

  • Is the debris left by the hurricane the fallen vegetation? Or is the hurricane debris setting the fallen vegetation aflame? Or are both the hurricane debris and the fallen vegetation contributing fuel for worse fires?

Thats all for now. -- Yzx (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments I'm glad you've expanded the description, and added a mention of the catfish in the text. Any weights, even of small samples?
Apparently not. Van Perlo always gives weights where they are available (and the number of samples, which can be just one, if that's all there is), but does not do so here. The detailed description by Barbour & Peters and by Ridgway would have been from prepared specimens sent back to the US, so live weights would not have been possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tourism and climate change may pose future threats" seems awkward; how about something like "may pose threats in the future"?
Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the Cuban breeding season, the rail is always seen in this habitat, and is known to return to the sawgrass after the rainy season. The only nest was in sawgrass, and there is no reason to assume that it was atypical. It's difficult to come up with an alternative scenario. Thanks for reviewing, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Seems fine with me, and has been pretty well reviewed by others. —innotata 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks again - one thing with a short article is that it gives less targets (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 11:33, 9 April 2010 [4].

Battle of Taejon

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a MilHist A-Class Review, and I believe it can become Featured as well. —Ed!(talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

  • References needed
    • "Advance elements of the 24th Infantry Division were badly defeated in the Battle of Osan on July 5, during the first battle between American and North Korean forces"
    • "The three regiments were below strength due to heavy losses; after the previous two weeks of fighting, the 21st Infantry had 1,100 men left, having suffered 1,433 casualties thus far in the conflict. "
    • "The 34th Infantry had only 2,020 and the 19th had 2,276, placing the division's total strength at 11,400. "
    • "B Battery was attacked by 400 North Koreans, but an advance of South Korean horse cavalry spared the battery heavy losses, allowing it to make an organized retreat."
    • "It was put under the command of Major General John H. Church in the absence of Dean. After three weeks of fighting, the division had suffered almost 30 percent casualties, with 2,400 men missing."
    • "Although the force was badly defeated militarily, the 24th Infantry Division accomplished its mission of delaying North Korean forces from advancing until July 20" - needs ref, but if that was the goal of the 24th, you should probably mention that up front.
  • Prose
    • "The 24th Infantry Division was also suffering..." - unneeded "also"
    • "The division also had no tanks to defend with..." - unneeded "also"
    • "The North Korean 2nd Infantry Division was ordered to attack from Chongju against the American right flank, but it was slow to move and was too late to participate in the battle. Instead, the North Korean 3rd Division was ordered to attack from the north, against the flank. The North Korean 4th Division would attack across the Kum River from the east and south, in order to envelop Taejon and the US 24th Infantry Division with it.[9] Eventually they would also be supported by elements of the North Korean 105th Armored Division.[10]" - This paragraph is a little tricky. You need to make it clear you are talking about the battle plan by noting that.
    • "At 0300 on July 16" - this will be somewhat confusing to reader unfamiliar with military time. I suggest converting such instances to standard time formatting.
      • I tried to do that to prevent confusion in the article, my other FA used military time without a problem.
    • "Regardless, the 34th Infantry Division soldiers had repeatedly attempted to hold lines of ground, but were repeatedly overwhelmed by numerically superior North Korean forces" - suggest change the second "repeatedly" to "consistently" or "continually".
  • General
    • Throughout the article it is not really clear what the strategic point of the battle was. I suggest adding that to the background section. Why were the Americans trying to hold that position? Why were the Koreans trying to capture it? There is alot of detail about the actions of the battle, but this aspect is missing.
    • "North Korean forces continued to infiltrate the city disguised as farmers and the remaining elements of the 24th Infantry Division were pushed back block-by-block." - that is a little vague. Where they sneaking in disguised to spy on them, or carry out suicide attacks, or just what? Being pushed back block by block sounds like a military engagement between units.
  • Images

Overall a very good article. Those issues are relatively minor. Address them and I will be glad to support! :) Good job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have responded to all of your suggestions. —Ed!(talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this very worthy article. Great work! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • images are all appropriately licensed, no dab links, alt text present (no action required);
    • are there any Korean sources that might be able shed some light on casualties? Jim101 might be able to help, have you talked to him about it? — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been working closely with Jim101 working on a lot of Korean War topics, and his sources don't mention anything about exact numbers just as mine don't. There was a lot of confusion at this phase in the war because of a lack of communications equipment and high casualties on the American side, so most sources I have a hold of say the North Korean casualties "can't be estimated." —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Background section, this sentence seems to be missing something: "Losses in earlier fighting reduced artillery two battalions." (I think it is missing the word "to");
    • In the Background section, I think "Far east" is incorrectly capitalised. I think it should be "Far East" as both words are part of the noun, which is in this case a proper noun (I suggest just piping it to the correct capitalisation);
    • In the Background section, I think "combat ready" should be hyphenated as "combat-ready";
    • In the Background section, this sentence is missing something: "Taejon was major South Korean city 100 miles (160 km) south" (I think it is missing the word "a", as in a major South Korean city);
    • In the Second North Korean attack section, I think "regiments" should be capitalised as "Regiments" in this sentence: "The division's 19th and 34th regiments";
    • In the Taejon falls section, "North Korean 105th Armored Division" is overlinked (it is already linked above in the First North Korean attack section).

— AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the 24th Infantry Division of the Eighth United States Army, headquartered in Japan, was the closest combat-ready division' I wasn't really combat ready at all.
  • 'Originally below strength on their deployment, heavy losses in the preceding two weeks had reduced their numbers further. The 21st Infantry had 1,100 men left, having suffered 1,433 casualties." You don't say what the establishment strength of the regiments and the division was, leaving the reader unable to determine how under strength it was.
  • "The division had no tanks: Its new M26 Pershing and older M4A3 Sherman tanks were still en route." Its -> its
  • A-Battery -> A Battery and B-battery -> B Battery Hyphens are not normal here.
  • "and suffered 650 casualties of the 3,401 men committed there" of -> among
  • "the Eighth Army Commander, General Walton Walker" walker was only a lieutenant general at the time
  • "After three weeks of fighting, the Division had suffered almost 30 percent casualties, with 2,400 men missing." So there were 922 men killed and 228 wounded and about 2,400 missing?
  • "The Division went on reserve status while it rested and rebuilt," on reserve status -> into reserve
  • 'the first unit of the division back into action, the 19th Infantry Regiment, did not move to the front lines of the Pusan Perimeter until August 1" That was just over a week - not very long at all.
  • What type of guns was the 63rd Field Artillery Battalion equipped with?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!(talk) 14:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "The first two Medals of Honor for the Korean War " should be mentioned in the lede.
    • The 3.5-inch bazookas were newly-made and newly-arrived; the unit had very few. Dean found only two, separately: one, which had only one round, and later a second, which was better-equipped. The account in Fehrenbach pp. 98-9 is quite riveting.
    • I'm not sure the first para of the Aftermath section captures the plight of the 24th fully, see Fehrenbach p. 101, "After seventeen days"... • Ling.Nut 06:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently Leaning Oppose, though I could be persuaded that I am wrong. I am late to the party here, and have only read several passages of Fehrenbach (see comments above). Fehrenbach makes very, very little of the numerical difference between the forces, explicitly saying on p.  88, "The 24th was on the brink of disaster, and not because of the enemy's numbers." The problem was that the American forces were distressingly under-equipped (especially in communications, but also in every other way, apparently) and the command situation was also woeful. The losses among commanders were high to begin with, and mounted as time went on. Those left in command were under-trained (and again, under-equipped, it seems due to budget cuts) to do so... It also seems that every regiment had only two battalions (I only see this mentioned with respect to one regiment in the article, but I could be wrong), and no one had been trained to operate under these conditions... essentially, the US military screwed up, and screwed up badly. All of these facts are kinda mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure that they are presented clearly or strongly enough. The Wikipedia article really seems to me to read as though it was all a case of numerical inferiority...In short, I don't think the cause(s) of the American tactical defeats were explored clearly enough... .while I'm at it, the strategic and tactical importance of Taejon (Fehrenbach p. 88) does not seem well-presented here (though it is true that the main strategic outcome, delaying the North Koreans until a Pusan perimeter could be completed, was presented very clearly). I'm open to the possibility that all of the above is Fehrenbach's POV; am looking forward to exploring other sources. • Ling.Nut 07:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a caution that it may not be wise to use one source's opinion to hold against this article. According to the current leading Korean War expert Prof. Allan R. Millett, Fehrenbach's book belongs to a genre of books that only examine the American military weakness during the Korean War, and according to the principle of aging source, Fehrenbach's book, which is published in the 1960s, is superseded by newer works such as by Bevin Alexander in the 1980s and David Halberstam in 2007. If you are looking for a complete combat analysis of the battle, Fehrenbach's scope is not as comprehensive as the works of Colonel Roy Appleman of the US Army. Jim101 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me with that! Now, can you tell me two things: 1) why did we get our butts kicked, and 2) where is this summarized in the lede and clearly explained (or at least fully addressed) in the article? I'm also wondering where you got 20,000 troops in the infobpx, but that is less important.Tks • Ling.Nut 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've tried to emphasize in the article how little the importance of the tactical defeat was. The American forces never really were planning or expecting to win at Taejon - the goal was to delay the North Koreans as much as possible. I've expanded the background section and lead to include a little more about the lack of equipment and training by American forces but as Jim said, other sources corroborate the story that it wasn't equipment alone that lost the fight. American forces were also untrained, undisciplined, outnumbered and defending a city that could be attacked from three sides at once, but they didn't "lose" the fight per se, their mission was a delaying action and they were able to hold the area as long as their commanders had originally ordered them to. As for the infobox, I amended it to be more specific to Fehrenbach's troop estimate (two divisions of 11,000 each operating at 60 to 80 percent strength) but neither he nor any other source estimates more numbers for the large contingent of forces from a third division (the 105th Armored) present at the fight. —Ed!(talk) 18:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the deep Army cuts ordered by President Truman, the Army suspended the draft. It decided to keep the same number of divisions active (seven infantry, two airborne and one armoured) but to reduce their subunits and non-divisional components. There was no Army-wide method of doing this, but in MacArthur's Far East Command (FEC) all four divisions inactivated the third battalions and tank companies of their infantry regiments, the third battery of their field artillery battalions, two companies in each tank battalion, and two batteries in the antiaircraft battalions. There was one exception: the 24th Infantry, being made up of buffalo soldiers, was kept at three battalions due to the Army's racial segregation policy. It was planned to inactivate one of the four divisions in 1950. Elsewhere, the division in Germany and the 2nd and 3rd Infantry and 2nd Armored Divisions in ZI were maintained with their full organisation but with all components at reduced strength. The 11th Airborne Division had only two regiments. The 82nd Airborne Division was the only division in the Army at full strength. Because they were manned by volunteers, and they were at full strength, the remaining battalions in FEC were well-trained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source location for that? Every source, US government and scholarly alike, corroborates that the 24th had undergone reductions by the time the Korean War broke out. In fact, the 7th Infantry Division lost most of its compliment to reinforce the other three divisions moving into Korea at this time. —Ed!(talk) 01:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I made two wikilinks to add some depth to the whole issue of being under-equipped because of cutbacks. If the article were stand-alone I'd want refs/cites, but this is Wikipedia, and I'm OK with just links in a background section. So now, why were they so under-trained? Were they raw recruits or... what? PLUS I see the point above about the whole action being just a delaying action, but Dean had to order airstrikes on his own equipment more than once. Surely that isn't standard procedure (to say the least). So... they were getting their butts kicked... Hate to do this, but is there any ref that says the top brass knew they were ending lambs to the slaughter? Fehrenbach (I know, outdated) seems to attribute it to a mild form of arrogance or tunnel-vision. • Ling.Nut 04:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence to the background that more directly states that (cited by ref 2). I only have one source saying directly that the men of the 24th were sacrificial lambs, is it then inferred to be true? Also, I added more to explain that indeed most of the US soldiers were raw recruits. —Ed!(talk) 05:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't infer anything, Ed. We must be extremely diligent about keeping the article text that we add strictly within the scope of statements licensed by reliable sources. Controversial statements can't be accepted (or rejected) based on the word of a single source. My "lambs to the slaughter" comment was just for the sake of this discussion... In other words, in the case of a controversial statement, if e make it at all we need to find the three or four or so most reliable sources available, and try to distill their input onto the page, very carefully citing it. But back all this up. What do the best available sources actually say about all this?• Ling.Nut 05:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, and please note that I went to page 52 of Alexander's "The first war we lost" and it does not say what you have it saying in note 2a: "However the division would be trading land and casualties for time during the next few battles." I suppose it implies this, but it certainly does not imply it strongly enough to warrant a cite to this page of this book. This, unfortunately, is a problem. Are there more problems of a similar nature? • Ling.Nut 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just cutting that sentence out. None of my sources say it directly then. If you can find a source that says it clearly enough to warrant a cite let me know. —Ed!(talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I have removed the "Currently Leaning" from my Oppose. I just don't think this article does an excellent job of communicating the battle of Taejon to our readers. Although I think you can be proud of how far you have taken it so far, I think it needs more work. For example, this map is pretty much incomprehensible. An incomprehensible map is merely a decoration. (Someone like User:Sémhur could help...there's a far better map on p. 95 of Alexander). I'm not sure the under-equipped nature of the units are explained well (though of course the fact is presented), I'm not sure the geographic aspect(s) of the battle(s) are explained well, etc. • Ling.Nut 09:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely every word I have said is completely actionable. Fix the maps. Rewrite to reflect your sources and explain the situation. Your response puzzles me. I'm sorry to +O, but I think it's just not ready. • Ling.Nut 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there something specific about the map that is confusing? It honestly makes sense to me. As for "the situation," I am trying very hard to change every specific thing you are mentioning but if I am not doing so correctly please let me know exactly what graphs are not correct. The problem is I don't see what specific details are missing that aren't given plenty of context in this article and its links. —Ed!(talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      A Compromise: Just my idea on how to address those concerns. Working with Prof. Millett's recommendations, just using sources which are aimed to criticize the armed forces, such as books by Fehrenbach and Alexander, may lend undue weights to certain details. I suggest use the established combat analysis, such as the book South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu and Policy and Direction - The First Year to measure just how important the cutbacks were to this battle or whether the US got its ass "kicked or not". As for confusing maps, I suggest a new section in the article just on describing the locations like this example here. Now this section could be the hardest section to find footnotes for, but in my experience it can go a long way on resolving confusions. Jim101 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm OK with using sources that are less critical; I just think the whole issue has to be explored in-depth. I didn't walk away from the article thinking, "Oh, I learned about the combat-readiness of the equipment and men in the Battle of Taejon." As for the maps....the legend is seriously too tiny to read. If I have to spend 5 minutes leaning forward and squinting, the map is useless... The first line looks like... 5somethingsomething positioned somethingsomething night june something. Other lines no better. There is no easy way to distinguish between NK, SK & US forces — colors would be nice, and the units should be visually distinct. They all look like little envelopes. What's that... boat-looking thing.. moving away from the lowest envelope, near the lower left corner of the map? Nothing is labeled! I also didn't get a sense that I could match the text up with the map — more help in this respect would be nice. Etc. • Ling.Nut 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have substantially expanded the article, specifically with more detail about the state of the forces involved for both sides, in the "Forces involved" section. Much of the article, including the aftermath, has been expanded with additional information on the battle and the loss for American forces. Is this satisfactory? As for the maps, I am taking them off of the article while I attempt to create clearer maps. —Ed!(talk) 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your zeal is commendable. I left a query re the image here. I'll look at the article text later... • Ling.Nut 07:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 22:58, 8 April 2010 [5].

Red-capped Robin

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think this birdy is really cute :) but seriously, errmmmm...well I have buffed it up and a few experienced editors have looked at it and offered improvements. Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • Are males and females the same size? I only ask because dimorphism can include size difference, but sameness is not noted.
Yes -added a sentence to confirm that Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall taxonomy needs work. I think all of the data is there, but it's a little too compact and some stuff is repeated.
    • The first sentence in taxonomy is quite a mouthful. Do you mean to say that the location it was collected at gave them the idea it was related to the old world fly catchers?
I reworded - it wasn't the location which influenced initial placement in Muscicapa Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kuburi is a name from the Kimberley.[6]" - Just sort of hanging there... looking at the ref there are probably more interesting things to say along with it. Would "Kuburi is a name used in the Kimberley" make more sense?
Yes to the rewording. The ref had a folklore tale in it. I did muse on a "culture/folklore" section but this was absolutely the only material I could find in it. I will see if I still have access to the material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph of taxonomy feels like it's trying to jam too much information into a small area.
    • The end of the 2nd para of taxonomy repeats the information from the first (old world fly catcher...changed taxonomoies etc).
tried rejigging both paras - how's that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good - One last thing - Does it make sense to put "The Australian robins were also classified for a time..." a the beginning of the 2nd para? Then all changes are listed in time order.
    • I don't understand how Pachycephalidae fits in?
transient classification - after Muscicapidae and before Petroicidae Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be a good idea to repeat the infobox image in Description so that you can see a male and female in the same spot?
rather than repeat the image, I found another appopriately licenced on on flickr and added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The male selects the nest site" ... "before the female ultimately makes the decision where to build". If she makes the decision he isn't selecting the site. Maybe just changing to "selects nesting sites" would fix it.
Good point. male selects --> male proposes Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall pretty good.

-Ravedave (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made these changes, please check
  • small thin black bill and eyes are the eyes small and thin as well as black?
oops, missed that. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • European Robin, it is not closely related to it or the American Robin I wondered if this was Euro/US-centric, since Erithacus and Turdus both contain other birds named as robins - not a deal breaker if you're happy as is.
They were the two most notable species known as robins and are the ones which these critters were mentioned as not-being-related-to in books. Need to think about this one and think about sourcing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • at around a year of age or in the months following that bit clunky
Yeah, had trouble with that one when I added info. Tried "at around or just over a year of age" Casliber (talk · contribs)
deadlink removed. alttext for map added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not thought of that. It is rare in regions of Australia next to the coast, which includes places like Kangaroo Island. I will see if a ref explicitly says "not in Kangaroo Island" although usually they just say where tehy do occur. 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Update - checked Higgins p. 652, which explicitly states it is absent on Kangaroo Island. However Higgins does not mention Flinders Island at all, which is odd. I will look online for this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Flinders Island segment for the moment, as the Higgins HANZAB book, which is pretty authoritative, does not mention it and there is nothing online. Also, it is a dryer climate bird, so its presence there would be counterintuitive. I do not have the Boles book now, and hence I suspect I might have inadvertently flipped the pages and it was a reference to the Flame, Pink or Scarlet Robins which do occur there. I can find the book in the library next wednesday or friday Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
noted now Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Issues addressed; great article. Ucucha 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Comments. I take it you've checked through the list of sources I sent you?[reply]

I have had a good read of many of them as the author Dowling has much on his personal website. Some material I'd already encountered. I have been busy IRL. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The robin has a small black bill"—does this refer to both sexes? If so, it would be clearer to say "Both sexes have ..."
yes - good point and done Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These are similar across mainland Australia but distinct on Rottnest Island"—you said before that there was no geographic variation other than some variation in fur color
The original source on variation didn't include voice - and does discuss voice in another part of the source, so the best I can do is reconcile it to appearance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in southern coastal or northern parts of its range"—not sure what this means—are there some commas missing?
It means that the species is uncommon to rare in the vicinity of the coast in southern and eastern Australia. I tried " in coastal regions in the south and east of the continent," Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The long breeding season and multiple broods therein"—in Terrick Terrick? If so, you'd better combine the short paragraphs.
No, it means overall. I have had trouble figuring out the best place for this Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd to have both categories "Birds of Australia" and "Birds of South Australia".
Agree - I think the bird cats need some overhauling - made it state dependent for the moment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map has the distribution rather more restricted than the text.
Interesting - I'd assumed the Top End covered more of northern oz and into northern WA. Might have to check the deifnition of it and clarify with some more precise northern limits. I can do that in the next couple of days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it referred to the northern one third of the Northern Territory, but may of course be wrong. Thanks for the fixes made so far. Ucucha 10:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right it seems - I have added the last bit on WA, where it is absent from the Kimberley, although there have been sitings in the southernmost bits Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images look good. I made some changes in the prose and have a few more nitpicks above, but otherwise I see no problems. Ucucha 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 22:58, 8 April 2010 [6].

Cerro Azul (Chile volcano)

Nominator(s): Awickert, ceranthor Ruslik0 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a comprehensive, well-written, and interesting account of one of the most powerful volcanoes in the world. Cerro Azul's two greatest eruptions, the largest in South American history, were a bit difficult to find detailed information on at first. When I contacted Awickert and Ruslik0, we were able to improve the article from 4000 bytes of iffy prose to a tight article of 14 kilobytes. Their help has been invaluable, and should not go unrecognized. I'd also like to thank Malleus Fatuorum for copyediting as well as Eubulides for a quick alt text check. Note: I realize that this picture is missing copyright information; I am working on it. I am completely willing to respond to any comments, !votes, or suggestions and will try to do promptly. Thanks! ceranthor 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd forgotten about the WikiCup. :/ ceranthor 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dab link. Thank you for the help! ceranthor 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Like a few thousand other articles, this one has been changed from American English to British English, through the use of an overwhelmingly complex template, without understanding how to use it. I have long objected to the improper defaults to British English in {{convert}}, yet it remains that way. Every editor should need to specify the spellings to be used. The problem here is exemplified by this edit two weeks ago by User:Malleus Fatuorum changing from:
Extended commentary on minor issue moved to talk; please advise when resolved on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this has been taken care of. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Awickert (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's done. Striking my objection. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "immediately south of Descabezado Grande volcano" looks wrong; "immediately south of the Descabezado Grande volcano" or "immediately south of Descabezado Grande" maybe? I might be talking out of my arse. Another problem (previously raised with Ceranthor) is that a large chunk of the "threats and preparedness" section deals with Chilean volcanoes and the SVZ, not Cerro Azul specifically. Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "traversed as far as Brazil. Locally, after the 1932 eruption, vegetation was devastated, and the area remained "barren" until the 1990s" - any reason you can't use travelled rather than traversed? And why is "barren" in quotes? "After the 1932 eruption, the local vegetation was devastated" I'd suggest. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to fix your concerns; tell me any others you have. ceranthor 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems all good. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • USGS or United States Geological Survey in the notes? Pick one (I prefer the later)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ceranthor 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If alt text is to be part of the FA criteria then it should be targetted at being helpful to its audience, not just a bunch of words written-through-gritted-teeth-because-someone-is-bound-to-object-if-it's-not-there. This, for instance, "Chile hosts multiple volcanoes. Cerro Azul is the northernmost, close to the city of Santiago. Three others that are close to each other (from north to south Copahue, Llaima, and Villarrica) are further south, and Cerro Hudson is the southernmost of the five" is a mini essay on the geography of Chile, not a succinct and helpful description of the image. The others are similar, some even mentioning colour. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blame me, I wrote that piece. Alt text for maps needs to convey the most important information sighted readers get from the image (WP:ALT#Maps), and I think this alt text does that; if you have any suggestions for improvement, I would be happy to hear them. I don't see any inappropriate mentions of color in the alt text, and took out a few places where color was inappropriately mentioned a few days ago. Ucucha 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current alt-text guidelines are at best misguided and help nobody. My oppose stands. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm confused as to what you want me to change. Is it that you want the alt text to relate each image to the article, or make them more succinct, or both? ceranthor 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The alt text should be describing the image, not telling those who read it more than the image itself does, or interpreting the image, and should be short and sweet, one sentence at most. It's a map of Chile's major volcanoes. That's it. Anything important about the information provided by the map should already be in the article body. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I got to this, the alt text was "A map displaying the major Chilean volcanoes.", which was indeed short and sweet but was inappropriate on two counts. First, it repeated the caption "Major Chilean volcanoes are marked by red triangles on this map" contrary to WP:ALT#Repetition. Second, it didn't convey the gist of the map as per WP:ALT#Maps. I reworded it to "Five major volcanoes range from Cerro Azul in central Chile, south through Copahue, Llaima, and Villarrica, to Cerro Hudson." which is still short and sweet, and conveys the gist much better. Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any better? ceranthor 02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, but this is even better. How could I tell from the picture that there was a glacier? And I thought that Ucucha claimed above to have removed all references to colour? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All inappropriate references to color. Ucucha 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All references to colour are inappropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Color that is an important part of the visual appearance of the image should be mentioned in alt text. Currently the only color mentioned is "black", as in "black caldera", and that use seems appropriate. Perhaps the inappropriate references to color were removed before I got here? Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Alt text for maps needs to convey the most important information sighted readers get from the image," and "should be short and sweet, one sentence at most", seems like a difficult dichotomy to straddle for complex diagrams. What is the verdict on things like the tectonic/volcanic map? Awickert (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should take the advice of authorities in the field, like the RNIB. I quote from their guidelines on alt text for what they call complex images: "Complex images are images whose full meaning cannot be adequately described in a short phrase or sentence. This may include graphs, charts and maps. A brief name or description should be given in the ALT text, and a longer description of the content of the image given elsewhere."[7] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thank you. I'll fix them based on this. Awickert (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done unless other issues arise. Awickert (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better, thanks. But I don't think you can use templates in alt text; in any event, the alt text for the map in the infobox is broken. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The templates were removed here, so that fixes that problem. Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Awickert (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
    • I don't believe that the alt text should be telling me more than the image does. The alt text for the map in the infobox tells me that "Cerro Azul is located in East-central Chile, a country on the southwestern coast of South America that is approximately 4000 kilometers from North to South, but only about 175 kilometers from East to West." That is not describing the image but describing Chile. There is no scale on the map, so without looking at the alt text I have no way of knowing anything other than that Chile is long and thin on the east coast of South America.
    • Cerro Azul doesn't appear to be in the same place on the two maps it's shown on, seems to have moved south on the second of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alt text shortened. Both maps appear to have it in the same place to me. In any case, the lat/long are cited to the USGS, as is the fig. I think that part of the issue is that the fig has a simplified geometry and is a different projection. Awickert (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first one I am still sorting out. The second one is legitimate, I believe, given a review of the user's edits. I have provided the source for the third one. ceranthor 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is extremely close; hopefully, I'll find it. Malleus, I am working on the alt text issues. I'm a bit time pressed so I';ll have to finish them tomorrow. ceranthor 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced the first image with one from the USGS. This resolves the copyright issue and should probably be the one that we use unless someone has found a better image and/or resolved the prior copyright issues. Awickert (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Looks good, but needs a bit of scrutinty for 1. Here's the lead:

  • As the MoS says, try to avoid what should be triple compound items: "500-meter-(1,600 ft)-wide summit crater", made worse by the need to convert. Why not reverse? "summit crater 500 meters (1,600 ft) wide". And again, here, where the en dash makes it hard to comprehend: "creating an 8–9 square kilometer lava field". It requires "creating an 8–9-square-kilometer lava field", which is unacceptable. Try "creating a lava field of 8 to 9 square kilometers (conversion blah) in area".
  • Why is "effusive" linked? The target is all about chemistry. Is this the technical meaning?
  • "took place" -> "was"? Or "... erupted most recently in ..."?
  • "Chile has almost 100 volcanoes," all piped. Perhaps make it neater and more focused by piping just "almost 100 volcanoes"? Tony (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the above; thanks for the comments. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have struck my oppose above not because I think the alt text is now acceptable – which I don't – but because I don't think it's fair to single out this one article for the failings of a supposed guideline that has not been properly thought through; I very much hope that this half-baked addition to the FA criteria will be removed in short order. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article is pretty much there, I believe. I have a few things that I wanted to point out.
  • Second sentence is a bit awkward. The current phrasing makes it seem like the lower slopes are capped by the summit crater? I am not familiar with volcano terminology; is that accurate?
  • The third paragraph of the lead looks like it would be better served for a Volcanoes in Chile article. Perhaps that needs to be reorganized to focus on the Threats and preparedness paragraph.
The point of that blurb is to connect the number of volcanoes in Chile to the threat from them.
  • Does "Descabezado Grande" ever refer to anything other than the volcano? If not, "Descabezado Grande volcano" is probably redundant.
  • Wikilink "caldera complexes" and "Holocene"?
  • "500 meters (1,640 ft) deep struts" – meters should probably be singular,
  • The tense in "First documented activity, 1846" needs to be made consistent. Right now, it is a mixture of past, present perfect, and present tenses.
I think I fixed this.
The second sentence still has both past and present tenses. In addition, the fourth sentence feels a little awkward now.
  • The third sentence of "Early twentieth century" has some passive voice that doesn't need to be there.
  • Wikilink "plume"?
  • To the uninformed, the second sentence of "Major eruption, 1932" seems a like a non sequitor. How does a sentence about the frequency of the volcano's :activity flow from a clause about the the lack of large Plinian eruptions?
  • Standardize your AMs and PMs.
  • Choose either imperial or scientific notation and stick to it. Sometimes you have miles (km) and other times you have kilometers (mi).
I don't think there are any mi to kilometer converts in the article.
Second to last sentence of "Major eruption, 1932".
  • The Mount Hudson picture, if one does not look at the caption, makes the reader think that that is a picture of Cerro Azul. I think it ought to be removed.
I modified the caption to clarify that it wasn't Cerro Azul. The reason I included it was because it was accessible and because Hudson is the best known of the Chilean volcanoes, IIRC.
Even so, it seems a bit misleading for someone who is only skimming the article. But it is your call.
  • I don't really understand the part about the VDAP. If their goal is to help out with relief efforts, why are they outfitted with equipment to monitor :volcanoes?
Should be clarified.
  • As a matter of fact, that entire section seems an amalgamation of things that have happened in the Andes in general and things that have happened in the craters of Cerro Azul. Perhaps it could be refocused?
How so?
Well, looking back on it, I'm not terribly sure why I made that comment. I suppose it isn't terribly important in any case.
  • Why was the González-Ferrán source not used?
I have not been able to find it anywhere. I considered it, but then we were able to find excellent information from the Hildreth and Stern papers.
Except for the ones I've responded to, these are fixed.
I think I got to all of these now. Thanks! ceranthor 15:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I am happy supporting now. NW (Talk) 19:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Is "Azul" an accepted abbreviation for the volcano? Seems a bit odd to me.
  • Azul has produced the largest eruptions ever in South America - Seems pretty awkward and leaves much to be desired. "Azul is responsible for South America's largest recorded eruptions"?
  • In 1846, an [[Effusive eruption|effusive]] eruption formed the vent... - Why pipe the link?
  • In 1932, 9.5 cubic kilometers (2.3 cu mi) of dacitic tephra erupted... - Sure, it's linked, but seriously...
  • The last paragraph of the lead is taken out of context, and probably doesn't belong in the lead at all. I'd be much happier with some more info on the geology of this particular volcano.

–Juliancolton | Talk 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful comments.
  • "Azul": I agree; I made all of them use the full name.
  • Phrase replaced with your suggestion.
  • The link is piped because "effusive" redirects to effusion, which isn't what we're talking about
  • In 1932, 9.5 cubic kilometers (2.3 cu mi) of dacitic tephra erupted...: what is wrong with "dacitic tephra"? I imagine that it is because it is technical language: "dacitic" is composition, "tephra" is morphology. We could say "ash" if the consensus is that a less-technical more-generic term in the lede is better.
  • I think that I agree with you on the last paragraph of the lede being out of place. Geology could be done, but ASAP for me (at least) is the weekend.
Awickert (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - As I noted above, the lead needs work, but since that will be taken care of in time...
  • Volcanoes in Chile (including Cerro Azul) occur in the Central (CVZ), South (SVZ), and Austral Volcanic Zones (AVZ). - Why do we need the first parenthetical bit?
  • The South Volcanic Zone, of which Cerro Azul is a part, runs through central and western Chile and extends south to Argentina. - Really clunky.
  • ...that erupted in at least 12 volcanic episodes during the Quaternary period—the upper lava layers are dated at 340,000 years.[9][10] - Why a dash instead of a new sentence?
  • with the majority of its eruptions in recorded history originating - See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing.
  • The issue here is rather the clumsy connector "with", which hardly ever works. Changed to "... but most of its eruptions in recorded history originated in Quizapu Crater, on the northern flank of Cerro Azul's cone." --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At between 3,080 and 3,230 meters (10,100 and 10,600 ft) elevation - Didn't you just say it was 10,801 ft?
  • Cerro Azul is situated in the Mediterranean climate zone. It is characterized by hot and dry summers, but mild and wet winters. - No need for two sentences.
  • Annual precipitation is up to 800 mm. - Needs a conversion into inches.
  • Above 1600 m the slopes of mountains... - Same as above.

–Juliancolton | Talk 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between the bunch of us, looks like these are taken care of. Thanks for your careful reading. (The elevation issue was due to two different sources; I decided to keep the Global Volcanism Program one, as the other paper talked a little too much about variability in the height for an article like this; the peak seems to be better.) Awickert (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. As requested, I have read the article and am making some copyedits. I also have some questions / comments that I will raise here. Looks generally good and I am leaning support once my comments have been addressed.
  • Would it make sense to give the elevation of the summit in the lead? This volcano is a kind of mountain, and it seems odd to have an article on a mountain without the height in the lead. If there is some WikiProject Volcano guideline against this, I will defer to that.
    But the height is in the infobox? Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the Geography FAs with "mount" in the title and Loihi Seamount, Mount Rushmore, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Tambora all mention elevation in the lead somehow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quizapu seems to be an alternative name for the volcano - two of the references use "Volcan Quizapu" in their titles. Should Quizapu be listed as an alternate name in the lead?
    It was added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organization - this goes from Chile to South America then back to Chile. In general, going from more general to more specific topics flows better. Is there a reason not start this with South America, then go to Chile? Volcanic activity in Chile varies widely, and includes explosive eruptions and both subaerial and submarine basalt flows. Volcanism in the Andes is caused by subduction of the Nazca and Antarctic tectonic plates under the South American Plate. Volcanoes in Chile occur in the Central (CVZ), South (SVZ), and Austral Volcanic Zones (AVZ).
    I changed Andes to Chilean Andes. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help to link subduction?
  • This sentence is not clear to me Nearly 100 Quaternary (Pleistocene- or Holocene-age) volcanoes exist in the country, as well as 60 complexes and caldera systems.[3] Does the nearly 100 figure include the 60 complexes and caldera systems, or are there nearly 160 total volcanoes and complexes and calderas? Seems like the latter, but I was not sure.
    This was changed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Local setting section, I think it would help to add that Quizapu crater is part of Cerro Azul Its largest historical eruption was at Quizapu crater, and its most active volcanoes are Llaima and Villarrica.[7] I know Quizapu is mentioned twice in the lead, but this is the first it is mentioned in the body of the article, so adding it is part of Cerro Azul here might help.
    Added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be converted to cubic miles too The cone of Cerro Azul has a total volume of about 11 km3, and is a young feature, formed in the Holocene.[10] and this needs to be spelled out (meters) and needs conversion for feet too The summit of Cerro Azul is crowned by an asymmetric crater about 500 m in diameter.[10]

OK, I am stopping for now, more soon. Please revert or fix my copyedits if they have introduced errors. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) More comments from Ruhrfisch[reply]

  • Would it be possible to translate the Spanish names into English? So for example, Cerro del Medio or Volcan Nuevo or Caracol, Crater los Quillayes, Crater la Resolana, and Crater sin Nombre (the last just means "Crater without a name" so is that really an official name?)
    Cerro Azul was at least translated. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My Spanish is very fragmentary, I think this would be helpful if it is possible. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I translated those that could be translated. Ironically, from what I understand, "Crater sin Nombre" is the name of the crater. At least this is what the USGS has. Quillayes and Resolana are probably some local proper nouns that do not translate, so I haven't provided translations for those. Awickert (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not very fond of using "~" in The radius of the crater floor, which is the current inner vent, is ~150 meters (500 ft), ... - could you use about or approximately or some other word(s) instead of "~"?
    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unclear what the "It" in this sentence is refering to - the crater floor? the crater rim? Perhaps even the wall of the crater? It is cut by two long, dacitic lava flows which are probably the remnants of a dome or an eruption.[13]
    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temperatures need to be converted to Fahrenheit too In the Andes the annual average maximum temperatures lie in the range of 20–25 °C, while minimum temperatures are below 0 °C.
    What for? Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a little thing called MOS:CONVERSIONS ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it myself, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem sentence Above 1600 m (5249 ft) the slopes of mountains are covered by Alpine like steppe, while below there are zones of Nothofagus forest, Hygrophilous forest, Sclerophylous forest and matorral. 1) Both Hygrophilous forest and Sclerophylous forest link to Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub but there is no mention of Hygrophilus forest in that article. 2) Does the sentence follow WP:ITALIC - Nothofagus (Latin) is italicized but matorral (Spanish) is not.
    (1) I delinked Hygrophilous as there is currently no article about it. (2) Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear that we have read specifically about "the two herdsmen" - could the first "the" be removed? That night, the two herdsmen near the site heard a continuous roar punctuated by loud bangs...
    Removed the "the", Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the use of today in Today, the field is twice that size.[19] the ref is from 1992, would "As of 1992, the field was twice that size.[19]"
    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this Beginning in 1907, though with a possible precursor explosive event in 1903, Cerro Azul once again erupted. be clearer as something like After a possible precursor explosive event in 1903, Cerro Azul once again [definitely?] erupted in 1907.
    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd that the History section ends with 1932. There is a brief mention of the 1967 eruption as the last one, but were there any eruptions between 1932 and 1967? What happened in 1967? What type of eruption was it? How long did it last?
    It has not ended yet. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I think that needs to be made clearer in the article. I assumed it had a small eruption in 1967 and was quiet since. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a new paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above comment that the Threats and preparedness section seems not to be very foucsed on Cerro Azul. I will think about ways to try and make it more focused.
    I added new information. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to be a bit overlinked in places - phreatic eruption, tephra, dacite - my rule of thumb is to link terms once in the lead, once more at first use in the article body, and in tables or captions if needed.
I am done with comments for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried tweaking the first paragraph of the Threats and preparedness section to focus a bit more on Cerro Azul. I think the second paragraph could also be more focused if the current first sentence Every known type of eruption (Hawaiian, Strombolian, Plinian, Subplinian, phreatomagmatic, and Vulcanian) has occurred at some point in the range. were followed by something about the types of eruption known to have occurred at Cerro Azul. I was asked to come here and comment on this FAC by one of the three nominators - it is a bit disconcerting to have no repsonse(s) to my review comments in over 24 hours. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my comments to support above. I would still prefer to see more translation of Spanish names and something done about overlinking, but it is close enough to support now. Thanks for an interesting article! Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruhrfisch! Thanks for the help. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner; it's been a crazy week for me. I just did the translations, dealt with as many overlinks as I could readily find, and added in the Cerro Azul specific eruptions (thanks for that suggestion). Awickert (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The length of this comment might make it seem like I've done a half-cocked review, but I've read this a few times over the last couple of days. Most of what I would have complained about before seems to be resolved. Prose is fine; the sources I was able to check online pass verification. I noticed the unstruck image concern above; from what I can see, it's now properly sourced. Nothing really to complain about! Nice work, Steve T • C 11:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 22:58, 8 April 2010 [8].

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second FA nom for this article. It has already long been listed as a GA and gone through a peer review, but the first FAC failed largely because the prose needed work. It's since gone through a second peer review and some further copy editing by myself. I believe it's now ready for FA, and if there are any other prose issues that have been missed, I'm confident they can be addressed here at the FAC review level. Thank you! (Please note, this is a WP:WikiCup nomination) — Hunter Kahn 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 2 images. 1 Fair use, 1 free. File:Parks and recreation season 1 dvd cover.jpg could probably be replaced with a version that's not a picture of the actual physical box, but... whatever. Free picture is on Commons with everything attached. --PresN 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this recently and thought it was in pretty good shape then. As requested, I have read it again now and find it meets the FAC criteria. I have a few nitpicks which do not distract from my support.
    • It is unclear who is meant by "she" here. When she resists the idea, Leslie's mother suggests blackmailing the official with information about her husband's drinking problem. From the peer review I am pretty sure she is the official (the sentence has been tweaked since then). Perhaps something like Leslie's mother suggests blackmailing the official, who is resisting the the idea, with information about her [the official's?] husband's drinking problem.
    • Would it make sense to add in the lead that the last episode, while the lowest in the ratings, also was the best reviewed?

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail.

  • I know some people are keen on the extra comma, but it goes bump-bump here: "between April 9, 2009, and May 14, 2009."
  • Spot the redundant word: "Like that show, Parks and Recreation also strongly encouraged ...".
  • I'd put a comma after "households": do you agree?
  • "Despite the low rating, "Rock Show" received the best reviews of the season, with some commentators declaring the series had finally found the right tone." Instead of the "with plus noun plus -ing", which even the Chicago MoS deprecates as usually awkward, why not ", which convinced some commentators that the series had ..."?
  • Why are "Australia" and "United States" linked in the infobox. Do we have to have a flag-waving competition? Why not leave the main image to itself without pretty little icons below it?
    • The flag thing was because it was a {{United States}} template. I've dropped it, as well as the Australia wikilink.
  • Link to "improvisation": it's a common term and a pretty crappy article, I must say; there's a citation tag at the top, too.
  • Narrative descriptions: OMG, we're dealing with crap here too. It's hard to make a case that even a good article on this kind of subject is "among our best work", as required. I find some of the language informal and presumptuous: "love interest", "greenlight the park project", "after cashing in the favor". There's my favourite "In order to ..." (two redundant words, and it recurs, dear dear). "Leslie and the pit beautification committee go door-to-door"; run that past me again? "do a story", "staying on message", "gets jealous". Now the "pit beautification committee" is "the pit subcommittee" (are they the same?). I don't mean to offend: this has been a good exercise for the authors. But really, such a topic needs to be highly professional in its writing, tone and content to get a star from WP. Tony (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmmmmm, NO. Much love to my passionate antipodean brother, the undisputed Master of the MOS, but the narrative descriptions are far from "crap." A considered comparison of these descriptions to those in other TV-related Wikipedia Featured Articles and professional publications as varied as TV Guide and the encyclopedic Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows (8th edition, Random House, 2003) demonstrates that they satisfy our criteria. The phrases that Tony calls out are absolutely in line with the phrases that actual professional writers employ to summarize the plots of television shows. Tony's perturbation is understandable: never in the history of (wo)man has there been a general-interest encyclopedia that treated equally in-depth subjects as important as Earth () and unimportant as Parks and Recreation (season 1). But that's what we are responsible for here, and this article indeed does meet the standard we have set. If anyone doubts it, please read the real-life professional writing that is analogous. I believe you will find that what I have said is true.—DCGeist (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I've made changes based on the comments you made in the above paragraph as well.) Look, I don't mean to offend either, but this isn't the first time I've had people show up nearly a month into the FAC progress, point out a few grammatical nit-picks, slam a quick-fail vote and leave without follow-up comment. This article has had barely any feedback for weeks, and then suddenly a quick-fail vote at the 11th hour. It would be so much more helpful if you would get involved early in the FAC process and helped me improve the article, rather than swooping and leaving some general comments at the end when I likely won't have enough time to do anything. Are these issues really so insurmountable that they cannot be addressed through the FAC process itself? I've gone through FACs that involved very thorough copy edits that resulted in strong improvements to the prose. But both here and in the last FAC, I've had people claim the prose needs work, and leave it pretty much at that. So the FAC fails as a result and I'm left with very little constructive criticism to work with, other than that it needs a review by a thorough an independent editor. So I sought a second peer review, incorporated the changes, made another pass myself and brought it back here. Now, if it fails again, I'll have even less to work on except that the prose is still lacking. Should I bring it to peer review for yet a third time? (Additionally, when you say "It's hard to make a case that even a good article on this kind of subject is among our best work", are you saying you have a problem with the subject matter itself?) — Hunter Kahn 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to vent, but I'm sure you can understand my frustration. If you can spare the time and effort, I'd really appreciate it if you could take another look and help me address these issues. Otherwise, the article's just going to keep going in circles, and who knows how many times it will come back to FAC like this... — Hunter Kahn 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the above author hasn't responded, and since I've responded to all actionable objections, and since all other comments have been supportive, I just ask that the closing nominator at least consider passing it in spite of his vote, or at least that other people reading this still consider weighing in themselves... — Hunter Kahn 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I support Master Kahn's plea, per my observation above. If we actually make the effort to compare his work—particularly after his recent revisions—to the verifiable professional analogues, it is clear that this article is on par with the sort of content for which people pay cash money.—DCGeist (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Clear improvements in prose since previous FAC, and outstanding coverage on a topic merely a year old! The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 00:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... portrayed the protagonist ... " twists my tongue-- could be just me. I see what looks like overciting in several places, sample: The idea was partially inspired by the portrayal of local politics on the HBO drama series The Wire, as well as a renewed interest and theme of optimism about politics stemming from the 2008 United States presidential election.[25][26][34][35] What does "the series was paneled" mean? Why is California linked-- is there anyone who doesn't know what that is? Look at the repetitive and confusing prose here: The character traits of Ron Swanson, a government official who believes in as little government as possible, was inspired by a real-life Libertarian elected official Schur encountered in Burbank who favored as little government interference as possible and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job." More work needed: these are only samples, please have others go through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to respond to your specific comments (except the California wikilink, because I can't find California wikilinked anywhere except in the Claremont, California link, which leads to the town, not the state). If the article fails, I'll indeed seek another review from an independent editor, although I should point out this has already been done twice for the article and apparently hasn't been sufficient... — Hunter Kahn 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I eliminated the California wikilink, as well as some other instances of overlinking per Sandy's observation.—DCGeist (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sandy also observed a general problem with overcitation. I went through the entire article, spending time with the actual sources, and reduced all the stacks of three or more note callouts to a maximum of two by focusing in each case on the most relevant citations.—DCGeist (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see you've (both) tried to respond to Sandy's specific comments, but in that one example of repetitive prose, it still reads poorly. I don't know if you saw me suggest this at my talk page, but I'll repeat what I said over there. The original read:

          The character traits of Ron Swanson, a government official who believes in as little government as possible, was inspired by a real-life Libertarian elected official Schur encountered in Burbank who favored as little government interference as possible and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job."

          It's not just repetitive, but twisty and overlong. All you've done to remedy it is change one instance of "government" to "municipal", and paraphrased "as little government interference as possible" to read "minimal government". That's fine if you're just trying to chuck out repetitive words, but what about repetitive ideas? Think about what can be combined or eliminated, what ideas are redundant in the wider context of the article. I'm sure it could be phrased better still, but my suggestion from a few days ago:

          Inspiration for Ron Swanson came from an encounter Schur had in Burbank with an elected official, a Libertarian who favored minimal government interference and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job."

          To me, that doesn't lose any of the intended meaning (Swanson is already established in the article as a character, so how he acts are his traits; the mention of Schur establishes the "real-life" nature of his encounter; Swanson's beliefs and that of the inspiration are combined), but by eliminating the repetitive words and ideas we have something that the reader is less likely to become bored with; they're not re-reading things they're already familiar with, and can be moved swiftly on to the next piece of information. Steve T • C 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Steve, I didn't see you had responded to me. I've incorporated your suggestion into the article. — Hunter Kahn 01:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool; no doubt Doc will be able to massage my merely-functional suggestion further. :-) I had planned to offer up a very regretful oppose, based on the prose, which isn't as tight as I've seen on some of your previous articles. But Doc's a pro, so I'm happy to wait until he's done before looking more closely. Something that I did notice was this statement in "Ratings":

      Several reviewers pointed out that The Office experienced similarly poor ratings during its first season but later became a success. However, commentators said Parks and Recreation would find an ever greater challenge in staying afloat if the early ratings were poor ...

      It's something I see a lot at film articles, so the sentence was an immediate red flag for me. The issue is with the weasel-y terms "reviewers pointed out" and "commentators said", when you're citing the opinion of just one writer. Essentially, it fails verification; the NYT writer isn't covering what reviewers or commentators have said, he's just offering his own—singular—opinion. Steve T • C 08:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for pointing this out Steve, and please take a look at my modification to see if its sufficient. I was pretty certain other commentators have made this observation, but couldn't find them among my source material right away, so for now I've simply made this change. If I do find other sources later and tweak it again, I'll bring it to your attention to see if it still works... — Hunter Kahn 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's much better, but looking at it, I'm thinking that Itzkoff may be authoritative enough that he doesn't even need to be named. Imagine how the sentence might read if it began with "The Office experienced ..." instead. Anyway, no need to act on this for my future support or otherwise, it was just an idle thought to do with what you will. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 13:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I like your suggestion and I've made the change. If you think it was better the other way, feel free to let me know or revert. (The same goes to the good Dr. Kino when he gets to that particular section.) — Hunter Kahn 14:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's close. Doing a top-to-bottom copyedit. Should finish tomorrow. DocKino (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The description in the "Cast" section of Mark as "Leslie's unrequited one-time lover" is quite confusing. Could you please rephrase it more clearly? DocKino (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just dropped the "one-time" bit altogether and changed to "unrequited love interest". It had been written that way because Leslie and Mark had sex on one occasion in the distant past and Leslie still harbored feelings for him, but Mark did not feel the same way. But it's not really necessary to convey that here... — Hunter Kahn 20:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it may be. He's described as her "former lover" in the episode 1 summary above, which is accurate as far as it goes, but has a very different implication from "unrequited love interest." It's also not as clear as it could be who's interested and who's not requiting. I don't think it would hurt to have a sentence in the "Cast" section spelling out the relationship for those unfamiliar with the show. Something like this: "He was cast as Mark Brendanawicz, a city planner. Mark and Leslie had a long ago one-night stand, but her feelings for him were unrequited." Or similar, per the show's content. DocKino (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've finished a pretty rigorous copyedit. The article is well sourced and structured, and I believe it now meets the prose standard. DocKino (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Other than my randomly-scattered comments above (now resolved), everything seems fine. I checked some sources at random, all of which supported the text they were attached to, and they all scan reliable in my book (TV Squad I'd be less than thrilled with if it were citing anything more than a broadcast schedule and personnel change). The images are correctly licensed, and the prose is much improved through the recent work. Nice job, Steve T • C 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Karanacs 13:45, 6 April 2010 [9].

Herschel Greer Stadium

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria to become featured. It is listed as a good article and was peer reviewed in April 2009. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes to alt text as mentioned above. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 02:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Check: Passed - 8 images. All are CC-by-SA or PD, and are located at commons- all are pictures taken by WP users at the stadium, except for one picture of a game transferred from Flickr. File:GreerStadiumScoreboard.jpg has tags all over it that the license tag is wonky since WP changed the site licensing- please try to fix this, though I don't think it makes the use of the image invalid. --PresN 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an administrator reading this who could look into the presence of disclaimers with the original upload to the English Wikipedia (it has been deleted)? NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Ucucha 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full text of the image description page, as written by Kinu (talk · contribs), was:
== Summary == A view of the scoreboard at [[Herschel Greer Stadium]]. Taken by [[User:Kinu]] on [[2005]]-[[07-25]]. == Licensing == {{GFDL-self}}
Ucucha 18:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it appears no disclaimers were present at the original uploading, I have replaced the liscense template with {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers|Kinu}}. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support well done. Dincher (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Just a note for other reviewers, a good number of the sources are to the local baseball team that plays in the stadium, so special attention should be paid to that to ensure thre is not unintentional bias introduced.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nit-picks suggest a run-through the whole is in order.

  • Something tells me it should be a numeral when with a symbol (abbreviation): (3 km).
  • Why is "guitar" linked? Should "all-star games" have a capital A?
  • In order to: spot the two redundant words. But regardless, let's avoid "to ... to ...": "with the city for a new ...".
  • "the final cost added up to over $1,000,000"—"added up to" is a little clunky ... just "was"? And we presume this was still the total projected cost, not what it ended up being on completion? It's not clear.
  • This is a winding route: "With the help of country music star Conway Twitty, other stars such as Jerry Reed, Richard Sterban, and Cal Smith, as well as other members of the Nashville community, were brought in as team shareholders." Can't it be shifted around to avoid the bumps? And there are two instances of "other". Rethink.
  • Theatre type seats—hyphen, I think.
  • Just a personal style thing: "approximately" is such an ugly word; won't "about" do? But I note this is a rough estimate (extra 5,000), yet the total is expressed as a definite 13,0000. I'm confused.
  • "which resulted in the field being raised 5 feet (1.5 m) above its previous elevation"—erky: this is a noun plus -ing construction that doesn't work, unlike some. "which raised the field by ...". So easy to fix.

And more. I've looked only at the top part. A run-through by an unfamiliar editor would be good. Not a long job. Tony (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, as I keep pointing out at FAC, just reverse the order to avoid an ungainly construction that really should be triple hyphenated:

"A 4-line-, 10-foot-(3.0 m)-high scoreboard". Try "A 4-line scoreboard 10 feet (3.0 m) high replaced ...". Tony (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this sentence needs a complete audit: "The field measured 330 feet (100 m) down the left and right field lines, 375 feet (114 m) to left and right-center fields, and 405 feet (123 m) to center field.[10] Lighting grids atop 8 100 foot (30 m) steel poles ...". First, 8 100 is no good (see the MoS). Spell out the 8. Hyphens required, or try reversing as above. Is it left-center and right-center fields (a hanging hyphen is required, see MoS), or the left field and the right-center field (leave as it is)? Tony (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Pretty much picking up from where Tony left off, although at least one thing came from what he looked at. Most of the comments are basic nit-picky stuff, but there are a couple referencing-related comments that left me somewhat concerned. I'm sure they can be handled, though.

  • "Theater-type seats with back support and armrests accounted for 3,000 of the stadium's seats, bleacher seats made up the remainder." Feels like the comma should be a semi-colon, or "and" should be added after the comma. Either way, it feels a shade off now.
  • A 4-line scoreboard 10 feet high replaced the stadium's original which was...". Probably should be a comma before "which".
  • "In the 2000s, following the construction of newer, relatively luxurious minor league ballparks, Greer has fallen below standards set for Triple-A stadiums by professional baseball." If 2000s is used to signify a decade, the sentence should be made past tense since we're now in the 2010s. If not, it's fine as is.
  • "and has been the subject of many renovations in order to meet Triple-A standards." Little bit of wordiness that can easily be removed. Tony would approve.
  • What is citing the part about the cancellation of plans for a new stadium? Is it the reference that follows?
  • I see $1 million used here, but earlier I remember seeing $1,000,000. They should probably be made consistent; I personally prefer it with the space.
  • "The restaurant, which relocated from its downtown location, closed down that November." No source for this is provided, and the one that comes after doesn't mention this at all.
  • Major league exhibitions: "The 10–1 Yankees victory was played before a standing room only crowd of 17,318 spectators." Should be a hyphen in "standing room only".
  • "beating the Yankees 5–4 before an attendance of 13,641." This is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "before an attendance of". Maybe try "before a crowd of"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I left the "2000s" part as is. It originally referred to the decade, but it holds true today as the stadium is still below other Triple-A parks. I took out the part about Judge Bean's as I feel it holds little relevence to the park's history. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. (It should have been 24.) NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Karanacs 13:45, 6 April 2010 [10].

Marsh rice rat

Nominator(s): Ucucha 12:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is the common rice rat of the United States, and much more is known of it than of any other rice rat I have brought to FAC so far. The article comprehensively covers the information of major secondary sources and the many papers that have been published on this species and is part of a planned featured topic on its genus, Oryzomys. I am looking forward to your reviews and comments. Ucucha 12:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, RATS! This one looks like a cutie. I'll look forward to reading the article. Meanwwhile:
no dabs.
several red links, one forbidden.
several brown links indicate some kinds of problems or access issues. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commensal needs link in lead
  • Done.
  • the marsh rice rat is a medium-sized rodent that resembles common rats. For consistency, the common rat
  • Used this because it refers to both the black and the brown rat, but changed anyway.
  • builds nests of sedge and grass and occasionally runways. Reads oddly, I’d put the runway first
  • The problem with that is that it would read like the runways are made of sedge and grass.
  • less brownish less brown?
  • Yes.
  • Carnivorans is this a real word?
  • Yes, it refers to members of the order Carnivora, as opposed to "carnivore" which refers to any animal that eats meat. I put in a link.
  • contain much less dimethylsulphoniopropionate significance? Is it toxic, unpleasant tasting or what?
Thanks; hadn't noticed that the paper I got the name from used British English. They hypothesize that it is some sort of signaling molecule that herbivores don't like. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No further issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment "Entepicondylar foramen" link is red. I don't think it is "bad" but it doesn't looks good to me. Other than that a very good and easily read article even for somebody like me who knew nothing of rats beforehand! --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I placed your "support" at the start of the line per FAC instructions.) Thanks for the support. There's a lot of anatomical terms I have to write on sometime, and this foramen is among them. I don't think the redlink makes it hard to understand the sentence where it occurs, but I agree that the link would be better blue. Ucucha 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah thanks, still new to this. If it is going to be written about sometime it is agreeable to keep on the page. Striking comment.
  • SUPPORTComments Lovely article. My comments are addressed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several predators prey...this sounds redundant to me.
      • "Several animals prey" now.
    • Three years later, Spencer Fullerton Baird argued that the referral of the species to Arvicola was erroneous and introduced a new generic name for the marsh rice rat, Oryzomys, which was from then on recognized either as a full genus or as a subgenus of the now-defunct genus Hesperomys.[22] "Oryzomys" combines the Greek oryza "rice" and mys "mouse" and refers to the marsh rice rat's habit of eating rice.[21] Since the 1890s, Oryzomys has been universally recognized as a distinct genus, with the marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) as its type species.[23] This first sentence in this set of sentences is very confusing. Perhaps end at Oryzomys, which combines the Greek orzya (rice) and mys (mouse) and refers to the marsh rice rat's diet of rice.
      • Question, though: was the name recognized as a full genus or a subgenus of the nonw defunct genus Hesperomys until the 1890s? or is it still ? In which case, the last sentence is confusing. You see my problem?
        • I reorganized the paragraph.
    • what does less brown mean? If my hair is less brown, does that mean it is more blonde? More black? More gray? (well, yes, that, but...)
      • It comes pretty directly from the source, but another part of that paper makes it clearer. The marsh rice rat is more gray.
    • just a comment, the chipmunk article doesn't have an explanation of cheek pouches either.
      • So much still to be done
    • Many of these characters are common adaptations to life in the water in oryzomyines
      • shouldn't oryzomyines be in italics? and shouldn't characters be characteristics?
        • I replaced it with the slightly more precise "traits". Oryzomyines doesn't need italics, as it is an informal term, and we don't italicize names above the genus.
    • with those from southern Florida (coloratus) brighter than those from the center of the state (natator) with those from southern florida...being brighter (parallel construction).
      • Really? The sentence sounds fine to me even without that, but I made the change anyway.
    • I would call this color a red grizzle, or a brown grizzle. See Border Terrier. It looks like the hair is several colors along the strand. Is that right?
      • Possibly; I have tried to follow the sources in the terms described. The third picture is also a Florida rice rat, and it looks rather yellowish than reddish to me, but we'd better use what the people who studied variation in this animal wrote. Different color bands may well be present, but the sources I read didn't mention them.
    • Sigmodontinae... italicize?
      • No, it's a taxon above the genus.
    • a fleshy process... what is a fleshy process on the penis? I guess the question is also what is an urethral process?
      • According to Weksler's figure, it's a little flap on the urethral process, which is a bigger flap somewhere in the top of the penis. I added a little clarification.
    • According to Goldman, Florida animals (coloratus and natator) generally have the largest and broadest skulls, and western specimens (texensis) have somewhat smaller and narrower skulls than those from the east (nominate palustris). have smaller and narrower (not somewhat). Do Florida animals not qualify as animals from the east? or do you mean such states as South Carolina or North Carolina? The states in the northern part of the animal's range?
      • "animals from the east" there does not include those from Florida; clarified.
    • Population dynamics, you might start with the typical density, then mention that weather may influence, then the Everglades (where weather did influence), and Louisiana.
      • Repeated rewriting made that paragraph a bit incoherent. I think it's better now.
doesn't DMSP taste good? Why don't they want it? (or do they?)
      • The source doesn't really say; nothing definite is known and it says nothing else about rice rats than what is there already.
    • I think they would be --on-- plantations.
      • Sure.
    • do you think you have enough sources?
      • When I am quite honest—I'm hoping hard this gets promoted before Sasata comes along to do a literature check, because otherwise I will probably have to add at least a few hundred more.
  • this is fascinating, and most of my comments are quibbles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [11].

Battle of Dürenstein

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... it fills a wikigap, and generally a B I G gap, in coverage of the Danube campaign between the surrender of Ulm (a big event) and the Battle of Austerlitz (another big event). It has been through some serious scrutiny by the project, and others, and I hope it's ready. Citation style is slightly different. I'm experimenting, and where there are duplicate consecutive references, I've used the name citation template. Thanks in advance for your constructive comments! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Is there some reason you have capitals in "Order of Battle" and "Allied Columns"? And a change in citation style—courageous indeed. Ucucha 17:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "column" was a formation, like a Corps or a Division, and it was a specific name. I'm not married to the Order of Battle (changed), it could be Order of battle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought it was courageous of me to try something different. ;) thanks for noticing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Ucucha 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • "Databook" or "Data Book"? You use both in the notes. done
  • Current ref 15 (Stadt Krems..) just has a numbered link, it needs a titled link same for its listing in the bibliography. done THANKS~
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for an overall wonderful article. However, I had a few concerns. For starters, the last part in the lead about Napoleon marrying Marie Louise puzzled me. That happened in 1810 and was not related to the immediate aftermath of Austerlitz. It really should not appear in this article. Also, I think the article could benefit from an additional copyedit to make the prose flow better. Right now there's way too many semicolons that butcher the prose in several spots. Ignoring or satisfying this last request won't affect my supportive decision, but you definitely want to remove the part about Napoleon's marriage to Marie Louise.UBER (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support * Comments: There are some issues, as detailed in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Dürenstein/archive1#Jappalang's comments, I would like to be addressed before I feel comfortable throwing in my support for this article. I have some confusion with parts of the content. Although I did some copyediting, I would prefer if another editor, more experienced and "powerful" in prose, were to take a gander and further tighten the language. Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've gone through your comments on the talk page. Thanks for such a careful review of the article. I think I've addressed them all, by rewriting several areas myself or adopting your prose. Thanks for your comments! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have updated my comments based on your changes and inputs. Jappalang (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've responded to your comments on the talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • After copyediting and having my concerns resolved on the talk page, I think I still would be much more comfortable to make a decision if someone more experienced were to copyedit the article. Could you find someone to do so? Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • sure. I'll ask someone to do so. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jappalang, I LOVE what you did with the chart and the map!!! Beautiful! Thanks so very much! Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problems, tis what I can help. I have read the article again, and I believe the prose has improved significantly. The illustrated article is a comprehensive look at one battle of the Napoleonic Wars—teaching in brief the wind-up to this battle, the flow of the battle, and the aftermath. I would like to complain about the last section where it seems the information is dealt with as trivia ("The battle appears in this."). However, I think Auntieruth has done superbly here by titling the section "Battlefield commemorations"; hence putting things (which are put into context rather than tossed in) in focus here. I am happy to support this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for your support, and your effort on this. I particularly like what you did with the chart and the map, and I particularly object to what happened with the cites and the bibliography. I've brought this up on your talk page, and we can continue the conversation there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article has come a long way since I initially assessed it as B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now, was Comments by Ruhrfisch. As requested I have taken a look at the article. While I am close to supporting, there are some issues I would like to see addressed before that.

  • Perhaps a place to provide context to the reader Political conflicts in Vienna delayed Austria's entry into the war [of the third coalition] until 1805. (my capitalization is probably not consistent, but you get the idea)
good idea. fixed.
  • Clarify which hostilities ended in 1800 here: After hostilities ended in 1800, Archduke Charles, the emperor's brother, developed a military restructuring plan ...
Another good idea. fixed.
  • Say this was at Ulm? On 16 October, Karl Mack surrendered his encircled army of 20,000 infantry and 3,273 cavalry.
A third good idea, fixed.
  • The Locale section seems like it could be written more clearly. For an article on the battle of Dürenstein, it mentions that location pretty late. Would something like "To the west of Stein the Danube made a large curve, with a crescent-shaped floodplain between it and the mountains. At the far western end of the floodplain, where the mountain came down to the river, was Dürenstein, with its castle." Then go on to describe the dimensions of the plain and the other villages / hamlets? A map of the palin would really help.

OK, have to stop for now, more tomorrow, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified, I hope. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much clearer. I looked at Open Street Map to see if the map there could be used, but it is modern and shows the highways and rail lines. I think the improved description and panoramic photo give a good idea of the battlefield. I have struck my comments above, more follow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More Ruhrfisch comments
  • I think there are inconsistent verbs in this (parallel construction), and it should either be "preventing" or perhaps "to prevent": This Corps was to secure the north shore of the Danube, blocking any of the Austrian or Russian groups from reinforcing one another and, importantly, prevent Kutuzov from crossing the river and escaping to Russia.[17]
  • This seems like an error, wouldn't it be 9 November? On 9 March, Gazan's division reached Marbach an der Donau, and covered the 50 kilometers (31 mi) to Dürenstein...
  • For those not clear that dragoons are cavalry, would adding cavalry somewhere help this sentence: This failure was an important factor when Mortier lost his Corps's so-called "eyes": after he and Gazan had crossed the Danube, the French dragoons had veered to the northwest, leaving only a small [cavalry?] contingent available for reconnaissance.
  • Who is Mortimer? Despite Strik's continuous assault in the next two to three hours, Mortimer and Gazan were pushing the Russians back up the narrow fissure in the hillside. Mortier?
  • Since metric units are used first, I would change this to "within a few kilometres": Unknown to either Gazan or Mortier, the Coalition had concentrated a force of approximately 24,000 men (mostly Russians and a few Austrians) within a few miles of the French position at Dürenstein.
  • I would link guidon in the infobox
  • One more. The caption for File:Dürnstein-Loiben.jpg reads Little Frenchman Memorial, at Loiben. but it is not clear which memorial described in the text this is. I imagine the ruins visible on the mountain behind it are Schloss Dürenstein, would it be worth mentioning that in the cation too?

OK, those are all my comments, expect to support soon, interesting read and nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of these. I've also added a map I just drew. I cannot get rid of the black line in the lower right, perhaps someone better versed in inkscape can figure that out. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments I have switched to support above, and have struck the points that have been addressed. A few questions remain, and I found these few more quibbles while rereading it, but it is close enough to support now. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also change acres in Acres of terraced vineyards extended up the sides of the Krems river, until it became a mountain stream and terrain was unsuitable for cultivation. probably to hectares or perhaps square kilometres
It wasn't meant as a specific measure, but rather a general sense of space. I took it out, and I deleted the photo and caption from this page.
  • Missing word in caption? Or is the "and" an estra word? The French occupied the vineyards in the floodplain, and were surrounded by Russian troops as they emerged from [the valleys?] and defiles of the mountains. Another column of Russians approached Dürenstein from the south.
Fixed caption.
  • I like the new map but am unable to fix it. For some reason the blue river shows on the map when I look at it by itself, but does not show on the map in the article in either IE or Firefox. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped the svg version of the map for a png version and it looks fine.
Thanks for your efforts and support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments We have two spellings for the name of the man who was familiar with the local geography: Steibar and Steiber. Could you check the source to see which is correct? --JN466 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've completed another copyedit of the article.

Support promotion to FA. --JN466 14:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JN. Re Steibar and Steiber, the sources have 2 spellings, so I'll pick one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they have roughly equal frequency of occurrence in sources, "Steiber" seems much the more plausible spelling. It is a reasonably common German name today, whereas "Steibar" is not. --JN466 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have managed to track down a snippet view of Egger. He says the man was called "Kreishauptmann Christoph Freiherr von Stiebar" (i.e. with "ie", not "ei"). That checks out – there was a documented noble family of that name in the region which is mentioned in multiple books – so forget what I said before, and let's go for "Freiherr von Stiebar", with the title. --JN466 15:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC) JN466 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for fixing that. I have the entirety of Egger, thanks to Ucucha. It's interesting reading.

Support promotion to FA. --Frania W. (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed a couple of little nothings, such as conversion of kilometers vs miles, which I mentioned to Auntie Ruth - the conversion as shown in text makes it look as if 1 mile is 2 kilometres, while it is 1.6 km: to me, this type of detail is important as, in a battle, bombs that fall 400 metres off the intended target can mean the death of friends instead of foe... (read the battle of Normandy in July 1944!) --Frania W. (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to the Wikipedia:CONVERT page and tried to use the sigfig= parameter, but I cannot get it to work. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okay, it's fixed now! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [12].

Donner Party

Nominator(s): Karanacs, Malleus Fatuorum, Moni3 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A harrowing tale of bravery, hardship, and cannibalism in the old Wild West. It was hard to read about and hard to write; I hope the consensus here is that the effort was worthwhile. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Malleus' intro to say of all the articles I have written, none of them have been this difficult to read about. It was sometimes miserable to feel the suffering of these people and I realize I have no sense of humor about their trials. What they went through was absolutely brutal. But I hope the article explains it well. I hope once you get started reading it, it will be impossible to stop. This isn't a train wreck that you cannot look away from. This disaster left train wreck far behind in the dust 38 miles back. Thanks for reading and let us know what we can do to improve it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact is that the article takes over an hour to read, with any close attention. Our readers will generally not pay attention that long (my college students certainly won't). I think doing justice to the story requires paying attention to the genre we are writing in, which requires summary style. I will provide a list of suggested tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've incorporated most of your suggestions, Awadewit. The article is now around 9400 words, and is much tighter and easier to read, in my opinion. Thank you very much for your help. Karanacs (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I'm currently watching the talk page. As a published expert on the Donner party has raised some questions about the article (specifically issues that an expert is better at addressing than I am), I'm going to watch those comments carefully before supporting. I am particularly concerned with the following issues: 1) outdated sources; 2) injection of editorial interpretation, often overly emotional writing; 3) some factual errors in the article. It is rare that we have the opportunity to have articles reviewed by experts. I am curious to see how this will go. Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my understanding of what a lead is. Maybe what language I use to define a lead is not the same language as yours. Can you give an example of what you mean? --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I don't think that works; the transition from sentence 2 to sentence 3 is too abrupt. Here's my suggestion for the lede:
The Donner Party (also called the Reed-Donner Party) was a group of American pioneers who became trapped by snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains in the winter of 1846–7 while migrating from Missouri to California. When their food supplies ran out, some resorted to cannibalism to survive, eating those who had already succumbed to starvation and sickness. Of the 87 who set out, 42 died en route.
The Reed and Donner families set off in a wagon train in May 1846, on a journey that usually took about four months. They chose to follow the Hastings Cutoff, a purported shortcut route to California which Lansford Hastings had promoted despite never having traveled it himself. The winding route through the Wasatch Mountains and Great Salt Lake Desert resulted in the loss of many of the party's cattle and wagons, and fragmentation of the group into bitter factions.
The pioneers were a month and a half behind schedule when they reached Truckee Lake in the Sierra Nevadas in early November. Trapped by an unusually heavy snowfall, their food stores ran out. Members of the party set out on foot to obtain help, and several rescue attempts were made. The last survivors were rescued in mid-March.
Western immigration decreased significantly after news of the Donner Party's fate spread, until gold was discovered in California in 1848. The episode has endured in United States (U.S.) history as a tragic event during which the pioneers resorted to cannibalism. Historians have described it as "one of the most thrilling, heart-rending tragedies in California history",[1] explaining continued interest in the story because "the disaster was the most spectacular in the record of western migration".[2]
Para #1 is of the form I'm advocating. I added a few bits but mainly rearranged the existing lede. jnestorius(talk) 10:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jnestorius, you've got a dangling modifier in there: "Trapped by an unusually heavy snowfall, their food stores ran out." It wasn't the food stores that were trapped. The Grammar Grinch 18:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I understand what you're saying about placing cannibalism in the first sentence, but I have reservations about doing that. Their story endures for this very reason, but the cannibalism was the end result of en entire universe of bad luck directed toward them. It's difficult to decide what to do here. On one hand, pandering to the most sensational aspect of this story by bringing it out in the first sentence overshadows the deeper details of what occurred. These weren't just cannibals; these were normal people who were put into an awful position to make choices that are so unique their story still horrifies. On the other, it's going to be pretty much what people come to read the article for. I'd like to read what others have to say about it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your points are valid for a magazine article but not an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't assume the reader has any prior knowledge of the topic. A magazine article can exploit the expected readership's existing information and emphasise the difference between the common-knowledge view and the deeper view. It can use a narrative build-up, which will have one resonance for readers who know what happens at the climax, and another resonaance for readers who don't; both resonances are effective in a magazine article but inappropriate in an encyclopedia. I appreciate and agree that we must not sensationalise; but neither should we be too circumspect or reticent or coy. jnestorius(talk) 12:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully behind Moni3, and I would very strenuously oppose any attempt to introduce cannibalism in the lead without first giving its context. The suggestion that we were writing a magazine article rather than an encyclopedia article I will simply dismiss as insensitive ignorance. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some misunderstanding. Leaving cannibalism to the second or third paragraph is absolutely fine by me. But the opening sentence should state that the Donner Party endured numerous misfortunes and travails, and many of its members perished. It should not state that the journey usually took four months. jnestorius(talk) 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I don't often enthuse, but this is superb. I was very much reminded of when I read Voss by Patrick White, years ago when I was a student - the article is that good. Too good for me to bother with my normal nitpicks—I don't really want to change anything. The only thing I would say, about the lead thing above, is that WP:LEAD says: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Your opening sentence doesn't do that. Perhaps it should be redrafted so that it does, but don't change too much. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Leaning to support: for more details, refer to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Donner Party/archive1#Jappalang's comments.
    Contents: I am still puzzled by some conflicting content (perhaps language is the issue), so I hope to have them addressed (see this FAC's talk page).
    Prose: I have some suggestions to make as detailed; regardless, the prose is more than wonderful enough to win me over.
    Images: Most images are okay on copyright grounds; I am encouraged to see that the nominators are proactive in getting images with verifiable sources. One image, however, requires some attention as detailed in the talk page. no issues, either in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall, I would support once my more serious concerns are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: after Malleus and Karanacs' work, I have only three two serious concerns for addressing. The rest of my thoughts are more of possible improvements. Jappalang (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing to full support; whatever concerns I have remaining (except one) I consider not opposable. The circumstances on Salvador's death (per this FAC's talk page) warrant a check, but I am confident the nominators would address this. Jappalang (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Although Jappalang's comments are extremely incisive, none of them could possibly prevent me from supporting the most compelling read I've yet encountered – on purely diegetic terms – on Wikipedia. At points the language is exquisite, and highly evocative of the era. While that might necessitate slightly straying from an encylcopaedic tone, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. A fantastic read and wholly troubling. Seegoon (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The tables all appear to be collapsed by default. This is contrary to the MOS (because when the article is printed part of it would not be shown). There are also a couple of places where the images cross section boundaries a little awkardly (and there could be a little better image/quotation/table staggering in a couple of places too). Nevertheless a very nice article. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are perhaps reading from a different MoS than the one I see, which says: "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable for use, but should not be used in article prose." The collapsible tables in this article are not used in article prose. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't see any inline citations linking the decline in migration to California with the news of the Donner Party. Could it not just be coincidence? jnestorius(talk) 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added citation to Unruh (1993), who says explicitly that the decline in migration was because of the Donner Party's fate. Malleus Fatuorum 05:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't read the placement after "...25,000 people went west" as covering either "Emigration to the west decreased..." or "The ongoing Mexican-American War may also have deterred emigration", since they're substantively unrelated assertions. I suggest repeating the REF tag three times, assuming it's the same pages in Unruh that make all three claims. jnestorius(talk) 09:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unruh cites the numbers of people going west in 1847, 1848, and 1849. Rarick suggest the Mexican War was the cause of the dropping numbers. I've cited this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I'd support but there might be a conflict of interest as I've worked on several articles with Malleus), "Luke Halloran, a young man who seemed to be getting sicker with tuberculosis every day, was passed from family to family, as none could spare the time or resources to care for him.[27]" - later we learn that he died, but that he was nursed "to the end" by Tamsen Donner. I'm not sure if he went begging from wagon to wagon, or if each family looked after him for a short while before booting him out, and was Tamsen Donner his last call? I know it isn't important in the grand scheme of things but I think those two sentences could be joined with a couple more words. Parrot of Doom 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: eh! I'm afraid this has turned into a "too many cooks spoil the stew" situation. The article originally nominated was full of "brilliant prose" and I really give all the credit in the world to Moni, Karanacs and Malleus. However, all of this cutting and copy editing has been a detriment to the article in my opinion. I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to support or oppose since I did a lot of research on this from the beginning and tried to help as much as I could. However, as others have done previously, I'll leave some comments on the talk page of this FAC. Hopefully we can get back to the brilliant prose that was there last week. Tex (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead looks fine now; one remaining issue I have is with the File:Donner route map.png. It seems (from the Talk: page) the Oregon Trail in 1846 did not follow the purple line on the map to Fort Bridger, but rather turned off it earlier at Little Sandy. If the map cannot be amended to reflect that, the caption ought to note it. jnestorius(talk) 15:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have an amended map shortly. Kmusser (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from rʨanaɢ (talk):
    • The third paragraph has but the first relief party did not arrive until the middle of February 1847. There are not any months given in the other parts of the lede (either the first sentence which says the Donner Party set off in 1846, or the immediately preceding context which says family members made several rescue attempts but doesn't say when specifically those rescue parties set out. So it's hard to get a sense of how much time passed before the rescue party found them.
    • Also, I don't know if this has been discussed above, but I could do without the 4th paragraph of Families and progress (the one basically just listing the other families that were in the party). In an article of this length, this seems like the sort of detail that can be left to the external sources and looked up by readers who want to know more—a note or footnote pointing to Rarick and Stewart would be sufficient, I think.
      • I don't think these should be removed. All of these families are mentioned again in the article. We can either introduce them the first time that we run into their names later, which may break up the prose flow, or we can not give further details when we later discuss them, but then we may miss out on motivations. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think introducing them the first time we run into their names later is the best way to go. I didn't remember the names from the long list anyway (it's hard to remember lists of names with little extra information like that, and I don't know how many times during the reading of this article I was coming across some name, say McCutcheon, and plugging it into my browser search and going up the page to figure out who that was—introducing the names only where they become relevant would cut down on the searching). Plus, I'm not sure how necessary a lot of that information is anyway (as far as "motivations" are concerned); it looked to me like most of it was just saying how many people were in their family, and if they were immigrants, stuff like that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Wasatch Mountains section, what does it mean when it says the party was "joined by" the Graves family? Were the Graves also taking the Hastings cutoff, behind the Donners, and caught up with them? Or were they wandering around that general area and they came across each other (something that seems unlikely, given how hostile and uncharted that environment sounds)?
    • I don't like the citation style used within the notes, including parentheticals after the period and including a period within the parenthetical. I can accept having them after the period if this is a British-US difference or something like that, but is the extra period (after the page numbers in the parentheticals) necessary? It makes it look kind of messy to me.
    • When it says George and Jacob Donner left, does that mean just the two of them, or them and their families? And I was a little surprised that this was mentioned in such an offhand way; given that George Donner was putatively the leader of the party, shouldn't this have been a big deal? Do the books say a lot about it?
      • I've clarified that this meant the Donner families. Wagon trains were very loose organizations to begin with; the wagons have to travel in a line, rather than in a bunch for there to be enough room to maneuver, and in relatively safe areas it was not uncommon for the train to be stretched out over miles. In this case, when you have families that are already starting to blame each other for the delays, then it makes even more sense that some parts of the group may try to distance themselves from the rest. "Leaders" didn't have much responsibility in general and could be deposed at will if they ticked off the group. None of this is explicitly in the sources we used, as it's more assumed that the readers of those books are familiar with wagon trains. I'm not sure what else could - or should - be done to further clarify. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That makes sense. Just figured I'd ask, but it looks like there's probably not much that can be changed anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk)
    • There seem to be a lot of footnote pairs in which one footnote is to Rarick and the other is to the same fact in Stewart (or sometimes Johnson). Can these be merged together, like Stewart, p. 66; Rarick, p. 74.? This could cut down the number of references; it's what I did in Chinese classifier. In fact a couple of the references in the article are already like that; I just came across one Hardesty, p. 3, Johnson, pp. 8–9.
    • In Snowbound, I'm not sure whom the following sentence is referring to: the next morning they found the summit impassable, forcing them to return to Truckee Lake and the pioneer cabin. It seems to be a remnant that got stranded from copyediting or something, because in the version I'm reading there's no one past Truckee Lake at this point anyway (the Eddys already turned back and the Donners aren't there yet).
    • In the first paragraph of Reed attempts a rescue: where is Bear Valley (where Reed went looking for the people) in relation to Truckee Lake and the camps? Knowing that would give me a better idea how far off Reed was, but I can't find Bear Valley on the map. (I notice that one paragraph later you mention Reed got to within 12 miles of them, but anyway this still reads awkwardly to me.)
    • Minor question about File:Map of Truckee Lake and Alder Creek.svg: the Graves-Reed place is labeled as "Graves-Reed camp", but in the article it sounds like they had an actual cabin (like the Breens and Murphys).
    • After walking for 2 miles (3.2 km) they burst into tears and began to pray, overcome by exhaustion and emotion. Refers to Eddy and Graves, or to "the rest of the group"?
  • That's all. Overall I support the promotion of this article—as Moni said above, this is a gut-wrenching read and yet I couldn't take my eyes off it. There are, of course, little things that can be tweaked (such as my comments above) but there always will be little things, even after this is promoted, no article ever looks perfect to every editor. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely one of our best - I was nearly moved to tears. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all my compliments to the primary authors—overall an excellent job describing a complex and heart-wrenching story. I'll almost certainly support promoting this to feature status, but I did lay out some (mostly minor) issues on the talk page here. I'm happy to help out addressing some of these, particularly with respect to the opening of the background section, if that would be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an excellent piece of work. It's on the long side, and I had to read it in bits rather than in one sitting, but looking over it there's nothing obvious that can be cut. I learned a lot and was moved by it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was watching as it developed and read it again last night and today. Personally I favour long articles that you can set you teeth into. IMO it accurately reflects the major sources. The article is a great achievement. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've read the article three times now, and I find nothing lacking. While, at 9,379 words it is long, it can still be read comfortably in an hour, and the level of detail is important for a full understanding of the events. There's some articles that stray into meaningless details, but this isn't one of them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [14].

Roderic Dallas

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk), Georgejdorner (talk), 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nominating this major revamp of an old article on a great pilot and leader of men in World War I, generally reckoned to be second only to Robert Little on the list of highest-scoring Australian aces, but given Dallas' almost complete indifference to making claims, who knows? This is a joint effort and nomination with Georgejdorner, who added a great deal of information gleaned from the subject's sole full-length biography, while I looked after the format and added some further detail from other sources. Recently promoted to A-Class in the MilHist and Aviation projects, and also a Good Article. For me this is also a WikiCup entry... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just a quick comment from me from me for now: a number of the web sources are without access dates, and one could use correct formatting. Also, as I brought up once before in one of your articles, you have entered the Red Baron as "Baron Manfred von Richthofen" when in German titles the "von" means baron, making "Baron" redundant and slightly incorrect. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [15].

1956 Winter Olympics

Nominator(s): User:H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been greatly improved after undergoing reviews at WP:GAC, WP:PR, and WP:OLY. This is an important FA nomination as I hope to establish a template for other YEAR at winter/summer Olympic Games should this article pass. Special appreciation must be extended to Parutakupiu who supplied sizeable chunks of information for this article. While the 1956 Winter Olympic Games do not garner as much attention as many of the other celebrations of the Games, you will soon see that these Games were very pioneering and set the foundation for the next fifty years of Winter Olympics. Thank you in advance for your reviews. User:H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose until the alt links are fixed, other than that it's good to go. Dincher (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I made some further edits, and it's fine now. For future articles, what is often the most important part of WP:ALT is WP:ALT#Verifiability: generally, all aspects of the alt text need to verifiable from the image alone to a non-expert. When I see File:1956 Winter Olympics opening ceremonies.jpg, it's not immediately obvious (although very likely) that the flags are those of the participating nations. Most of my other edits were made for the same reasons. Also, chance details such as whether a photo is black or white generally don't need to be mentioned. Ucucha 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Magazine titles in the references should be in italics, I noted Popular Science Monthly but there may be others.
  • What makes http://www.skateresults.com/skaters/248 a reliable source?
  • You use the one link the in the "external links section" as a source, so it should not be in the external links, which is for links that are NOT used as sources.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you remove the external links section, it'll be fine. I have a number of articles that don't have external links and the cats and footer info are just fine. What'd you replace Skate results with? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that my interpretation of WP:EL#Official links is slightly different than (I think) Ealdgyth above. The external links section of all of the Olympics main articles contains at least a link to the official site (which is what this link is), and I believe that this is within the guidelines even if the official site is used as a reference or citation (which it usually is), in order to highlight it to the user for further reference. If we need to call it "Official Site" to meet the requirements of the editor above (the guidelines on this aren't clear to me), we should be able to do that across the board with a change in the template that formats these links. Donlammers (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright review: 7 images. Following issues:
The logo for each olympics is placed in the infobox for identification, just as a corporate logo is placed in infoboxes in corporate articles. From the file information: "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing 1956 Winter Olympics, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." I'm not exactly sure what else is expected here. Donlammers (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to consider is other FA's that have logos in the article, Idlewild and Soak Zone, Rosetta@home, Olympic Games, and Dartmouth College are examples. If there is something I can add to the licensing to make sure it is compliant with WP standards please advise and I'll happily add it. H1nkles citius altius fortius 03:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better. As soon as I get a chance I'll read the entire article and the subarticles if necessary, but at the moment my impression is there's more room for development in the main article. Will post back soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that's a tricky one, I can always add more silver and bronze medalist information along with interesting tid bits about the competition but I feel like I have to watch over-detailing the main article. The events section is about the only place I can add more meaningful information, the sources for the organisation and venues sections quickly fall off into construction detail that would bore the reader to tears. I'd really have to stretch to find more stuff on politics since most of the sources give much more emphasis to the political drama of the 1956 Summer Games. There really isn't much more to say about the host city selection. So it comes back to the events. I'll expand the bobsleigh section since it seems rather light compared to the rest. I've already added to the skating section. Let me know what you think and if more should be added I'll be happy to work on it. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to use the nice table at the bottom as an organizational tool. You have 8 sports in the table, but only 4 paragraphs devoted to sports. Would it be too sparse to separate figure skating from speed skating and alpine skiing from nordic skiing for example? Also, I like the new skating image, but the description is for a nordic event - that needs to be looked at. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm interesting suggestion, hadn't thought of it. I'll play around with it and see if there's enough to make separate paragraphs. I'm confused on the image comment, I have the caption, "Pairs figure skaters at 1956 Olympics" under the figure skating image and the caption, "Sverre Stenersen on his way to victory in the nordic combined event" under the nordic combined skiing image, which is immediately below the figure skating image. It looks ok to me, am I missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time)? H1nkles citius altius fortius 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments -
  • It seems odd to use conversions for the races. A 1500 meter race isn't normally referred to as a 4900 ft. race. Unless I'm wrong, and somebody objects, I'd consider deleting the conversions.
  • There is no clear policy as I can tell for conversion of race distances, I errored on the side of inclusion. I'll be glad to remove them as I agree it does look odd.
  • I'd prefer to see the list in the venues section as prose as the paragraphs are fairly chunky for a list.

  • I thought I had gotten all of the NBSPs but I'll roll through it again to catch any that I apparently missed.
  • I've gone through with a light copy-edit. I'll re-read again later to see whether anything jumps out at me.
  • Ok I've broken the events section into separate sub-sections based on the calendar of events later in the article. The only event I did not give its own sub-section was Nordic combined, as there isn't much on this event. I'll work a little harder on it but it was only one race so it's hard to generate enough information for its own sub-section. I'll keep tinkering though. I also took out the bullets in the venue section and made each one its own paragraph of prose rather than a list. I removed the conversion template for all races and checked for non-breaking spaces. Let me know if there's anything unattended to or anything else you'd like me to take a look at. H1nkles citius altius fortius 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick drive-by comment – Cortina, which had originally been awarded the 1944 Winter Olympics, beat out three other cities for the right to host the 1956 Games seems like a fairly obvious statement without providing additional information. Which three cities? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question, my only answer would be for consistency between all of the YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympics articles. Later Games articles (2010 Winter Olympics for example) when there were more sports and more medals awarded, have the same top-ten medal-winning countries in a table and then a separate article for all the medal-winning countries. Would you suggest I break down the medal table in the 1956 Winter Olympics article to the top five countries? Would that help give some weight to having the medal table article? I don't think I could remove the 1956 Winter Olympics medal table article without getting community consensus. H1nkles citius altius fortius 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might work too, but personally I'd suggest simply merging the table article. Standalone lists should really only be used if the content is unable to fit into its parent article for whatever reason, and obviously two additional entries won't cause the article to be too long or unwieldy. That said, since this is a fairly widespread issue, I won't let it prevent me from supporting based on the article's prose and apparent completeness. Nicely done. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support, I'll bring your comments to the Olympics project and see what they say. H1nkles citius altius fortius 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for your help. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I'm honestly surprised that this was the position I would up in, since there has been so much support already. However, when I went over the article with a fine-toothed comb I found quite a few prose glitches and such.

  • "The 1956 Winter Olympics ... was a winter multi-sport event". A couple sentences later in the first paragraph start "The Games were..." Tenses should be more consistent.
  • "The Soviets would go on to win more medals than any other nation at these Games." Replacing "would go on" to "went on" eliminates an unnecessary word, and makes the voice of the sentence more active, which is usually a good thing.
  • "Politics did not impact the 1956 Winter Games as it did the Summer Games in Melbourne, Australia, when the Soviet response...". "when" → "where". Works better with what comes before it.
  • Host city selection: "They persuaded the city council of Cortina to bid for the 1944 Games." The last sentence only mentioned one Bonacossa, so "they" really doesn't apply anymore. I suppose this should start with "The Bonacossas" or similar.
  • "presented Cortina's bid to host the 1952 Winter Olympics, at the 40th IOC Session in Stockholm, Sweden." Minor point, but the comma after 1952 Winter Olympics can probably go.
  • "Despite the success, Bonacossa would die on 30 January 1953; three years before he could witness Cortina host the Games." Another minor punctuation point; the semi-colon should just be a regular comma.
  • Organisation: The Italian National Olympic Committee doesn't need another link after the one in the previous section.
  • "the alpine ski runs were in poor condition as was the ski jump and bobsleigh run." Here, "was" should be another "were" since there is more than one element after it (assuming they were different sites).
  • "They commenced the competition by playing each team in their pool in a round robin format ." Get rid of that space before the period.
  • "while the United States took the silver and Canada, with their two loses, earned the bronze." "loses" → "losses".
  • "Her teammate, Carol Heiss won the silver". Situations like this are one of my pet peeves. Surrounding Carol Heiss' name, there should either be two commas or none. I would go without, but either would be better than leaving one hanging like this.
  • I have concerns about a couple of sources used in the article. Reference 4 is to Merriam-Webster, and reference 7 is to Brittanica. Surely for a page on an Olympic Games, which surely has good sources waiting to be found, we can do better than a dictionary and a fellow encyclopedia.

It's definitely a good article, but I don't think the prose quite rises to the level of what I've been seeing in recently featured FAs. With a little copy-editing, though, passage should be doable during this FAC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will address the issues you brought up and do a thorough copy edit. Fresh eyes are always appreciated especially regarding prose, so if you (or any other editor) see prose deficiencies please bring them up and I will correct them. H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've made the suggested changes and worked through the other sections not mentioned above. I tried to tighten up the prose and fix problems as I found them. Regarding the two references mentioned, I changed the Webster cite but it was difficult because the information is most readily found in travel websites and I felt that those were more suspect than Webster. I was able to find a book that I think will work for a replacement. I also replaced the Britannica site fairly easily. I was not aware that those two references were looked down upon at FAC. Thank you and please let me know if my work does or does not meet the standards. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - I feel happier about the prose now. beginning a read though now. The prose is a little repetitive with some redundancies which should be easy to iron out. Please revert any changes I make which inadvertently change or lose meaning. I will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..Norway, defeated Cortina by twice the number of votes - does this mean Norway had double or triple Cortina's votes? i.e. " by twice..."
It should mean that Norway had double the votes that Cortina had but it really is unnecessary information (how many votes Norway beat Cortina by), I will remove this. H1nkles citius altius fortius 22:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if it were me I might add an adverb like "soundly defeated" or something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty I'll work on a good adverb, nice thinking. H1nkles citius altius fortius 02:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! H1nkles citius altius fortius 03:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This was an interesting article. The TV and Soviet Winter Olympics debut info was new to me. I went through and did a little copyediting, but didn't make it all the way through. Please revert if I messed up the meaning anywhere. I skimmed the rest and have a few comments:
  • In the venues section, "The ability...was unprecedented" reads a little funny.
  • "A special cooling plant was built under the stadium, which froze the rink" — Maybe this is OK. Maybe should be "froze the ice"?
  • Refs 3, 4 and 37 are missing a space before the page #. Nitpicky, I know.
  • It's a bit tricky to summarize main articles into single paragraphs, but when this is done, the text sometimes seems a little choppy. One example was the opening ceremonies and I tried to smooth it a bit. Another is the ski jumping section.
  • In the closing ceremonies section, it isn't completely clear here if Greece and the US were also participants. And I was surprised to read "respective poles". I cannot think of a great way to write this, but could it be something to the effect of after all the flags of participating nations were displayed, the Greece and US flags were hoisted as the originating nation and the next winter olympics host? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, I'll work on your suggestions. H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've made the suggested corrections, I tried to find some better wording for the sections you mentioned please see if it is improved. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these issues were addressed. Good work! Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two MOS issues that should be fixed. First, the template used in See also breaches WP:LAYOUT-- it repeats the article in See also (!!!) and contains links that should be worked into the article. Second, I suspect a review of WP:ACCESS is needed for the chart in Calendar-- I don't think it would be understandable to color blind people, and tables should not rely on color. Or something like that. Please work on these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ McGlashan, p. 16.
  2. ^ Stewart, p. 271.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2010&oldid=355137185"