Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2008

July 2008

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 July 2008 [1].

---

Grass Fight

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk)

This article documents a small battle during the Texas Revolution. I'm intending it to be the first in a potential featured topic on the Siege of Bexar. Although I would have liked to include a map of the area in which the battle took place, none of the books that discussed the battle included maps or diagrams, and the creeks used as landmarks are fairly small and may have changed course since 1835, so I did not create my own. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Short but sweet. Well-written and referenced throughout, definitely meets the criteria in my eyes. Well done, Karanacs. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good. No links to check. I did fix a small typo I saw. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Short, but so was the battle.

• The first sentence of the "Background" section is worded strangely. The "in 1834" seems to be misplaced, perhaps?
• What region is being referred to in the sentence beginning "On October 11…"? If you mean the future state of Texas that's accurate, but it almost reads as if the Gonzales area was meant. Gonzales was in the Green DeWitt colony while Austin's colony was quite a ways away, in 1835 terms, at least.
• On my screen setup, the James Bowie image ends where the "See also" section begins, creating an indented head but with the text below at the left margin. Swapping sides for the two images would solve the issue.
  • The swapping of images has solved this one but created the same issue for the "Aftermath" section. Since that section is longer than the two lines of the "See also" section, it's not much of a concern to me, at least. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• The sentence about the deserter being seen in Gonzales doesn't seem particularly relevant.
• The "References" section contains a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite book}} which results in (ever so slight) formatting differences for some of the books. Also, the Hardin book (which is manually formatted) does not list the place of publication
• I fixed one typo, and added a relevant external link.

— Bellhalla (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on the ambiguous "region"; I've switched that to "in Texas" and fixed the other prose issues you have pointed out. I don't want to swap the images, as MOS says the images should look towards the text. I'll see if I can expand the section by a sentence or two so that the See Also is pushed down a bit. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We need a qualifier on colonists for Stephen F. Austin to distinguish his colonists from, say, the Canary Islanders. I'm thinking something along the lines of American or Anglo but neither seems exactly right to me. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "first English-speaking colonists". Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• A minor question: can we get {{Infobox Military Conflict}} put in? Kirill ^(prof) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought about that and decided not to put it in. The article is so short that is seems overkill to have an infobox too. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, all other articles in the "Texas Revolution" box have an infobox. I think it is helpful for readers to get the quickest possible overview about a battle. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I hadn't realized that alll of the other articles in the Texas Revolution campaignbox had infoboxes. I've added one. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I'm not that knowledgeable in Texas history. Most folks would say this is a good thing. However, I have some questions.
• Can you state in the first sentence that it was a battle/skirmish/dustup/froofraw? Was it part of a bigger war or revolution? That's not clear in the lead.
• So... 20 people died for grass... what happened to the grass? Does any historian say? And for God's sake, if not, why?? Seriously - I'm wondering this.
• How is this event seen in history? A proud moment in the lives of all Texans, or a chuckle-fest and metaphor for misplaced enthusiasm or a consequence of not having well-disciplined and engaged troops? A 19th century Grenada?
• If this was part of a larger war or revolution, did it lead to anything other than a surge of faith in the abilities of Texians?
• Small articles sometimes create the most puzzlement. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Moni, I was afraid that some of this might leave non-Texas a bit lost. Since your list is so short, I'll respond below you, and you can put your comments wherever.
  • I've reworded the first part of the lead to hopefully be a bit more clear.
  • Amazingly enough, no historian has remarked on what happened to the grass. I would assume the Texian horses ate it.
  • Most of the books that I read didn't do much analysis of the battle (a side effect of being a pretty small fight...over grass). I had already included Edmondson's view that it was "a ludicrous affair". Should I make that more prominent (put it in the lead, perhaps)? If you think it would help, I could also include more information on how much of a joke the Texian army really was (seriously, it is a miracle Texas is not still part of Mexico).
  • I clarified that the Texians agreed to attack Bexar on Dec 5 partly as a result of their Grass Fight victory.

Does this help? Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is much clearer now, thanks. Consider it my condemnation of all Texas historians who have not addressed what happened to the grass. If people must die in battle, it should be known what good their deaths did in the grand scheme of human history. It's a silly idea, yet... what a horrifying thought that you had to lay down your life for bushels of grass that no one cared about. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Support. I can write long easily; I'm glad to see someone writing short! But regarding parts of the lead:
  • Is there a wikilink for the "Mexican Army" of the time, that could be used in the first sentence?
  • In the first paragraph we have the "members of a volunteer militia", the "volunteer Texian army", and the "smaller number of adventurers from the United States". Are these all one and the same? In that case "militia" and "army" need to be reconciled. Or are only the first and the third the same?
  • The "pack" wikilink goes to animals, not trains.
  • Saying "historian Alwyn Barr states that ..." in the lead sounds like a lame. Don't we know enough to say something like, historians believe blah blah, although side X claimed much larger numbers at the time.

Will come up with comments on rest of article later. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at a short article. I've rewritten the first paragraph of the lead to try for a bit more clarity. I also created an article on the Texian Army today that I've now wikilinked too (maybe that will help). I've switched the link from pack animal to packhorse - this article does explain that packhorses were often used in "trains" of several animals. As for the number of Mexican dead, every source I've found lists a different number and some just don't list a number. Barr is the only historian to write a book focused on the Siege of Bexar and go into detail on this battle, so I chose to highlight his number, hoping it would be the most accurate. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated, too much childhood experience with pack trains, I guess, but a pack train usually includes horses, mules and burros. Wish we could fix that, although it's not your problem, but worried that non-English-speaking readers will have no idea what the heck it is. Can't we make pack animal discuss pack trains? It's not only horses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Great job creating the Texian Army article ... however, the use of "Mexican Army" and "Texian Army" does not stay consistent in this article ... in "Background" there's a "Texian army" with only Texian wlinked, and later there are a lot of "Mexican army" and "Texian army" mentions with mixed case. I don't know what the MILHIST conventions are with respect to this, but looking at a few FA articles, Something Army and Something Navy usually stay capitalized throughout. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Another comment, on the "Background" section. This is covering the origins of the Texas Revolution and the beginnings of the conflict. Compared to other FA "Battle of ..." articles, this seems too much. Generally these articles just start with some background on a particular campaign, or stage of the conflict, and that leads into the description of the particular battle. In this case, you might just start with the Siege of Bexar. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the case issues; thanks for pointing out that oversight. As for the background, I included the first few sentences on why the revolution started primarily because I thought there would be very few readers who knew about it, and since the article was really short it wouldn't hurt to start there. I'd be willing to remove most of the first 3 sentences in the first paragraph, but I think the section does need to start with the Texas Revolution beginning. The way the Texian Army formed really did have an impact on this battle (random gathering of settlers who were highly disorganized and didn't know how to be soldiers). I also think the reasons they were in the Bexar area are important. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    Removing the first three sentences makes sense.

    Also, I'd argue that the last sentence of "Aftermath" doesn't belong either. You'd have to explain or wikilink what "parole" is (I know, but many readers won't, since it doesn't happen much any more), and in any case, it seems pretty remote from the Grass Fight.

    Also, a minor change: in "Although the battle, which historian J.R. Edmondson termed a "ludicrous affair", ...", I'd replace "battle" with "engagement" or somesuch, to avoid a repetition of a few words earlier. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for your continued comments. I've removed the first 3 sentences of the Background section adnd made the word change you mentioned. I'm going to keep the last sentence of aftermath as it is somewhat related (win in grass fight convinced troops they could attack Mexican Army, which resulted in Mex. Army surrender and leaving the province), but I have wikilinked parole for more clarity. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    Ok, support now indicated above. Nice job on the whole thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Karanacs directly above)

• "many of the men became sick, and groups of men began to leave, most without permission." - there weren't any female soldiers were there? It may sound awkward without "the men" but I dunno if you need to say it both times. *shrugs*
• "scattering the mules" - other than in the lead, this is the first time mules are mentioned... maybe it's just me but until now I had no idea mules were involved.
• "Four Texians were wounded in the fighting. One soldier deserted during the battle." - merge these sentences?

Overall a good, short, sweet read. —Giggy 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Reworded to "many soldiers became sick, and groups of men began to leave"; specified in first paragraph of Battle section that it was a "pack train of horses and mules" (I thought this was a common term but I guess I'm the only one who reads Westerns ;)), and combined the sentences you mentioned. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Support. It probably is a common term; I'm just Australian. :-) —Giggy 13:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 July 2008 [2].

---

Noble gas

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), Nergaal, Itub, WikiProject Elements

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it has finally reached FA level. I haven't submitted an FAC in a month and a bit, so bear with me ;) Editors who have done MAJOR work to this article include Nergaal and Itub, among many others who helped do some copyediting, finding references, and making sure things look nice and tidy. This article is definitely the most technical I have worked on, by far, but I think we have done a great job with this. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment as co-nominator. I was hoping to finish filling in a couple of small gaps in the section on occurrence and production before the FAC, but I'll let the reviewers decide whether those gaps are an impediment to promotion or not. These gaps should be filled within a few days, which is well within the usual duration of the FAC process. In the meantime, any comments about the FA-worthiness of the existing content and presentation are of course welcome. Other than that, in my biased opinion, the article is accurate, comprehensive enough, and meets the other FA criteria as far as far as I can tell. The only aspect I can't comment on is the "prose brilliancy" requirement, which is too subjective for me to judge. --Itub (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaps added? Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't noticed your question. I filled most of the gaps that I had in mind, but there are a couple left. 1) I'd like to expand a bit the part that describes the method of production. The Ullmann and Kirk-Othmer encyclopedias have very detailed descriptions of the industrial processes, with diagrams and everything. While we don't need such gory details, a couple more sentences would be good IMO. 2) Production figures. The problem here is that the values I've found are either for the USA only, or are too old, or are for helium only. I still haven't decided which ones to use. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

2) the most recent figures are perhaps the most useful; separate references may be used for each entry; try SciFinder if you have access to it. Nergaal (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• what makes http://www.decompression.org/maiken/home.htm a reliable source?

• See this explanation for an explanation. Gary King (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

• {{citation}} is only used in the References section, and that is the case because the article uses {{harvnb}} which only works with {{citation}}. I believe recently promoted FAs also do this. Gary King (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not that you're using citation that is the problem. It's that you're using citation ALONG WITH cite. One or the other, not both. If you want to stick with harvnb, you'll need to remove the cite templates and switch them over. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't cap my comments for me. Sandy asked me a while back to only cap long commentary. This isn't that long that a strike through won't work. Also, I'll note that somewhere someone left off an end font tag, because you've changed the font on the whole of the FAC page with something missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - font issue fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the applications section has little on Xenon as an anaesthetic, which phenomenon itself is considered as a major puzzle by some (like Sir Roger Penrose). Shyamal (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - seems comprehensive, well organised, written, cited and illustrated. My only observations below: Shyamal (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• somewhat confusing usage of "discovering" a "synthetic" element (and seems to imply serendipity) in A synthetic member of the group, ununoctium (Uuo), has also been discovered
• The abundance of the noble gases in the universe decreases as their atomic numbers increase. I think this should be reworded to explicitly indicate that it is an observed trend rather than something that can be "controlled" - that atomic numbers could be altered.

Quick Comment - Please close and archive the peer review for this article. Giants2008 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I left a few comments at the peer review (sorry, a bit late) - have they been addressed? giggy _(:O) 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, we closed it before you commented there. However, I will still take a look at your comments. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Still a few unresolved issues at the PR (taking at random the point about Bobrow; second bullet point... plenty more though). You're welcome to reply to the comments on that page or to copy-paste them here and reply. —Giggy 02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have gotten to all the points. Gary King (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support —Giggy 07:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment – While the column of elements in the lead looks great, it's not very informative when you consider the lack of a legend to explain the meaning of the colours and border styles used. Can some explanation of these be added? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a fancy legend. I hope that helps! Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks great. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from jimfbleak (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox is a bit fussy – is the primordial etc bit standard?
• Intro –shouldn’t non-metallic be hyphenated?
• but very little is known of its properties due to its rarity. Rarity seems odd for a synthetic- isn’t it more the difficulty of making and working with it?
• consequently, they are liquids only over a small temperature range. The noble gases show extremely low chemical reactivity; consequently,
• isolated a new element, argon, from the Greek word for inactive (αργό(ν)). I thought it was isolated from air, not a word –second para of history needs a good copyedit really
• radon fluoride but krypton difluoride.inconsistent
• Xenon is the least volatile of the noble gases obtainable from the air, and although it is an unusually safe anesthetic, its compounds are toxic there’s no obvious connection between an element’s properties and those of its compounds – witness NaCl
• temps sometimes in K, C and F, sometimes just C and F – inconsistent. Since this is a proper science article, I’d stick to K only (three temp units looks a mess)

Nice article, just needs polishing – check my tweaks and revert if you don’t like jimfbleak (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "Primordial" has been expanded.

   The table is standard in similar articles.

   Nonmetallic is from the word nonmetal.

   The element is still discovered rather than synthesized itself, just in a lab instead of in "the wild".

   Consequently has been changed

   Good point. Done.

   Radon Fluoride is RnF and Radon Difluoride is RnF2, so they are different
   I might be wrong, but the reason why they simply call it fluoride is because they don't really know the stoechiometric formula. They just know something with Rn and F has formed. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   Changed

   All in Kelvins now, with C and F conversions which are necessary for most people

Gary King (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

Suggestion: why not move radon difluoride to radon fluoride, and remove the formula? jimfbleak (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support and commend

Well done, a beautiful, engaging, well-written, comprehensive article. I haven't enjoyed reading a science article so much in a long time, (but I still don't know what exactly helium replaces in breathing gases; perhaps it's just simply used:).

Dhould be more clear now.

• Would ''instability be better than unstable nature?
• This sentence is a bit odd, Argon is the most plentiful noble gas on Earth, while krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds. There seems to be a false contrast here.
  

I can't wait to see this article on the main page. GrahamColm^Talk 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Both issues have been resolved. Thanks for both of your supports! Also, I'd like to see this article on the main page; it'd be a nice change from biographical, sports, and video game articles :) Hopefully it will educate a few aspiring chemists, too! Gary King (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - prose generally looks fine, a few things though:

• The first sentence states that being a noble gas is equivalent to being in group 18, but later it says "...but preliminary experiments have shown that it may have similar chemical and physical characteristics to other noble gases, and may therefore be a noble gas without being a member of group 18." Clarification would be appreciated.
• "Lord Rayleigh discovered that some samples of nitrogen from the air were of a different density than nitrogen that resulted from chemical reactions"

Nice work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence actually states "The noble gases are the nonmetallic, inert elements in group 18", so the "nonmetallic" and "inert" characteristics are required. Gary King (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it can still be misinterpreted as "The noble gases are the elements in group 18, which are inert and nonmetallic", though it's meant to say "The noble gases are those elements in group 18 which are both inert and nonmetallic"? Can we come up with a phrasing that's not ambiguous (and not as awkward as my unambiguous example)? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "the noble gases are elements in group 18 that are both inert and nonmetallic"? —Giggy 04:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fitting in a mention that the group is on the periodic table in there would be difficult, though. Gary King (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment – In the last paragraph of the history section, mentions of two superheavy elements are made. It is unclear in this paragraph what the relevances of these discoveries are to noble gases. For example, while Uuq is given as having potentially noble-gas-like properties, it is not commented on that this is not necessarily predicted by its atomic number (it's "eka-lead", not "eka-radon"); nor is it said why the synthesis of Uuo (which is predicted to be a noble gas by its atomic number) is a discovery. It would be helpful to an uninformed reader to understand why these discoveries are significant to the topic at hand. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I now notice that some of this is described in the lead; nevertheless, can we please have more detail in the relevant section? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support A well written article indeed. Some minor comments:

• "The abundances of the noble gases in the universe decrease as their atomic numbers increase." This seems a little clunky to me although I am not sure how it could be improved.
• "and it is also used as an anesthetic ..." Is the "it" here superfluous? I changed a few like this, then I realised on a technical article this could change meaning. Sorry if there has been any errors made.
• "This localization of charge is accommodated by the fact that the fluorine atoms are highly electronegative." I am not a big fan of the use of "by the fact". Would "This localization of charge occurs because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative" or if that implies a causation where none exists, then "This localization of charge is allowed because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative".

Minor points all and support is given regardless. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for the Support! Gary King (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment—Seems good overall. I just have a few comments:

• "They have several important applications..." does this mean just Helium and Radon (as in the prior sentence), or all of the noble gases?
• "The melting and boiling points for each noble gas are close together" should include a value to avoid vagueness. For example, "within a range of 10 °C or less."
• The statement, "leading them to rarely react with other elements," seems odd somehow. Perhaps it is too anthropormorphic? Something like, "Hence they rarely react with other elements" would be more direct.
• Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, done, and done. Pro or against FA? Nergaal (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaning toward support. But I'd like to see after Ruslik's comments are resolved. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose. The article makes lots inaccurate statements, is not comprehensive and and is not well-written. Some examples (from the end of the article):

Resolved comments from Ruslik (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1) "Krypton is used in lasers by doctors performing eye surgery", While this is formaly true, it fails to mention that NG are used in excimer lasers—one of the most succeseful type of lasers. The ArF and KrF lasers are widely used in optical (or UV) lithography. The majority of modern electronic chips is made with them. This is much more important application of excimer laser than "eye surgery". This type of lasers is widely used in fusion experiment (see for example Nike laser). Neon is also used in helium-neon laser and helium is used as a buffer gas in many gaseous lasers. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, but do you have a for ArF laser? Nergaal (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Type "ArF laser lithography' in google. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about this field. I could try to cherry pick from the articles you gave, but I am not sure weather that would be enough. Do you know someone who knows enough about the field to add the information there? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the paragraph about excimer lasers. I'm not an expert, but I tried to summarize the salient points from the introduction and the table of contents of the book I cited. --Itub (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

2) Another paragraph begins with: "In the early 20th century, hydrogen was used ...". However the article is about NG, not about hydrogen. Why not to begin with "Helium is used for ..."? This paragraphs is not well-written in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

done Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3) The paragraph about diving is not well-written as well. It begins with "Helium has a low solubility in fluids, ...". Why not to begin with "Helium is used in breathing mixtures ..."? In other words you should state at the begining where helium is used, then explain why it is used, not in reverse order like in the article. In addition this paragraphs is misleading in respect to influence of solubility. It creates an impression that the helium is no better than nitrogen. This is not true, and helium is used instead of nitrogen, partly because of its low solubility (in addition to low narcotic effect). As a result the decompression is accelerated and divers can ascend faster than with nitrogen in their blood. The article, in my opinion, should not go into irrelevant details like "Divers breathing helium mixtures use a modified form of dive tables or software to determine a schedule that allows them to ascend safely". Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

done. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is much better now. Ruslik (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

4) From 1)-3) above it is clear that 'Applications' section should be expanded and needs thorough copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the section a bit, adding more uses in lighting, metallurgy, medicine, cryogenics, and in scientific instruments. The big use that still needs significant expansion is lasers; I don't know that much about lasers so if someone who knows can write that it would be nice. --Itub (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Expansion I think is done. As for copy-edit, anyone? Nergaal (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I copy-edited it myself. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

5) What is "ppm by mass" and "ppm by volume"? I have always thought that ppm refers to "particles per million". I don't see any connection with either volume or mass. The values that are listed in the article are (probably) mass fractions and should be listed as 0.23 etc. In addition, I can not find such values in the ref cited (Anders et al. 1989). Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So I recommend you: a) to use a newer publication (Lodders et al. 2003, for example); b) to cite the values from it accuratly (i.e. ppm is ppm, mass fraction is mass fraction). Also pay attention that such articles usually give two types of abudances: in the Sun's photosphere (around 0.24) and primordial (around 0.27). If you write about abudances in the universe the latter values should be used.

You have been misled about the meaning of ppm. It means parts per million, and is very often used in terms of mass and in terms of volume, just like "percent" can be used as "percent by mass" or "percent by volume". 1 ppm=0.0001%=0.000001, that's all there is to it. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right here. However in literature that I usually read "ppm by mass" is rarely used. Mass fractions or ppm (by number of particles) are much more common. My main concern is about the validity of values themself. Please, use newer refs and cite them accuratly. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that abudance of Radon is given as 0.00. While correct can this be written better? Why not to say that radon does not (usually) naturally occur?

I've added a table of abundances using the values from the reference Lodders (it turned out that the old values were not from Anders but during the heavy editing someone changed the reference without updating the numbers!). I've also renamed "ppm by volume" to "volume fraction (ppm)" in case that's more agreeable. It needs to be emphasized that it is by volume (or by number of molecules if you wish, assuming that the atmosphere is an ideal gas) because, at least in chemistry, ppm often implies "ppm by mass". --Itub (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

6) The second paragraph in 'Occurrence and production' should be moved into the next section. And the sections should be renamed accordinly. It also states that "Helium is typically produced from oil wells". So it implies that it is produced exclusively from oil wells and nothing is produced from gas wells? Strange statement indeed. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be moved there? Occurence and obtaining do not mix together? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Methods of production are more closely related to Applications than to natural occurance. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Both xenon and helium have those section combined together. And if an element occurs in air, and you only need to distill it, it seems logic to put the distilling part right after saying you can find it in air. Also, a compound/element is produced, and besides being used industrially, it may be used scientifically. Therefore you could also defend the argument that production should be between occurence and chemistry sections. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't insist. Ruslik (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

7) The same section states "The low abundance of helium on Earth is caused by the total loss of primordial helium from the atmosphere; due to the small mass of the atom", but I suspect that helium was never abudant in the Earth's atmosphere in the first place. Another sentences reads "The abundance of argon, on the other hand, is increased as a result of the beta decay of potassium-40, also found in the Earth's crust". However argon has several stable isotopes, and only one of them is actually increased. This sentence is misleading. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it misleading? It seems obvious to me that by increasing the abundance of one isotope, you also increase the overall abundance of the element (of course, you also change its isotopic distribution and average atomic mass in the process). Perhaps we could mention that argon-40 is more than 99% of natural argon. --Itub (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It can mislead because a casual read will think that all argon is from decay of potassium. 36 and 38 isotopes are more like other noble gases— they are primodial. This is actually the main reason why their abudances are similar to those of other NG. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I expanded that part a bit to mention that the argon formed is argon-40, and that it is the most abundant isotope on Earth despite not being the most abundant in the solar system. I hope that helps. --Itub (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does the statement imply that helium was abundant? I think it only implies that we would have had more now if it wasn't for the low mass of the atom. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I updated that sentence today. The way it was before, it suggested that there used to be primordial helium on Earth, that has since been lost. I rephrased it to "There is no primordial helium in the atmosphere; due to the small mass of the atom, helium cannot be retained by the Earth's gravitational field". --Itub (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

8) In 'Compounds' subsection I read "As of 2007, almost 100 compounds of xenon bonded to other elements have been identified". However the ref cited (Grochala, 2007) says about half a thousand (see page 1632). One hundred value refers only to Ng-C, Ng-N and NG-Cl type compounds (see page 1634). The ref 7 deserves more attention in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

9) The HArF is not the only known Ar compound according the same ref 7. Other compounds include ArAgCl, ArCuCl etc.(pages 1638 and 1642). Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot open the ref right now, but are you sure that those are 'true' chemical compounds? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not less true than HArF. They were observed in jets, while HArF at extremely low temperature. At least this is my reading of ref 7. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

done Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

10) Kr also has more known compounds inluding Kr-Cl, Kr-Au, Kr-H, Kr-C bonds. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the same ref, I am not sure that it said those compounds are anything more than interstitial compounds. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not more interstitial than HArF, which is refered in this article to as real and relatively stable compound. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as much as I remember, the paper seemed to imply (in an image around the conclusion section) that HArF is more of a true compound than those with Kr...Cl weak-bond-like compounds. Again, I don't have the paper now to double check. Nergaal (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

done Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

11) In addition unstable (short-lived) moleculars (excimers) of NG should be mentiond as well. They are basis of some widely used lasers. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned briefly. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

12) This article is supposed to be scientific, therefore °F should not be used. It is preferrable to use Kelvins for the temperatures in the table. The ionisation energies would be more informative if they were expressed in electronvolts. The abudances (I already discussed them above) should also be moved to the table. While some values (like viscosity and mean free path) can be removed becauses they are not very informative. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

eV vs kJ/mol is just a matter of preference. I included the values in the units that were used in the reference, Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.. Although eV might be preferred by physicists, in my opinion kJ/mol is better for this article because it is the SI unit and is better-known. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that viscosity and mean free path can be removed, because they are not discussed in the text, and are just two of many properties that could be included. Regarding the abundances, they used to be in the table but were removed because someone insisted that abundance is not a "physical property"! As far as I'm concerned, I prefer to have them in the table. --Itub (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You can make a separate table. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where did you see °F; °C might be more accessible for regular users than K; also, the table does not use SI strictly, therefore I don't really see the need to use K. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no °F in the table, but it is used in a couple of places in the text for parenthetical conversion. --Itub (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate those fake units that some ignorant parts of the world need to use. Anyways, I have deleted the F part since it does not add anything. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I converted temperatures to Kelvins in the table. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

13) In 'Physical properties' I read " krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds.". However this contradicts 'Compounds section'—Ar was forced into a number of compounds. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The list of issues a bove should not be considered complete as I don't have anough time to review all used references, and the article needs copy-edit by a person not familiar with text. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not all that good at copyediting, and might cause some problems. I'll call up AndonicO instead. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Andonic is too busy. :( I might do some more later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to recap brefly: add about lasers&lithography, more about Ar&Kr compounds (pending on discussion on the reference [31]), copyedit applications. Correct me if I missed something that still needs to be done. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Matrix isolation important enough to be mentioned? I think it is a very neat scientific application, and is used decently often. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I think it is important enough to mention. Perhaps we could have a paragraph in the applications section focusing on "scientific applications" that are interesting and useful to scientist but not necessarily "practical" or "commercial". I would also include there the use of noble gas compounds as oxidizing agents that is currently in the compounds section. --Itub (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention--perhaps it is a bit curious that some noble gas compounds can only be studied under matrix isolation conditions! --Itub (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That is true for any highly unstable compound, and most NG compounds are not that stable. Nergaal (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a sentence, but I do not have a reference. I know for sure that cyclobutadiene was first characterized as a monomer in an argon? matrix, but this might be overly detailed for the purpose of the article. Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference. I don't think we need to add specific examples. --Itub (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot open the document for several weeks. Anybody else willing to take a closer look at ref ~[31]? Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

done now? Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the article now. Ruslik (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Attention needed; see my edit summaries, mainly WP:NBSP, wikilinking, there are side-by-side images scrolling off of my screen in the "Compounds" and "Applications" sections, incorrect use of quotes vs. italics, incorrect punctuation on image captions per WP:MOS#Images, and inconsistency in page numbering in citations (some use p. others don't). I suggest first fixing the items noted in my edit summaries, and then approaching someone like User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check. I'm always surprised when a nomination gets seven supports with no one apparently having checked on these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've gotten them all. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also attempted to link the more technical terms for people to click on when they don't understand something. I hope that helps. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:01, 5 July 2008 [3].

---

Restoration of the Everglades

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk)

A bit timely—and no, I didn't arrange the announcement of the sale of U.S. Sugar, though I found my timing in writing this series astoundingly coincidental. I must write or call the governor of Florida and express my thanks. This is the next in the series on the Everglades. Here's hoping that people can learn from past mistakes... Thank you for reading it. Article creator, Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see I have two dead links, both of them recent stories in the Miami Herald. Apparently the URLs in recent stories at the Herald get changed over to their archives, which is by login only. I tried to find them in LexisNexis for the page number, but the latest stories are in mid-May. Any suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If they are available in newspapers, then just use {{cite news}} and don't include a URL. Gary King (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I need a page number for that, don't I? --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be ideal. If you can't find the page number, that's fine. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think at the very least, title is required. That's the most important data for finding the article in the first place. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the links, and forgot to report it. Had a total brain fart - The Miami Herald does not number pages in LexisNexis. They only include the section the story was in. I've only done two other FAs with the Miami Herald as sources... --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support with a few questions.

• Lake Okeechobee, a large and very shallow lake - do you know how shallow? Very is not very helpful. Same for the river.
• During the wet season when the lake fills, - is it dry during the dry season?
• Exotic animals imported by the pet trade have escaped or been released and later on Several animal species have been introduced to Everglades waterways, many of them released as exotic pets - is this repetition deliberate? GrahamColm^Talk 11:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Measurements for Lake Okeechobee are included, some new wording in the next sentence, and redundancy removed from the Invasive species section. Thank you, Graham. --Moni3 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support'. Moni3 has produced another fabulous article. Well-written, well-referenced. All the best, Cam (Chat) 20:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not reviewing, I helped edit, happy so far - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)}}

• Not reviewing, but I'd like to help out. "...were discovered in waterways in 1986...": maybe a modifier would be helpful, like "these waterways" or "Everglades waterways" or "South Florida waterways". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Hmains just added 3 commas, and they don't seem to match Moni's style to me, in this article or the other Everglades articles. Most style guides these days allow you to omit the comma after "short" (undefined) introductory phrases, such as "In the 1960s..." Can anyone see a reason we need those 3 commas? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If the commas will make Hmains happy, they can stay in. If they will cause an oppose, then I guess take them out. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm pulling in my own agenda here; maybe you guys can help me decide what my agenda ought to be. A lot of people, including Moni (I think) and myself, believe that "edit warring over optional styles" is not a good idea. If people make changes to one of my articles, I generally just leave them if I can't come up with some clear grammar rule or style guideline that argues against them...it's not important, and I like democratic editing. FAC ought to be different, though. If I know Moni's style, and I know that her style is acceptable, and I think that making random changes that don't agree with her style is something I would object to if she were submitting this article to a magazine and I really was her copyeditor...isn't FAC the place to say so? Isn't this supposed to be our "very best work"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. By "agenda" I mean, I have a feeling that if someone sticks up for the nom(s) at FAC, someone who isn't voting and didn't write the article, someone who knows the style of the nom(s), WP's style guidelines, the FAC process, and a little about copyediting in general, then a variety of good things will happen. It's a theory I'd like to test. Apologies to Moni for testing it on her FAC :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I find I have to pick my battles on a collaborative encyclopedia where dramatic struggles over hurt feelings take place daily. Three commas does not, at the time, warrant my objection. I dig in primarily where content accuracy is compromised. Were this a peer reviewed paper to be published where I am the primary author and random folks don't have access to edit it at whim or will, I might forbid the three commas. Like I said, if you think they stick out like a sore thumb and don't reflect the best work of the encyclopedia, by all means I will change the commas. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They don't match your style, but they're okay. If you're happy, I'm happy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cap removed, see WT:FAC for issues with Wikipedia:Template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Extensive article. EE 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Sources look good, and links check out, except for the Miami Hearld glitch noted above, which is being worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support (Disclaimer: I have copyedited this article.) Another fascinating (and now timely) article from Moni3 regarding the Everglades. I knew nothing about the restoration of the Everglades before I read this article - the material was presented clearly and concisely and I believe I understand the major issues at play in the debates. The recent information regarding U. S. Sugar has also been integrated well (no recentism here!). Well done! Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Support Issues resolved. I think the article contains a great many useful facts but it is very incomplete and omits some significant facts and major debate on the issue. Please see this link [4] for an idea of what this article needs to include in order to meet WP:NPOV policy. Big Sugar, as the sugar industry is called in South Florida has been coddled by the US government ever since Castro came to power in Cuba. The Cuban Sugar barons, the Fanjul Family, moved to South Florida in the 60's and created a significant sugar empire with the help of the the US government. It was an effort meant to cripple Cuba's sugar exports and harm their economy. The result was that sugar produced in the Unites States eliminated the crop as one of the main sources of income for the impoverished island of Haiti as well as Cuba. The price of sugar skyrocketed in the US which produced the domino effect of chasing some candy companies out of the US and into Mexico where they were not required to buy US sugar (as all other US consumers were). The sugar barons have a long history of making large payouts to all political parties, they have their own political action committees that raise very large amounts of money (from their own corporations) that are used for political purposes (see this article from Naples News [5].) The government, according to this article, then pumps 14 billion back to the farmers each year in return. Because of this form of government corruption, any efforts to clean up the Everglades were obstructed for many years. Lawton Chiles broke the deadlock by walking into the courtroom with a vial of polluted everglades water and finally admitted the extent of the problem - effectively ending the long series of court battles over Everglades cleanup. While the current news reports about US Sugar Corp's selling out to the goverment claim that this will help resolve the problem, the fact that the Fanjul Family's many sugar corporations like Okeelanta, Flo-Sun, Inc. and many others remain the largest sugar producer in the Everglades and they have not sold out to the governement remains a significant problem. US agricultural policy that supports Big Sugar like the Fanjul Family, killed the economy of Haiti and results in higher prices for US consumer goods that contain sugar is also the driving force obstructing the restoration of the Everglades according to a significant POV that should have some mention in the article. This New York Times article from 1990 also helps clarify this significant problem [6]. NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nancy. I'm aware of Big Sugar's role in the restoration process, and there is an article that is related to this one that discusses the surge of power and production of US Sugar, called Draining and development of the Everglades. I tried in this article to give an overview of the problems the Everglades have been facing, and I know the power the Fanjuls have held in the past in local and statewide politics. However, I felt I had to keep this accessible to people who are reading this from other parts of the country, as well as the world, who have no knowledge of the inner-workings of state and local issues. I didn't feel it was appropriate to overwhelm readers with many details of the workings of US Sugar that border on corporate deviance. There are mentions of the strength of the sugar lobbyists in this article, specifically about the battles over phosphorus being pumped into the lower Glades. Governor Chiles' attempts at coming to a resolution about it is also mentioned. Foremost, I wanted the focus of the article to be on the diminished quality of the Everglades, how it has impacted local metropolitan areas, and how state and federal government agencies, and business interests (including Big Sugar) have been unable to agree on the best course of action to be taken. What you are suggesting may be more appropriate for the article on the US Sugar Corporation, which, coincidentally, was created several days ago. --Moni3 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moni, Thanks. I'm sorry that I could not support your article in its present form. I will reconsider my vote if there is some mention of the significance of US sugar policy in creating the obstacles to Everglades restoration that have existed over the years. You dont need to go into great detail but mention of this fact would make the aritcle complete. Right now, its omission makes the article violate FAC criteria and could be easily remedied by a paragraph or two. Since your article is not too long in its present form you could easily add this information I think. I also ran across this article on the Fanjul's that may also be helpful. [7]. Also, in the archives of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, you will find a whole series of articles they did on the problem of Big Sugar and the Everglades. I can't remember the name of the series but I may have kept one of the articles and may locate for you. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will consider the addition of stronger information about the power of the sugar coalition in South Florida. I will do some reading of my sources as well as the ones you suggested. I do not, however, think it should be a smear piece on the Fanjuls—that would indeed make it POV. I am no fan at all of the sugar or real estate industries and I'm willing to think perhaps I'm holding back as not to appear POV against them. I would appreciate input from other editors who have read this article, specifically addressing my question about too much detail on the inner workings of political deals between the government and US Sugar. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a smear piece would violate FAC criteria. The link I gave you to the Fanjuls actually has more nice than not-nice things to say about them but it gives the reader the fact that they are accused of polluting the Everglades. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Before I wade into this swamp (!), I should do some research. Beyond the links you have provided, Nancy, is there anything else you would suggest I read? And Moni3, what would you suggest I read? I'll start with those sources. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Where there are government sources, I try to go straight to them, but Washington Post journalist Michael Grunwald wrote what I think will be the standard on political histories of South Florida, in The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. That's where I'm getting most of my infomation about the political battles between the various state and federal agencies, Big Sugar, and real estate interests. It's chronological, and it's a book, so I don't expect you to read all or any of it during this FAC. My pages are dog-eared and marked up, so I can find it quickly. My question was really - how much of these maneuverings should be included? I found the details about what parts should be restored, how, and why to be daunting. For four years the state sued the federal government, countersuits, back and forth, and I summed it up with A costly legal battle took place from 1988 to 1992 between the State of Florida, the U.S. government, and agricultural interests regarding who was responsible for water quality standards, the maintenance of Everglades National Park and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. I figured people don't really want to read about each suit, who initiated it, how much was at stake, etc, especially since Chiles stepped in to fix it in the end. Though Big Sugar has had their finger in the political pie of South Florida since the 1960s, the issue that they had a clear stake in was the penny-a-pound tax that went to state ballot in 1996, and I summarized it this way: A controversial penny-a-pound (2 cent/kg) tax on sugar was proposed to fund some of the necessary changes to be made to help decrease phosphorus and make other improvements to water. State voters were asked to support the tax, and environmentalists paid $15 million to encourage the issue. Sugar lobbyists responded with $24 million in advertising to discourage it and succeeded; it became the most expensive ballot issue in state history. I'm just trying to find the balance, of course, about what will illustrate what has been at stake and how far it can go.--Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The best place to find all references government or no on the subject would be the South Florida Sun-Sentinel which has followed the story for decades. Government Accounting Office also has information which was summarized in an editorial several years ago by columnist Stephen Goldstein. You will need to go into the Sentinel's archives by doing an advanced search and you will probably have to pay to view the articles. I personally dont think you need any more than a paragraph (at most two) maybe in a section called "Big Sugar" that gives some overview of the controversy and the role played by Big Sugar in defeating many years of efforts to clean up the pollution. Lawton Chile's walk into the courtroom with a vial of water was a very dramatic and unprecedented gesture. Good luck, if I can find more sources, I will let you know. I personally wrote several letters that were published in both Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel columnist sections (Im not a columnist) because I had audited the sugar farms for several years and wrote a summary of the problem which was then used (without my knowledge or permission) by an anti-sugar subsidy group as evidence in testimony before Congress. NancyHeise (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reset. Added the following in Water quality:The sugarcane industry, dominated by two companies named U.S. Sugar and Flo-Sun, were responsible for more than half if the crop in the EAA. They were well-represented in state and federal governments by lobbyists who enthusiastically protected their interests. The Audubon Society pointed out that the sugar industry, nicknamed "Big Sugar", donated more money to political parties and candidates than General Motors. The sugar industry attempted to block government-funded studies of polluted water, and when the federal prosecutor in Miami faulted the sugar industry in legal action to protect Everglades National Park, Big Sugar tried to get the lawsuit withdrawn and the prosecutor fired. The sugar industry is mentioned again in Sustainable South Florida, again in Implementation, and once more in Future of Restoration, in a telling quote by one of their own lobbyists. I think this implicated the sugar industry as a major playor in this problem. I hesitate to put any more emphasis on the industry lest the article place the majority of blame upon sugar. While I find sugar is not very nice and is quite harmful, I don't consider them to be the major reason why the Everglades is in the sad state it is in. Real estate, and government indifference and incompetence helps to form one big ball of wrong. --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Big Sugar is not solely responsible for Everglades damage and you have hit on all of the causes in your article nicely, now including Big Sugar as one of the major players. I appreciate your addition and will change my vote to Support. Many thanks for your hard work. NancyHeise (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No extra research needed on my part, I see! Back to working on my Wikimania paper, then! Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:01, 5 July 2008 [8].

---

Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk)

This article is the first of many in a series on the works of Mary Shelley (I'm hoping for a featured topic - any volunteers?). It covers several sets of biographies that she wrote for Dionysius Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia (Shelley wrote for an encyclopedia, too!). The organization of this article was extremely difficult, but I hope that the article makes the set of texts as clear as possible. For a discussion on whether or not the Cabinet Cyclopaedia should have its own article, see here. I would also like to thank the GA reviewer and the peer reviewers. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Romantic writer Mary Shelley wrote most of them." → "Most of them were written by..." perhaps? Especially since they are discussed in the preceding sentences.

Gary King (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Changed. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look fine, links all check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review and found the article, the likes of which I'm quite sure won't be found anywhere else, excellent. The topic is awkward in the extreme because of the partial, asymmetrical, and quasi-anonymous nature of these volumes, so I commend Awadewit for her feat of organisation. Comprehensive and fully referenced. qp10qp (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. The only comments I have relate to links, otherwise the article is well sourced, written and explained. A very enjoyable article with a lot to recommend it.

• Does the Cabinet Cyclopedia not have it's own article? That seems a little unusual, I'd be interested in reading in more detail about how it was put together and more precisely what articles it consisted of.

• See the discussion here. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that seems to explain it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Reverend Dr. Dionysius Lardner, a science lecturer at London University," - which London university is meant? University College, London perhaps? The University of London (where the link goes to) is a modern union of major educational institutions in London rather than a single entity.

• Hmm. I just copied that from a source. I'll have to check that out. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• My source says "London University", which opened for instruction in 1828. According to University College London, they were established in 1826. What do you think? Is this the right one? Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can't give you a definitive answer, but it probably is UCL, I've seen this construction before when referring to it. However, one of the other major London universities, King's, opened in 1829, which hazes things a little. All the others seem too small or too late to be in consideration. I think at this stage the best thing to do is actually to delink it since at the moment we can't be sure exactly which university is referred to, although I'll defer to your judgement on this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delinked. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• As with the Mary Shelley FAC, I'd be interested in reading articles on other people involved who aren't linked (some, like David Brewer, as writers and some as subjects, such as a number of the Italians for example), what are the chances of seeing these articles in future? (not actionable, just curious)

• I've redlinked Brewster because he has an entry in the DNB. Someone familiar with Italian literature would need to decide the others. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tasso goes to a disambiguation page and I wasn't sure which one was meant (probably Torquato but I didn't want to guess).

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support—A few issues I spotted:
  • "An estimated four thousand copies of the first edition of the early volumes were printed, but the print run would probably have fallen to 2,500 since the sales did not pick up after 1835." The "would have" made me expect "... had the sales not picked up". Meaning unclear.
    • This sentence reflects the source's speculation about what happened - the source doesn't know that the print run fell to 2,500, but the source does know that the sales did not pick up after 1835. How can I make this clearer? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "twelve", "nineteenth". Well, I'd be happier with figures above nine, and so would MOS. But it's no deal breaker.
    • I have changed all of these, except for the centuries. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "They demonstrate her knowledge of multiple languages and historical research covering several centuries"—"Multiple" is not right here—either "many", "several" or "numerous", or give the number demonstrated here.
    • Changed to "several". Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To avoid another "also", consider turning this: "She was also influenced by the biographical style of her father, William Godwin." into "The biographical style of her father, William Godwin, was a significant influence on her own style", or something like it?
    • Changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comma after "emerge".
    • Added. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it in BrEng? "practised" when a verb.
    • I forgot to change the article to BE - I've done what I can and asked Qp10qp to give it a once over. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Check tenses: "Shelley was particularly interested in tying private, domestic history to public, political history.[47] She emphasizes ...". Past and present might both be used if logical, but avoid switching if it jolts the reader. Unsure, here.
    • I believe that this is acceptable because the first sentence is about Shelley, the dead person, so it is in the past, while the rest of the paragraph is about the text, which continues to live, so that is in the present. The "literary present" is tricky sometimes. Do you think this sentence should be in the "literary present"? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Put "only" as late in a clause as possible: "which only had a print run of several hundred copies"—only had a print run and not silk screenings or public readings: no, "which had a print run of only 700 copies". Hate the spelling-out of large numbers.
    • Moved "only"; have continued to spell out hundred since it is not a specific number (not 700, "several hundred"). Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is "copyright" linked? There are a lot of links in that bit. The reader of this article should know what "plagiarism" means.
    • Considering this is an article that refers to the history of these concepts, I think the links can be useful. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In AmEng and BrEng, although is considered more formal.
    • Changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Clumsy word order: "She also, while living in Harrow, refused to go"
    • Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the middle bit there. I think someone else should do the honours and perform a polishing on the text. Needs to be at a high standard for such an important literary figure. I love the topic. Well done indeed. TONY (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked Scartol, Jbmurray, and Ruhrfisch, but Scartol and Jbmurray are both out of town for a week or two. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ruhrfisch can get to it in a few days. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, as GA Reviewer. Already mentioned this at the Peer Review, and this is not a criticism just something I found quite interesting - that the analysis/reception normally present as a separate subsection in other Wikipedia articles on literary works is in this article instead worked into the various topical subsections seamlessly, which is really neat and different. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - period GrahamColm^Talk 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I read this article a few days ago and made some minor amendments. Unlike TONY, I find the recent removal of "also"s a minor hindrance to continuity in some places; the removal of spelled-out numbers arbitrary and, while perhaps fine in a science article, hardly preferred in a humanities article; and the tense example mentioned is not jarring, as Awadewit explained above. Having yet another editor go through the text is hardly productive in light of the review the article has already had, and the couple of million other articles that could use the improvement. (Instead of making FAC a shrubbery delivery service, I, for example, just changed a few things as I read the article. Much simpler, though not as attention-grabbing. The main editor can revert as he or she sees fit.) Isolation booth (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:01, 5 July 2008 [9].

---

Operation Varsity

Self-Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through a number of reviews, including two peer-reviews, a GA and A-Class review, and I believe it to be upto the quality expected of a FA-Class article. Skinny87 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH.

Done

• A few references have spaces before them, etc., when they shouldn't, per WP:FOOTNOTE. For instance, "8,000 (est.) [2]" → "8,000 (est.)[2]", "Ardennes. [9]" → "Ardennes.[9]", "Wesel. [11]" → "Wesel.[11]", and "24th [43], 21" → "24th,[43] 21" (in this last case, references go after punctuation marks).

Cam kindly did that for me, so Done

• En dash should also be used for ranges, like "was 3-4 times"

Done as well, I believe

• If you're working on Airborne Divisions, 82nd Airborne Division (United States) could always use some help; it's something I've always wanted to get to FA... :)

I'd love to, believe me, and it's on my list. Perhaps a joint collaboration later on?

Perhaps! Gary King (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are a few more minor MOS issues. For instance, "Eric Bols" and "Matthew B. Ridgway" should have spaces between them and the flag. "16, 870[1]" shouldn't have a space in the number.

Done!

Gary King (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A first thought: could you recreate the two maps, so they are higher quality, and preferably using SVG? They stick out rather. Best, Gwernol 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea how to do that, sorry. Will it fail the review? Skinny87 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that could fail this FAC, especially since it's not expected that everyone can do this. I do suggest that you ask an image editor to help you with this, though (although I can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment.) Gary King (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also tagged the images appropriately. Gary King (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that User:EyeSerene is capable of helping via request, as he did significant image work for me for BoVR. EnigmaMCMXC is also pretty good at that stuff. Cam (Chat) 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a quick attempt at converting this to SVG at Image:OperationVarsity1945.svg. I am not anywhere close to a military expert, so please let me know if this isn't accurate - I have tried to reproduce the contents of the original, just updating to vector format and adding a little color. I'm happy to continue to improve this, if you think its helpful. Best, Gwernol 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)That looks absolutely smashing, thanks for the help!

No problem. I'll do the second map tonight. Best, Gwernol 23:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the first quotebox, the one with the Operation Orders for the army, the source of the quote shouldn't be in brackets.

Done!

• Refs 33 & 37 need to be combined.

Er, not sure how to do that, need to ask someone.

I'll fix it, you just ref-name the thing and then just work it like you would a "cite book" template. Cam (Chat) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the section detailing the aircraft shortages, would it be possible to work in a quote from a historian concerning the aircraft shortage problem during Varsity?

Don't have my books on me, but I should be able to. I did pull some other quote boxes earlier from the article wen one editor commented they looked unbalanced.Skinny87 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not like a quotebox, but like a <blockquote></blockquote> thing.

Cam (Chat) 02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a quote that would be long enough for a block quote. All those I've cited simply say there was a lack of aircraft, preventing the 13th from participating. Devlin says about a sentence, and even Flanagan just says 'Originally, Gen. Lewis H. Brereton, commander of the First Allied Airborne Army, had included the US 13th Airborne Division in the operation, but a lack of aircraft precluded their use.' No-one really goes into any detail. So, I don't know what to do. Skinny87 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's not grounds for an oppose, simply a suggestion. I'm able to take this stuff in stride. Cam (Chat) 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, looks pretty good. Just fix the MoS problems with the footnotes outlined above, and it should be good.

Support. Prose of the article is excellent, very well-referenced, maps are splendid SVG-rendered. Little to no objection from me. Cam (Chat) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (DISCLOSURE: I have done significant copyediting on this article from before its GA and onward, so my position concerning this article isn't entirely neutral).

Comments

• Footnote 23 the Hagerman article, the article actually appeared in the February 1998 issue of the magazine, the bibliographical reference should reflect that, I would think.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added that it was in the February issue in the reference, hopefuly that's okay the way I put it. Skinny87 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Here's a minor question: is "Drop-Zone" supposed to be capitalized (when not used as a specific title, like "Drop-Zone B") and hyphened? I've only ever seen it as "drop zone".

Changed all instances to 'drop zone', so Done.

• I would suggest changing the word "practically" in the line "but by 11:00 hours the Drop-Zone was practically clear of enemy forces" here, it just doesn't sound right to me. Maybe "...was all but completely clear of..."? If you've got a better wording, that's fine too.

Changed it to the suggested wording.

• Other than those two relatively minor concerns, I see no other real issues with this article. The prose is very good; it's comprehensive, neutral, and well sourced. The photos are properly licensed, and the maps have been upgraded from the lower-quality versions I had originally uploaded from the US Army War College source. I would support this FAC, but I've been involved with the article for some time, even before Skinny's overhaul of the article beginning in April, and I don't feel that it would be appropriate to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support A very well written article that is neutral, stable, and well referenced. I think this is featured article quality and deserves the star. JonCatalán (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notes, consistency in citations, some have p. for plural pages, while others have pp. Please check them all; I fixed the one I saw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the article, and I think all of them have been switched. Cam (Chat) 05:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, yes, I never saw that one. I've checked all of the others. Skinny87 (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Lieutenant-Colonel Otway, who wrote an official history of the British airborne forces during the Second World War, stated in the history that Operation Varsity highlighted the vulnerability of glider-borne units" First off, the second "history" is redundant, also you use Second World War here when World War II is used elsewhere, you need to remain consistent.
• Unlike Market-Garden, the airborne forces would only be dropped a relatively short distance behind German lines, thereby ensuring that reinforcements in the form of Allied ground forces would be able to link up with them within a short period, and not risking the same type of disaster that had befallen the British 1st Airborne Division when it had been isolated and practically annihilated by German infantry and armour at Arnhem. This sentence seems very long, can it be broken up?
• It was also decided by the commander of the 1st Allied Airborne Army, General Lewis Brereton who commanded all Allied airborne forces, including US XVIII Airborne Corps, that the two airborne divisions participating in Operation Varsity would be dropped simultaneously in a single "lift", instead of being dropped several hours apart, which also occurred during Operation Market-Garden. Same with that sentence.
• Make sure that dates are consistent within the article. Several of the 23 March are written as March 23, which is inconsistent.
• MOS:IMAGE recommends that lead images be no smaller than 300px.
• Other than that, I added in a comma. The prose seems to be in good shape, the images are all free, evenly spaced and relevant, from the sources I have read, it seems to be comprehensive and well-referenced. So, fix my problems and I will give it another read-through. Woody (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and switched the one instance of "Second World War" to "World War II" per your suggestion, as well as split the two overly long sentences you pointed out. The dates are now formatted properly, and the infobox image has been expanded to 300px. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, stuck my comments and Support now. Good work. Woody (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Crikey, thanks Parsecboy for doing all that Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I'd like to see the article pass as much as you would, so I'll do as much as I can to help. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:13, 4 July 2008 [10].

---

Baltimore Steam Packet Company

Self-Nominator: JGHowes ^talk -

I believe this article is properly sourced, uses images appropriately, and covers the subject matter fully, and is ready for FAC. JGHowes 00:17, June 21, 2008

Comments

• The ref to Seaboard-Bay Line Company CSX transportation archival records, are those non-published sources? WP:V wants "reliable, third-party, published sources"

the new link is to what looks like an archive of a mailing list? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mailing lists usually are not considered reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is current ref 11 a newspaper article? "Norfolk Journal 2 August 1869"

What page is it quoted by Brown on? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 18 (USS President Warfield) is lacking a last access date
• Per WP:MOS the curly quotes are frowned on.

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:Have addressed the first three, don't see any curly quotes except for the {{cquote}} template - is this what you're referring to? JGHowes ^talk - 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is that template. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:Further citation edits made to article. Because the quotation was more than a sentence or two, and seemed to exemplify the impression a Bay Line trip on the Chesapeake made on passengers of the era, I set it off using {{cquote}} per WP:QUOTE#How to use quotations. But if the consensus frowns on it, I'd be happy to remove the template and integrate the quote in the main body of the paragraph. JGHowes ^talk - 01:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you can use {{blockquote}} to set it off. The WP:MOS section dealing with this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Rename "The 1940s" to "1940s" to avoid starting it with an article, and to be uniform with the other section titles. Gary King (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Have made all changes mentioned above by Ealdgyth and Gary King (talk). Page reference added. The information from the corporate secretary of the CSX Corporation, quoting from their archives, is used as a primary source here, but in all instances it should be noted that the information is also covered by the cited reliable secondary sources.JGHowes ^talk - 12:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, with some comments

• I personally dislike hard-coded image sizes. I would prefer to see them specified only as "thumb" so that user's thumbnail-size preferences are respected
• I don't really see the need for a direct quote in the sentence beginning "In October 1961, the company announced…".
• The article would benefit from inclusion of information on segregation (as a talk page item mentioned), but without coverage in sources, it's not something to oppose over.
• It looks like Baltimore Steam Packet Company was a defendant in a US Supreme Court case involving the sinking of a sailing ship in 1859. Have you considered adding this to the article? (Link)

Disclaimer: I was the GA reviewer for this article, and promoted it. I have also made a few edits here and there. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Image sizes now unforced, except for 300px Lead and detailed map, per MOS:IMAGES. I've revised the 1961 announcement quotation to make it clearer to the reader that, at the time the company made the announcement, seasonal resumption of service the following year was intended. Also now added is the U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Louisiana sinking of a sailing ship in 1858, with inline cite. JGHowes ^talk - 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Very nice article overall and obviously well researched. I did find some minor things that should be looked at:

• The color of the tables is a bit eye-watering. Dark brown and yellow with light blue and then light green is rather a turn-off at least to me anyway.
• In the See also section the mention of the Adelaide should be moved up to the section on the Civil War era and I don't see the relevancy that Baltimore riot of 1861 would have to this article unless it directly involved the company.
• The External links section carries a link to a danfs article on Adelaide but if the reader were really interested in seeing more about that ship they should be directed to the WP article which can be done by moving Adelaide as described above. You could reference danfs as you did for the President Warfield. Otherwise if there are no relevant external links for this article then the section can be eliminated along with the See also section

--Brad (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: The eye-watering colors have been eliminated from the charts and the Adelaide content integrated with the article's 1860 section, eliminating separate "See also" and "EL" sections. Thanks for these suggestions, which indeed have resulted in a tighter treatment of the Civil War's impact on the subject. JGHowes ^talk - 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support That had results better than I expected. --Brad (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note, why is there color coding in the chart in Routes operated? I can't see any need for the color: see Wikipedia:MOS#Color coding. Ditto for the headings in the chart in Old Bay Line fleet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Sandy, personally I like a lot of color but have now rm'd color coding from chart headings JGHowes ^talk - 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:13, 4 July 2008 [11].

---

Chrysiridia rhipheus

Self-nomination: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I just put a lot more information in, and feel it is ready (and want to know how to make it ready if it isn't). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

*Comments...ok...let's have a look-see..... (I'll add comments below, and may change some obvious no-brainers. Advise or correct if I inadvertently change meaning). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd move all the alternate scientific names in the lead to the taxonomy section. They clutter a nice lead and are not essential, except maybe what it was first described as.

I thought they were fine before they were bolded, but now its true they "clutter". They're removed.Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd put the 3rd sentence of the lead as the 2nd, and place the material about lack of pigment after' that for natural flow (i.e. here's this pretty moth, but it ain't pigment which makes it colourful)

Done. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead should be two paras. I will look for some more info to add.

Added life cycle info to lead. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is it, with Urania, sister-taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides. - erm, something get left out here? I can't follow it.

Changed to "The genus is, with Urania, sister taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides." Clearer I think. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

..is produced by the alliance of two optic phenomena: - 'alliance' makes me think of battles. I know what you mean I am trying to think of an alternative.

How about 'union'? I know it also has a political connotation, I don't care which it is, as long as the meaning is there. (For finding synonyms you can try wiktionary, e.g. wikt:alliance). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. alliance → conjunction. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That is if the insects possess polarization and color vision. - a bit abrupt, presumably you mean 'This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and color vision, which is currently unknown (?).'

Yes, that's what I meant. Changed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

as revealed by its aposematic colours, - the colours don't reveal its toxic but warn...I guess

You guess right. Changed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Should it be Omphalea oppositifolia, rather than Omphalea oppositifilia?

Yes, well seen. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to continue later from Distribution and habitat Nectar sources. Ok, there's something to go on with anyway. Fairly straightforward fixes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - a very informative and well-illustrated article. And wonderful to see more representation from the smaller majority
  • sole herbivore ... - seems a little too strong a claim given that HOSTS database lists Omphalea feeding lepidoptera - Alcides zodiaca, Lyssa menoetius and Urania boisduvalii (from other places)
    • Well, the sentence does say "It is the sole herbivore (...) in its native Madagascar;" Do you think it should be made clearer that this refers only to Madagascar? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, are you sure there are no leafhoppers, thrips, beetles and suchlike that feed on various other parts of the plant? Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I see what you mean, not I'm not sure. One sentence in the source is "In the absence of other obvious specialist herbivores on these plants (Omphalea)". I thinks the key to make it true is the "specialist". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It has five pairs of prolegs on the segments 3 to 6 and 10, with its six legs it has a total of sixteen. - I think legs should be specifically declared as thoracic or true legs and the summation leads to "sixteen" what? - summation is perhaps not really needed.
    • True, they can always use their abacus to figure it out. It'd be sixteen appendages I think. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Once out of the pupal exuvia - exuvium ?
    • The exuvia article says both are correct. What's the difference? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Exuvium is singular - exuvia is plural. It appears here that it is about one pupa. Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • PS: I am not so sure - appears User:Dyanega has recently been discussing this here [12]... Shyamal (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The wings are deployed in about ten minutes, - hardened ? avoids a second deployed
    • Changed to "The wings are deployed in about ten minutes, by pumping haemolymph into the wing veins. The moth then beats them a few times, waits forty-five minutes to let them harden, then beats them lightly again. The moth finally takes flight one hour and a half to two hours later." I think it clarifies. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Image Image:Chrysiridia madagascarensis.JPG is rather sadly cropped.

More later. Shyamal (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • User:IvanTortuga put a new one in. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 9 "Tait, Malcolm" is lacking a formatted website title, it just has a number right now.
  • Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current refs 13 and 14 are lacking publishers (Oberthur and Webber)
  • Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 10 Griveaud is lacking a publisher. Might also warn folks that's a BIG file they are going to be downloading.
  • I mentioned in the "|format=" that the file is 3.87 Mbit. I couldn't find the publisher, [13] it isn't in the site I took the document from. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. the link does not bring to the intended location, place "the invertebrates ET griveaud" in the search box and you should get the document. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I put s.n. to replace it. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 18 is lacking a publisher
  • Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• New one - cite error in big red letters now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Corrected. (I forgot a ref name...). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the lead could do with another paragraph perhaps, to better summarize information in the article that has not been mentioned in the lead yet.
  • Added life cycle info to lead. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Spell out units of measurement in full per WP:UNITS, so "7 to 9 cm (3 to 3½ in)," becomes "7 to 9 centimetres (3 to 3½ in)," and so on.
  • Changed good faith edit by User:Casliber. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Question I added "Although the intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury,[13] it may be from the Latin Montes Rhipheaus, the Ural Mountains.[14]" This is borderline to original research, do you think the phrasing is clear enough on the fact that the real etymology is unknown and that this is an educated guess? (A well educated guess I think). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW - Rhipi refers to a fan ([14]) - See Rhipiphoridae - bearing fan (the antenna), Rhipidura (=Fan+tail) etc. Shyamal (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. Another possibility is Ripheus, I really don't know. Misspellings point in both directions. And "Rhipheus + a = Rhiphaeus" but "Ripheus + h = Rhipheus"... Do you think removing the whole thing is better? Or just to say the intended etymology isn't known. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I added the possible etymologies as a footnote, and left the fact that the intended etymology wasn't specified in the main text. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments SPECIFIC POINTS DONE Prose tends to jump awkwardly from full-on bio-speak to much less formal registers. Some examples:
• "The Madagascan sunset moth, or simply sunset moth (Chrysiridia rhipheus) is a diurnal SPELL IT OUT? moth of the Uraniidae family. It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera, [for this reason] AND [it] has gained an international reputation ODD TERM - BEST DROPPED HERE, is much sought by collectors, and is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera. It is very colourful, but "THOUGH" BETTER the iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment; the colours originate from refraction instead." Size should be worked in in the lead, which generally should be expanded.
  • By spell it out do you mean 'add pronunciation'? Wikt:reputation doesn't give synonyms for the word. Do you have any suggestions? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I meant explain it, or use "day-flying" or whatever you have lower down. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh I see. (Done, diurnal → day-flying). I also changed the sentence to remove "reputation" (with "famous worldwide"). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I expanded the lead with size and taxonomy. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The moth is present all year long in most parts of Madagascar, but highest populations are found from March to August, while the lowest are from October to December. " should be "the" highest poulations, another awkward "but". Better something like: "The moth is present all year long in most parts of Madagascar, with populations highest from March to August, and lowest from October to December."
  • I put the sentence you suggested. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Description para 2 begins with "It"
  • It → The Lepidopteran. For variety. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "the alliance of two optic phenomena" combination, conjunction, joint effect of ...
  • alliance → conjunction. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Although the biological function of this polarization-dependent change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal among the species. This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and colour vision, which is currently unknown"

"polarization-dependent" is ugly, and you've just said it, but not explained what it means. An explanation should be added, and the rest would be better something like: Although the biological function of this change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal to others of the species. This would require polarization and colour vision [BOTH? OR JUST ONE] abilities in the species, which have not been demonstrated.

• • Seeing this is the second comment on the paragraph, I rewrote it. The ugly "polarization-dependent" is gone, and I think it explains better. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The caterpillars spin silk from their mouth with an ‘∞’ motion as they walk" - ???
  • Added "of the head" : "The caterpillars spin silk from their mouth with an ‘∞’ motion of the head as they walk". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relationship with humans - better section name needed.
  • Renamed to "In culture". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The spectacular moth is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera,[10] and has an international reputation.[9] It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[8] rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form.[18] For these reasons it is much sought by collectors.[9] It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade. Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially. Using mainly wild collected plants, but also cultivated at a small scale.[21]

It was known by Victorians who used its wings to make jewellery.[24]"

- one sentence para, repeats wording in lead, etc. better something like:

This spectacular moth is considered one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[8] rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form.[18] It is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera,[10][9] and is much sought by collectors.[9] It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade; in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery.[24] Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially, mainly using plants collected in the wild, but also some cultivated for the purpose.[21]

Reworded 'In culture' section with most of your proposition. But I put "its wings were used to make jewellery in the Victorian era.[24]" instead of "in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery.[24]" As I feel Victorian has to be there, else "the West" extends the meaning to the whole Western world, which isn't as precise. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• If it says how long they live I missed it.
  • It is in fact not included. I haven't found the answer. It might be in the R. Catala reference, as I haven't read all 262 pages, but it might not be there either. Another information I haven't put is the time spent in the egg... Catala explicitly says he doesn't have the information. I know of no source giving either the lifespan of the adult or the time in the egg. I am trying to contact David C. Lees (one of the authors in the references), I'll ask if he has sources for those questions if I get his email. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough - maybe no one has hung around to watch! Obviously nice to include if yiou get the info. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I got David Lees' answer and he said that in fact the lifespan of the adult is "presumably not known", and would require large scale mark-release studies to determine. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Question I've expanded the lead as suggested. Is the size about right now? Per Wikipedia:Lead#Length:

• < 15,000 characters → one or two paragraphs
• around 32 kilobytes → two or three paragraphs
• > 30,000 characters → three or four paragraphs

The article is 31kb, but about 11874 letters. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• The size itself is fine, imo, but the silk safety rope stuff is unusual (no?) & worth mentioning. The lead is supposed (say some sages) to leave no surprises to come. I still don't quite grasp the importance of Polarization on the scales, & when i followed the link saw the nastiest lead para I've ever seen on WP (for scientific incomprehensibility). There must be a more appropriate article to link to somewhere, and a further sentence of explanation here would be good. Other than that, I think the article needs a quick prose polish all through, then I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the polarization article isn't clear... the Readability for Polarization says reader age is sometimes 23 and grade 18. Actually I don't grasp it that well either. You are right on the fact it should be clearer (both the section and the article actually), so I'll go learn on polarization (by reading related articles to the one I cited), and I'll rewrite the paragraph after I understand more. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What I understand now is: Polarization is basically the 'shape' of light, we see it's 'size' (wavelength) but not the way this wave travels (the shape, or polarization). Since light can travel in a line (not polarized), in a circle (circular polarization) or in an ellipse or oval (elliptical polarization). We as humans don't see that, many insects do. For example this helps some butterflies see their polarized mate in the unpolarized forest (nice article in Nature). In this case the light is reflected, changes a bit in wavelength (colour change), but I think not in polarization. No one has ever studied the biological reason for this change. What we know is the reflected polarized light has the potential to carry more or better visual information to other moths. I am relatively certain of this, but I'd really feel better if I had a proofreader with knowledge in optics before I incorporate that to the article. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I've added the silk use by caterpillars to the lead. The "safety-rope" is kind of unusual, but also found in other moths. The instances I've read more about were to get away from ants (in Lees and Smith, 1991, I think). But silk so the caterpillar won't fall is also found in tent caterpillars, and probably many more moth species. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Moved to Support after a further tidy of the prose. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Prose 95% of the way. "ssp." should be in italics? Footnote 1 spelt out in superscript? Can't it be signified by just a number? TONY (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed "Footnote I" → "1". It was the full word to accentuate the difference with the references, but the lack of brackets does that now. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support much improved. Well done. No, 'spp.' (for species plural) and 'ssp.' (for subspecies) are not in italics. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments This is an interesting article, but I think the writing needs a little polishing.

• The lead is choppy - sentences do not flow from one topic to the next in an elegant or logical manner.

• Once the inaccuracy in Drury’s specimen was found, the moth was placed in the genus Urania, until 1823 when the German entomologist Jacob Hübner placed it in a new genus: Chrysiridia. - Why did Hubner place it in a new genus?
  • Like any genus it could be for a number of things, including but not limited to monophyly, reasonable compactness, and distinctness in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria (see Genus#One attempt to define a genus). In this case I think the latter would be case, as the moth is confined to Madagascar, but to add this would be original research. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Could we mention that we don't really know for sure in the article? Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There are good chances the information exists, that's why I'd prefer to leave it to that for now. I haven't been able to find an accessible copy (or a German translator) of Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge (1823) by Jacob Hübner, the info should ([15]) be on page 289. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't have time to do the translation now, but I might be able to do it in a few weeks, when I return from Wikimania. Leave a note with the link on my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok, once I get it I'll let you know. But what I meant is I have neither the text nor the translator (the link says the info is on page 289 in the book, the info isn't on page 289 of the link). I'm trying to get a photocopy of the page through my university library. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Oh, I see. Never mind then. Awadewit (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• The intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury. - Is this sentence necessary?
  • It provides information that isn’t given by any other sentence. I think it is also relevant and interesting. My opinion is that, yes, it is necessary. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I thought this information was implied by the other sentences that explained the renaming by other people - what did I miss? Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you missed, but the text has to be corrected so others won't miss it either! What I tried to convey in the sentence is something like this: We don't know what rhipheus stands for, and that is because Dru Drury didn't say why he gave that name. This has very little to do with the other people renaming the moth. The whole sentence could be placed in the footnote, and the "1" placed after "Papilio rhipheus.[1]" Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think that meaning is conveyed by the sentence - could you rewrite it? That is an interesting fact! Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I changed and moved the sentence. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• The moth also has also been described under other names, including U. crameri by Maassen in 1879 and U. ripheus var. madagascariensis by Lesson in 1831. - Why?
  • Each synonym probably has it's own reason, put part of the reason is the first specimen described by Drury. Some thought it was another species, while others said it was the same as the complete specimen described later (Rhipheus dasycephalus and Leilus orientalis, the first for a butterfly and the second for a moth). C. riphearia is a misspelling. The other I'm not certain. Question: Do you think this should be specified (that some stem from the fact the first description was of a specimen with clubbed antennae and no tails)? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I would specify this, yes, since the confusion over the species is a crucial part of the taxonomical history. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I specified the two names. But not the misspelling, as I'm not sure of the sentence "Chrysiridia riphearia Hübner, [1823]; Verz. bek. Schmett.(repl. Papilio rhipheus Stoll, 1782) (19): 289, , TL: India [= Error]". I think the "repl." may mean its a replicate, and the "[= Error]" is maybe referring to the "TL:(type location) India" (in [16]). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The genus is, with Urania, sister taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides. - I don't understand this sentence - "sister to the most basal diurnal"? Can something be the most basal?
  • See below. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• All three genera feed on Omphalea, but Alcides also feeds on Endospermum. - Is the "Taxonomy" section the right place for this sentence?
  • Since basal is relative, yes, something can be most basal. Since it wasn’t clear I’ve rewritten the subsection: “The genus Chrysiridia is entirely African and the only other species in the genus is the East African C. croesus. Chrysiridia is one of three diurnal uraniine genera. The other two genera are Urania, its sister taxa, and Alcides, the most basal. In the group, the use of Endospermum is an ancestral state (a plesiomorphy). The more basal Alcides feeds on Endospermum and Omphalea, while Urania and Chrysiridia only feed on Omphalea.[15]” The “basal” and “sister taxa” refer to part of the cladogram in Uraniinae phylogeny that looks like this:

(Endospermum and Omphalea)	(Omphalea only) Urania Chrysiridia Alcides

• I copyedited the article a bit as I was reading, but it really needs a good once-over by an uninvolved editor.

• Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg - This image is up for deletion. You should take a look at that. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have, at Commons:Deletion requests. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I largely support this candidate, but I have some sentences I would like to see improved:
  • "The iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment" do other moths have pigment?
    • Most yes. A thumb rule I have come up with is "Is it shiny?" if yes then it probably has no pigment, if no then there probably is pigment. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The western species are largely protected" it is not obvious what protected means
    • Changed to "The western species are largely in protected areas." Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " The species from the genus contain polyhydroxy alkaloids potentially sequestered" potentially? can you be more specific?
    • I'd prefer not, since it would be bridging the is-ought gap: The source didn't study the sunset moth but related species. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Btw a cladogram with C. rhipeus and the 5 or so closest related species would be nice. Narayanese (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I made two cladograms (see them in my sandbox), the one with species gives little relevant information not said in the text or the Uraniinae page, and the one with genera would be better in the Uraniinae then in this one. What do you think? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Narayanese (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 July 2008 [17].

---

Ant

Nominator: Shyamal

I'm nominating this article for featured article because of its GA status for a while, current stability in spite of high traffic and meeting the FAC criteria. Many people have helped this article and it has developed over a much longer time span than many other major animal group articles. This article has had a lot of editing for factual accuracy and style by a number of other editors notably Doug Yanega, User:Stemonitis and more recently User:GameKeeper. Shyamal (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to me that the concerns in the first nomination have been addressed. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. reiterating my support again for a second time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. (see old nom) Ruslik (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. There's still a few arkward phrases, but nothing serious enough to prevent FA. GrahamColm^Talk 09:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I supported first time round too jimfbleak (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Briefly stated, badly needs a copyedit, and its failure to define terms that would completely baffle laymen.
  • Image:Ants in amber.jpg is so small on the page that the ants are not visible. A crop or a larger thumbnail would help.
  • Taxonomy and Evolution "The specimen, trapped in amber from New Jersey, is more than 80 million years old" - is this referring to the first fossil that E. O. Wilson found? I don't think the amber is properly referred to as "from New Jersey", New Jersey didn't exist at that time. In the previous sentence "obtained" is an awkward word, I'd have said "found" or "discovered". likewise "amber fossil remains" is awkward Wouldn't it be easier to say something like "In a 1966 palaeontological dig in New Jersey, E. O. Wilson and his team discovered the first Cretaceous fossil remains of an ant trapped in amber. Dating from over 80 million years ago, this species, Sphecomyrma freyi is an evolutionary link between primitive, non-social wasps and modern ants.[11]

I agree this should be rewritten, but the facts must be preserved. The Ant in amber was found by an amateur fossil hunter in cliffs in New Jersey, he passed it on to Wilson et al. for classification. Some details here Sphecomyrma freyi GameKeeper (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Of course, if I was really picky, that "is an evolutionary link between primitive, non-social wasps and modern ants" is slightly wrong as well - it illustrates the evolutionary link, but evolution is a bush, and so it's far more likely that any species found was not a direct ancestor of the modern group, but a sister group. "illustrates the evolutionary link" is more accurate.
  • I don't think you say clearly enough that termites are in no way related to ants. They're from a different order. The sentence explaining this also comes from out of left field.
  • Distribution and diversity Use transitional phrases. Don't say "Ants are found on all continents except Antarctica. Many islands such as Greenland, Iceland, parts of Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands lack native ant species." say "Ants are found on all continents except Antarctica, although many islands such as Greenland, Iceland, parts of Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands lack native ant species.
  • As a whole, this section is not very well written.
  • Morphology The summary paragraph at the start uses a lot of specialist biological terms. It is far more useful, in a general encyclopaedia, to use layman-friendly terms at first, then go through and explain the proper terms as you go into more detail. However, this section never actually explains many of the difficult terms used in the first paragraph.
  • Polymorphism Reference does not support statement: You imply that "This polymorphism in morphology and behaviour does not rely on a large or complex genome;" because one species has only one chromosome. It may well be true - in fact, it almost certainly is - but the logic is faulty: The size of the chromosomes matters: an unqualified "one pair of chromosomes" sounds small, but it may, in fact, contain more information than two pairs of much smaller chromosomes. Likewise, you need to demonstrate the jack jumper ant also exhibits substantial polymorphism - if it does not, then the whole implied connection falls apart.

The connections were indeed a little loose, I did some further research and have reworded this and avoided the strong claims made earlier. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Development "Ants are holometabolous, and develop by complete metamorphosis, and pass through larval and pupal stages before they become adults." Explain your terms, this is for laymen.

Dropped the usage of holometabolous. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "apocrita" not defined, and made worse by lack of capitalisation. Something along the lines of "the suborder, Apocrita" would make it clear.

Dropped the usage of apocrita - link available via taxobox in any case. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Give the definition promptly. "The pupa is "exarate", that is, the appendages are free and not fused to the body as in a butterfly pupa." is far less confusing than "The pupa is "exarate" as in most other apocrita, that is, the appendages are free and not fused to the body as in a butterfly pupa."
  • "Thus, ants are more K-selected than most insects." - You can't seriously expect laymen to know about r-type and K-type strategies.

Dropped this, hopefully the strategy comparisons will be included in the insect article ! Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "diapause". Define it.

Bracketed. Not essential. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • That gets us up to the start of "Behaviour and ecology", tell me when you want me to have another look. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with some of the points raised, but should the article have to stand alone without the need for readers visiting links for further information? Explanations of many of the terms would make it enormous apart from duplicating information available from the linked articles. I presume and hope that the "you" in the above refers to "we". Shyamal (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will apologise if that came out too critical - it is a pretty good article, and I think the problems are eminently fixable, but they do need dealt with. I think it's necessary to explain any terms not covered in high school, GCSE, or similar biology courses. For instance, it can be presumed that they know basic things like head, thorax, and abdomen, but "holometabolous", "metapleural glands", "mesosoma", "petiole", and "haemolymph" - here a brief description, immediately after first use of the word, would make this article much more inviting. Basically, don't write for biologists, write for intelligent laymen, and avoid at all costs any paragraph which would require a reasonably-intelligent layman to read several other articles to understand - instead, summarise for him =)

I'd normally be happy to help, but I'm really ill at the moment and can't do much. If you give me a couple days (and still need them) then my services are at your disposal. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you a speedy recovery! I can definitely do with any amount of help. While I can and will attempt a few fixes, this is going to be limited by work and travel. Shyamal (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In the UK GCSE examinations are taken by 15–16 year old children. I am happy to see terms not covered by biology courses at this level linked. Terms not taught to 19 year-olds, on those courses aimed at this age group, may require further explanation. I think it is a bit over the top to say that read[ing] several other articles is needed. More often than not on Wikipedia, an adequate definition is given in the first sentence of the article. Having said this, the nominators might want to consider deleting throw-away lines such as the one about r/K selection. Shoemaker is right about this; to me they look a bit like showing -off. GrahamColm^Talk 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. We can presume most peopl e took a GCSE in biology, or Highschool biology, or some equivalent. We cannot, however, write this for undergraduate biologists - it is on ants. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted some simplification, but regarding certain linked technical terms I still find it difficult to entirely explain it in the article. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the above reviewer that Image:Ants in amber.jpg could do with a crop. Hardly 20% of the photo is of the amber itself. A simple crop with MS Paint should do the trick. indopug (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I cropped it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, as before, the prose is far from brilliant, engaging, or professional. Here's what I can find on a casual run-through taking all of five minutes:

• As per WP:FACR the prose does not need to be brilliant, only engaging and professional. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Before, the prose was said to require another 5% of work. GrahamColm^Talk 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with that assessment, if you call writing the article work on the text. Clearly, a copyedit would be minor compared to actually writing some 80 kilobytes of text, but a copyedit it needs nonetheless. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae and, along with the related families of wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera." - "family" is already stated in the description of ants, to restate it in comparing like groups is redundant. In fact, what does "related" mean, anyways, in this context? If "related" means that they belong to the same order, then it too is redundant and "Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae and, along wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera." would be even more concise. Pardon me if I'm wrong about the latter, though.

• Family is a strictly defined term in taxonomy—the wording is a correct. GrahamColm^Talk 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The hierarchies of families and order may also be explored via the taxobox. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't particularly understand how that answers the question. "Family" as a descriptor for the ants already appears in the first part of the sentence, and repeating it is redundant. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what that has to do with the redundancy. I'm a layman at this subject, so could you clarify? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropping the families would lump wasp and bees together, which would be technically incorrect and it is worth noting that these are all sister families within the Hymenoptera. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would it make it seem as though the wasps and bees were one entity? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• "They are easily identified by their elbowed antennae and a distinctive node-like structure that forms a slender waist." - really? The structure "forms" a slender waste?

• It does. GrahamColm^Talk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The structure might include a slender waist, but "forms" isn't generally used in that sense. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange as it may be, it is the waist but forms seems to be a better link verb. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But the structure would be more than just the waist - the waist is not the whole ant. That's why I think that includes would be a better choice. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A google search for petiole+waist / pedicel+waist confirms that this wording is widespread.Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? Looking at both, it shows no results relevant to the wording at all. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Redundancy: "Ant colonies also have some fertile males called "drones" and one or more fertile females called "queens"

• "some" is clearly being used to indicate a small number. "A few" or "several" would be better, but "some" can correctly express quantity. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Some" does not indicate an approximation of the value at all in this context. This is a clear-cut case of redundancy - I'm surprised you challenged this one. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Further on in the text, it is noted that drones are transitory and produced in numbers only during swarming - so dropping the some would make it look like they are as common as the workers. Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. How exactly does the supremely vague word "some" make a comparison between how many workers/drones there are? The answer is that it doesn't. Dropping the some would do no such thing, and I'm not sure how what you're saying is even relevant. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The colonies are sometimes described as superorganisms because ants appear to operate as an unified entity, collectively working together to support the colony" - "a", not "an" before "unified". Also, the "the" before "colonies" is unnecessary and conflicts with the lack of a similar article before "ants".
• "Ants dominate most ecosystems, and form 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass." -> More concisely phrased as: "Ants dominate most ecosystems, forming 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass."

• I disagree, Ants dominate...forming is not correct, Ants dominate..and form is. GrahamColm^Talk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Really? I thought both are correct grammatically. I'll trust you on this one. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also disagree. It could be changed to "Ants dominate most ecosystems; they form..." Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Their success has been attributed to their social structure, ability to modify their habitats, tap resources and defend themselves." - confusing sentence. I had to read it thrice to understand what it meant. It's also most likely grammatically incorrect. Suggest rephrasing as "Their success has been attributed to their ability to modify their habitats, tap resources, and defend themselves, as well as their social structure."

Could be misread as meaning "defend their social structure" which would not be particularly correct. Shyamal(talk) 03:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The meaning is clear with the comma as disjunction in my modification. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Ant societies have division of labour, communication between individuals and an ability to solve complex problems" - you use the serial comma elsewhere, why not here?
• "Many human cultures make use of ants in cuisine, medication and rituals." - same as above.
• "However, the ability to exploit resources brings ants into conflict with humans as they can damage crops and invade buildings." - comma needed before "as".
• "Some species, such as the red imported fire ant, are regarded as invasive species, since they can spread rapidly into new areas." -> "Species such as the red imported fire ant are regarded as..."
• "Their colours vary; most are red or black, green is less common, some tropical species have a metallic lustre." - "and" before "some".
• "Some ants such as Australia's bulldog ant however, have exceptional vision" -> "Ants such as Australia's bulldog ant, however, have exceptional vision."
• "(although some species, like army ants have wingless queens)" - comma missing.

Have handled some of the comma issues pointed out. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Addressing all these points is not enough. I only went thoroughly through the lead and skimmed random paragraphs in the main body of the text. A full copyedit would be appreciated. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's a contradiction here. You say thoroughly but above you say Here's what I can find on a casual run-through taking all of five minutes: GrahamColm^Talk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I sad thoroughly through the lead, which isn't exactly a large portion of the article. I'll respond to your other responses later. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with your opposition to the prose. Most of the issues you have raised are minor errors, or debatable phrasing (and several of your suggestions make matters worse, not better). You seem to misunderstand the WP:FACR. The prose does not need to be perfect (or brilliant for that matter), but only engaging and professional. The minor comma errors and the like should be fixed when noticed, but these minor errors should not prevent this article from becoming featured. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• And I disagree with you and advise you to reread WP:FACR. The prose does not have to be absolutely perfect, sure, but the article is sprinkled with minor errors, which you can hardly call professional. You claim that my changes make the text worse - I see only one that did, the "dominate...forming" point. The rest you are opposed to I stand firm on. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. per previous Lwnf360 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC).
• Support This is such a terrificly organized and engaging article - the pictures! Wow! Terrific! This article only needs a little brown star at the top for it to be improved. NancyHeise (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The dead links don't look very good. 116135 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean the red links rather than dead external links. Shyamal (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Have removed some red-links, most of the remainder are to species and journals. Not sure about what the general view is but links to unwritten articles such as those for the journals could be removed. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to remove redlinks (they encourage article building); redlinks are not a valid oppose, and they do not need to be removed. 04:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - overall excellent and very comprehensive. I've got partway through, so these are preliminary comments. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "By the Oligocene and Miocene ants had come to represent 20–40% of all insects found in major fossil deposits" - this is a very weak statment, could this be made a bit more definite?

These estimates are from samples in amber and the variation is best retained as no further accuracy is achievable. Most importantly, even the lower estimate is significant. In the absence of accuracy, the only improvement could be to make it more vague (from a quarter to nearly half). Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Of the species that lived in the Eocene epoch, one of approximately ten genera survive to the present. Of the genera, 56% are represented in Baltic amber fossils (early Oligocene), and 92% of the genera represented in Dominican amber fossils (apparently early Miocene) still survive today." - this seems poorly-worded. If this is indeed one out of ten, rather than one in ten, you need to reorder these sentences so you discuss the ancient diversity first, and then end by saying how many of these genera survive today.

Will need User:GameKeeper to look at this in detail. It seems that the first part on diversity is organized by time and then the survival of genera restarts on a time scale. Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why is Distribution and diversity a subheading in taxonomy and evolution? The subjects of current distribution don't seem to be closely-related to taxonomy or evolution.

It is a function of evolutionary history, perhaps some notes linking the two are needed. Promoting it to a section should also work. Promoted section. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Insects also lack closed blood vessels; instead, they have a long, thin, perforated tube along the top of the body (called the "dorsal aorta") that functions like a heart, and pumps haemolymph towards the head, thus aiding the circulation of the internal fluids." If the dorsal aorta only aids the circulation of fluids, this must mean it is not the sole reason the fluids circulate and that other mechanisms are involved. It would be good to either say what these are, or replace "aids" with "causes" or "drives"

From Borror, Triplehorn, Johnson- The movement of hemolymph is brought about by pulsations of the heart and is aided in other parts of the body, such as the base of the legs and wings, by accessory pulsatile organs. - i am inclined to leave it in the current form. Modified. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "They are quick to abandon established nests at the first sign of threats." - unclear if this is ants in general, or the species mentioned in the previous sentence.

Status? Where does the copyedit stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Five days with no article changes; are nominators still responding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the readily actionable items have been handled and responded to. Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I opposed the previous nom., but can't see an oppose above. I suppose the writing's OK now. TONY (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a full copy-edit, prose looks OK to me now. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice,[18] thanks Tim! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:24, 3 July 2008 [19].

---

Michael Gomez

Nominator(s): Vintagekits and Risker

Self-nominator : I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've been working on this article for a couple of years now and feel that it meets all featured article criteria. It is well written, complete with images, and very well cited. Hopefully you all agree and we can add another FA to the lot! Its my first ever FA nom so User:Risker has been steering it through the riggers of the FA challenge, especially with respect to getting the referencing up to the required level. I am hoping to have it the FA on 21st of June which is Michael's birthday and the date of his next and probably last ever fight. thanks--Vintagekits (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Because I wasn't terribly familiar with what would be considered a reliable source for an article on a boxer, I asked Ealdgyth to do a pre-FAC check. The results of her review are on the article's talk page. There are "reliability" rationales written up for most of the sites she queried; a few have been eliminated as a result of the copy-edit and her check, and a few more mainstream media sources added. Risker (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "in knockouts.[1][3]His" – a space is missing
• "round. [3]" – remove extra space
• Why is "Family and youth" made up of small, stubby paragraphs?
• "head.[13][6][14]" – place refs in ascending order
• "Year". [2][16][18]" – remove extra space
• There are actually a few times when there are spaces before references. Remove those spaces per WP:FOOTNOTE.

Gary King (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• All addressed, I believe, including some rearranging of the "Family and youth" section. Thanks, Gary. Risker (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no requirement in any guideline for citations to be placed in ascending order; some editors may choose to place the citations in the order of the most relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I queried http://www.britishboxing.net/ and got a reply of "is owned by Boxing Media Ltd. Writers are credited, and the site has a policy to address questions of accuracy." Who is Boxing Media Ltd? Do they publish other stuff? I don't recognize the company right off the bat.
• http://www.secondsout.com/UK/news.cfm?ccs=228&cs=17005 appears to be a doubled up reference, is it needed? Looks borderline reliable.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Both websites are listed by a Daily Telegraph journalist as being in the top ten websites for boxing information, here. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks borderline acceptable to me. I'll leave this out for others to see (since a lot of folks aren't boxing fans and won't know the sites that well). Like Risker said, I checked over the sites before it was nominated, and the replies are on the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral Support. Not a bad article by any means, but with serious prose and structural problems that undermine it. I have laid these out below, but be aware that there are only representative problems and the whole article needs to be thoroughly reviewed against these suggestions. Once done, I would be happy to review again.

• The lead is difficult to read because it is broken into a number of very short paragraphs. Try merging these paragraphs together to reduce their number to three or four at the most and then copyedit it to reduce the information to the most important facts. Don't try to tell his life story in the lead, just give an overview of the article accessible to a reader with no background information. For this reason, it is not necessary (although I personally don't object one way or another) to have sources in the lead as anything stated there should be presented in greater detail below and thus will be sourced in the body of the article.

Lead is much improved, although as mentioned above the sources are not strictly necessary. The third paragraph is a bit of a mess chronologically and many of the sentences don't really seem to lead on from one another, try connecting them a bit better, "Of his 17 fights between February 2001 and March 2008, 16 ended in knockouts." shoudl really come at the end of the paragraph--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

*Prose has major problems. I have listed some of them below, but be aware that these are representative problems rather than a complete listing, and if you miss some other reviewers will swoop on them. Go over the article thoroughly to make sure these are dealt with throughout and look at User:Tony1 for his excellent essays on how to improve prose.

• "and continues to live in that city." - This is an example of redundancy - you don't need to say "in that city" as this is clearly only to avoid saying Manchester twice in one sentence. Try simplifying the prose, such as "He moved to Manchester, England with his family at age nine, where he still lives."
• "and was the first Irish boxer" - missing word, should be "and he was"
• "The first cracks in Gomez's career" - Unless cracks is a technical boxing term, this is a cliche which should be avoided at all costs.
• "On 21 June 2008, Gomez is due to fight in what is seen as possibly his last" - his last what? I know it means fight/bout/match etc. but it should say so explicitly for clarity's sake.
• "From birth, his upbringing was both turbulent and uncertain." - Cliche and doesn't gel with surrounding sentences. This might be as simple as the insertion of a semi-colon.
• "Gomez had hit one of the men," - "the men" doesn't read right, because you haven't explicitly mentioned any men. Try "an assailant" or similar instead.
• "After an initially shaky beginning in the professional ranks" - Redundancy, "initially" and "beginning" mean the same thing in this context.
• "then went on a" - too simplistic, think of a better way to say it. (i.e. "then began a")
• "Gomez handled Jickells" - handled has more than one meaning and is a little colloquial, try using defeated instead.
• "crushing left hook" - unless crushing is a technical term (in which case link it), lose it as it is opinion.
• "John Munroe, who was sitting ringside, was called over by Ian Darke, at Gomez's request to verify his theory. This turned in to a war of words" - war of words is bad cliche, but the problem here is that the uninitiated have no idea who Munroe (or later Warren) are. Introduce them with their job title (i.e. coach John Munroe) and link them if possible. In fact, that whole sentence is so confusing I can't work out what it is trying to say.
• "Although Bognar was shaken Gomez was unable to make his power count." - Short simplistic sentence crying out for a second clause.
• "Gomez wanted to rematch against Bognar, and five months later in July 2001, the pair had a rematch" - rematch twice in one sentence?
• "in what turned out to be a short and explosive encounter" - Prose is clumsy, and there's that word explosive again.
• "to put Bognar down" - like a dog? If its not a technical term, avoid it.
• link KO the first time it is used.
• "Lear inflicted damage to the nose of Gomez, whose nose began to bleed heavily from the sixth round" - many things wrong here.
• "At the end of the eight round" - eighth? check spellings throughout.
• "and the manner in which the fight ended," - having asked for more clauses, here there are too many. Try incorporating the first two.
• "In what was becoming a predictable pattern in Gomez's career" - unecessary opinion.
• "A war of words" - again, unless its a technical term, this is a cliche.
• "Behind the scenes, however, all was not well in the Arthur camp." - cliche

• I'm going to stop the prose review here. There are plenty of other serious prose problems both before and after the cut off point, but this illustrates the biggest problems ou should watch out for when copyediting and gives you pointers right through the text.

• "has often been involved in controversial and explosive fights, with 16 of his 17 fights between February 2001 and March 2008 ending in knockouts." - I don't know a huge amount about boxing, but this sentence seems to indicate that any fight which ends in a knockout is therefore controversial and explosive, which I'm pretty sure isn't true. I think I know what the article is trying to say, but the sentences needs to be revised for clarity.
• The whole third paragraph of the lead seems to be something of a prose list, i.e. a disconnected listing of interesting things, rather than a coherent narrative that connects key facts and events. This is one of the issues that I think needs addressing per my first comment above.
• The fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs of the lead go into surprising detail about specific fights. This should be reserved for lower down the article, keeping the lead a brief summary.
• "The Armstrong family - Linking to Armstrong has no value unless it is a specific link to that particular family (i.e. like Kennedy family).
• If his name was Armstrong, why is he now Gomez? This has to be explained much earlier, and Armstrong used when referring to him before the date he became Gomez.
• "His mother had taught him to shoplift as a child and he was involved in petty crime throughout his youth in Manchester." - This is probably sourced by the refs at the end of the paragraph, but just to avoid any BLP problems about a potentially controversial claim, I would give this its own citation.
• "Gomez lives with his childhood sweetheart Alison and their three children in Manchester.[10]" - This is in the wrong place. In fact, throughout the article discussions of his family life and ring persona etc. are rather randomly interspersed with his biography. The article needs reorganisation to give the biographical parts better narrative flow. I suggest moving the other discussions to sections of their own. In addition, there should be no parargraphs this small. Paragraphs should be as long as they need to be, but are rarely less than three sentences. Small paragraphs break flow and look very untidy.
• Unless his ring persona was devised in 1995 (in which case you should say so), that section is in the wrong place.
• "all-out action style" - Is this a technical term? If so, link it, if not, find something that it can link to to explain what it means exactly.
• "In 2007, a film of his life entitled The Michael Gomez Story" - why is this in Background? It belong much, much further down the page.
• "Jody Latham, who also plays Lip Gallagher on Shameless and the part of Gomez's best friend and fellow boxer Michael Jennings is played by Emmerdale's Kelvin Fletcher" - Unless the characters they play on those shows has anything to do with their roles in the 2007 film, they should not be mentioned. Simply give the actors names and leave it at that.
• Don't begin a section with "Soon after, Gomez relinquished" - Sections should grammatically stand alone, so say soon after what, or just remove the first two words.
• "However, others pointed to his well publicised troubles out of the ring." - Who, how and why just for starters.
• "Reports also circulated that Gomez was having trouble in his private life and that he had been stabbed in a street fight" - Is this a different stabbing to the one above?
• "perceived as having been through" - by who; name them or their publications.
• "The match was turning into a" - tense slips out of alignment here.
• "Joe Calzaghe pulled out of his arranged fight" - so what? He isn't mentioned earlier as being involved.
• "After the McDonagh fight Gomez had retired from boxing" - tense
• "Following two comeback fights against journeyman opposition" - overlinking, this is at least the fourth time you've linked journeyman.
• "threatened to steamroller" - is this a technical term?
• "Soon after referee Mickey Vann stopped the fight" - In whose favour?

• In this case you need to say to whom the fight was awarded.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This extensive list of problems does not, I'm afraid, come close to dealing with all of the article's problems, which are rooted in its prose and unclear structure. I suggest at least three thorough copyedits by three seperate editors and a restructuring to ensure that the first half of the article has a clear narrative. I think the sourcing is good and I like the images, and with some work this article could come a lot closer to FA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, if you want I can give the article a thorough copyedit myself later this week. I'll have to take an axe to certain parts, and I don't know much about boxing so someone will have to check I've not messed up any technical stuff, but if you're interested I'd be willing later in the week (a bit busy the next couple of days). I don't know if he's still around, but I know you were friends with User:One Night In Hackney who is an excellent prose writer, so if he is still here see if you can get him to take a look as well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jackyd101. I agree with much of what you are saying, particularly with respect to the flow and organization. I'll point out that one of the reasons the article is well sourced is that pretty well every descriptive statement comes right out of a reference source; hence, explosive punches and fights, and crushing left hooks and threatened steamrollering. "He threw an explosive punch" is much better prose than "His punch was described as explosive by Joe Blogg, boxing expert." The second sentence tells us more about the reporter than the subject. Referees stop fights, but not in favour of one boxer or the other; that is the decision of the judges. Gomez has been with his childhood sweetheart for about as long as he has been boxing, and they had their first two children before he started his professional career so, chronologically, that sentence is probably in the right place. The article is a BLP of a person who has lived a life full of extraordinary situations (both negative and positive), and my initial focus was on ensuring the claims were thoroughly but not excessively sourced (I reduced the references by about 40%); by the time I'd done that, I suspect my eyes had glazed over and I missed many of the points you have made. I am all in favour of other eyes and copy editors working on this article; as with all articles, however, it must remain true to its reference material, which in the case of this particular sport, tends to be quite descriptive and to use terminology that might otherwise appear hyperbolic. I don't think ONiH is around any longer (at least not officially), but perhaps Vintagekits has a way to inquire directly. I do encourage you to take a crack at it, and I'll give it another pass tonight or tomorrow as well. Risker (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point about this article sounding like the references it comes from, but Wikipedia is not part of the sports press and as a result Wikipedia articles need to phrase things differently based on encyclopedic prose. This means that subjective adjectives such as "crushing" should only be used when part of a direct quote or when crushing is a technical term - this does not mean that the article should be boring, such is the fine line on which brilliant prose rests. If you plan to keep the whole article chronological (which is fine), then you have to better integrate details of his personal life into the article. At the moment they seem tacked on. The only BLP I saw as potentially being a problem was that thing about his mother teaching him to shoplift - thats pretty controversial and so should be directly sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll have to delay my proposed copyedit to the article, I'm going to be much busier than expected this week. If its still under review here in a weeks time I might be more able to help. I will continue to monitor the article however and if it improves I will be happy to strike through comments and reconsider my !vote. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, "Gomez lives with his childhood sweetheart Alison and their three children in Manchester" - it quoted him in the paper as referring to his "wife and three kids" this morning. If he is married that should be clarified.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? I have actually been trying to confirm that, the best I had was an interview in November where he called her his fiancee. Is there a link you could provide?

(deindent) Can't find a link, but the ref would be: Davies, Gareth A. (June 18, 2008). "Kahn contest 'surprises' Gomez". Daily Telegraph Sport, p. 19. He is quoted as saying at the end of the article "... I've got a beautiful wife and three kids." That should be good enough I think. I see you have made big changes to the article, it looks much more impressive. Unfortunately I will be in Dublin until Sunday and am unlikely to have access to a computer. I will however make time re-review the article once I return.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this be the one? Amir Khan contest 'surprises' Michael Gomez Giants2008 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thats it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New comments from Jackyd101

I have completed a copyedit and re-review. I see most of the comments above have been dealt with but for simplicity's sake I have decided to strike them all out and start again below. This new, shorter list covers the problems that the article has, some that were covered above and haven't been adequately addressed and some new ones. I have also done a prose copyedit on the article and it has improved since I last read it but I would recommend further copyedits if they can be obtained. Congratulations on the many improvements in the article and I am much closer to supporting than previously. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Gomez won seven straight fights before fighting for his first title belt" - Is there an alternative to one of the "fights/fighting" here?

• changed second usage to "challenging for his first title belt"

• "was also named "Young Boxer of the Year"" - by whom?

• The award is given out at the annual luncheon of the British Boxing Board of Control; however, I cannot find a full list of winners to link to this. Gomez winning the award is mentioned in several sources, including some that aren't used in the article like a 2000 BBC report; it seems the British media regularly refer to the various awards handed out by the BBBC (boxer of the year, overseas boxer of the year, contest of the year, etc) but don't identify who gives it out - perhaps someone more knowledgeable about British boxing can help here. I'll give Vintagekits a poke.

• "In the ninth round Gomez was stopped after referee Dave Paris" - presumably the fight was stopped, not Gomez specifically.

• good catch, reworded the sentence

• "The relationship between Arthur and Gomez would continue to fester, when Gomez attended Arthur's next fight against Ugandan Michael Kizza in Meadowbank, Scotland." How does this indicate their festering relationship? Did Gomez shout rude things at him during the fight or something?

• Apparently it is some form of boxing etiquette that is over my head; I've reworked the paragraph to eliminate the emotional level.

• "the highly anticipated domestic clash became a war and from round one was a savage brawl" - if war is a boxing term then link it, if not find a better one. Also link brawl to the boxing term.

• "brawl" is linked earlier (on "brawling") but I will link it again. I can't find a WP link for "war" but the expression seems to be very common, so I might be able to find it in an online boxing dictionary. Will check, or reword if I can't find it.

• "threatened to steamroller Johanneson" - steamroller is still there. This is not an enecylopedic term and needs to be changed.

• replaced with "overpower"

• The article still goes from the Johanneson fight being stopped straight to Gomez demanding a rematch. Explain that he lost the fight and why, mentioning this business in the following paragraph about Gomez dropping his hands.
• "Gomez demanded a rematch and said that Vann had stopped the fight early." - Gomez wasn't complaining that it had been stopped early, but that the referee's actions had (in his opinion) caused him to lose. This should be clarified.

• For the above two comments - I've merged the two paragraphs and restructured what was in the last paragraph to juxtapose Gomez's discussion of the referee's actions with the sentence about the referee stopping the fight.

This is better, but I still don't think it is fully clear what the implications of the referee stopping the fight were to a person (like me) who is not knowledgeable about boxing. It could use a sentence explaining that this decision caused Gomez to loose the fight.

• "Gomez lives with his wife Alison and their three children in Manchester." - This is in the wrong place, I suggest moving it back up to where his wife is mentioned earlier (as his "lifeliong companion").

• Hmm...tough call. It refers to his present situation, and you'd expressed concerns about it being up in the "family and youth" section before because it broke the timeline (which I thought was a good point on your part). It seems to flow better there, right after he is quoted about how boxing has brought him his wife and family; sort of a way to wrap up where his years in the ring have led him.

You are right, this should stay where it is. I would however mention when Alison first appears that she is not just his lifelong companion but also specifically his wife.

• The stuff about the film made in 2007 comes after his fight against Kahn in 2008. Obviously this is chronologically incorrect and I suggest moving it to the relevant point in his career.

• It's placed at the end because the release of the film is reportedly scheduled for November 2008, which would make it the next (verifiable) significant event in his career, and is comparable with discussions of unreleased films/television programmes in articles about other sportsmen (and actors, for that matter).

You are correct, my mistake.

Summarizing, the following have yet to be addressed:

• Seeking some form of confirmation of exactly who names the Young Boxer of the Year
• See if an appropriate online boxing dictionary defines "war" and if not, reword that sentence

Thanks for your copy edit and your comments, I'll try to get this wrapped up in the next day or so. Risker (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. I've left some comments above and struckout stuff I'm happy with. Good job, the article looks a lot better.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing remaining in the above list is the "Young Boxer of the Year" thing. Any luck on finding out which body gave him this award?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's taken a lot of reading of boxing articles (I may never recover!) but I have found that it was handed out by the British Boxing Writers' Club in both 1995[20] and 2007[21], but nothing specifically for his year. I think it is probably reasonable to assume it was given out by that organization when Gomez won it. My inclination is to add this organisation's name to the article, and place the links in this paragraph into a comment on the talk page of the article. Comments? Would that work for everyone? Risker (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Congratulations, it took a long time to go through all of my comments above, but in the end you have earned my support. Nice job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I've added it to the article with the comment on the talk page. Risker (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I will not nitpick that much, however there are a few things that might need tweaking:

• In the "Ring persona" subsection there is this statement: "a reference to his Mexican-sounding chosen name", this should be changed to "a reference to his Hispanic-sounding chosen name"; Gomez is actually a very common surname, it is seen throughout Latin America and Spain, it is not more "Mexican-sounding" than "Rodriguez" or "Rivera".
• I get a felling that the article may overuse the term "belt", this seems particulary notable in the "Early professional career" section, remember that boxers actually fight for the championship that the belt represents, not the belt itself.
• As far as the references go, I would like more newspaper footnotes but most of the pages used are familiar to me, so I'm not going to push that.

That should do it for now, I may provide further comments once these are attended. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I have watched this article grow over a long time; it is the result of long and laborious hard work. It now meets all FA criteria. Probably, the most complete biography of the subject available in print or on the internet. Wikipedia is fortunate to have it. If I have one minor quibble - it's that I would like to see a concluding paragraph outlining his achievements, contributions to the sport and hopes for the future. In my opinion the page does not need further copy editing; I look forward to seeing it on the main page. Giano (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Giano's going to be mad at me, but I don't believe this is ready. I second Jackyd31's concerns about the lead and prose, and add these.

• Background, Family and youth: Are links for wheel and lamp post necessary? And why is youth linked?
• North Manchester link goes to North Manchester, Indiana.
• Trouble outside of the ring: Why is pavement linked? Don't even get me started on heart.
• Early professional career: Gomez as a single name doesn't need a link. Jackyd31 complained about an Armstrong link, and this is another example of that.
• Move to super featherweight: "walking away with the title on a points victory over 12 rounds." Try mentioned what type of decision it was. These little details are important for any quality article.
• In the next sentence, it says that Gomez was undefeated. Clarify that it was during that year, because you don't want confusion with his early-career defeats.
• "and a successful defence" is incorrect grammar, since three opponents are named.
• Intercontinental or Inter-Continental? Both are used.
• Bognar fights: "suffering from flu" Should a or the be added?
• Does Wikipedia have a seperate link for flash knockdown? Jargon such as this should be linked if possible, although I don't see a page here.

I also noticed some peacock and POV words, so this is far from a full list. The most important thing is to get some writing help, hopefully in time to benefit this candidacy. Giants2008 (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the copy-edit feedback; I have been working on revising the article in accordance with the many recommendations you have made, and plan to have it out of my userspace and into the article before I go to bed tonight. After I have posted it, I will ask those of you who made comments to please review the (hopefully) improved article. Risker (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The article has now undergone a significant rewrite to address the issues that were highlighted by several reviewers, and I will contact those who had concerns or opposes to ask them to take a second look. I will note that there will probably need to be some content added on Sunday or Monday, as Gomez will be in a major boxing match Saturday night. Risker (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I've done minor grammatical tweaks, and I've trimmed a few "purple" passages. I hope my translations from sportswriter to English were accurate, and I hope the author(s) will correct me if they were not. The minor grammatical rough spots I found were mostly due to the evil of footnote codes (people end up with comma splices when they have to type in ref=thisthisthattheother and then close; by that point, they can't remember whether they had an independent or dependent clause back there). I'm not a general fan of living person biographies as FA's, but that doesn't hinder my saying that this fits the criteria. Also, as a complete aside, I wonder if this fellow wasn't the model for "Micky" in Snatch (film): he, too, is a feather weight brawler, and the timing fits pretty well. Just a thought. Geogre (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is the guy that inspired the character.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - video is NSFW and you may need to cover the ears of any nearby youngsters. :-) Risker (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

After the extensive re-write, I've returned for a second look. Here are more comments.

• Ireland is linked in the lead, but England isn't. Either link both or neither.

• Done

• Is "knock-out" correct. I only ask because knockout is used as one word before this part.

• Done

• I still think the lead could be improved. The third paragraph is longer than the rest of the lead combined, and the fourth paragraph is a single sentence. I recommend splitting the third paragraph and merging the single sentence into the resulting fourth paragraph.

• Fourth para has been extended with an additional sentence on the result of the fight

• Background, Family and youth: Is Alison's maiden name known?

• It isn't mentioned in any of the references; her given name is mentioned in only two.

• Early professional career: "He chose the his ring name".

• Oops. Corrected.

• Still see "Gomez defeated Jickells with ease", which may be POV to some.

• Reworded.

• Move to super featherweight: I still would like to know if the Manjarrez fight ended in a unanimous decision.

• Can't find the information in any of the reference sources, and have done an online search for anything else, without result. After doing some reading on quite a few fights involving a range of boxers, it seems that news reports tend not to include detailed information on whether the judges' decisions were split or unanimous unless there is a controversy,.

• "with another run of six wins and successful defence of the British super featherweight title against Dean Pithie, Carl Greaves and Ian McLeod." Successful defence looks awkward to me, although this could be the British English. Should defence be made plural?

• changed to "with another run of six wins, and successfully defended his British super featherweight title..." to improve comprehensibility

• "Gomez's trainer Brian Hughes retired Gomez" Redundant. I would go with "Gomez's trainer Brian Hughes retired his fighter". Also, Hughes' first name should probably be removed from the next paragraph.

• Done

• "and was convicted of four drink-drive offenses." Is "drink-drive" correct in British English? Perhaps pipe a link to Driving under the influence.

• Added the piped link to Drunk driving (United Kingdom), either term is used in British English and I'm inclined to leave it.

Looks much better, and I dropped my oppose above. Still needs some work, but the re-write has improved it. Giants2008 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all addressed. Risker (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Alex Arthur fight: The is normally not used as the first word of a section header. This should be titled Alex Arthur fight.

Fixed

• Hyphen for "highest profile"?

According to my grammar book, it is correct ("two or more words modifying a substantive and used as a single adjective" - McGraw Hill Handbook of English, 4th ed.)

• "Gomez proved his critics wrong when on he arrived at the fight".

Fixed

• Paragraph five of the section is strangely ordered. The two previous knockdowns should probably go before the KO itself.

Reworked the paragraph

• WBU world title: "in his next two fights over" Picky, but I think "over" should be "against"

Yes, I agree. Fixed.

• The quote from Gomez here needs an inline citation.

Removed, it wasn't in the references and the one place where I found it wasn't a reliable source

• "defense.[28][29]Alvarez" needs a space after references.

Fixed

• "Gomez beat the count" I'm concerned about count being jargon. Do we have a link that illustrates a referee's 10 count?

Wikilinked to Professional boxing#Scoring

• "with Gomez leading according to pundits" Which pundits?

The pundits from the three reference sources at the end of the paragraph.

• Return to the ring: Third paragraph is one sentence. I recommend combining this with a surrounding paragraph.

Combined as suggested.

Giants2008 (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Giants2008, edits made.

• Still in Return to the ring: Comma after "promised to knock each other out". While on the subject, why are there so many pre-fight predictions and general bragging from all sides? It's not like this is something unusual for boxing; comments like these are made before virtually every big fight. I could understand this treatment for Muhammad Ali but not so much in this case.

Fixed the sentence. As to the number of predictions for this fight particularly, one has to expxlain why this was reportedly a "highly anticipated fight" (according to the reference sources).

• Don't needs Carl Johanneson's first name twice in this section.

It was actually there three times, the first time in reference to CJs' fight with someone else (left in place), the second time as part of a list of potential fighters (left in place because the other fighters had their full names, for ease of reading), and the third one removed.

• Vital question: Why did Mickey Vann call the fight? Was Gomez considered to be unsteady on his feet or taking punishment? I don't trust having Gomez's opinion alone because no fighter thinks they should be stopped by a referee no matter how hurt he/she is.

Added "unsteady on his feet" as it is described by one of the reference sources.

• Amir Khan fight: Refs 52 and 53 have an extra space after punctuation.

Corrected

• "and cut Gomez above the eye before the round ended." Which eye? Surely this will be in the post-match report.

Left eye, added

• In the second paragraph, something is wrong with the last two sentences. It looks like this is supposed to be two quotes, but only one is given. Why would Khan admit he has a glass jaw? Also, why is certainly needed in the last sentence if not part of a quote?

Ah yes, a little bit of drive-by IP editing that I'd missed. Quote corrected, and the rest of the (unreliably sourced) addition removed.

• Shouldn't the pre-fight predictions and quotes by Gomez be moved to the start of the paragraph? It works much better there.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. In this case, the one thing that was consistent in all of Gomez's pre-fight interviews was his discussion about his family; it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see this was intended as his last fight. Hence the placement of this section after the fight itself, so that it can lead into the "what's next" of the film. It also allowed a more logical placement of the statement about his family, which would have been as out of place in a paragraph before the fight—it's a relevant fact but needs an anchor.

• Is Gomez's quote about the film cited later in the paragraph?

Yes, one of the later references is where he says it, but I have added a ref for the quote as well.

The final part is a little rough as of this review, but that is predictable after the recent changes. I still don't like the lead and think that part of the third paragraph should be combined with the fourth paragraph to improve balance. That's all from me. Giants2008 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your comments, Giants2008. I've responded to your above points, and have played around with the lede as well. Risker (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The lede and final section of the article have been updated to reflect the outcome of the Khan fight. All of the references used are mainstream media, so should not be a concern. Risker (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• Image:Allan Stevenson - Gomez.jpg - The image description for this does not state who is releasing the copyright under the GFDL-CC license. I presume it is the uploader, but this needs to be verified and stated on the article description page. Could someone contact the uploader, please? Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've emailed the uploader. Thanks. Risker (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support My son is an amateur boxer (teenager leagues) so I get an education from him on the sport all the time. This article is well written, comprehensive and well sourced. Great job! Just a note - the sentence preceeding reference number 53 does not seem to have the quotation marks in the right place. The reference cited only seems to quote part of that sentence, not the entire thing.NancyHeise (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments regarding images:
  • See MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate - is the Irish flag in the infobox really necessary?
  • Image:Allan Stevenson - Gomez.jpg - the license being used is a "self" variant (i.e. {{self}}) and, indeed, states "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses". Typically this is sufficient demonstration that the uploader is indeed the author/copyright holder - especially when there is accompanying camera meta data (as there is here). A full information template and/or an explicit statement, however, would be preferable (WP:IUP is currently only really satisfied in spirit). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag icon removed. As noted above, I have emailed Vintagekits about the photos; he's a little preoccupied right now dealing with an arbitration enforcement issue, but he is aware this needs to be addressed. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks good now. --Laser brain (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, it's almost there, but some attention is needed to MOS, consistency, and polish.

Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "He was forced to change his name by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC)" He had to legally change his name, or is more of a "stage name" used only in his career? Please clarify in the prose.

Good question, I don't think it has ever been addressed in any of the reference sources. I will check with Vintagekits, I hope he knows.

• • "... and he also suffered a reversal to Danny Ruegg." Unsure what this means.

Removed this phrase, it isn't needed and could be confusing to readers.

• • "During 1999, Gomez won four title belts, was undefeated during the year ..." No need for two "durings".

Reworded.

• • You don't capitalize some terms consistently.. "WBO Inter-Continental Super Featherweight" and then "WBO Inter-Continental super featherweight"
  • "... but Bognar recovered from this knockdown and kept Gomez from closing in with his southpaw jab." Confusing.. could be either person's southpaw jab.

Reworked the sentence

• • "Gomez sought a rematch against Bognar, and five months later in July 2001 the pair met again, this time in Manchester, resulting in a quick victory for Gomez." A quick victory is a fourth-round KO after being knocked down himself?

Removed the word "quick"

• • You alternately use the possessives "Gomez's" and "Gomez'". The former is correct, please check throughout.

Fixed

• • You have an unspaced em dash in one place and spaced one in another place.. please make consistent and use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes for pauses in text.

I went through the article twice, and had someone with fresh eyes read through it, and neither of us could find spaced en dashes (although I know at one point another editor went through and put several in). Could you please point out where you saw them, and I would be happy to change them to the unspaced em dash format.

I fixed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Attention needed to logical punctuation of quotations. If the quote is a full sentence, the period needs to be inside the end quote. --Laser brain (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotes have been revised, with a couple of sentences reworked to put the quotes at the end. It's not entirely clear to me how logical punctuation deals with the quoting of a full sentence in the middle of another sentence, and this isn't the place to have that discussion.

Responded to everything I could, but need to follow up on the legal name vs. ring name issue. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Risker, since the nom is MIA, can you ping Laser and Giants for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, Sandy. I see LaserBrain showed up of his own volition. Risker (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I left my final round of comments above. Giants2008 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With the nom MIA, who's doing these changes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note here that the nom is currently indefinitely blocked. --Laser brain (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker has done all of the recent work here. If he isn't going to handle these I may take care of them myself. Giants2008 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep going on this. The "indef" is indefinite in the true sense of the word, the current debate is whether or not it will be time served or extended, but I will leave that to other admins to sort out. In the interim, I have been in contact with Vintagekits and have straightened out a few things. In particular, the rights for the images is currently working its way through the OTRS permissions line-up; it may take a few days because it is moving through a circuitous route due to some email problems, but it is coming. I'll get to the rest of the suggestions shortly; just a little occupied right now. Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And Giants2008's latest comments are addressed. As well, I have reworked the sentence that referred to a fight as a "war". On reviewing the references, it's pretty clear that he still uses the surname Armstrong, so there is no reason to believe it was a legal name change; I've thus reworked the sentence about him assuming the Gomez surname to indicate it is a professional name. The rights tags on the images are borderline per El Cobbola, but information is en route to OTRS permissions. I think I have covered everything from all the various comments. Risker (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - When this first came here I didn't think it had a chance. A lot of work has been put in to keep this going, and I commend Risker for not giving up on this. I do believe this meets standards now. Giants2008 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Giants2008. They are very much appreciated. Risker (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:47, 2 July 2008 [22].

---

Archaea

Self-nominator: Tim Vickers (talk) Co-nominator: EncycloPetey

Overview of one of the three Domains of life, and a companion to the featured article on Bacteria. Of top importance to Wikipedia's coverage of biology and classified as a vital article by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support However, Cofactor and Micrometer lead to disambiguation pages. Gary King (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've disambiguated these links. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/abouttol.html a reliable source? Note, biology isn't my field, so it very well may be, I just haven't ever heard of it. (current ref 38)

The article used on that website is one of the essays written by named, expert contributors, so I think that passes WP:V, although not all the content of the site would do so.

Although some parts of the site are bare or poorly maintained, other parts have extensive research and references. The project is written and coordinated by leading experts in the field of systematics, with various groups of organisms overseen by their respective specialists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The link checker tool is showing that the pnas.org links are down, but they are working if I click through.

Odd.

Does that sometimes. Figured I'd point out the oddness, but also point out that the links are working for other reviewers. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 62 "Based on PDB 1FBB" is lacking publisher and last access date.

Ref added. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All done! Don't expect me to review the prose... biology articles make my head hurt. Give me a nice ancient history article any day... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Wow, what an interesting article! Looks great Tim, but on first read through, I picked up a couple of minor things:

• In the lead, there is a sentence (below) I'm stuggling with (my poor language skills, I'm sure!). I'm not sure whether it should mean "archaea carry out photosythesis", or "no known archaea carry out photosynthesis" or "no known archaea carry out photosynthesis in addition to fixing carbon and using sunlight"

Salt-tolerant archaea (the Halobacteria) use sunlight as a source of energy, while other species of archaea fix carbon, but no known archaea do both and carry out photosynthesis like plants and cyanobacteria.

Reworded to "Salt-tolerant archaea (the Halobacteria) use sunlight as a source of energy, while other species of archaea fix carbon, but unlike plants and cyanobacteria, no species of archaea are known that can do both." - apparently in the specific usage photosynthesis refers only to the use of sunlight to capture carbon - so only if you do both are you technically a photosynthetic organism. It's probably clearer without mentioning this.

• In the Origin and early evolution section, last paragraph - is the word analyzes correct? My mind wants to read analyses.

That's me trying too hard to speak American!

I sympathize - welcome to the league of Brits that have forgotten how to spell ;o)

• The Cell membranes is a little too technical with some unexplained/unlinked terminology (acyl chains, sn-1, sn-2 etc.) Is there any way of directing the reader to explainations of these terms?

That much detail isn't really needed. I just removed it. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

best of luck, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my queries were addressed in full! ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support So satisfying in every respect, not least because of all those blue archaeal genera. ;) Some technical points are listed below; well done, Tim! :) Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps be more specific about the isoprene compounds that were used as chemical fossils? Readers might get confused because isoprenoids show up in almost all branches of life, e.g., squalene and farnesyl transferase. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarified and condensed. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mention the community aspects of archaea in the lead? You know, all that stuff about biofilms, cannulae, etc.? That seems important to me, that they can do even more complex things by bouncing off of one another. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanded the second paragraph of the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The description of their phylogenetic tree could be made clearer? The major phyla come only at the end; we're not seeing the forest for the trees (genera). Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs re-ordered. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you say something more about the word archaebacterium mentioned in the lead? When was it introduced by whom; when did it fall from favour and why? Willow (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added an explanation of why it was coined and why it isn't used any longer. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice to read about the traits that bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes share? For example, is the composition of their cytosols more or less the same, e.g., similar pH, similarly reducing environment, etc.? I'm guessing so, since some of their enzymes are related and maybe would need a similar environment to function similarly? On the other hand, I think I've heard that hyperthermophilic archaea have some characteristic adaptations to their environment, so maybe there aren't many common traits. Willow (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, since I can think of a huge lest of chaacteristics that are shared between all forms of life - DNA, protein-based enzymes, reducing cytosols etc.. but can't really see listing these in each article on specific forms of life. For instance, I wouldn't mention in an article on squirrels that tey have a DNA-based genome. However, I do agree that so much is focussed on what divides archaea from other organisms that the similarities are not emphasised. I've added an introductory papragraph to the "Cell biology" section to discuss the similarities before the article launches into the differences. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Under "Significance in technology and industry", I seem to remember hearing that hyperthermophilic archaeal proteins were good for X-ray crystallography and structural genomics, since they're more stable at room temperature? But I'm not sure if that's actually true; I'll try to find a reference. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

They're also satisfyingly easy to purify - you extract your E. coli by boiling! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on structural biology to the Technology section. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: While the article hits most of the important topics which spring to mind, I'm not sure it is yet at Featured. Some examples: (1) "However, a new approach was proposed in 1965,[2] in which microbiologists examine the sequences of the genes in these organisms and use this genetic information to work out which prokaryotes are genuinely related to each other." and the following sentences seem kind of wordy. Maybe something like, "However, as molecular phylogeny data became available starting in the 1960s, it became clear that the archaea and bacteria formed two distinct lines of prokaryotes". I would trim back all the prose about now-discarded terminology, the history of molecular phylogeny, etc (especially since it appears in many parts of the article, not just one). I know you added some of that in response to feedback on this page, but perhaps there is a way to mention these things without taking so many words (or just snip out some of the more peripheral aspects). (2) Although the text "The Archaea should not be confused with the geological term Archean eon, also known as the Archeozoic era. This refers to the primordial period of earth history when prokaryotes were the only cellular organisms living on the planet" probably should not be removed entirely, it really makes for a poor lead-in to "Probable fossils of these ancient cells". (3) The whole paragraph "The classification of archaea . . . from other such groups" is belaboring points which are tangential. Some of these can be touched on, but it should be more in passing, briefer, and more in the context of what it means for the Archaea. (4) The discussion of the internal classification could be slightly expanded, with at least a few hints of why the classification was made, what distinguishes the phyla ("most Crenarchaeota lack histones" or whatever seems to make sense), and which aspects of the classification seem (relatively) well established. Now, having said all that, there's lots of informative, well-written text here. So this isn't really an Oppose even if some passages didn't read as well for me as it seems like a Featured Article should. Kingdon (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've condensed and tightened the Discovery section.
• I've cut that piece about the Archanean era. I might put it back somewhere else but it is a digression. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  I've moved the bit about the Archean era to a disambiguation tag at the outset, modelled after the one appearing at the top of the Archean article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a sentence on molecular phylogenetics to the classification section, since this is the basis of most of these classifications. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose for now on accessibility and jargon. I was so excited to read this article because I've been a reading a popular science book about cell biology that rhapsodizes over the importance of the discovery of archaea. So, I thought - I'll learn more about them! Yeah! Unfortunately, I did not really learn that much. This article was hard to follow for the layperson. My roommate and I read it aloud during dinner, clicking on things we didn't know and trying to figure out what was being said (and he's even taken some biology classes!). I think that the article assumes a familiarity with biological terms and concepts that most people do not have - it needs to do some more explaining to the rest of us! Here are some examples:

• The difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is never described. I'm not sure how common this knowledge this and the lead assumes it from the very first sentence.

Good point, now added to the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• A great deal of the article is spent comparing Arachaea to the other two domains - how they are the same and how they are different. Why not just describe the Archaea? My roommate speculated that this is because we know so little about Archaea, so all we can really do at this point is compare. At any rate, the comparisons are hard to understand without a firm grounding in the other two domains.

• Let me dissect a section and show you what someone like me, a layperson interested in science but not trained in it, gets out of the material (I have inserted my thoughts in red - I hope you find them amusing in a way):

"Archaeal membranes have a distinctive composition. Like bacteria and eukaryotes, archaea possess glycerol-based phospholipids called ether lipids.(lipids are fats, right?; ether is not the outmoded aether theory and not the thing that puts to you sleep, presumably, hmmm - I wonder what it is - ok "some sort of lipid called a lipid") However, three features of archaeal lipids are highly unusual:

• The archaeal lipids are unique because the stereochemistry of the glycerol is the reverse of that found in bacterial and eukaryotic lipids - the glycerol components of these lipids are mirror images of each other - they are enantiomers. (I am going to assume "stereochemistry" is "chemistry"; what's glycerol again?; glycerols are mirrors - why is that important? I'm missing something here.) Since most synthetic enzymes (Why are we talking about synthetic enzymes? Is something here an enzyme? Why is it synthetic? I bet that doesn't mean "human-constructed" here! I am so stupid) are stereospecific for one enantiomer, this is strong evidence for a different biosynthetic pathway.(I am now totally lost)

• (Breathe, perhaps you will understand point 2) Most bacteria and eukaryotes have membranes composed mainly of glycerol-ester lipids, whereas archaea have membranes composed of glycerol-ether lipids.(ester vs. ether? why does this difference matter?) Even when bacteria have ether-linked lipids, the stereochemistry of the glycerol is the bacterial form.(What?) These differences may be an adaptation on the part of archaea to hyperthermophily. However, it is worth noting that even mesophilic archaea have ether-linked lipids.(Why is that worth noting? Does that mean it may not be an adaptation for heat loving?)Main point: Archaea have membranes composed of a certain type of lipid. This matters for some reason.

• (Third time is a charm!) Archaeal lipids are based upon the isoprenoid sidechain.(What's the isoprenoid sidechain?) Only the archaea incorporate these compounds into the straight-chain lipids in the plasma membranes. In some archaea, these isoprenoid side-chains are long enough to span the membrane, forming a monolayer for a cell membrane with glycerol phosphate moieties on both ends.(Eh? I suppose this monolayer is important somehow? Or is it the moieties, whatever those are?) This dramatic adaptation is most common in the extremely thermophilic archaea.(Oh, yes, so dramatic. It is speaking to me right now. Why thermophilic? I have no clue.)

Main point: Archaea have distinctive membrane features. I am not very clear on what those features are, though.

I know how hard it is to make something accessible when it is one's specialty. If you would like me to go over the article section-by-section on the talk page, showing you things I did not understand, I would be more than willing to do so. As you point out, this is a vital article! Awadewit (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section, hopefully the new version won't be quite so indigestible over dinner! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the section is much improved. However, I still think that the idea of why some of these things are important is getting lost. For example, the ester-ether distinction. Is that interesting because no other life form has that formation and we never knew life could be like that before we discovered archaea? Is it interesting because it shows us how distant the archaea really are from other life forms (they might seem like other teeny-weeny things to people like me, but we should put that out of our heads right now)? Something else entirely related to chemistry that I am missing (I'm only half-way through the MIT opencourseware biology 101 lectures, after all). Awadewit (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what you're getting at. We've approached this from an evolutionary viewpoint, but have missed out the physiological relevance of these unusual lipids. I've added some material on how these structures may help archaea live in extreme habitats. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your points about the density of scientific terminology are valid, and Tim and I (and probably others) will do what we can to make the prose more accessible. However, I'd like to address one comment you made: "A great deal of the article is spent comparing Arachaea [sic] to the other two domains - how they are the same and how they are different. Why not just describe the Archaea?"

Simply describing features of the archaea is insufficient. Much of the article is written in a "compare and contrast" style, which is a standard means of presenting distinguishing characteristics. This style is necessary for two reasons:

1. The importance of the Archaea as a separate branch of life (one of three) requires that the reasons for recognizing them as separate be explained. This separateness is noted several times at the outset of the article. Thus, simply describing them, without making comparisons and contrasts with other forms of life, would not enable a person to understand or appreciate their uniqueness. Consider that the article could say that membrane lipids of the Archaea are ether-linked. OK, so why is that important or relevant? Is that different or the same as other living things? Well, the relevant information must be presented by comparison with the other two major domains of life to provide the answer. In this case, all other life has ester-linked lipids in their membranes.
2. Archaea are microscopic and beyond the experience of most people, so the additional context of comparison and contrast provides context for mentioning each feature. Diagnosis, by which I mean the recognition of a thing as opposed to other things, of the Archaea requires that one know which characteristics are unique to the thing and which are shared by other things. This then constitutes a definition of the thing. While this is not the only approach possible for presenting a definition, it is the better approach when describing something that is not only beyond the experience of most people, but beyond their ability to perceive directly.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you - I use comp/cont all of the time when I teach, too. The problem is that the reader has to understand what is being compared and contrasted. So, for example, the comparison between ester and ether membranes means nothing to me. I understand that they are different, but I have no idea how. It is not an enlightening contrast. I'm afraid that to the layperson, such a difference sounds, um, rather minor. I understand that it may not be at all - I understand that there may be huge ramifications to the ester/ether distinction, but the article doesn't really explain those in terms that I can understand (and I really do want to understand). I don't come away from the article going "wow! it's amazing that archaea have ether-linked membranes! i mean, all other life forms have ester! how did that evolve? I have to go find out! This is fascinating!" Rather, I come away puzzled about why this distinction is so important. Does this help explain the problem with some of the comparisons and contrasts? Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand your question, then? I understood your question to be "Why are comparisons repeatedly being made in the article, instead of just describing the Archaea without making comparisons?" Was this understanding not correct? That was the question I tried to address with my response above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the first part - the second part stated "At any rate, the comparisons are hard to understand without a firm grounding in the other two domains", which I have tried to expand upon here. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. In the section on cell walls the old version mentioned that archaea have "S-layers" and that bacteria usually don't, but failed to say what S-layers actually were. In focusing so much on the differnces, thie article sometimes fails to explain the system where the difference is seen. "In archaea, the astebagard is synwise to the bootaleps, while in bacteria this in hubwards to the bootaleps." :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: The difficult sections have been edited to reduce jargon and to explain the difficult terms that remain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a tad more work on the "Metabolism" section? Awadewit (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a tad?! Nice to know the article has improved that much in your estimation. Tim and I will work on improving the text in that section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping on going with this Awadewit! We've rewritten this section a bit more so it relies less on the daughter articles and should serve better as an independent summary. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is much clearer - a big thanks from interested lay people like myself! Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does Awadewit's Oppose stand? Has she revisited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have revisited and am now supporting. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and (to me at least) very engaging. I suspect that some reviewers will expect this article to be easy going, given it is about bugs. They will be disappointed. Archae, like bacteria and viruses, are highly evolved and have complex structures and biochemistry. The article uses technical words because this is the only language we have to describe accurately these features. Having said that, the language is easily understood by any reader with a basic grounding in biology and chemistry, (yes, it is the ether that puts you to sleep). The nominator is to be commended for the level of accessibility achieved. I would hate to see the article turned into baby food simply to obtain FA status. GrahamColm^Talk 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is much easier to write on technical topics using technical terms, but I'm conscious that if you write very carefully it is often possible to avoid them or put them in context so that they are more easily understood. I'm working on doing that at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I get to plug Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible here? On the whole, I think this article does a good job of walking this tightrope. In the example of the cell membranes, I like "which might contribute to the ability of some archaea to survive at extremes of temperature and in very acidic or alkaline environments" because it makes the distinction in a way which makes sense for archaea. Another tack would be something like "basic cellular structures, such as membranes, tend to vary little among organisms and the distinctive archaean membrane makes it more different from a bacterium than an animal is from a plant" (well, that isn't great wording, but something like that). I'm less keen on text like "In ester lipids this is an ester bond, which involves two oxygen atoms (labeled 6 in the Figure), whereas in ether lipids this is an ether bond, involving only one oxygen atom (labeled 2 in the Figure)." If people already know this, it is a distraction. If they don't, then trying to absorb this information at the same time that they try to figure out the significance of the two kinds of bonds for archaea is likely to produce mental overload. But anyway, I thank Awadewit (talk · contribs) for providing reactions (it is always good to hear how first-time readers react to an article, a perspective which it is hard to get if you've worked on an article, even if we/they have only read it a few times). There is only so far we can go to make the article easy for this sort of reader (given other goals, like not watering it down), but we should do what we can. Kingdon (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've simplified that description of ether/ester bonds. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, which I've been holding back because the article is still being actively improved :) Top-notch references, good use of images, excellent prose (not quite excellent a couple of days ago, but it is now)... definitely FA level in my humble opinion. I must say you've responded admirably to Awadewit's concerns: the article is much more lay-friendly than it was when I last skimmed through it, and has certainly not been turned into baby food (always a concern of mine as well, Graham :) I do have a couple of nit-picks as usual:

• In the lead: "We now know that archaea..."—It is now known, if you please :)

Reworded

• In "Morphology": "Recently, even a species of flat, square archaea...has been discovered." When exactly? The reference is to a 2005 article.

Not so recent, I've found the original ref and this is from 1980. Added ref and reworded.

• In "Origin and early evolution": "Indeed, the origin of Archaea appears very old indeed..." I am indeed ODing on indeeds.

Not needed, cut.

• In "Classification": "These classification systems aim to organize archaea..."—Current classification systems, perhaps?

Done.

• I don't suppose Tim can make a PNG version of Image:Bacteriorhodopsin.jpg... JPG really doesn't look too good to me. I'd also place the image directly below the table, right-aligned; image staggering isn't set in stone.

Done.

• I'd spotted a somewhat confusing statement regarding phototrophic archaea, but I can't seem to find it now?

It might be the "can capture light but can't do photosynthesis" thing? It's discussed above in Ciar's review. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway—excellent work. This FAC is also excellent evidence that articles can indeed benefit from some "de-jargoning" every now and then :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tentative Support—It is not a light read, but if you can get past the jargon and (in places) dense language it seems like a good article. The reader is probably going to spend a lot of time clicking links in order to understand this fully. But I didn't find any major issues with the presentation.—RJH (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Which sections did you feel had dense language? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through again using the readability link above (those are a great addition to the FA process BTW) and straightened out and broken up some knotty sentences See diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Well written article on a notable and complex topic. The section on metabolism is jargon heavy, but all terms are linked and organic chemistry is very complex (at least it appears that way to me!). I will discussion on comprehensiveness etc. to others. I have made some (very) small changes, I hope these are OK. Once again, well done. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• One question; is there any reason why the article remains semi-protected? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the jargon, funny you should mention it on the day that Oxidative phosphorylation is on the front page ;-). (But I did find it interesting to read through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation for comparison). Kingdon (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems User:Crum375 protected the page because of persistent anon vandalism on 2008-04-04. I do not know why he chose a protection period of three months (especially when you consider that the page never been protected previously). However, since the protection is due to expire in a few days anyway, I had not bothered to unprotect it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments I enjoyed reading this article and can tell you have put a lot of hard work in it. It is the nature of the beast, however, that what follows does not enumerate all the great things you have done. Overall the article becomes far too often a compare and contrast exercise with Bacteria. I would suggest leaving most all the bits that say "similar to bacteria". However with all the pieces that say "Bacteria do/have it this way and Archaea do/have it that way." I would remove the bacteria bit and instead simply say "unique to Archaea". Also this article needs serious work on flow and cohesion with attention to the article as a whole. It seems to have had sections developed more in isolation than not. It is also a little heavy with parenthetical remarks.

• Lead: missing summary of Genetics, Reproduction, and Technology. Too much detail with Carl Woese, 1977 Looking this over again, my biggest issue with the lead is structural.

Carl is only mentioned once and his work is a key event in the history of archaean microbiology, but I cut the date since that isn't critical. I've added some material on genetics and technology.

• Discovery: Not sure if this is the vest heading title. Actually I would put call it "Classifaiction" and have the section already named that tacked on to the end of this one. All this really talks about it is the history of changes made in how these organisms are classified rather than how these organisms were "discovered".

That's debatable, see below for discussion.

• • This powerful approach, known as phylogenetics, is the main method used today The first clause is too peacocky.

Cut "powerful"

• • Archaea were identified as a separate group of prokaryotes in 1977 change identified to classified for better accuracy.

Reworded to "Archaea were first classified as a separate group of prokaryotes in 1977"

• • He later renamed the two groups of prokaryotes Archaea and Bacteria to emphasize this, and argued that together with Eukarya they are three domains of living organisms' A little awkward. Maybe "they compose the the three domains"?

Reworded to "To emphasize this difference, these two domains were later renamed Archaea and Bacteria."

• • This new appreciation of the importance and ubiquity of archaea came mostly from the use of molecular biology techniques to detect prokaryotes in samples of water or soil from their nucleic acids alone. Can we either enumerate these "molecular biology techniques" or link to somewhere that covers these techniques rather than the general field?

Reworded to "This new appreciation of the importance and ubiquity of archaea came from using the polymerase chain reaction to detect prokaryotes in samples of water or soil from their nucleic acids alone."

• • Such techniques eliminate the need to culture organisms in the laboratory, which is often difficult I thin "eliminate the need" is a bit strong, considering in the lead you say this sort of detection is not good enough to properly classify archaea.

Reworded to "This allows the detection and identification of organisms that cannot be cultured in the laboratory, which is often difficult."

• Morphology: Some images of unusual shapes would be better than the chart that does not even specify archaea. Structure here is good

I'm afraid there are very few pictures available under a free license.

• • Individual archaeans range from 0.1 micrometers (μm) to over 15 μm in diameter Is the size range distinct from other single-celled organisims or generally equivalent?

Generally equivalent (although 0.1 um is on the small side) for prokaryotes. I could add "like bacteria" here, but I've been trying to remove these!

• Origin and early evolution: I don't know that anything in this section covers the origin of archaea, nor that the section restricted to talking of early evolution of archaea. Lack of structure is now biggest concern.

Title renamed to "origin and evolution", since the point where the archaea originated was when they diverged from other forms of life.

• Classification: I would merge this with first section as I stated above. I still think the discussion of the classification of archaea as a domain and the classification within that domain should group together in some way. At least as sub-heading under a larger "Classification" section.

See bottom of this review for discussion of this point. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • populations of archaea show clusters of related cells that can be seen as species and the argument that these species are points within an interconnected net of gene transfer events What this debate is actually about is incomprehensible to me.

Simplified and clarified.

Better, but I still wonder if "groups" can be clarified. They aren't completely arbitrary are they?

That depends on who you ask, some argue that they are indeed arbitrary! This is at best a statistical definition of species. I've tried being a bit more specific on how these groups are being defined. - "The area is contentious; with, for example, some data suggesting that in archaea such as the genus Ferroplasma, individual cells can be grouped into populations that have highly-similar genomes and rarely transfer genes with more divergent groups of cells. These groups of cells are argued to be analogous to species."

• Cell structure: This is the first section with any noticeable attempt organization of the writing. Although why cell walls are more distinct from cell membranes than flagella is lost to me. Bullets points really should be avoided when you get to multiple sentences.

Rearranged into paragraphs

• • Archaea are similar to bacteria in many aspects of their cell structure, but other characteristics set the archaea apart. This has no meaning

Reworded to "Archaea are similar to bacteria in their general cell structure, but the composition and organization of some of these structures set the archaea apart."

• • These molecules resemble soap molecules Why do you expect soap molecules to be a touch point for readers?

Analogy removed.

• • (the phosphate "head", shown as green circles, labeled 4 and 8, in the Figure) Direct references to figure in the text body rather than the caption. Yuck!

This was added in response to the review by Awadewit above. :) I've removed it again.

• • This double sheet of phospholipids is the major structure in cell membranes You lost me right here. How do two phosopholipids become a "sheet"? How is this configured with the life inside and the world outside? Water is likely to be on both sides. There are other structures to cell membranes other than a layer of goo keeping the life inside and the world outside?

Reworded, but this isn't the place for discussing membrane structure in detail. Hopefully the new wording should be a better summary of the article on cell membranes.

• • Ether bonds are more chemically-resistant then ester bonds and the downside/trade-off to ether bonds is?

I haven't seen any discussion of a downside, so I can't really speculate on that point.

• • These branched chains may help prevent archaean membranes from becoming leaky at high temperatures. and the downside/trade-off is?

Ditto, I don't think that is known.

• • In some archaea the typical phospholipid bilayer (labeled 9 at the right) is replaced by a single monolayer (labeled 10 at the right) Well the caption says 9 is bacteria/eukaryote model and 10 an archaea.

Removed and reworded. Poor usage of the word "typical", reworded to "in some archaea the phospholipid bilayer is replaced by a single monolayer."

• • bacteria possessing cell walls made from peptidoglycan . . . this polymer differs from the peptidoglycan of bacteria since it lacks D-amino acids and N-acetylmuramic acid I followed the S-layer/chain mail description nicely. This peptidoglycan/pseudopeptodoglycan bit however lost me. What is it besides hard to spell?

Not particularly important is what it is, I've cut this sentence.

• • while they are similar to bacterial flagella in that they are rotatory motors driven by a proton gradient or you could they are similar in operation (and then either offer the details or not).

Question - I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this comment. Are you wanting more details on how the flagella operate?

I intended to point out that you could say this in more common terms like "they are similar in operation", rather than describing how they operate in a techincal way that some readers might not comprehend. The parenthetical is intended to say I don't have strong feels on including the details or not once a more comprehenable term like "operation" is in there.--BirgitteSB 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworded and expanded to "Archaea also have flagella, and these operate in a similar way to bacterial flagella - they are stiff stalks that are driven by rotatory motors at the base of the flagella. These motors are powered by the proton gradient across the membrane. "

• • The bacterial flagellum is a modified type III secretion system, while archaeal flagella appear to have evolved from to the bacterial type IV pili. This could be explained in more meaningful terms.

Reworded to "The two types of flagella evolved from different ancestors, the bacterial flagellum evolved from a type III secretion system, while archaeal flagella appear to have evolved from the bacterial type IV pil"

• • In contrast to the bacterial flagellum, where filament proteins move up a central pore and are added to the tip of the filament, archaeal filaments appear to be synthesized by adding subunits to their base. That is a little hard to grasp, can it link somewhere or be explained in detail.

Reworded to "In contrast to the bacterial flagellum, which is a hollow stalk and is assembled by subunits moving up the central pore and then adding onto the tip of the flagella, archaeal flagella are synthesized by adding subunits onto their base."

• Metabolism: This is the weakest section so far. Intro paragraph skips over Hererortrophs. How exactly is that image relevant to this section?
  • Archaea exhibit a variety of different types of metabolism, obtaining the energy they need from many different chemical reactions As do all organisms; lacks meaning.

Not really, most eukaryotes use a very limited set of nutrients. Reworded to "Archaea exhibit a great variety of chemical reactions in their metabolism and use many different sources of energy."

• • with archaea that grow on complex organic compounds (the chemoorganotrophs) Kill the parenthetical and just stick with three basic groups. It just is a confusing new term never used again and adds nothing important.

Cut and reworded.

• • These similarities with other organisms probably reflect the early evolution of carbohydrate metabolism in the history of life Or else this could reflect that there are limited options for metabolizing carbohydrates efficiently

Good point, added.

• • A common reaction in [methogens] . . . I don't understand why the details of this chemical reaction should be included.

Question - Do you think it would be better with more equations, or better without this equation?

Actually I was going for a different angle. If this chemistry is a significant point about Archaea, explain the significance explicitly and keep it. If it not or if other other chemistry has equal significance, cut it or add the others. I don't have a strong feeling about equations per se.--BirgitteSB 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an important reaction to methanogens, but no more important to the archaea in general than sulfur reduction or ammonia oxidation. I've removed it.

• • Methanogenesis involves a range of unique coenzymes, such as coenzyme M and methanofuran Unique to Archaea or to methogens. (I feel the article is losing its focus about now)

Reworded to "Methanogenesis involves a range of coenzymes that are unique to these archaea"

• Genetics:
  • Archaeal plasmids are increasingly important as genetic tools and allow the performance of genetic studies in archaea. This has lost me and it has no links.

Cut.

• • As with the bacteriophages that infect bacteria, some viruses replicate within archaea Or as with all types of living organisms, archara can be infected with viruses. Similarity to bacteria is only worth noting when it is similarity to bacteria alone (or nearly so).

Good point. Reworded to "Archaea can be infected by viruses."

• • Archaea are genetically distinct from other organisms As are Bacteria, Jellyfish, Giraffes, and BirgitteSB. That doesn't mean much.

Reworded to "Archaea are genetically distinct from bacteria and eukaryotes"

• • Transcription and translation in archaea are more similar to those in eukaryotes than in bacteria, with archaean RNA polymerase II and ribosomes being very similar to their equivalents in eukaryotes.[77] The archaeal RNA polymerase in transcription also seems to function in a similar way to that of eukaryotes Can you not say "similar . . . to eukaryotes" so often in succession?

Cut and reworded. "Transcription and translation in archaea are more similar to these processes in eukaryotes than in bacteria, with archaean RNA polymerase II and ribosomes being very close to their equivalents in eukaryotes. The archaeal RNA polymerase in transcription also seems to function like that of eukaryotes, with similar assemblies of proteins (the general transcription factors) directing the binding of the RNA polymerase to a gene's promoter. However, other archaean transcription factors are closer to those found in bacteria."

• Reproduction:
  • (they have the same karyotype) Kayotype begins "A karyotype is the characteristic chromosome complement of a eukaryote species" One of these articles is wrong.

Reworded to "these will all have the same genetic material", they only have one chromosome anyway.

• • a complex cell cycle; after the cell's chromosome is replicated and the two daughter chromosomes are separated, the cell divides Seems simple compared to meiosis; what's so complex?

True, "complex" has no real meaning here. Reworded to "Cell division is controlled in the archaea in a cell cycle"

• • Spores, such as the endospores made by some bacteria, are not formed in any of the known archaea Many things are not formed in archaea, why does this merit inclusion?

Since this is defining characteristic that separates them from both bacteria and eukaryotes. I've reworded this to "Spores are made by both bacteria and eukaryotes, but are not formed in any of the known archaea."

• • Some species of Haloarchaea undergo phenotypic switching and grow as several different types of cell, including thick-walled structures that are resistant to osmotic shock and allow the archaea to survive in water at low concentrations of salt, but these are not reproductive structures and may instead help them disperse to new habitats Maybe this should be in "cell structure" not "Reproduction".

No, this is the closest they get to spores, so I think this belongs best here.

• Ecology: You might want to particularly mention plankton here. Or else take out the image and the mention in the lead. You also might want to move "Interaction with other organisms" before "Role in chemical cycling" so you can explains termites/ruminants and methogens before mentioning them as in aside in the role on global warming.

Added plankton in text. The section on cycling fits well with the habitats section, so I've just removed the mention of termites in this section.

• • the formate-consuming methanogen What does formate-consuming signify?

Not much, cut. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope that helps --BirgitteSB 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'll try to begin implementing some of these suggestions tomorrow (It's rather late for me locally). I do want to point out two specfic points in your comments that either perhaps should not be made. First, the statements where the text says "Bacteria have"/"Archaea have" cannot be changed to "Unique to archaea" in most cases. Remember that there is a third group, the eukaryotes, and in many of these situations where the comparison was made, archaea actually share their trait with eukaryotes. In other words, revising those passages will be a bit trickier, though some may be changeable.
    • Second, it is not correct to replace "...were identified" with "...were classified". Those two statements mean entirely different things. Identification is the recognition or discovery of a group; classification is the formal publication of a scientific name and description that places a group in context. The archaea were identified in 1977 as a new group, but were still classified alongside the bacteria as a kingdom. It was not until 1990 that the group was classified as a separate domain. Related to this, the two sections you've identified as pertaining to classification really do separate things. The "Discovery" section discusses the separateness of the group and its recognition as separate, so it treats the group as a cohesive whole distinct from other groups. By contrast, the "Classification" section discusses relationships within the group between different members, treating the members as units of a diverse assemblage. I fear that merging the two sections would blur this important difference in the focus of the two sections. The "Discovery" really has more in common with the "Origin and early evolution section" than with the "Classification" section. There is also the problem that the "Discovery" section is a general read, that introduces what the group is and something of its importance; it must therefore appear early in the article. The "Classification" section covers material that is more specialized, and much harder to explain to the layman, so placing it early in the article may befuddle some readers. I'm not sure that the two sections can be neatly joined because of this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • First: Perhaps then compare them to eukaruote where they are not unique. Bacteria has 16 instances of the word archaea. This article use "bacteria" 50 times, and I didn't even count things like cyanobacteria.
        • I agree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Second: I am not sure when a few species among a selection of birds that were always regarded as one genus are assigned a brand new genus all there own, that those birds aren't considered to be "discoverd" at that point. But if I am wrong about this maybe you can clarify why in the article a little more so other can't think along the same lines.--BirgitteSB 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you for clarifying your concern; obviously the article isn't making that (second) point clear. Birds are probably not a good analogy for this situation, nor is a discussion at the level of genus. Imagine rather that you suddenly discover that some of those lights in the sky are actually planets like Earth, or that you suddenly realize that some of the "rocks" around you are actually living things. This would be closer to the magnitutde of Woese's discovery, as it marked a major shift in thinking about life on Earth. What happened in the case of the Archaea was that a few species were known to exist and had previously been classified among bacteria because they were tiny and nucleus-free. Carl Woese discovered the distinctiveness of those few known species, and along with this recognition came the discovery of dozens, then hundreds, of new organisms previously unknown to exist. Even now, microbiologists will take a random sample from a random location and "shotgun" for possible DNA. This often leads to the discovery of new Archaea, which turn out to be ubiquitous on Earth. I guess another analogy would be if we had only ever seen penguins and ostriches, then someone suddenly thought to look upwards and discovered there were birds flying around in the sky. If the enormity of the discovery hasn't been made clear in the article, then we should certainly clarify this point. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Birgitte, a characteristically thorough review! Tim Vickers (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the order of the sections, what do you think of the new arrangement? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

References

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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:47, 2 July 2008 [23].

---

William Speirs Bruce

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it deals, in what I trust is a comprehensive and balanced way, with a major though neglected contributor to polar science. I stand to be corrected of course, but after a successful GA and a thorough peer review, I think it is ready. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "the Weddell Sea – the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition (SNAE)." and "plans—a proposed transcontinental march via the South Pole—were" – I think you need to decide if you want to use em dashes throughout, or spaced en dashes. Gary King (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This was an oversight - I intended mdashes throughout, except in ranges (e.g. 1902–04) Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I was a peer reviewer and felt it was essentially FA then. It has been imporved since and I feel it meets all of the criteria and is a fascinating read. My only quibble is why the hyphen is in Piper Gilbert Kerr, with penguin, photo-graphed by Bruce.? Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo, now fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Interesting read, well written, great references. Dincher (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Brian, did you put this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? The only way I found it was backtracking through your contribs. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea why it wasn't listed at FAC - I can only assume that I forgot to press the edit button (I often lose stuff that way). Anyway, it's listed now. Thanks for pointing this out. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Reviewed this for GA and found little to complain about then. A very good article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/scotia/sindex.html dead links

Otherwise sources look good. Other links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll try to get back and do a full prose review sooner or later. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

the dead link was an external link, not a source, and I've removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This is an excellently written and informative biography. Two MOS issues:
  • Section headings should have only the first word capitalized unless it is a proper name.
  • There should be a citation immediately after a quotation, even if this means duplicating a citation used later.

Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • With regard to the section headings, the only instance I found of false capitalization was "First Voyages", and I have dealt with that. I have also added the required citations to quoted material - thanks for pointing these out. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely written, and seems to be a comprehensive biography. Well done. (I have only one comment remaining. The lead could probably be shorter, with fewer details and more general statements, but it's fine.) —SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've been reading on this in bits and pieces since it went up (RL has been hectic!) and have to say I like it and willingly support. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I couldn't resist a little tinkering, [24], but I am happy for any edit to be reverted. Thanks for an interesting and engaging read. GrahamColm^Talk 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem with most of your tweaks. I've changed a few back in the Markham section, the rest read fine. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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