This article had nearly passed the previous FAC, in my opinion, with only a few more days left until a possible promotion. Since then, DHMO, now User:Giggy, has given it a peer review, and the article has only improved since then as members of the taskforce edit any errors they've seen. The previous FAC was archived when an issue was still being discussed, and I believe that the issue has been addressed satisfactorily. I believe that this article meets FA criteria, but please give any suggestions for improvements. --haha169 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if WP:FAC instructions were followed: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Do other signficant contributors (who were recently active) agree the article is ready, and were they consulted?
I've talked to Satoryu prior to the nomination, a few weeks past. He said, "Wait a few weeks". I've talked to Arrowned, but I received no reply, and it was only recently that I noticed Sukecchi and FullMetal Falcon were still active, since they've been straying away from VG articles. I've also discussed the article's status with Giggy, but not about possible FACs. And I discussed with Judgesurreal, who has recently became a major contributor, but obviously not on the list. And me, I'm on that list, so... --haha169 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominating - As Haha has stated, the article issues from the last FAC have been addressed. The only issue I see that people may notice is a long Gameplay section, but you will also notice there are many different gameplay options and modes to explain, and the plot section is also incorporated as a subheading under Gameplay, so it is only natural that it is a bit longer than most gameplay sections. It should therefore be FA worthy at this point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
What makes the Kotaku refs (current refs 74 and 78, both by McWherter) reliable sources?
FixedCurrent ref 74, we had a discussion about in the previous FAC. "It is an interview with the creators, and you cannot fake an interview" like that. I've removed current ref 78. --haha169 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly nearly there Comments - given that I am watching the thing at the moment I may as well review it:
Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters expands that of its predecessor; - the roster isn't doing expanding (as a transitive verb) as such, so needs to be reworded. 'Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has expanded from that of its predecessor;' or 'has grown', 'has been enlarged'. Have a play with this.
There were numerous minor issues of redundant words, tense, repetition, some passive verbs and grammar that I corrected as I went along as I felt the prose needed a bit of a massage. I can't think of what else it needs comprehensive-ness wise, so once this grammar issue is fixed i will Support. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashnard gave lots of examples below, which I have all fixed. If you can find anymore, please feel free to list them. I will go on a treasure hunt for mistakes and errors after a while. But I'm not the best editor to do this, since I'm biased...:P --haha169 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Neutral: Okay, as said, I'll review the article. I'll work from bottom up, as there's something I noticed straight away:
Three decimal places is inappropriate for a Gamerankings score. Round down, or round to one decimal place. I think I remember reading in MoS that three decimal places should be reserved for scientific use, but I can't find it now.
Done, it looks odd with all those decimals anyway. I think its vandalism because GR doesn't list so many decimals in the first place. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Upon release, Super Smash Bros. Brawl has received widespread critical acclaim." Redundant.
I've said this in other FACs, but having a "Reception" format divided by pros and cons is just simplistic and basic. However, I do realise that this is just personal preference, so I don't expect anything to be done over the course of this FAC.
It is basic, but if you have a preference, we can work on it after the FAC.
I have a problem with source 83. You say that "GameSpot editors noted that", yet it is attributed to a review source, which is supposed to be reviewed by one person. Then I follow the link to realise that it isn't the review, and them quoted words aren't contained on the page.
Agh, source 91 doesn't state the author although it is clearly stated in the link. I'm not going to look through all the refs—check every ref to ensure that all the info is provided. I can see many at a cursory galnce.
Fixed Its been put in my someone. I've also added an author to current ref 96, or last ref. Added author to Gamespot review ref as well. --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid Snake is the first third-party character to make an appearance in a Smash Bros. game." Are we forgetting the blue hedgehog as well? The article is contradicting the statement made in "playable characters".
Fixed image caption to say: "the first third-party character to be announced for appearing in a Smash Bros. game." Since Solid Snake was announced way before the blue hedgehog--haha169 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"emphasise". Conflict of language. The article uses American English predominantly, so it should stick with that.
"Melee leading to the international release of the formerly exclusive Fire Emblem series,[72] he became more interested in characters exclusive to Japan-only releases" Exclusive...exclusive. If you're mentioning the FE international release, then there's no need to say "formerly exclusive".
"but Sakurai said that Metal Gear creator Hideo Kojima "practically begged" for Snake to be included in Super Smash Bros. Melee, which did not happen since the game was too far into development." This needs a source, especially considering a quote is included in the sentence.
I personally find it strange that two very similar sections—Inclusion of characters and Playable characters—are separate although again, this may be just personal preference.
Inclusion of characters is about the development teams' decision to put what characters in as PC, AT, or trophies, etc. Characters is just describing how the selected ones are from a wide range of Nintendo games, 3rd party, etc. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced the next installment of Super Smash Bros. was not only already in development for their next gaming console, butand would hopefully be a launch title with Wi-Fi compatibility for online play." I've striken (struck?) some things I feel the sentence could do without. Strange to write in this way.
"The announcement was a surprise to Sakurai, creator of the Super Smash Bros. series. In 2003, Sakurai who left HAL Laboratory in 2003.the company that was in charge of the franchise's development." Just clarifying what, in my opinion, is an unnecessary way of wording the data.
"He was not informed of Nintendo's intent to release another Smash title, despite the fact that Iwata told Sakurai shortly after his resignation from HAL that if a new Smash game was to be developed, he would want Sakurai to again serve as director." Needs a source
"It was not until after the conference that Sakurai was called to Iwata's hotel room, where he was asked to be involved in the production of the new title, if possible as its director." How is the reference to the hotel room required to establish this concept. In the broad spectrum of things, this is a meaningless detail, unless something is being implied.
"At the pre-E3 2005 press conference, the Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced the next installment of Super Smash Bros. was not only already in development for their next gaming console" – Development of the game did not begin until October 2005, This inconsistency needs to be corrected as soon as possible.
"Nintendo also enlisted outside help from various developer studios, including Game Arts. Sakurai stated that these people had spent excessive amounts of time playing Super Smash Bros. Melee. This team was given access to all the original material and tools from the development of Melee, courtesy of HAL Laboratory." Why have three short sentences that aren't linked when they could so easily be joined? poor prose.
"several Smash Bros. staff members that reside around the area of the new office joined the project's development" Shouldn't it be reside in the area around the area of the new office.
"As far as Wi-Fi play is concerned, Sakurai stated his plan was to include Wi-Fi connection compatibility and online functionality" The two are virtually synonymous, so why mention both? Why not join to the next sentence instead of having a standalone statement.
"Nintendo of Japan president Iwata" You've already stated his position in the company. Plus, he's the president of the whole company, so why say "Nintendo of Japan"?
"As Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the first Wii title to use a double-layer disc, Nintendo has conceded that some Wii systems have trouble reading the game due to a dirty laser lens." Strange way of wording things. Implies that the second disc to use this won't have problems.
I'm not even sure when that was added. It was really recent, and consensus was against its addition, so I've Removed it. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned this before, and I suppose it is still personal preference, but I find "Stages" to be needless.
I don't think you have. But anyways, I just can't remove such a well-cited section, and it does include some new aspects to a Smash Bros. game.--haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"statuettes of video game characters and objects, that can be collected in the game" Needless comma here.
Another example of how the prose could be better: "Returning from Melee are trophies, statuettes of video game characters and objects , that can be collected in the game. These trophieswhich give brief histories or descriptions of their subjects."
"A Spectator mode allows players to watch matches from players who have enabled the "Allow Spectators" option," Defining a gameplay feature by way of another feature in the game will leave non-gamers non-the-wiser.
"While waiting for a match to start online, players may practice fighting against Sandbag." And yet you wonder why "Gameplay" is so long with a writing style like this.
"A purple cloud slowly forms around the stadium, where the Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army appear and detonate a Subspace Bomb, transporting the stadium into Subspace." Writing style is inappropriate. The cloud doesn't need to be mentioned, nevermind the fact that it appeared "slowly"—like that gives us a judgement of the speed anyway.
Done Changed to "The Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army suddenly appear and detonate a Subspace Bomb, which transports the stadium into Subspace" --haha169 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section also contains multiple unexplained terms such as "subspace". Reading it I think you'd be better rewriting from scratch.
Done, its an alternate dimension where Taboo lurks. Source cited on the bottom of section, in Sakurai's DOJO plot update. --haha169 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and the Primid, enemies that come in many variations." None-the-wiser.
You know what, I may as well just stop there. My oppose is reluctant but well founded I feel. There's too many inconsistencies, contradictions, errors, and poor examples of prose to be ignored. Sorry. AshnardTalkContribs16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashnard, its fine. That's what an FAC is for anyway. I'm certain I can fix all the problems you've mentioned, making the rest of the FAC easier. I should be thanking you anyway, since you volunteered to do this before I nominated anyway. Your help is very much appreciated. --haha169 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me when you're done and I'll look over the article again and reconsider. I'll also say not to feel any onus to address problems that have been judged as personal preference, as I can't force something which may amount to an opinion. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, since you've been working hard on this and other related Smash articles, and we all want the FT. Don't worry, many of your examples mention one example, and I'll try my best to find others with the same problem. --haha169 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've copyedited a bit and added a load of author info missing from multiple sources. Ref 7 and 55 need sorting out by a major contributor. I'll return with a full copyedit and review, after which I'll reconsider the oppose. AshnardTalkContribs20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a date to ref 55, and 7 was added very recently, here. I'll see what I can do about 7, but I think USK rating is unnecessary. Update - I've removed ref 7.--haha169 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've declared myself neutral considering the examples have been addressed and that I've copyedited the text. I still think too much weight is given to particular aspects, but that may amount to personal preference. The main issue is the quality of prose I feel. Thanks for your hard work addressing my comments. AshnardTalkContribs12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I requested for semi because of the vandals. There won't be any problems with them for a while. Awards will come out at the end of the year, "Game of the Year" awards, and that won't come for a while, at least. I don't the stability will be a big issue, at least during the course of the FAC. But thanks for your concerns and comments! --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brawl allows the player to select between 35 characters. Some can transform into alternate forms, with different move sets and play styles. Some are new, but others return from Melee—in some cases updated or refined, either in appearance, fighting capabilities, or both. - This implise that all characters from melee either stayed the same or got better (fighting-wise). This isn't quite true - some characters have been made much weaker fighting-wise since Melee (Sheik) while others have been greatly improved (Zelda). Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you need a source for my above comment, see this mlg article: Zelda was buffed from Melee which helps a lot because Shiek was slightly nerfed on some of his Melee-style killing moves, such as Foward Air.Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I do, in fact, trust your source, the whole matter is of opinion. I can add it in as a reception complaint, though. Is that fine? --haha169 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after reading the source more in-depth, I'm going to think about a good way to put it in the article. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, I think this article is very close to FA status, the only problem I think is that the prose needs a little sprucing up. Some examples:
"Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has grown in number from that of its predecessor, and is the first in the series to feature third-party characters. Like its predecessors, Brawl is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts." I believe the first instance of the word "predecessor" is redundant, as it is used in the next sentence. Changing it to Super Smash Bros. Melee, which it already links to, would solve this problem.
The second paragraph of the article uses the word Brawl four times. I think you could replace one or two instances of it with "the game" in order to eliminate redundancy.
"A player can choose from a large selection of characters, controlling them as they fight on various stages, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen." Wouldn't the sentence work better with "Players" instead of "A player"? I don't know if that's just my personal preference or not.
What? I think you only read the last paragraph of my edit. There is a beginning paragraph that states Weak Support, then three bullet points, and then a final paragraph. Artichoker[talk]22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, this time the image caption has been rewritten to establish notability. 3rd party inclusion is very notable, and violates Sakurai's promise back in 1999 to stick with Nintendo 1st and 2nd parties. Plus, it has text about it right next to the image. --haha169 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True... one thing, however... the larger image sizes don't seem to add much except to add blank white space (such as the snake picture.) Perhaps they could be resized down to thumb (except for the cast pic). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
??? I see a white space no matter how small I put it. Could you please elaborate more? What size exactly? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think David means that "250px" should be removed, so that only "thumb" is left. That way you get the standard image size. The Prince (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I fixed a few quote endings where the quotation marks were inside the sentence (". instead of ."); other than that, the article looks good. I was going to bring up something with the images, but it appears that has been dealt with. Since I have nothing further to suggest, I give the article my full support. -- Comandante {Talk}17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced I see it reliable enough, looks like French IGN. However, I found a better source saying the exact same thing so I decided to replace it. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite web}} not complete filled out for all refs (ex. cur #97 is missing the date of publication.
Concerned about weight of sources. There are next to no print sources, but that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that about 50% of the sources are from a primary source (the game's page.) Couldn't secondary sources be used to balance this?
Reply There are really no printed sources except for the instruction manual, and they are all on the game's site anyway. The rest of the sources are all reliable. Jeuxvideo is answered above. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead does not address all aspects of the article (e.g. development)
"Masahiro Sakurai, director of the previous two games in the series, assumed the role of director for the third installment at the request of Iwata.[10] When development of the game began in October 2005,[11] various second and third party Nintendo developers collaborated on Brawl." Is there about Development. Gameplay, Reception, and everything else is also in the lead. --haha169 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The game's musical score was composed through a collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers,[17] and was lauded for its representation of different generations in gaming history." doesn't really fit when you suddenly switch gears from reception to music creation. Reword or split into two different statements.
4.85 million units as of March 31.... could we find sales figures more recent, that might thus include Europe and Australia?
Reply No, Nintendo doesn't give sales data a lot. We update when Nintendo releases, and they have not released. --haha169 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for that for so long! But...there is no sales numbers. Just sales standings. Plus, wouldn't it be violating WP:SYN if we combined it with JP and NA sales? And also, this is ignoring the sales in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the rest of the EU, not to mention Australia. Perhaps we should wait until the Nintendo sales report... (Ashnard, do you know how to access those? I can't find them using normal Google.) --haha169 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used, although actual numbers are preferable. Yes, it would be original synthesis to combine sales for multiple regions and then present it collectively as total sales. I'm afraid I don't know how to access them. AshnardTalkContribs17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know where they got the information from, so the figures are probably not reliable, but this has sales data galore. It says that SSBB has sold 5,963,306 units worldwide in total, and there are figures for different weeks too. I guess if these figures are deemed reliable enough, that would be fantastic, but it seems unlikely. Deamon138 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guessed right: VGChartz data are not to be used on Wikipedia. However, Gamespot is perfect. Thank you so much! --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you not say somewhere in the article (using Ashnard's and my links), "It outsold all other games in it's debut week in the UK, Australia, Spain and Germany" or something much better phrased (you know what I mean)? Or is chart data not allowed for a FA? Deamon138 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its not specific enough, and the Brawl article wasn't organized to do this. I could possibly fit it in, but it would be much simpler to wait for numbers. --haha169 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, do what's best for the article, but I will say that chart data is acceptable in any VG article. On a side note, The World Ends with You uses VGChartz, but with an "according to" to sort of negate any dependence on a dubious source. Whether this is an example to follow remains to be seen as the article is still undergoing FAC. AshnardTalkContribs10:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It's a GA article. But WP:VG has a discussion about it...so I'd rather not. Chart data is acceptable, but I'd rather have uniformity. "Brawl sold 1.5 million in U.S. on first day, and hit #1 charts in UK." ... sounds odd without numbers, but that's IMO. --haha169 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that both facts (i.e. that it sold X in one place, and it placed Y in another place), have to both be in the same sentence? Surely as long as they're both mentioned somewhere in "Reception" it doesn't matter? Deamon138 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then there will be organization issues. There are only two or three sentences about sales in the Reception anyway. That would make it a bit difficult. I don't know - maybe you can try on one of your sandboxes, Deamon? I'll see what I can do, but I still think it would be much easier to wait until numbers come out. But yes, I will try. Hmm...I read over the few sales data sentences, and added another one in it. How do you like it? --haha169 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what you've put seems fine imo. So long as no-one else has a problem with writing "European", as in "top in several places in Europe", then I think it should suffice. Deamon138 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing only image licensing: looks good, I think. I'm not sure about the importance of the Snake image. --NE213:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the discussion with David Fuchs. The image caption says all. Its definitely less important than the others, but still merits entry due to the importance of its subject. Thanks for reviewing, though.--haha169 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after the recent volley of changes and copy-edits. --Laser brain(talk)04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Oppose, not happy with the tone and accessibility. It's come a long way, but it still reads like a game guide to me. The lead and opening sections are thick with jargon, poor narrative, and audience-specific prose. I've left some examples below starting from the top. At the least, a thorough treatment by a non-gamer is needed to sort out the rough prose and jargon.[reply]
Disappointed that the penchant for long strings of foreign-language characters persists in the opening sentence, causing me to have to jump over a good 1/3 of the sentence's length to continue reading.
No, as I said, it's an editorial decision and I recognize that. I don't care for it, and I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it. It's funny though, because every time I say something, someone tells me it's a policy to have it in there, which is simply not true. --Laser brain(talk)17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"When development of the game began in October 2005, various second and third party Nintendo developers collaborated on Brawl." Not well-written. They collaborated only when the development began? Terms like "second- and third-party" should be hyphenated. Why is "Brawl" not in italics here?
I did some work on it - that sentence has always been awkward and difficult to proofread. Maybe some more help might do it some good. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has grown in number from that of Super Smash Bros. Melee, becoming the first in the series to feature third-party characters." Bewildering to a non-gamer and without context. The reader has no idea of the significance of the characters and who "third-party" characters would be. As written, the "roster" is "becoming the first in the series".
First of all, let's say I come across an article that talks about "Charon", but I have no idea what it means. I click on the link. Quite simple; that's why things are wikilinked. And it is first in the series regarding third-party inclusion. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Like its predecessors, Brawl is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts." Again, lacking context or meaning to lay readers. We've not even had a basic sentence such as, "The object of Brawl is to use one of the available characters to knock other characters out of a ring." Readers have no idea what the game does yet.
Why link "multiplayer" for reader context but not "single-player"? The linking strategy is erratic. Some puzzlers like "side-scrolling" appear unlinked early but are linked later in the prose.
I've fixed the concerns you've used as examples. When I'm done with the rest of the list, I'll come back and see if I can catch some more. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It received an aggregate review score of 94% on Metacritic and 93.3% on Game Rankings." You've just been writing about the musical score—the score received a 94%?
Fixed Oh, apparently that's an organization error that was missed during the huge lead proofread. Thanks for catching that. --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Players can choose from a large selection of characters, controlling them as they fight on various stages, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen." As written, the stages attempt to knock their opponents off the screen.
Fixed "Players can choose from a large selection of characters, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen as they fight on various stages." - better now? --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Instead of using health bars, percentage displays are employed, which begin on 0%, but increase as the characters take damage." I implore you—imagine you know nothing about video games and re-read this.
I doubt anybody is ignorant such basic things like health-bars and math. A character gets hurt, percentage increases. Difficult? I really doubt that anybody, non-gamer or not, can't understand that. --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I don't come across too harsh—I can tell a lot of work has gone into this. But, it's not ready in my view. You absolutely have to get some more non-gamer eyes on this. --Laser brain(talk)06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's always appreciated when you give a big list of "disappointments" at the last part of an FA with a few hours to react before it gets archived :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. It's not as if the nomination was the subject of wild approval before I left comments. Of the editors above that actually delved into the prose, I see either neutral or outright oppose. --Laser brain(talk)14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to get non-gamer eyes, since only gamers volunteer in the Volunteers for Peer Review list. I'll fix your concerns immediately, as well. Thank you for reviewing - I can tell the article has improved since your comments are no longer asking to fix very obvious errors. --haha169 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laser Brain, am I right in assumming that most of the errors, in your opinion, congregate in the lead and the gameplay sections? --haha169 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you got me. Fuchs switched to neutral. After I posted this. I actually stopped reading after the lead and gameplay sections to get these issues posted, but I hope I will find fewer game-guide jargon issues when I'm clear of the gameplay and plot. I realize it's difficult but I had two other non-gamers sit down and read what I covered, and they were confounded. You are too close to the text to understand the challenge here, I think, which is why I'm requesting an external copy-edit. --Laser brain(talk)17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're getting here. But the problem is, it is very difficult to get a non-gamer to copyedit this thing. Don't think I haven't tried. I got Ashnard, Giggy, and several other people to copyedit/peer review it, but they were all a part of WP:VG. When I went to the "I can copyedit anything" list, each one came up with the excuse: "I'm too busy." If you have any suggestions, though, I'd gladly take it. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have any more specific fixes, your oppose is not valid. Either list more things to fix, and we can fix them, or strike your oppose. Fishing for others to find copyediting problems in FAC is not cool. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judge, please calm down. I doubt Sandy will archive this FAC just yet. If she does, I'll just re-start it with valid reason. Plus, truthfully, its not the FAC assessor's job to copyedit the article. Its our job to. LaserBrain does list some interesting issues, but its very possible that his concerns will not hinder this FAC process greatly. --haha169 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::Deep breathes:: Ok, what I'm saying is that yes, it is our job to copyedit it, but people have copyedited the hell out of this article, it has already had three peer reviews, and at this point, for us to take his prose concerns seriously, he must state what issues remain specifically. Can't fix what we can't see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize changes have been made in response to my comments, and I will revisit them shortly. Since editors are quite actively addressing feedback, I will do my best to delineate any remaining issues. Hopefully we can get this wrapped up in time to see the article promoted. --Laser brain(talk)20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Fixing your concerns was actually the first thing I did. I learnt that in the previous FAC - delaying doesn't do any good. Thanks for your effort. Its greatly appreciated! :)--haha169 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Laser brain, if there is no policy against having the Japanese in the first line like this article does, then why should that hamper its chances at becoming a featured article? Deamon138 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was just referring to his problem further up the page, on which hos last comment was, "I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it." If there's nothing wrong with it, then it shouldn't affected this articles chances. If he doesn't like that articles are allowed it, it should be raised on the appropriate VG page, not here. Deamon138 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He said it wouldn't matter whether or not he comments on it. Its not really a big issue - even he said so himself. He doesn't care. But deamon, remember that Laser Brain reviews pretty much every FAC article, so he can't remember everything. --haha169 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you Laser Brain! Just another note, I wiki-linked "Health Bars" to help anybody who honestly doesn't understand what health bars are. --haha169 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: why is European red-linked? (Why is European linked at all?) I see at least one missing publisher: ^ Gerstmann, Jeff. "Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Review". Retrieved on March 28, 2008. WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues throughout. Copyedit needs: ... Hideo Kojima "practically 'begged' " for Snake to be included ... (strange quote marks). Redundancy even in the lead: Overall, Brawl received an aggregate ... (what is the use of "overall" here?) I believe the block quotes are wrong, see WP:MOS#Quotations. Perhaps ask User:Epbr123 to fix these MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional queries We're almost there, I think. I've been making some edits but I'm left with a few questions/issues:
"In Classic Mode, the player goes through a number of randomly generated matches, although there is a specific order of appearance for each series." I couldn't make heads or tails of this statement—can someone clarify?
Are we confident that "minigame" is not jargon? I've never heard of minigames outside the the context of video games. At the first mention, how about saying, "Brawl also features objective-oriented minigames, or small games within the game, in Stadium Mode."
"Though primarily a single-player mode, cooperative multiplayer is available." What makes it primarily a single-player mode?
Fixed Its designed as single-player, listed in single-player section, and most people play it single player. I only included the last example, since all of them would be too much. --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This mode features a power-up mechanism ..." Spot the jargon.
"Once one character loses a life, another character on the team can take his or her place until the stock count, of which each stage has a set number, depletes." This lost me.. stock count? How/why does it deplete?
"Sakurai claimed that this mode would be more "fleshed out" than the single-player modes in previous Smash Bros. titles." The name is mentioned rather suddenly after not reading it since the lead, I think—I had to scroll back to recall who it was. Suggest beginning the sentence with "Game director Masahiro Sakurai claimed ..."
All right. I believe I've addressed all concerns. I feel proud of myself. You should to, Laser. Thank you for your hard work. Is there any more? --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above after making a few more tweaks. Well done, and thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. You may want to ping Ashnard, David Fuchs, etc. to let them know additional copy-editing has been done. --Laser brain(talk)04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I know I've told you this many times throughout the course of the day, but your work is really appreciated. And yes, I'll ping Ashnard and Fuchs. Thanks again! --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that new additions are revised properly: "Brawl reached number one on both European[99] and Australian[100] sales charts, surpassing all competition that week." "surpassing all competition that week."—that's usually what being numer one means. Doesn't state which weeks. AshnardTalkContribs08:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the article is looking better regarding prose and minor issues. It seems the accessibility and readership has been fixed, although I didn't notice it because of my gamer mindset. However, I am remaining neutral mainly regarding personal prefrences. I've stated them before, but this is mainly due things like the organisation of Reception, and the weighting given to particular gameplay aspects. However, that's just me—I'm sure the article will pass anyway. AshnardTalkContribs08:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-nom, article is over a year old but has recently been improved and passed GA. It has also been peer reviewed. I believe that it meets all of the featured article criteria, but I am looking forward to responding to your comments. JRP (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Various nitpicks
The Gray book, Forty-five years under the flag, Chadwick and Arctic Experiences all have ISBN numbers which should be in.
All of these books were published prior to 1966 and the editions I have don't have ISBN numbers. Is there a reliable way to find the number? I tried an Amazon search, but, for example, their page on the Gray book doesn't list an ISBN. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page does though. Maybe because its an import? The others seem to have isbn's where they've been more recently republished. You get the amazon list up then go for any recent publication. Fainitesbarley21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of "retrieved on's" for books and articles that are not web-sources seems rather odd - or is this some policy I don't know about?
Something I was told to do either during a peer review of another article or a GA/FA when the copy you use is on Google Books. I can easily remove those. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove them right now if somebody more knowledgable than I says its OK. I just haven't come across it before and find them rather distracting. You could ask SandyGeorgia. Fainitesbarley21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a URL, you should have the accessdate. If you got info from googlebooks, you should provide the link and the date. If you got info from a hard print source, there is no URL, there is no accessdate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you put the whole reference in "references" you don't need to repeat the whole thing every time for each page number in "notes".
Fixed. I can move the refs closers to where they are referencing (the individual countries in both cases), if you like but I don't like having refs in the middle of a sentence if I can help it...JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Sandy (and I have tons of respect here), I ask that I not have to format the links in this way. They look attractive, but I don't want to fake a bulleted list using asterisks. If The mediawiki software doesn't support having a real (but non-indented) b-list, I'd rather wait until it does than create a list in this way. I'll be happy to keep the links separate (which seems fine for most FAs), separate them with semicolons (as the FA article Edwin Taylor Pollock, promoted a year ago) does, or separate them with BRs. Just please don't ask me to fake formatting in the text! JRP (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So as to skirt around this issue, I have broken up all multiple citations in a row following the guidance in WP:REFPUNC (and elsewhere) that I can do references after commas. With that guidance, I've moved all refs to be closest to the element that they are citing and there are no longer any multiples in a row. This should make everyone happy, I hope... JRP (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do none of the newspaper articles have named authors?
Any that had named authors, I included the name. The vast majority don't have a by-line with the article. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence Though his search for the Polaris was unsuccessful, several years later, Sebree was sent to the Arctic again, this time to rescue Adolphus Greely and the survivors of the Lady Franklin Bay expedition. is possibly a little clumsy. The second clause seems out of place. It also implies that he was personally responsible for the lack of success and therefore his subsequent selection for a second mission was surprising.
After the Chilean Civil War, anti-American sentiment was strong in the country due anger over the United States granting asylum to the supporters of deposed President José Manuel Balmaceda - not clear which country (even though its obvious if you think about it).
This sentence Because of the legal issues, the Buffalo was unable to leave until December and then proceeded immediately to Mare Island Naval Shipyard where the United States Navy held its own investigation, also finding the crew of the Baltimore not responsible for the riot may be better split in two.
In a sign of this ambiguity, Sebree was detached from command of the Abarenda in March 1902 to give him additional time as commandant and "governor". Is "in a sign" correct here?
I don't know because I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean because of or as a consequence of or despite this ambiguity? Fainitesbarley20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More or less, mean neither. Sebree was officially governor according to the Deed of Succession (or rather, his predecessor was, so he was by extension) BUT the US government and Navy didn't recognize this. Or rather, they did recognize this in some ways, such as the orders that Sebree responded to and the removal of his command of the Abarenda to give him more time to "govern", but it wasn't official that was the reason. (Officially, he was responsible only for the naval station.) A bit of a wink going on here, but I don't want to say that the in the article because I don't want to make a conclusion that my secondary sources don't. And he was given command of the Wheeling again a bit later, so it didn't really stick. I'll try and be more clear on this as I revise, but I want to think on it for a bit. JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely reworded. I could be just an idiosyncrasy of my particular regional dialect, but "in" and "as" a sign mean something very slightly different to me. So, to make us both happy, I've completely reworded that section and I think this makes it clearer. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also an overall view that there are too many commas and those not necessarily in the right places.
Copy-editing that I and others have done on this article have removed a small number of questionable commas, but I don't have an easy diff to show you. Can you point out other commas which should be removed? I don't want to over-punctuate. JRP (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the map and last twp pictures going left - right - left?
Done, but I can't have images just under headings per WP:MOS, so I'm not sure I like how it looks this way. Let me know how you feel. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks better I think - on my slightly wide screen anyway! It differs on different computer screens. (not the left and right but how the text fits round it).Fainitesbarley20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey! Was Kitchener really ever called ""world's greatest general"? How times change.
Do you need me to put the citation for this with the quoted text, or is at the end of the sentence fine? The trick is that the same source is used for the quote as the rest of the sentence, so it would be the same citation twice in a row over a very small text space. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, its fine as it is. i was just thinking how things change. Fainitesbarley
I removed this line anyway, while doing other copyedits. On a careful review of sources, the "world's greatest general" line, while repeated without a source in several articles about the banquet (implying editorial authority), it was specifically pulled from Governor Gillett's speech that night and therefore should be properly attributed. But, in trying to figure out how to mark up the text to do that attribution, I decided that it's just easier without it. JRP (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've included a few responses inline. I'll get to addressing your points in the article later on this evening. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This first sentence He is best remembered for his two expeditions into the Arctic Ocean, and for being the second acting governor of American Samoa as well as, later, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet.
How about "He is best remembered for his two expeditions into the Arctic Ocean, for being the second acting governor of American Samoa and, later, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet."Fainitesbarley20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this "scandalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morales", really "morales" and not morals? Or maybe morale but not morales. or is this another Americanism I'm not familiar with?
You are correct. The title of the article suggested it should be 'morales', but the quote in the article itself is 'morals'. I've corrected it and moved a citation to be with the quotation for clarity. JRP (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this bit In 1916, Sebree reported that the United States Navy was behind the world's other major navies. A single dreadnought, he claimed, could ravage the entire Pacific Fleet. According to the dreadnought article the US laid down dreadnoughts in 1906 - or did Sebree not notice in his dotage?Fainitesbarley20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was specifically remarking on the lack of them in the Pacific Fleet and not the US fleet as a whole. I'll research that time period more closely and see if I can phrase that differently so that it's more clear what he was responding to. JRP (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the text. He was responding to a policy where the Pacific Fleet did not have dreadnoughts, but the Atlantic fleet did. I've made a change-- is it clearer now? JRP (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Acting Governor" is rendered five different ways in the article: Acting Governor, acting-Governor, Acting-governor, Acting-Governor, and acting-governor. —KevinMyers22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll knock it down to two ways, a title and a noun form. I've placed a note on WP:MOS to get their advice on which of the variants it should be. Thanks, I hadn't realized how inconsistent it was.JRP (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one case where I was not doing that (in the infobox, per your example). Can you see any others? I've corrected that one. Please let me know if you see additional problems with the article. JRP (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This is an interesting article, and it seems quite comprehensive. However, I think the prose needs just a bit more tweaking. There are awkward sentence constructs, passive voice, and repetitve phrasing. I've highlighted a few examples of these below. I would also recommend a comma audit - I think there are some unnecessary commas thrown in and a few places that the commas were ommitted and shouldn't have been.
As was noted at the time, this rescue mission was the first official United States military expedition to the Arctic - is the "as was noted at the time" really necessary? It either was or was not the first official US military expedition.
An important episode in Sebree's early career was his participation in the second Polaris rescue mission. - This sentence feels out of place to me. I have not thought of a better transition sentence yet, but I think this needs to be rewritten.
This sentence sounds awkward to me. After the Chilean Civil War, anti-American sentiment was strong in Chile due to anger over the United States granting asylum to the supporters of deposed President José Manuel Balmaceda.
I've noticed several instances where passive voice is used when active voice would be better.
Watch for issues with repetitve phrasing. For example, the Buffalo was unable to leave until December. Once they were permitted to leave, the crew was ... could be the Buffalo did not receive permission to depart until December. The crew was then ..."
Is the name of Sebree's wife known? (or the date of their marriage?) Did they have more than 1 child and only 1 survived?
Her name was Anne B. Sebree. I can't find her maiden name or the date of their wedding. I'll search around. She was almost 20 years his junior, so they must have been married sometime in the middle of his career... JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the names of Sebree's parents known?
Yes and I have included a little bit more information about his father in the first paragraph. (And a bit more is known about his brother in secondary sources, which I did not include.) Consulting primary sources (genealogy databases), I have his mother's name, their wedding date, etc. but I will not be including them in this article since no secondary source that I have been able to find mentions them. JRP (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm sorry, but I'm swamped in RL right now and probably won't be able to take another look at this article. If Malleus and Dan are satisfied with the prose after their copyedits, please disregard my oppose. Karanacs (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Interesting article! I have a few questions:
An important episode in Sebree's early career was his participation in the second Polaris rescue mission. - Why was it important? I think this topic sentence needs to be a bit more explicit.
I've reworded. I'm not sure how to explain this better. The Polaris mission, although unsuccessful, was what put him on as the XO in the Greely relief mission more than a decade later. That put Sebree in a good relationship with Capt. Schley, plus gave him a fair amount of fame, both of which were boosts to his career. We can't know if he would have had a different trajectory without this event, but it did set the dominoes in motion. JRP (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though the Navy's search for the Polaris was unsuccessful - The lead states that the search for the Polaris was unsuccessful, but the article indicates that the Navy found evidence of the men and discovered that they were rescued by a Scottish ship. Is this considered unsuccessful? I thought "unsuccessful" meant that the men died or that the Navy never found anything.
There is not much on Sebree's personal life. When did Sebree marry? We only find out about his son in the last line - is there any more to say about his family relationships?
I have this information in primary sources only. His biographies are military ones and so skim or completely omit personal information. (Even his obit barely mentioned a family.) I've added a little bit since you made these comments from secondary sources, but I have yet to find a good source for more. JRP (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what other reviewers think - is this article original research? Looking at the footnotes, I was struck by the number of contemporary sources, such as newspaper articles, and I thought that perhaps the article was actually a work of synthesis. I am curious how others interpret our policy on these matters.
This is harder to respond to. WP:NOR applies to unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This article does not include unpublished facts and I have gone out of my way to not include any, even when I have found details from genealogy databases, etc. which would have been nice to include. (Like unpublished information on Sebree's family.) I have used primary sources only as a means to ensure the accuracy of my secondary sources. I also have worked hard to not advance any position and to be as unbiased as possible, using multiple sources (some not included as references) to avoid bias.
Any synthesis that is done is just putting facts in order. The skeleton of the article comes from his obituaries and some biographies written for newspapers during his career (promotions, retirement), plus Government of American Samoa website and Record of Living Officers. The events described in those are filled in using other newspaper articles and books, sometimes pertaining to Sebree and sometimes not. Each of the events described have been separately researched to the best of my ability-- using secondary and tertiary sources-- so that I can provide context for Sebree's role in the events only. (But that does bump up the number of citations in the article.) I believe that there are only a handful of events later in his life which I went to newspapers directly for the first word and by then it was because he was major news and Commanders-in-chief have plenty of prose written about them in many sources. Synthesis, if that's even the right word for what I've done, is still allowed by WP:NOR as long as it doesn't advance a position.
As far as I can tell from the guidelines, there are no restrictions on using contemporary secondary sources versus modern ones. I suspect the line would be difficult to draw anyway. (And while there may be more modern sources to draw on than what I used, it's a lot easier to find older ones for these figures because out-of-copyright books are more often indexed and searchable.)
I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. Actually, they were sort of lost in the shuffle. I'm sorry. I'll try and respond to these all later on this evening. JRP (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose'—1a.
Is "then" necessary in the second sentence?
Fixed. I've removed it, per your suggestion, but now I am concerned that it's unclear that these postings did not happen simultaneously. But, if that's the way you want it... JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"United States Navy's first mission"—the first two words are entirely in the reader's mind by now, and to repeat them ad infinitum slows it down. "the Navy's"
If this came out of only two paras, it indicates that fresh eyes are necessary to audit the prose throughout. An hour at least by a good copy-editor. You know how to locate the right person? TONY(talk)12:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put out a call for a copy-editor, but you know how difficult that can be these days. Since you have a very good eye for this, I would appreciate any additional comments that you have on other areas of the prose that need improvement. In the meantime, I've corrected the several issues that you mention above. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be hard, but you need to forge collaborations with word-nerds who are interested in this type of topic. Research edit history pages of similar articles; copy-editors are obvious from their edit summaries. TONY(talk)14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update 7/11: Tony, since you last reviewed this article it has received some copyediting (some minor, some significant) from User:Hmains, User:Laser brain, User:Mattisse, User:Dank55, User:Malleus Fatuorum, and User:Fainites. (And several more that had contributed copyediting before your comment on the 4th.) Can you please take a look at the article now and see if your concerns have been addressed? Dank55's work I think deserves particular mention and I think that his style of fixes are related to the issues that you described. Thanks for your assistance in evaluating this FA candidate. JRP (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most specific source I can cite is "United States Navy", but I have updated the image on the commons to include the specific year the picture was taken (before, I just used the years that Sebree was on the Tennessee) and additional information relating to its call number at the U.S. Naval Historical Center, as well as an image to the USNHC's website where this image can be located online. Is this acceptable? JRP (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I formatted the additional details into the template, and expanded the description from the source. Kellyhi!22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting. JRP asked me to have a look. See my last comment at WT:FAC; I like the idea of making copyediting "sexier", in order to increase the number of copyeditors, and one way might be to let copyeditors up the count in that "significantly contributed to X FAs" userbox whenever we/they do significantly contribute. I'm not looking for co-nom status of course but I'd appreciate being considered to be a "significant contributor", if my work merits that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"in what was the navy's first mission": changed to "in the navy's first mission". This sounds a bit like "in what became the navy's first mission"; if you're saying that the mission one was thing and then became something else, then "in what became" would be better. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
It was the Navy's first mission to the Arctic, according to contemporary sources. (And I don't have any modern sources which dispute that.) If we get very specific with definitions, the "Arctic" is larger than the "Arctic Ocean", and the expedition only traveled as far north as the Nares Strait which links Baffin Bay with the Arctic Ocean. So, you can read it as either "It was the Navy's first mission to the Arctic Ocean, but they didn't need to make it that far." or ignore that clause. I think this is academic because contemporary sources didn't dwell on whether they made it to the "Arctic Ocean" or not and the exact borders as defined then (given the unexplored nature of the territory) may have been different than the definitions today. That's why I phrased the line that way, but I have no problem with changing it if it's a difficult read. You're the expert here. JRP (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"prominent citizens of Howard County" (your quotes): I'm not sure if this means you're quoting a passage, or if these are "scare quotes". (That was an example of "scare quotes", btw.) I searched in ref 1 for "prominent" and didn't find it, and I can't search the next ref. If it's a quote, I'd prefer the proper reference be at the end of that sentence, or at the end of that quote. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
I've adjusted the text to reflect that the quote came from the Jefferson County Tribune. (My source is the Atlanta Constitution, which reprinted the article, because the JCT doesn't seem to have any archives that I have access to and isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia.) The article itself relates a story from Sebree's career which isn't notable enough to bring up elsewhere (Sebree discovered a former slave that he had known in his childhood who had escaped and somehow returned to Africa), but it includes a biographical overview that is better than from other secondary sources which comment only on his military career. JRP (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...the remaining crew members split up as some abandoned their ship to the pack ice and others made their own way south." I'm not following; didn't they all abandon the ship? Were they walking? Were the first ones not "making their own way"? I read the reference pp. 162-165 [note:hyphens are perfectly okay on talk pages but this would be an en-dash in an article], and didn't see anything, but page 164 wasn't scanned in. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
The book is somewhat hard to follow. Capt. Hall dies on 162. On p. 198 is when the Polaris crew is split up with 19 crewmen on an ice berg and the remaining in the ship when the berg they were anchored to broke off. They are rescued by the Tigress p. 326. The fate of the Polaris during that period starts on p. 398. The Polaris crew is rescued on p. 405. I see that I didn't cite all of that, and I will adjust the citations as you suggest. (Btw, Polaris expedition is a much more succinct description.) JRP (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly thereafter Sebree was made an instructor...": The infobox says that didn't happen until 1884. If he was hired in 1882 but didn't start teaching until 1884, I think I would put this sentence after the sentence that refers to 1883. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
I removed that clause. In truth, he was an instructor both times and just that stint wasn't reflected in the infobox. (It wasn't listed in his Navy bio and he appears to have served in that position less than two months.) Since it was so brief and didn't add anything of note, I think we're fine just removing it. (Which I did.) JRP (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your style is a little more comma-heavy than average for WP (unless someone else was doing the commas), but that's okay. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
"Oregon and Washington Territory": I changed to "Territories", since those were two territories in the 1880s, but feel free to revert if some other meaning of "territory" was implied. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Ick. My source said "Oregon Territory", but I realize now that was a mistake. Oregon was made a state in 1859, but Washington wasn't until 1889. I've corrected the prose to now link to the state of Oregon and the territory of Washington. JRP (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to ask questions...part of the process is getting your writing out there for the world to see and making you a better writer and copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
The rule for a year or two has been to put an en-dash in "Spanish–American", although you'll get resistance in some quarters. The rule is that hyphens mean that you're talking about a single entity, a "Spanish-American" (someone who has immigrated, perhaps?); an en-dash means "between" or "or". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest another phrasing? It was "small" because there we no public protests. Mostly, it was well-covered in the domestic media the unfairness of the situation. I don't know if I'd say "public outpouring of support" because there might be a POV issue with the source, so I'm trying to use neutral words. Certainly, the caused enough of a stir that the military had to respond to it directly (though not in the hoped-for way), which was somewhat unusual I think for the time period. JRP (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"caused enough of a stir that the military had to respond to it directly (though not in the hoped-for way)" sounds great to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Okay, your comments above look good, and I like all the changes you made. I'm done. Commas need to be inserted in the middle of auto-formatted dates (that is, January 11900 should have a comma in the middle), so that when this text is copied elsewhere, it keeps a comma.
I don't really understand this requirement (why doesn't it get the comma if mediawiki adds it?), but fixed anyway. JRP (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for your prompt attention to my comments. --Laser brain(talk)06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Comments Overall a nice article and well-written. I noticed some minor issues such as commas needed so I just fixed them. There is some wordiness that I tried outlining below:[reply]
What's the difference between "... would eventually become a lawyer." and "... became a lawyer."?
(Note: Laser is an excellent writer and prolific FA copyeditor, and generally, he's one of the guys whose comments I don't need to respond to, but I'm trying to build a relationship here of copyeditor/writer, which involves standing up both for my copyediting and for the writer! P.S. As I starting writing my comments, I realized that I really enjoy dealing with a good copyeditor, so I guess I'm trying to build a collegial relationship with Laser as well!) I thought about that and decided to leave it, on the grounds that changing to "he became a lawyer" would make that the one sentence in the article whose verb tense doesn't match the generally "paratactic" flow of the article: "This happened, and this happened, and this happened...", meaning "next". The readers have to switch the way they read the article to understand that "became" doesn't mean "and then he became..., and then..." here. However, I often see that "became" language in just that way in bios; the bottom line is that I'm happy with it either way. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 10:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sebree was not held directly responsible for the collision itself, as he was below deck at the time, but he did not do enough to determine whether or not the other ship was damaged before sailing away." Things like "itself" and "or not" can be eliminated.
I won't generally change "whether or not" to "whether" since the first is so ubiquitous in English, but I do buy the idea that "whether" is better in an encyclopedia. But concerning "itself", the sentence was better with it. Good writing follows the "principle of least astonishment", and in that one word "itself", the readers are alerted before they get any farther that while Sebree didn't get into trouble for that, he did get into trouble for something else. It's not a bad sentence when you remove "itself", but it requires the readers to backtrack after they understand the change in tone. Joe has good expository writing instincts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This contributed to growing anti-American tensions in Chile." Avoid beginning sentences with "This ..." in vague reference to a previous idea. This what?
Good advice, but on the other hand, I would have written "which" instead of "this"; I don't think Joe was unclear here, I just agree with Laser that it's good to take a second look whenever you're tempted to use "this" in this way. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"On October 9, 1901, Sebree received orders to travel to American Samoa to take command of the USS Abarenda and to be commandant of the United States Naval Station Tutuila. He was simultaneously promoted to captain." Why not just "... and promoted to captain."?
Laser is right, it's better without "himself"...but not because such sentences are always better without "himself", which is what you'll hear from some at FAC. The purpose of "himself" would ideally be to alert the reader that after a long string of "X did this, Y did that", you're transitioning to a paragraph that's all about what Sebree did...except you're not in this case.
I didn't make changes based on my responses to Laser; I'm not reviewing this article, and I'm happy to leave these things up to Joe. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All items have been fixed, as you suggest. However, the line about being promoted to captain has been adjusted to reflect that the promotion actually came three days after the change in assignment. "Simultaneously" was an exaggeration and I agree that if it was simultaneous, it should have been in one sentence. But two separate sets of orders over three days probably should be in two separate sentences. Please let me know if you don't agree with this change.
Support. My comments were resolved some time ago but I've watched the copyediting with interest. Its transformed it from a competent article into one thats a real pleasure to read. (No insult intended JRP - you know what I mean). Suppose instead of calling yourself a significant contributor Dan you listed them in a form that more clearly acknowledges your particular skill? Must be a suitable phrase that recognises this art? "Finishing"? "Polishing"? "A to FA in the tap of a key". Fainitesbarley20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Dank33's !vote should be excluded, then that's Sandy's decision, but I wouldn't protest it. If this article doesn't make it before Sandy inevitably loses patience, I'll survive, work to improve it, and submit it again in a month or two after I've had a chance to work on something else. No hard feelings. JRP (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't lost patience, JrP :-) I am, however, moving all of this off-topic discussion to talk, since it seems that Awadewit's earlier on-topic commentary got lost in the shuffle. Let's keep this page focused on the article, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - just dropping by with a few comments.
First, it'd be nice if the lede could be three paragraphs. On that note, it would be nice if there was a better opening sentence. Was there anything special the person did that could be mentioned? Also, is this phrase appropriate; He is best remembered? Personally, I would remove the "best remembered", take one of those things and stick it as the first sentence, and write out plainly what else he was remembered for. But that is a bit of a change, and it's up to you.
One minor thing - do you have the name of his mother?
I have it, but only in a geneology database which isn't a secondary source. Since I never found it in a biography of him (most biographical sketches of him centered on his military career), I have decided not to include it due to WP:NOR. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Early Life and Career, be careful when mentioning his family, as in the second sentence it is not clear who "he" is (brother or Uriel?) - His brother, Frank P. Sebree, became a lawyer. He entered the United States Naval Academy on July 3, 1863, during the American Civil War. After his graduation in 1867, his first assignment was on board the USS Canandaigua.
Is there any more in his early life? He seems to have been promoted pretty quickly, though it doesn't say what he did, or how good of a job he did. At the other extreme, there seems to be a bit too much about the Polaris expedition. I can see keeping the section long, but at least have more mention for what he actually did, and not just what happened on the expedition.
Not much more about his early life or the Polaris expedition, but I'll search around. Early life is difficult since he didn't have a contemporary biographer and he grew up in Missouri just prior to the Civil War. I'm not even sure why he joined the Union Navy, rather than the Confederacy. But after that, the record is terse until his more notable achievements. (And, as you point out, his major action on the Polaris expedition was to be present and to do his duties-- but this gave him value for the Greely expedition later.) I'll see what I can do to improve this. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the disclaimer that I did a thorough copyedit, and I don't do images or endsections. Some of the people who commented haven't had a chance to give a second look, so I came back and gave it a read-through, and I think it's easily FA material, despite my inherent COI as a copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, I've been a bit tardy in getting to this. I don't think the article's quite ready yet. For instance, on a quick look through I found this: "a small group of explorers were stranded on the now-crippled Polaris ...". A few others:
"A bunch of kittens were playing in the grass" is perfectly okay; it depends completely on the collective noun in AmEng. "Group" can take singular or plural, and is often a judgment call. "were" is fine here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
"Sebree was subsequently transferred to the USS Powhatan, although not as the ship's commanding officer". It's kind of unsatisfactory to be told what he wasn't. Was he the ship's cook then?
Agreed that it would be better to know; is that information available? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Not in a secondary source that I have found. What I have merely states whether we was in command or not. In this case, he was in command of the Pinta, he screwed up, and then he didn't get his own command again for 13 years. I included "although not as the ship's commanding officer" to put it in contrast to the Pinta, Gedney and Silliman which he had recently commanded. It can be omitted if you feel that is better. JRP (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"... to finally discover Greely's surviving camp" I know what this means, but it isn't camps that survive.
changed to "the survivors of Greely's camp", which is better, but camps, colonies and outposts can indeed "survive"; it means they still exist. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"... locals were charged in the incident but ultimately acquitted". They were charged in the incident?
Sadly, yes, this is now fine in AmEng. This construction started many years ago as "He was charged in the murder of...", and then over time, the press started confusing a charge of murder with a murder, and decided they didn't even want to express certainty about the charge, so it has morphed in news accounts into "He was charged in the incident." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Pardon for being a damn Yank, but I don't even know what the proper preposition should be here. Charged on the incident? I hate feeling like I can't speak my own language. JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"... Sebree was transferred back to the Academy from 1893 to 1896." His transfer took three years?
How would you say this, Malleus? I see a tradeoff between strict accuracy and extra verbiage here, although it wouldn't bother me to add a few words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
It's in there: After his return from the expedition Sebree taught at the Naval Academy for a year before being transferred as the lighthouse inspector. It's also in the infobox. (The prose could be clarified that United States Lighthouse Board is an organization that inspectors, and others, work for... if you see that as necessary.) JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"member of the majority opinion" How can anyone be a member of an opinion?
"This so-called "Pathfinder Squadron" would travel from New York to California" Would travel?
I like "would". Anything else takes more words and doesn't add to the meaning that the trip was definitely about to happen, but did not happen at this instant in the narrative. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
"a steam pipe burst, instantly killing two officers and wounding ten others" So there were 12 officers standing around this steam pipe?
Good catch; changed to "ten men". "others" is ubiquitous in TV news meaning "people" and it's common in newspapers, but it's not common enough for Wikipedia, yet, I agree, because of the ambiguity. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
I don't like men here. It implies enlisted men, when given in contrast to officers, and I'm not certain that's factually the case. How about "and wounding ten more"? JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, you're right, "men" used like that would mean "not officers". "others" would be better than "more" IMO, but there are other options. Malleus? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article only uses the term "distinguished guest", but "the banquet hall was draped in the flags of the armies and navies of England", Kitchener was the second to speak (after the Governor of California), and the several press reports were mostly about Kitchener rather than Sebree. But I can soften the language if you like. which included ... as a distinguished guestJRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My, you should all be proud of this article now. Congratulations. Please note that I've removed the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM. I think you'll like the greater emphasis it gives your high-value links. TONY(talk)13:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is well written, well sourced, conforms to WP:MOS, and is stable. It recently underwent a peer review which lead to a few polishing changes and gave me the confidence to submit this article as an FAC. I look forward to your thoughts. PlasticupT/C17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite well written. In this genre, where you're recounting a story, essentially, I'd be inclined to use more commas after sentence-initial time phrases ("That afternoon, the storm ..."). Gives a rhythm, a pace, that makes it easier on the reader. Boy, it sure is hard to edit with those inline citations ... phew. TONY(talk)10:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you changed all of the unit ranges from, for example, "12 to 14 cm" to "12-14 cm". Either one is acceptable, as long as it is consistent within the article. I don't have a preference either way, so I'll just leave it as is rather than change them all back. Also, in a moment, I'll see whether I can add some more commas, although, one you start down that road, things can get a little out of control, if you know what I mean. ;-) PlasticupT/C12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure—too many commas is worse than too few. Generally, the longer the sentence and the more formal the context, the more ilkely you are to use optional commas. You're safe using them after sentence-initial prepositional phrases (In 2006, the). I'll check through quickly once you've done it. Also, en dash for ranges, not hyphens (see MOS). But I used en dashes. Punctuation is usually neater and easier to read than from ... to. TONY(talk)16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually struggled with adding appropriate commas to the lead — 'appropriate' being relative to this type of article. There are plenty of opportunities for optional commas, but it wouldn't feel right in this register for some reason. — Deckiller23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences that you re-worded are great but I really don't think that all those commas are necessary. They make the prose hard to read. For example, this comma slows the reader without adding anything: "Once in the Caribbean Sea, the storm rapidly intensified to a Category 5 Hurricane". I am going to remove a few of them. PlasticupT/C02:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of opinion. I won't change to object based on the commas; I don't think Tony will either. If you feel it reads better, then very well. — Deckiller02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me this is an extremely well written article that reads like suspenseful story. Having read it through several times I can't find any MoS issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job for the most part. I just have a couple comments regarding prose.
On August 14 the depression gained strength and was upgraded to Tropical Storm Dean. "Gained strength" could be worded better.
I'm not sure how to say that any plainer. "Gained strength" is a pretty simple phrase. What do you mean by "better"? As it is I think the sentence conveys its meaning quickly and precisely, which is all I could ask for. PlasticupT/C12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the dates not autoformatted?
As Mattisse pointed out, that guideline was changed. See his comments below. I actually had them autoformatted when this review began, but someone removed the formatting. PlasticupT/C12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After its first landfall, Hurricane Dean crossed the Yucatán Peninsula and emerged, weakened, into the Bay of Campeche. Unless I'm missing something, the last part of this sentence is making little sense.
Strong upper-level easterly winds slowed development,[5][6] but on August 13 the tropical wave gained enough organization that the National Hurricane Center designated it Tropical Depression Four. "but" → "although".
That afternoon the hurricane continued to improve its outflow, and its numerous spiral bands gave it a well defined satellite presentation. This sounds weird. The hurricane itself didn't improve it's own outflow.
Hm, I didn't know that. I thought that as the air cooled it rushed outwards from the storm. I'll have to do a little research, and then I'll amend this sentence appropriately. PlasticupT/C22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the warm air of the eyewall rises to about 12 km it creates high pressure near the tropopause. This powers the anti-cyclone sitting on top of the cyclone. The anti-cyclone is the outflow. So stronger storm → stronger anti-cyclone → stronger outflow. The hurricane improves its own outflow. PlasticupT/C23:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The eyewall became even better defined throughout the day, the cloud tops cooled,[38] the minimum central pressure fell[39] and its winds increased to 160 mph (260 km/h), making Hurricane Dean a Category 5 hurricane once again[40][12] this time less than 210 mi (335 km) from its first landfall. This sentence needs to be broken up into 2 or 3 sentences.
It used to be, but I condensed it into one sentence. By having short, choppy sections like that it makes the reader speed up, giving the sense of rushing towards the hurricane's inevitable landfall. Grammatically it is sound and I like the effect. PlasticupT/C22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I can break the last bit off into another sentence. That will make it easier to read without interrupting the rush. PlasticupT/C12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nevertheless, the warm waters of the bay proved conducive for some development and the eye contracted overnight, indicating that the hurricane was regaining structure." This is more of a personal preference, but I don't like to see italics used in in-text prose.
Autoformatting dates is optional and there is an increasing movement against their use, per User:Tony1, the Feature Article Criteria guru. The reason is that autoformatting only works for registered users who have their preferences set, a small percentage of the Wikipedia readers. For the rest, it is just a jumble of blue. See WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT. Right now the issue is in a transitional phase. See [8], for example. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I actually asked Juliancolton to review this article for me, so I feel bad rejecting so much of his advice. I think the problem is that by now so many people have read through this article that there isn't much more to fix. I appreciate his help nonetheless. PlasticupT/C23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there no citations in the lead? The rest of the article seems to be heavily sourced. I see this as inconsistent per FACR §2.c.
My preference, except for the most extraordinary claims, is to keep the lead free of citations. Everything in the lead is cited in the body of the article. If the consensus is to cite any (or all) of the lead, however, I'll be happy to do so. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise this is certainly comprehensive and well sourced--particularly given the topic's scant significance. (Why anyone would care so much about this ship to write such an in-depth article is beyond me. I mean no offense to the contributing editors.)
To each his or her own. Why does anyone write about old hurricanes or TV shows? Because it interests them, I suppose… — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that it is well written and well laid out. One would think that this was one of the most important vessels in naval history.
In the article LASSCO is enclosed within <small> tags, like this – LASSCO – to simulate small caps. It's an old typography thing to keep acronyms or initialisms (typically of 4 or more characters) from drawing UNDUE ATTENTION, as this example phrase may do. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the website's been quoted in The New York Times and USA Today. They even say so right on the front page, so it must be true! All kidding aside, the publisher of the website is Martin Cox, who guest-curated a 2004 exhibit on the Los Angeles Steamship Company (the last owner/operator of this ship) at the Los Angeles Maritime Museum entitled "Hollywood to Honolulu: The Los Angeles Steamship Company’s Voyages to Hawaii in the Roaring ‘20s" (link to notice of exhibit at museum website; link to museum newsletter (pdf) that confirms his role [see page 5]). He also reports that he has an upcoming book of the same title to be published in the fall of this year by the Steamship Historical Society (though there's no independent confirmation of this on their website).
The website is mentioned and a co-editor quoted in the following news articles (backing up the claim on the main page of the website):
Individual ship pages at the website list references consulted, and in cases where I have had access to the same references, I have confirmed the accuracy.
The specific information that I cited was a personal account of the iceberg collision that identifies by name the passenger and the granddaughter who forwarded the story to the website. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DANFS citations are referring to items that are in the "References" section, where full details are provided, much like book references. Were there other inconsistencies apart from those? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Solid prose, well-cited, and better in style and content than most existing military history FACs. Strongly recommended both for its clarity and the depth and quality of the information. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-nom, as User:Brian Labelle and I are the primary contributors to the current version of the article. I've gone through the Good Article process as well as had a couple of people provide peer reviews. I also requested a couple of experienced FA editors (User:Resolute on-wiki and another one off-wiki) for their thoughts. Being new at this FA thing, I can't say that I'm 100% confident that this is good enough, but I am 100% confident that I've done what I could to get advice on getting it there. All of that being said, I welcome your comments, provided that you don't bite the FAC newb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Is it possible to get an infobox image facing the text?
From the first point, "Images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text". From my perspective the infobox image is looking to the right (towards my scrollbar). Apologies if I'm misinterpreting. :) —Giggy06:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the "or eyes". I guess his eyes are looking towards the right. But his face is facing slightly to the left. What to do? Well, since this is the best free picture of the guy we have, I'd suggest that what we do is either live with it or fail the FA over it (my vote would be for the first one, but I'm biased). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Activist Mike Hudema holding a depiction of Stelmach as he protests Bill 46." - I take it Hudema is protesting? Reads like Stelmach is the protester. (Image caption)
"and had directed it to the Wikipedia article on Harry Strom" - for context, say why redirecting to Strom's article is meaningful (if there is any significance to it).
"After this manoeuvre was met with mixed media and public reaction, Stelmach backed off threats of legal action and turned to negotiation in an effort to acquire the domain name." - ref?
"As of February 2008, no resolution had been reached." - what about as of today?
Removed. Unfortunately, the evidence of no agreement having been reached is in the lack of reporting on the subject, and in Cournoyer's last blog post on the subject [15], which probably doesn't qualify as a WP:RS, and an e-mail from Cournoyer telling me that no resolution has been reached, which certainly doesn't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a project of the Heritage Community Foundation, which develops its content in conjunction with government, museums, archives, and media outlets. In the case of the specific facts I use it to reference, it's just taken raw data straight from Elections Alberta and posted it on the web. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, I figured that might be, but having it out in black and white for other reviewers never hurts. Doesn't hurt to make sure my assumption wasn't wrong either! Ealdgyth - Talk02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Parliamentary Debates refs, are the dates the dates of the debates or the last access dates? I'm assuming they are the dates of the debates, in which case they probably need last access dates for the web links.
They are indeed debate dates. Unfortunately, Template:Cite hansard doesn't currently have an |accessdate field, and I'm not confident enough in my markup skills to add one. If somebody else wants to, I'd be happy to add it to this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I'm not adding anything to a template, at least one I don't use. Any way you could add the access date manually like this: <ref>{{cite hansard}} [[Access date]]</ref>?
Strong support Fantastic article in every respect. Balanced, well written, nicely illustrated and comprehensive. If only we could get this much detail on people who aren't currently alive! Maury (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your first two points. I'll need to give some thought to the third one, since it will take either some re-writing or some expansion to deal with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article, currently a GA, has been copy-edited and peer reviewed several times. The consensus is that it is ready for FA status. I think it meets the criteria and will let it speak for itself. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awhile ago, I was about to delist this from GA status. I've followed what's been going on since Hrothgar showed up and I can say now that I consider it FA quality. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this improper dash needs to be replaced:
The popularity of Geoffrey's Historia and its other derivative works (such as Wace's Roman de Brut) is generally agreed to be an important factor in explaining the appearance of significant numbers of new Arthurian works in 12th and 13th-<here>century continental Europe, particularly in France.Like nouser said, this happens a couple of times in the article. --Meldshal42(talk to me)13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the hyphens have been the subject of back-and-forth edits for a month or two. Originally, this was "12th- and 13th-century continental Europe", which was entirely correct. But not everyone seems to understand that compound modifiers must have hyphens and that in the construction at issue the hyphen after 12th must not be removed. To save any more bother I have rewritten this as "an important factor in explaining the appearance of significant numbers of new Arthurian works in continental Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries, particularly in France". qp10qp (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wow, the prose is amazing. One thing: you have both the formats nth century and nth-century in the article; that should probably be more consistent. Nousernamesleft (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article should be inconsistent, as not all instances of "nth century" are compound adjectives requiring hyphenation. I checked all instances of "century" in the article and fixed some errors. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphens were removed a couple of times, for some reason; I put them back the first time but must have forgotten the second time. Awadewit has restored the correct forms. qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images, except for the lead image, are set to size "thumb" already. I have moved the Merlin image up. See what you think. I am unsure if the move is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I usually have a great deal of difficulty wading my way through large articles like this, but I can freely say that I had no such difficulty this time. Excellent prose, well-referenced. Excellent work! Cam (Chat) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Disclaimer: I copyedited the last two subsections of this article.) This article is well-researched, well-written, and well-illustrated. It clearly and concisely explains a large swath of art and history, balancing all of the different elements of "stuff related to King Arthur" extremely well. I, too, think this is one of the best articles Wikipedia has produced. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supprt This is cited excellently, and the prose is very easy to read. A well-researched article like this deserves the star. --haha169 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other inscriptional evidence for Arthur is tainted with the suggestion of forgery - this is tantalising. should there be a link here
I've linked the reference to the "Glastonbury cross" — in the footnote that is attached to the above text — to the brief description of the inscribed cross and the circumstances of its discovery on the Glastonbury Abbey page; does this work for you or do we need a link in the main text? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge issue but works better for me in main text as I am not one for linking to wikipedia material from footnotes unless an author. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intro is quite long. In particular, the third paragraph seems overly detailed for a lead section. Perhaps it would be possible to edit down the third paragraph or combine the third and fourth paragraphs into one shorter paragraph about the development of the legend of King Arthur. Otherwise, I'm afraid you are going to lose a fair number of readers before they even finish the intro. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not sure if I can support this article not mentioning Monty Python and the Holy Grail whatsoever. For us Yanks, it is generally our first (and often only) exposure to the legend of King Arthur, as sad as that may be. I realize this may smack of recentism, but it does seem like a notable enough cultural influence to at least mention somewhere in the article. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean adding mention of the movie would be a trivial task, or do you mean the movie is too trivial to add it to the article? Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second meaning, Kaldari. I do think the third paragraph could be shortened. I would take out specific mention of Malory, Tennyson and Twain, and replace with more general and brief statements. Clíodhna (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it this way, its one of my favourite films no doubt, but this a very very strong and scholarly article, and because I'm anti 'in popular culture' on wikipedia in general, I wouldn't be comfortable making an exception based on my own personal taste. That said; eh, whatever - no big deal. Happy to let the writers of the article decide. Clíodhna (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a weak oppose, any only because I had two minor criticisms. I'll be happy to change it to a support if at least the lead is edited down a bit. Kaldari (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'edited down a bit'; In the absence of suggestion I can only assume you mean simplified. Fine, but 'comment' would have been a better option to take so. If I had suffrage I would discount your comment on this. Clíodhna (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean any offence. I was just trying to offer some suggestions to improve the article. I'm sorry if my objections seemed trivial, but I think readability is extremely important, especially for the lead section. It looks like Cuchullian has fixed the lead now. As soon as I'm not editing from a cell phone, I will change my vote to support. Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari's points might be minor, but they directly relate to 1(b) and 2(a) of the FA criteria. If he feels the article is not comprehensive (no mention of Monty Python, shrubbery, Knights Who Say Ni, etc.) or that the lead is not "concise" (too long), he has a valid objection to this FAC. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed :) Reading the comments above, it would seem like the lead problem is fixed, so thanks to Cuchullain. On the other, I have no objection to including the Python movie if folks think it is necessary and sufficiently noteworthy, and so I have now added it. If I can just clarify on what is/isn't in the article, I obviously had to exclude large numbers of important works when writing the article. I made descisions based largely on (1) whether the work included innovations in the portrayal of Arthur/his story that were picked up by subsequent authors and (2) whether they were good illustrations of trends in the portrayal of Arthur & his story and/or if they showed the continuing vitality of earlier interpretations of Arthur (e.g. the continuing influence of the romance tradition). Boorman and the other movies seemed good examples of the latter, hence why they were chosen; Python wasn't used simply because others were :) Hope this helps, cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The references include the (reputable!) canonical and current sources, and the coverage is even-handed and thorough. - PKM (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Okay, there are some sources in the references that are not used in the footnotes. Alexandre is one.
Weighing in on the Monty Python bit, if you mention the serious retellings (although including Excalibur in that is quite a laugh) you should probably mention the other side, which is the comedic treatments also.
Comment. The article lead mentions both the "Sword in the Stone" and "Excalibur", neither of which are ever mentioned in the article body. Where did these parts of the legend originate? If we're not going to mention them in the article, they should probably be removed from the lead. Kaldari (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like "Excalibur" comes from "Caliburn" which is Arthur's sword in Geoffrey's Historia. Could someone add this into the article body where it is appropriate? Kaldari (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were mentioned in the article, but then peer-review indicated that the article was too long and so they were removed to the excalibur page. I can re-add the material on the development and changes to Arthur's weaponry but it will add considerably to the article... Any thoughts? My feeling, for what it is worth, is that the article needs to focus tightly on changes to Arthur and the development of his core story over time, rather than getting into the changes to his weapons etc, otherwise it will become too large again e.g. adding in excalibur < caliburnus would then mean discussion of caledfwlch and its relationship to caliburnus is required, and then probably also discussion of how excalibur and the sword in the stone are inter-related etc. But I'm happy to add it back if the consensus is against me :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we just mention that Excalibur originated in Geoffrey's Historia, where it is refered to as "Caliburn"? Surely there must be some happy medium between discussing the minutia of his weaponry and not mentioning it at all. Kaldari (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how about that? Short but points to the potential sequence Caledfwlch > Caliburnus > Excalibur, with a wikilink to the main page on that sword and the ref to Bromwich and Evans for further discussion if anyone wants to follow-up. Fixed? :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: my absolute favorite class in undergrad was a King Arthur lit. course that I took while studying in England, so while I don't count myself an expert on the subject, I know a thing or two. :) I found this article to be magnificently written and engaging. Truth be told, I thought it would be huge, but I'm glad that the writers didn't go overboard and include wads of information to distract me from my daily tasks. I was disappointed, however, that more attention was not paid to Malory; Le Morte d'Arthur isn't even mentioned in the lead, but that is the work that introduced Arthur to Tennyson and later writers, including White and even the Monty Python lads. I don't think it should be so diminished. Although most of his material was taken from past tales, he did invent and reinterpret things that are still considered canon to this day. I was also surprised to see the Nine Worthies reduced to a mere "See also" mention; I would say it's noteworthy enough to be described in the article somewhere. Obviously these points do not keep me from supporting an interesting article on such an important figure in literature and the English speaking culture as a whole, but maybe I want moar! Great job, contributors. María(habla conmigo) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol! And thanks :) On Malory, I can see where you're coming from re: the lead. He is v. important and mentioned specifically in the Further Reading, so I can see a rationale for adding him back to the intro, but there is a worry over its length and avoiding the lead becoming a list of key authors. Perhaps "culminating in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur" added to the section about the legend thriving in the Middle Ages? What do those who have been working on the lead think?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors who has commented on this issue in the pase, I would be in favour of mentioning Malory in the lead. The six or seven words you suggest sound good, but the exact wording may need to be tweaked and sourced. Geometry guy21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Malory needs to be mentioned in the lead, any more than the Vulgate Cycle and the Prose Tristan do. I think it's definitely best not to name too many different works in the lead. In this case, Malory's influence was mostly on later, English language writers long after his death, it was not translated extensively in the way other versions were during the medieval period.--Cúchullaint/c22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support An admirable (mind-boggling, really) amount of research has gone into this. One tiny suggestion (such as it is): The musical Camelot is mentioned (I heart Julie Andrews), but might it be worth mentioning that the presidency of John F. Kennedy was intertwined with the musical? Both started in 1960, and the title song for the musical was one of Kennedy's favorites, and arguably a reason that many Americans were introduced to some Arthurian literature. Arthurian legend has been used as an allegory for a president who was immensely popular, and whose death killed the innocence of the early 1960s in the US. Such as this, and this, and this. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Oppose (Update in addition to the below) - Why is there no mention of Charlemagne in the piece? He definitely formed the basis for what a "knight" was and was very influential. There should be multiple paragraphs filling this, because I have seen this concept in most text books, articles, and even the history channel. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous Oppose - I only wish to state a few things: 1) The picture of Sigurd is unjustified based on the body of text and lacks citations to justify it (two different MoS problems). 2) "Historical truths" as a topic title has no MoS basis and is PoV. 3) There is no background section, which is troubling. 4) The text "In one stanza, the bravery of a warrior who slew 300 enemies is praised, but it is then noted that despite this "he was no Arthur", that is to say his feats cannot compare to the valour of Arthur." is referring to a Welsh source. Arthur is not a welsh name, and the citation is not enough to justify this connection/relationship, which also invalidates the supporting picture claiming (without a citation) it as an early instance of Arthur. Furthermore, it would not prove it was the same Arthur. This problem continues by claiming other Welsh text, without evidence that it is the same Arthur. (I've studied the works, the names are quite different and only a few scholars try to claim the two as one beyond all doubt). 6) The picture of Tristan and Isolde is of Tristan and Isolde, not King Arthur, and "Arthurian" is not enough to justify its presence. 7) Morte D'Arthur, a very large and significant book, gets almost no mention. 8) The "Modern legend" section includes unnotable or off topic trivial information. Arthurian youth groups and the rest are not King Arthur, but on the realm legend. You cannot mix the two. 9) Your reference section includes far more references than the notes, which causes an imbalance (to put it mildly).Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While none of of the images need to "justify [their] presence" (they are all in the public domain and most are listed at the commons), the Sigurd image is somewhat random, I agree. Something needs to be added to the prose that connects these two myths, with a source, of course. I believe, however, that the Tristan and Isolde image is applicable and the caption more than adequately explains Arthur's marginalization by way of side stories, which includes T&I. María(habla conmigo) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MoS requires all images to have a reason to be included, even if they are free. The page is on King Arthur, so Tristan and Isolde can never be justified, especially when they don't deal with Arthur, or depict them dealing with Arthur in the painting. Ottava Rima (talk)
The image of T&I is justified because it is in a section describing how Arthur became overshadowed by other characters (such as T&I) in a certain time period. Wrad (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an overshadow section is justified. It is rather POV, seems to encourage off topic ideas, and if King Arthur is "real" then it wouldn't fit standard bio, and if he is a fictional character, well, I've never seen any precedence for such commentary (is there a section where "Bilbo" is overshadowed by "Frodo" by chance?) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is a fair comparison, but perhaps you should read the section again? ("Romance traditions") It is very focused on Arthur. It is not an "overshadow section". Wrad (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the second paragraph ventures a bit too far into the "Arthurian legend" world and away from Arthur the character, though. Other paragraphs seem fine, unless people feel that outlining how the characters around Arthur were created is important for this article, otherwise we can move it to Matter of Britain. Wrad (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you point on that paragraph, although the development of Arthur as an incestuous father and cuckolded husband seem fairly important to me, as is the changing medium in which his stories are transmitted and the transmission of the 'do-nothing' king back into Welsh literary versions of Arthur (though this latter is probably the easiest bit to lose). On the notion that "outlining how the characters around Arthur were created is[n't??] important for this article", I would whole-heartedly disagree -- the whole point of Arthur is the stories of him and through all of these, from Pa gur? forward, he is defined by those around him and his relationship to them. cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrad and Maria's point seems perfectly correct to me. It is not POV, it happened and is on-topic for the development of Arthur's character into the 'do-nothing' king. It is also accepted by all scholarly commentators I am aware of. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term isn't invented by the article writers: it's in the sources. It's an old term, used, for example, of the Merovingian kings, who became ceremonial figures while those around them went off to battle. qp10qp (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A historical origin of a term does not remove the possible POV nature behind it, just as racial slurs still have a connotation that is not acceptable. I feel that the page does not do enough to show opinion as opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry, this is just silly! There is no comparison whatsoever with racisim and I wonder whether the old usenet 'Hitler' doctrine is relevant here (when one side compares, completely ludicrously, what the other has written to Nazism - or racism, in this case -, it is clear that the person doing this has no interest in a sensible discussion or changing their mind). What possible PoV could I possibly be aiming at? Arthur as the roi fainéant, the "do-nothing king", in medieval romance is a well established concept in the scholarly literature, if you'd just care to read it; it's not my fault if you go out of your way to misunderstand such common concepts. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it by your use of "sensible" that you will not regard an actual point and instead wish to attack. A change in view of any character must be expressed in a way that emphasizes that its an opinion. A view of a trait is not a fact, and cannot be described as such. I find your many as inappropriate, and I believe that you are unwilling to listen to a major MoS problem that makes it impossible for the page to be an FA in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. Hroth is backing up everything he says with sources. He's 100% right and your point is moot. Let's move on to other things, please. Wrad (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can personally attack me all you want, but it does not negate the fact that the above is opinion and below (the "th" sound) comes from Greek (i.e. works like Theogeny have a "th" for a reason) and that it cannot be claimed as coming from Welsh. If there was such a definite Welsh origin, there would not be so many critical works claiming others as Arthur. Stop acting as if absurdity is fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sound was written in Greek before there was Welsh writing. The letter combination comes from Greek, and was written by a Monk who would probably know of the Greek language/Greek language's influence on Latin, which introduced the "th". Note, the Theogony predates when the "Welsh" would have been in the island. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The heading "Historical truth" was mine: I changed it from "historicity" for reader friendliness: if we change it back, would it cover that objection? qp10qp (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historicity was the original heading and I see no problem reverting to that. Whilst I can see the point on 'Historical truth' I most definitely cannot on 'historicity', especially if it is made 'Debated Historicity' Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigurd/Siegfried has been connected with Arthur by scholars. Certainly Richard Barber does. But, since there is no shortage of images for this article, it will save argument to move the picture out. Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for a background section as the entire article describes the background of the King Arthur story. Wrad (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Background sections normally have the "historicity" (or whatever you want to call it) information with some of the origin information combined. It also gives a chance to provide overview details. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like our Historical truth section as it currently stands to me... We already have an overview with the lead section, anyway. Wrad (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have no opinion on the Sigurd image, so am not bothered if it goes particularly as the legitimiate comparison between Arthur and Sigurd is no longer in the text (it was when the image was added)
(2) See comment above; changing to 'debated historicity'
(3) I disagree, see above
(4 ?and 5?) I'm afraid you are misinformed here. Arthur is indeed a Welsh name and all reputable scholars agree on this. There are, of course, bizarre theories such as "Athrwys is Welsh for Arthur" (Wilson et al, I seem to recall), but they are neither serious nor scholarly; alternatively you may be referring to the root form of the name, which is quite likely either Latin Artorius or Arcturus, but even if you are then the name Arthur is still a Welsh name, displaying for example the following British/Welsh mutations which distance it from its roots: long -ō- to -ū-, then -ū- to -ü- (with an intermediate stage) plus the Late British loss of final syllables, if from Artorius (no long -ō- to -ū- if Arcturus but still the other two). As to the notion that the Welsh poetic references to Arthur do not all refer to 'our' Arthur, there have been occasional suggestions that one or two may not refer to him (Barber on Y Gododdin, suggesting that a reference to the Dalriadan L6thcentury Arthur was intended) but these have been quickly and widely dismissed by other Celticists in reviews and subsequent books and articles and no serious researcher that I am aware of would accept your suggestion. In sum, we could take account and disprove with copious references every minor theory and pet-obsession of Arthurian enthusiasts, but if we are to do that then we will end up with a verrrrrrry long article indeed. The article as it stands represents pretty well the current scholarly consensus and debate, as far as I am aware of it; I did have a few mentions of such theories in the first draft but they have been rightly removed during copy-editing. For up-to-date views on the Welsh material try, for example, The Arthur of the Welsh edd. Bromwich et al, or Koch's recent (1996) survey, both cited on the page.
The fact that it appears in another language centuries before in writing demonstrates that the sources are either incorrect or improperly used to justify a claim. As Garboty claims, you just can't know where Geoffrey based his source of the Arthur myth, and that he only used other sources (like Nennius) to base non-Arthur stories. Also, "Arthur" would be a common enough name like Alexander that there is no way to claim that the one is the same as another. Its controversial regardless, but what is the point of it? Is it a page on the character, or is it a page on the real life person? You cannot have both, otherwise you enter into the realm of in-universe by treating a fantasy character as real. It is odd that the page would be part of the "biography" and the "mythology" wikiprojects, even though they contradict each other. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(6) See comment above.
(7) Yes, it's important and that importance is reflected in the references to it made in the article. Malory reflects the culmination of the medieval tradition and is commented on accordingly; it is also used as the yardstick to judge the popularity of the Arthurian legend in post-medieval England and as Tennyson's inspiration and source (not his only one, mind). See further Cuchullain's comments above. It is surely only right that large sections of the article look at pre-Malory developments in detail, as these were the changes to Arthur and his legend that produced much (not all) of Malory's narrative.
(8) Such groups are important as they are indicative of the continued influence of the romance tradition of Arthur: the article is concerned all the way through with how portrayals of him and his associated legend both developed and remained the same over time. This is clearly why the youth groups are mentioned and is legitimate.
(9) Huh? As you can see from reading the above FAC commentary, only works referenced in the notes are in the references section.
4)/5) "Arthur" is not a welsh name, and it would have to be anglicized in some way. I've read welsh. I know that such letter combinations are basically impossible. You have to make the argument on the origin of the name, and then critically justify it. Linguistically, you cannot make such claims without solid evidence. 8) I don't believe that is proved in the body of the work, and if so, it doesn't belong in a pseudo biography on the character of Arthur 9) It appears that I overlooked some of the "nested" references in which you combined multiple refs into one entry. If there are such redundancies, why have both? Why not cut one and allow the newest one to stand? Ottava Rima (talk)
4/5) Sounds like you're objecting based on your own Original research. Hroth has already provided plenty of "solid evidence" in the form of citations and clear reasoning. Please show us some evidence that your opinion has similar citations behind it. 8) Shouldn't the article reflect the influence of the character on society? 9)The more refs, the better, in my mind. I don't have a problem with this, as long as the body of the article isn't littered with little numbers, and I don't see that problem here. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting refs??? How bizarre - you do know that academic and scholarly work often cites more than one work in each footnote? I fail to see any merit whatsoever in such a suggestion. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR is putting forth something not based on sources. I have yet to see a source that two different spells are really the same person. You can supply a source that claims such and such is true, but that is an opinion, and it is not held as such in the body of the text. That would be expressing a point of view as fact. And influence of a character on society? This is a person, or is it a character? Who is reflecting what? You just pointed out the inherent problem of setting up a "biography" that merges a fictional character and a possibly real life figure. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misconstruing what I said. It is a puzzle but it can be done and is being done. Hroth has provided you with sources. please stop picking fights when people are trying to address your concerns. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hroth hasn't provided any sources. You seem unable to understand the distinction between "real" and "fictional" and why they need to be separated distinctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He just provided a ton of them, see "Final Reply from Hrothgar". None of the sources he provides are fictional, either. Please don't belittle my intelligence. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final Reply from Hrothgar Ok, I'll have one more shot at this then I really can't be bothered, as it's clear you're not familiar with the most basic scholarly literature on this topic and others and seem to simply enjoy a good argument. I have plenty of non-wiki work to do and this is all taking an unreasonable amount of time. I trust someone will alert me if you actually come up with a sensible objection based on knowledge. I have no problem with people commenting on how the article is written etc even if they know nothing in detail about Arthur -- note, I've re-written whole sections of the article tonight to tighten the focus on the character of Arthur and its development and deployment over time, as was requested/implied by you. Similarly, I have no problem with knowledgeable people commenting on the detail of topics they know about and suggesting that we need to include more on topic a to balance the article, or we are mistaken about topic b, as can be seen from reading article c etc etc. What I do have a problem with is wasting my time correcting basic misapprehensions that result from a desire to argue and a lack of knowledge.
Right, first off I really have no interest in your personal opinions and guesses on etymology, they are irrelevant. Arthur is a Welsh name; no serious modern researcher would suggest otherwise -- all its earliest appearances are in Welsh or Breton documents and it can be quite satisfactorily explained as a Welsh name using basic British/Welsh philology. You are, quite simply, wrong. It may have started out as a Latin name, but in the form Arthur and latinizations of this it is Welsh. There are already references in the article that will point you to discussions of all of the above and to explanations of how Arthur would emerge as a Welsh name. I suggest you follow them; I will not post details of how the changes run on the wiki article because that would be original research, and pointlessly detailed: the references either cover it fully or point you to where you need to go to learn more. If you personally want to learn about British/Welsh linguistics and the sound changes that would transform, for example, Latin Artorius/Arcturus into Old Welsh Arthur (which I have, in fact, kindly supplied you with above), rather than just speculate wildly, please consult some or all of the following, several of which actually discuss the name Arthur: K.H. Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1953); P. Sims-Williams, The Celtic Inscriptions of Britain: Phonology and Chronology, c.400-1200 (Oxford: Philological Society, 2003); P. Sims-Williams, "Dating the Transition to Neo-Brittonic: Phonology and History, 400-600" in A. Bammesberger and A. Wollmann (edd.) Britain 400-600: Language and History (Heidelberg), pp.217-61; P.Schrijver, Studies in British Historical Phonology (Amsterdam, 1995). These discuss all the above sound changes, including where the -th- comes from. Enjoy.
Ok, I'm out of this particular set of replies; Wrad and Qp seem to be dealing admirably with the bizarre notion that we should try and separate out the legendary from the historical in this article. If one reads the article it should be obvious that the two inter-twine throughout the whole history of Arthur's development and cannot and ought not to be separated if we are analysing the character as a whole. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should tell Thomas Garbaty that he is wrong, because Hrothgar says that conjecture now equals fact. Garbaty stated blatantly many times that "Arthur" and the name "Arthur" comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth and no other. The fact that the above user claimed such absurdities as the "th" sound coming from Welsh (its Greek, and if anything, came to the Welsh via monks who knew Latin and Greek). I think common sense with actual dates of items, and one of the most widely known and widely published Medieval scholars, should put this to rest. The above user is mixing fantasy and reality, opinion and truth, and this article cannot be an FA until these are fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop belittling people Otto. You have yet to provide a single source on this page for you claims and Hrothgar has provided a ton and bent over backwards. It's time to drop it. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please explain how Thomas Garbaty is not a source? Or the fact that a document from 700 BC that contains "th" in it long before Welsh and known to monks would not be the origins of a "th" used by the first scholarly chosen source of Arthur? 2. Please explain where I was belittling others, when you and others have personally attacked me for pointing out large problems with a page. Remember, you do not own the page. They do not reflect you or anyone else. This is Wikipedia. This isn't about prizes, its about providing legitimate and actual information. Please take some care to reflect on this before continuing to attack me for pointing out legitimate problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ottava Rima by qp10qp. I'd just like to reply to this comment of Ottava's: The picture of Tristan and Isolde is of Tristan and Isolde, not King Arthur, and "Arthurian" is not enough to justify its presence. Tristan and Isolde developed as part of the evolution of the Arthurian story, though not necessarily through the Malory version. Gottfried von Strassburg is at the root of Wagner's version, and links trace back from Gottfried to the Celtic tales of Arthur. All the offshoot stories count as "Arthurian", and they are treated in books about Arthur; this article is conventional in doing the same. Having said that, perhaps the caption is a bit gauche. qp10qp (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthurian is not Arthur, just as Augustan is not Augustus. A movement named after a person is not the same as a person, and this should be acknowledged through the whole piece. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Why should we constantly reiterate something that is so obvious? Everyone knows that Arthurian and Arthur are two different things, just as they know that Arthurian legend and literature are important influences of Arthur himself that deserve to be mentioned in the article. Wrad (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its so obvious, why are "arthurian" info in Arthur's page? It appears to not be so obvious to those who added off topic information into a pseudo biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained this in my previous post, my friend. We explain Arthur's influences in his "bio" just as much as we explain Shakespeare's in his bio. Wrad (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespeare's influences are real. Arthur's are not. To put in fictional "influences" is to treat the subject in-universe, which goes against MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with that. We discuss the influences of fictional subjects on wikipedia just as much as we do "real" subjects, just as actual experts do. Such discussion is not judged to be "in universe" in any discussion I have seen. Wrad (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ottava Rima by qp10qp. When you say there are "far more" sources in the references than in the notes, I'm sure this can't be true, having been through them a couple of times myself. On the other hand, I daresay there might be one or two extra ones, owing to various cuts and changes in the text. However, as far as I know, there's no rule against this. It would help if Ottava Rima would list any superfluous sources he/she has found in the references. qp10qp (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this is a problem. Multiple entries are used in many FAs. Just press Ctrl + F to search for things like this. Wrad (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be useful to be able to click from the references to the cites, but the techies haven't worked out a way of doing that yet. qp10qp (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please explain why Arthur (the possible real life person) is with Arthur (the myth) and Arthur (the character)? What is this page supposed to be? A general summary of all the Arthurs like some kind of impressive disambiguation page? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly see any way we could separate them? I don't. I think we would lose a lot if we did that. When scholars discuss "King Arthur", these are the things they discuss, and we should reflect that. Wrad (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This overlapping necessarily goes with the subject. There are many books and articles on the subject of King Arthur that, as this article does, look at the historical documents, the legend, and the literature. qp10qp (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have reached deadlock with Ottava Rima on several points. I think it is best we just let his/her oppose stand and leave it to Sandy or Raul in closing this FAC to decide whether the objections have been addressed. qp10qp (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with qp10qp. I think the points raised by Ottava Rima have been addressed to the extent that they are going to be. If Ottava is still opposed I don't think further discussion here is likely to be fruitful. AndyJones (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only actionable part of my oppose left is how the "historical" information meets the character of Arthur information. I put forth a possible suggestion for dealing with such a thing on Qp10qp's talk page. It just strikes me as odd to treat the individual as both a biography, a myth, and a literary character at the same time in the manner that it currently does. The rest (modern youth groups, "arthurian" info that isn't directly Arthur) are more minor points. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's clearly best to take no action on that at this point - I don't speak only for myself when I say that acting on it would not improve the article. You are of course entitled to your opinion.--Cúchullaint/c17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures are generally below the standard of the prose, and too few, for which there is no excuse with this subject. The first one should link to the recent Hofkirche, Innsbruck, where there is also a colour version that may be preferable. The Tristan & Isolde picture is horrible and insipid - the medieval one or the Waterhouse would be greatly preferable. One of the stirring "Boys.." series on commons should go in the modern section.
They seem fine to me but am happy to leave this for others who know more of such topics and how to use images in wiki to debate, decide and do :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the color photo to the b&w if we're going to lead with the statue. All in all, a good selection of images over time. - PKM (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Personally I would like to see the Alans in, but ....
There would also be a case for more on classical influences (such as Alexander on the Galfridian Arthur), but we have to draw the line somewhere. Given that the Sarmatian theory is very much a minority idea and has had dubiosu reviews (e.g. Lacy in Arthuriana), I can see more of a role for discussion of the Sarmatian theory in an article on Arthurian romance, especially as the parallels are more convincing than the proposed transmission process for many researchers. cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Is it true that:" This interest in the 'Arthur of romance' continued through the 19th century and into the 20th, and influenced poets such as William Morris and Pre-Raphaelite artists including Edward Burne-Jones." - They were extremely keen on Arthurian subjects, but that is not the same thing.
Changed to "'Arthur of romance' and his associated stories": it is true, as you say, that they spent a lot of time on the surrounding legends rather than specifically the king himself, but then this minor role within his own legend is part of the character of the 'Arthur of romance' as defined earlier in the article, and he is still clearly important e.g. the cuckolded 'Arthur of romance' is a main character, even though dead, in Morris' "King Arthur's tomb", for example, and he is central in Burne-Jones' "Arthur in Avalon". (I seem to recall reading somehwere that Burne-Jones considered himself to be an Arthur-figure...) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interesting newspaper article that looks at Burne-Jones' "Arthur in Avalon" and refers briefly to his self-identification with the king; I don't have time atm to look for something more scholarly, maybe later :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Given the time-span etc, all captions should indicate the date of the image.
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (from original manuscript, artist unknown) Here's the image from SGGK. Arthur is top center. Wrad (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images: I've just uploaded this one; personally I think it's a better lead image. Caption: King Arthur as one of the Nine Worthies, detail from the "Christian Heroes Tapestry" dated c. 1385. Footnote: "Arthur among the Nine Worthies is always identified by three crowns, which signify regality, on his standard, his shield, or his robe." -- Geoffrey Ashe, The Quest for Arthur's Britain (1969). Caveat: Image and caption are from one of my own websites. - PKM (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I actually just removed that in response to Ottava's comments a few days ago, due to the fact that Wagner is inspired by the legends but Arthur doesn't feature really... I can (and am happy to) put it back, but do admit that if we are to keep the focus tightly on the development of Arthur as a character, then there is an issue. As to non-English/French/Welsh works, I see your point; Lanzelet is mentioned but most of the major innovations (the thing I was really looking for, as discussed somehwere above) in Arthur's nature seem to me to come from these traditions, but if if there is something of this kind I have missed please do say and we'll incorporate :) cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been sprucing up the list - perhaps if put back as: "Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal are the most distinguished of several other operas on Arthurian subjects written before the First World War.[1]" - or something, it will be more acceptable, since the other ones are more directly on-topic. Anyway, given all the other stuff, I think Wagner deserves mentioning. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these operas don't really tell us anything new about Arthur I don't think we should include them. I'm fine with French, English, and Welsh being the main thrust of this article unless it can be shown that other literatures have significantly contributed to his character, and I don't see that with Wagner. Now, if Wagner was missing from Matter of Britain, that would be a different story... Wrad (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a matter of concern; in particular, if we keep that new bit on Wagner in despite lack of direct relevance to Arthur's development/treatment, it may well compromise other decisions on inclusion/non-inclusion on the basis of lack of innovation etc etc. Hmmmm.... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try that - any better? This way he is an example of the continuing marginalization of Arthur in his own legend, so reference to him seems legit; revert if don't like :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit-conflicted but I'll post anyway :) ) Both fixes done (dashes and c.) by me and Qp :) I see you've left a message for picture review so I'll leave that alone. Am assuming the initial objections are all met as Johnbod has said done/ok to all but the pics, which he then did himself (thanks for that, btw!) -- this true Johnbod?? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Did Thomas Green really argue that Arthur fought werewolves? This is something I have neither seen for myself or read about in the secondary literature (There is an episode in Historia Regum Britanniae where Arthur defeats & slays a giant by wrestling him, so Thomas' argument is plausable -- but the werewolf bit harms his argument.) If he did, I suggest his words be quoted; if not, it might be best to drop this item.
In the Old Welsh poem Pa gur?, Arthur and his men fight cinbin, "dog-heads", and — probably part of the same battle, as Sims-Williams 1991, p.42 points out too — Gwrgi Garwlwyd ["Man-Dog Rough-Grey"], who in the Triads is said to have killed one of the Cymry each day with two on Saturday (see Concepts of Arthur, pp.119-121). So, Arthur does indeed fight dog-men, "or werewolves if we prefer" (Concepts, p.84 - note, werewolves and dog-men are a frequent occurance in Irish material too; Kim McCone has an interesting article on some aspects of werewolves in insular 'Celtic' culture: "Werewolves, Cyclopes, Diberga, and Fianna: Juvenile Delinquency in Early Ireland" in Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 12 (1986), pp.1-22). I don't think it needs a separate reference beyond the one at the end of the sentence, esp. as the conflict is discussed by other commentators too, including Sims-Williams and Padel (2000). Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not to debate whether or not Arthur fought werewolves, but to point out that to write so is a surprise to those who aren't as well versed in the Arthurian mythos. (I've had to struggle against some peculiar material being added to this article in the past.) If Green uses the word "werewolves", then we should quote him; otherwise the risk is that several months down the road, when everyone who has worked hard on this article has moved to other articles, someone new will see this passage, decide it is erroneous, & remove it. Putting this statement in quotations, IMHO, will prevent this from becoming a permanent change in the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 31 in the paragraph on Y Gododdin would be better served if it was made to K.H. Jackson's critical translation of this poem (The Gododdin: The Oldest Scottish poem [Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1969] ISBN0-85224-049-X) instead of Alcock's work. Alcock (as he admits himself) is an archeologist; Jackson was a Celticist, & an authority in this field.
Alcock isn't actually referenced in fn.31 and I think the references in that footnote are sufficient; on the date of Y Gododdin and its Arthurian reference, Jackson's work is now superceded by the works in that footnote. Alcock is, however, mentioned in footnote 3 with reference to Y Gododdin. I don't know where this reference came from; I'm changing it to the Charles-Edwards ref and Sims-Williams 1991 (which discusses virtually all the early poetry but Y Gododdin. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, Alcock's book is useful in the section "Name", because he provides a list of historical persons with the name of Arthur. As Alcock notes, "The name Arthur was unknown in native circles in Britain before the time of the Arthur who is our concern. But in the generations around 600, at least four royal families called one of their sons Arthur." (p. 73)
I'm generally opposed to using Alcock anywhere much, as it is so far out of date and discredited in many areas. On these Arthurs, I'm not sure what the benefits of mentioning them are, insofar as they have no discernable impact on the character of 'our' Arthur; none of them can be considered the 'original' Arthur, as Brynley Roberts, Jackson and Bromwich all long-ago pointed out; and their significance with regards to Arthur's historicity is wholly unclear and uncertain (compare Padel 1994 and Green 2007, who see them as potentially evidence of Arthur's folkloric origins, with the old view put forward by Alcock, for example). The only obvious reason would be to point out that these were amongst the only occurances of the name Arthur used as a real personal name in a British context in the Middle Ages (see especially Bartrum's article on the name Arthur in the National Library of Wales Journal 1965, pp.243-5), but I'm not sure this article -- so much as the one on Arthur as a name -- would gain anything from this and we might then get embroiled in why this situation happened, and this article isn't really the place for this either, I think... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One problem I have with this article is that it was difficult for me to find a summary of the "Arthurian mythos"; I had to re-read the article a couple of times to find it at the beginning of the section "Geoffrey of Monmouth". There needs to be a help to the reader to quickly & easily find it, maybe a note in the lead of the article.
We did discuss this on the talk page, I think, and I seem to recall that it was thought that there wasn't any point doing this as it changes so much over time and even from text-to-text. Which version do we choose? Because Geoffrey's is very different from the Welsh Arthur, whilst the Romance/post-Chretien is different again, as is the Vulgate one etc etc. The article as it stands is designed to work with this reality by looking at how the character of Arthur and his legend altered and developed over time and not tying us to anyone 'version' in a summary, which would be somewhat redundant. Any other comments on this topic?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's about how I saw the discussion, too. With stories like this that have been around for so long, it is impossible to summarize the story the same way we do other stories because the myth is so fluid and changing. The article as a whole summarizes how Arthur's story and character has changed over time, and I don't really think there's a better way to do it. Wrad (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that there is one version of the story (if you look far enough back in the article's edit history, you will see where I put this article into its present structure), but that less informed readers will come to this article & expect to find a single story. My comment was to suggest that this fluid nature be made more explicit. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok :) Right, try these changes to the lead and see if they address the issues. Any comments from anyone appreciated as to whether this works and feel free to make changes, I have to go now so a bit rushed :) Thanks, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works. It signposts the readers that there is no single storyline, but many variants, though it emphasizes the significance of the Malory version. qp10qp (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wish I had the time to have helped with this article. I have wanted to make this a FA for far longer than I suspect many of you have contributed to Wikipedia, & can only be envious of the fact it has gotten there with little help from me. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the name question, Higham 2002 also covers this in depth, with several specific named individuals as examples (p. 76-77). - PKM (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On werewolves, Green, discussing the battles in Chapter 56 of the Historia [17], says: "The other battles are largely unidentifiable, though the tenth, the ‘battle on the bank of a river which is called Tribruit’, is recorded elsewhere in very early sources as a traditional battle against werewolves, thus casting further doubt on the Historia’s value." - PKM (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images:
Image:Athrwys.jpg has a source, but no information on creator or date/place of creation.
Wrad, it looks from the file information as if you uploaded that first one. Are you able to add the supplementary information? qp10qp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the Commons image of Gawain with one I have just uploaded to Wikipedia, along with the necessary sourcing gubbins, etc. Hrothgar, I have been a bit vague about the dating and author on the image page. I understand that the manuscript that survives is a copy: is it the copy or the poem, or both, that dates from the late fourteenth century? I have put the author down, for the moment, as the Pearl Poet, but, on second thoughts, if it's a copy, then I suppose that the illustration is unlikely to have been done by the poet himself.qp10qp (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both, off the top of my head, but I think your reasoning is probably correct - the image is lkely to be the copyist's work, not the poet's (although that is not to say that it couldn't have been copied too...) I can check up more if necessary... cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link (Stanbury) to Pearl Poet from which it is fairly clear that the Cotton MS is of 1400 at the latest & insofar as EngLit types take any interest in the illustrations at all, they don't tend to regard them as by or after the poet. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "year published"? It's on-line from the BnF (French National Library - "libre de droit" = "free of rights"), as you will see by following the link. It's from a C15 manuscript that has never been published as such. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The University of British Columbia page that culhwch.jpg comes from says "The scene is Culhwch's arrival at his cousin Arthur's court, pictured below in an illustration to Sidney Lanier's 1881 adaptation in The Boy's Mabinogion", so am adding it into the summary of Culhwch.jpg as that - see image for full ref - and then people can play with it if it isn't in the right format etc etc (I'm a text person, not a pic one :) ) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, have swapped the Athrwys pic out of the article, as the source website has a copyright notice for the phote on mouse-over... Put the AC image from later in the article in its spot and put in a pic of mordred at Camlann where the AC was, which seems to have all relevant details (I hope)... How's that look guys?? ok?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "and achieving a 5.3/14 in the key adults 18–49 demographic." – What do the numbers mean? Nielson Ratings, I assume, but this needs to be explained. GaryKing (talk)00:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dharka.jpg - purpose of "To illustrate an important scene" is not adequate. WP:RAT and WP:NFCC#10C require rationales to be detailed, clear and relevant to each use. Caption contains "filmed at a rock quarry"; why is a fair use image needed to convey this understanding (NFCC#1); what significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) is really made by seeing the backs of characters/crew and equipment?
Support pictures have adequate FU rationales, but could they be improved? Well referenced, written, all sections required are present and clear, intro could do with some rearranging:
How can "To illustrate a pivotal moment in the episode" be considered a detailed rationale? Is Illustration critical commentary? or is it just eye candy? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how either of those images convey anything about the rock quarry. Would it be possible to get a free image of the rock quarry? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I have to agree about the rock quarry: it adds nothing the readers' understanding, and looks like an adornment. So ... it's a film set in a rock quarry, and that's what it looks like. See NFCC 3a and 8. LINKING: I've removed the autoformatted dates so the high-value links can breathe. It's still quite heavily linked, but better now. MOSNUM no longer encourages autoformatting. Hard-spaces added, too. Can you check that the numbers are consistently rendered as numerals? Usually it's 10 and above unless there's a reason for spelling one out (like start of sentence). Why is "assassin" linked? I see "blah. ... blah", so check MOS for spacing and number of ellipsis dots, which are better as sequences of periods rather than the symbol.... four without previous space when at a period, and ... spaced three when chopped mid-sentence. TONY(talk)10:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and thanks especially for your changes to the article. The article actually has numbers consistently spelled out, unless decimals are involved. –thedemonhogtalk • edits20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes; inconsistent WP:DASH usage (some unspaced emdashes, other spaced endashes), WP:MOS#Ellipses attn needed (spaces), WP:MOSNUM attention needed throughout (... the survivors' ninety-seventh day on the island... ), copyedit needs (glancing at the last sentence ... The San Diego Union-Tribune[42] Time, ... reveals missing comma), and times need WP:NBSP and correct formatting (9:00 PM ... see Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Times). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what the MOSNUM problem is. I suspect that you want "ninety-seventh" changed to "97th", but MOSNUM states that "numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words". Everything else has been addressed. Thanks, –thedemonhogtalk • edits07:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it passes all of the FA criteria. It's well-written, well-sourced, properly formatted, and the whole she-bang. Any problems? I'll fix 'em. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The third named storm of the season, Chantal developed on August 14 from a tropical wave in the tropical Atlantic Ocean." - sounds awkward and redundant.
"It tracked rapidly westward throughout much of its duration, and after degenerating into a tropical wave the system passed through the Windward Islands." - "throughout much of its duration" sounds redundant. Why couldn't one just write "most of it's duration"? Misplaced formality, it seems.
"Chantal reached a peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of" - could be more concise. How about "At its peak, Chantal reached maximum sustained winds of..."?
Redundancy: "though wind shear first and later land interaction prevented strengthening to hurricane status each time"
Thanks a lot for the comments. I removed the "third named storm of the season" bit. I don't know what is redundant about "throughout much of its duration", but I went ahead and changed "throughout" to "for". I removed "maximum sustained winds", since it's not particularly important. I also removed that redundancy. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears so. In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses (e.g a pipe 5 centimetres (2 in) in diameter and 37 kilometres (23 mi) long).JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone18:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But in the next sentence of the MOS... When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence. In articles which repeatedly use the same units (3-4 times per paragraph, in some cases) it makes a lot of sense to abbreviate the units. PlasticupT/C02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and after degenerating into a tropical wave the system passed through the Windward Islands." - could be a bit more crisp by removing "the system"...
"prevented strengthening to hurricane status each time; despite the unfavorable conditions, the storm was consistently anticipated to attain hurricane status." - this doesn't read great... probably should say that it was anticipated, then say that it didn't actually get it.
"In the Windward Islands, lightning from the system caused two indirect deaths in Trinidad" - don't need both "in the"s...
Notes, text squeeze between info box in the lead and the first image. Incorrect use of author field in cite templates. Websites need publisher, newspapers need work to be italicized, neither are authors. Inconsistency in author names; is it last name first or first name first? Please make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text squeeze is actually standard with the tropical cyclone project, in that the storm path map should be at the top-left of the storm history section, which is naturally to the left of the Infobox. I fixed the author fields, BTW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—It was significantly overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it to allow your high-value links to breathe. Making every month/day bright blue is kind of irritating when it's a date-based story. No one minds US date formatting, I can assure you. Repeat links undesirable here, I think.
Most authorities prefer although in a formal context. I notice this in just about all hurricane FACs.
Quite well written, but ...
"with winds of 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) or greater forecast within a few days"—greater?
Hint: avoid "as" unless perfectly clear whether a "while" or a "because": "Tropical Storm Chantal became disorganized as the center became ill-defined and situated to the west-southwest of the main area of convection".
"it" in the very last clause is redundant.
"The upper and middle level circulations"—See MOS on hanging hyphens.
"... although initially convection lacked near the center." If "lacking convection" will not change the meaning, I would recommend it. The phrase still bothers me though.. it had no convection at all?
"A tropical storm watch was issued for Barbados, St. Vincent, and Saint Lucia on August 15." Change to active voice and tell us who issued. --Laser brain(talk)06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Very few of the citations have publication dates. Most only have publication years. I know it's a bit of a pain, but as the full dates are available they ought to be included in the citation. PlasticupT/C02:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article passed a Good Article Review on 17 June2008, but subsequently failed its A-Class Review - this seems to be the system, given that it only received a single support (although no opposes). Everything in the review was responded do, and if there were issues they were fixed. Given that in my opinion it did pass the ACR, it just did not receive enough attention from potential voters, I want to put it up for FAC, instead of going through the ACR process again. Please, tell me if there are any issues and I will immediately solve them, thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Santa Barbara Sistemas reference is lacking publisher.
I'm assuming that current note 39 United Nationas Register of Conventional Arms is the same as the the ref "Spain" United Natioansl Register of Conventiaonl Arms? Probablys should list the note as "Spain" United Nations Register of Conventional Arms to make it consistent.
I'm unable to judge the reliability of the Spanish language sources.
Please alphabetize your references for ease of the reader finding them from the notes.
Thanks for the feedback on the sources; the Spanish-language sources are from El País, a national newspaper, while the majority of the rest are from a monthly defense magazine called Fuerza Terrestre - many of the sources used for this article (except those published in Fuerza Terrestres) were also used for the Lince (tank) article. In regards to the SBS reference, who would I mark as the publisher? It's the company's website. As for the alphabetization of the sources, sources without authors are listed first and by title, otherwise they are alphabetized by author. Finally, I changed note 39! JonCatalán (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The SBS, I'd list the company as the publisher, that's who is putting the information out. I'm sure Sandy will look at the Spanish language sources for me, since I'm distressingly monolingual. (Okay, well, some Latin, but that's so useful!) I'd alphabetize all the references together. The idea is that when the reader wants to look up the full bibliographical details, they go to the references list which is alphabetical and easily find the shortened form you've used in the notes. So the references should have the first item of the entry be whatever the first item of the notes is. Usually that's author, but if it is lacking an author, it's title. So you alphabetize the references by the first item listed in each entry to make it easier for the reader to find the correct entry. Right now, they can't do that easily. Ealdgyth - Talk13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the Spanish-language sources once they are cleaned up. JonCatalán, after several FACs, we shouldn't have to point out the same issues again. Please separate References used in the article from those not used (as Further reading). Please use consistent date formatting and linking within your citations. Please use the language icon (in Spanish) consistently within citations (either at the beginning or the end of each citation, as long as you're consistent). And please use endashes instead of hyphens on page ranges: User:Brighterorange can run a script to fix them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Spanish language tagging, all the references should have 'Spanish' added in the template (instead of adding the es icon out of the template) - the news article seems to put it at the end, and the rest seem to put it after the title. Perhaps the templates should be revisited, because in regards to template Wiki code all of the references are consistent. All of the articles and books cited in the references section are used in the text, as well. And, if I missed some references I apologize, but I thought I had changed all the dashes to en dashes. :/ I apologize. JonCatalán (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was 'changing' all the dashes to endashes, but it won't save the changes - so, I'm assuming that they are already endashes. JonCatalán (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both have been fixed! For the note, I kept consistency with the references and put Santa Bárbara Sistemas after the title, to denote the publisher - since, there is really no stated author. JonCatalán (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think 'see also' sections are discouraged because they are not aesthetic. Many of those tanks are wikilinked from the article. Perhaps there is a better way of wikilinking some of those links? Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has only improved since its (unfortunately) failed ACR. And yeah, "See Also" shouldn't be used in a well-wikilinked article. Cam (Chat) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on availability Hi, I am leaving my flat this weekend and so my internet access may be non-existant. I will try to access the computer prior to 14 July, but that's when I return to San Diego, California. If I do not respond to requests until then, you know my reasoning - I hope that this can stay open until then. JonCatalán (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
The Leopard 2E is expected to remain in service until 2025 at least - This needs to be rephrased as the end sounds awkward, but otherwise it's a fine article and definitely FA material. Skinny87 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Leopard 2E is a variant of the German-made Leopard 2 main battle tank tailored to the requirements of the Spanish Army, which acquired it as part of an armament modernization program named Programa Coraza, or Program Armor. The acquisition program for the Leopard 2E began in 1994, five years after the cancellation of the Lince tank program, when Spain started procurement efforts to acquire the Leopard 2.
WP:ITALICS are used for non-English language words, but the opening sentence is the opposite, with Programa Coraza unitalicized yet Program Armor italicized. Please check the entire article for italicization of foreign phrases (non-English). I can't sort what the first sentence means; it seems to be missing a comma somewhere, and I don't know what "main battle tank" means. I can't sort the meaning of the second sentence. Acquisition program ... procurement efforts to acquire? Isn't that redundant? I think it says the same thing three times (acquisition, procurement, acquire). Is it trying to say, "In 1994, five years after the Lince tank program was cancelled, Spain started the program to acquire the Leopard 2E? That's as far as I got; the prose is going to need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Sandy. I did some copyediting to work on the sentences you mentioned and to do some copyediting per Tony's comments below. I hope it looks better now. If not I will continue to work on it when I return to San Diego on the 14th. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until copy-edited throughout by fresh eyes. Here are random examples.
"In 2005 it was declared by the Spanish government that the 108 Leopard 2A4s were to cost Spain 16.9 million euros, which were to be paid by 2016." Clumsy sentence.
Equivalency. Why not plain "equivalence"?
"Like the Swedish Leopard 2S (Strv 122), the Leopard 2E also has increased armor thickness"—Spot the redundant word.
Hyphen? "identical second generation thermal viewers"
What's wrong with this one? "These are integrated into the tank's by"
Hey Tony, thanks for the review! I did some 'extensive' copyediting on the article, trying to get rid of some redundant words. I hope it looks better now. As per the hyphen in thermal viewers, I don't think there is one (one is not included in the source, for example - but the author of the source is Spanish and English is not his native language so I'm not sure). If it doesn't look good yet I will continue to work on it when I come back and try to put it through the league of copyeditors. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked another editor to look through the article and copy edit it as needed, but I don't know when said editor will be able to get to it. I hope that this FAC is not forgotten! JonCatalán (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one caveat:
On my computer, there is a very large gap between the heading for Programa Coraza and the text in that section. I suspect that is because the image is underneath the infobox. Perhaps the image could be moved to the left?
With the editing done while I was flying the problem doesn't seem to show up on my computer here, but I did see it when I was using a computer in an internet café in Madrid. Is the problem still existing on your screen? JonCatalán (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, partial and incomplete date delinking on yet another FAC, and failure to add WP:NBSPs on delinked dates. Also, is it Armor Program or Program Armor? The article is inconsistent. All of the date delinking and NBSPs need to be fixed. Incorrect endashes as well (2003 – 2008); please have someone who knows MoS go through and catch all of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going through and offering some samples. For example, I tried to add some nbsp's were I could find the need for them, such as Leopard 2 and what not. I'm not sure about 'manhours' - it's certainly the terminology the source uses, but it may not be politically correct from an English-speaking perspective. I'm not sure. JonCatalán (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn my oppose, but there are still a few things to fix. There's "2x" in the infobox; is this meant to be two times ...? If so, "2 ×".
"with 15 more being delivered before the end"—Remove "being".
Should "Leopard 2E" be bolded in the captions?
"It is also one of the most expensive Leopard 2s built to date"—Remove "also". I see other alsos that need to be weeded out ("scope ...").
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is comprehensive, almost exhaustively so, the images are all correctly copyrighted, and the prose has been copyedited by several people and is succinct/concise and treads a line between technicality and losing meaning. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"(2½ in)" → "(2.5 in)" (throughout article) (I think I got them all)
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.(I couldn't finure out whether that was a book or journal - it is a gov't report. I have made it book and will look for some isbn or something)
Otherwise sources look good and links checked out with the link checking tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablitiy of the non-english sources Ealdgyth - Talk12:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MushroomExpert has been used on several other Mushroom FAs. It's managed by a published author and speaker. The Turkish Journal of Botany link is not dead; direct linking to the PDF is not allowed even though the article are free to access. I tried replacing it with a link to the abstract. Circeus (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, on mushroom expert though, we need some idea of how reliable it is. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. Ealdgyth - Talk13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site is overseen by the main site-owner and contributor who I presume vets all contributions. This is tricky as mycology is somewhat obscure but I will see what I can find. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extremely contentious nature of mushrooms (snickers), I'm pretty sure that if you can show that the guy who puts out the web page has managed to have something published in a third-party press on mushrooms, that'll go a long ways towards showing reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second para - "It may be sold fresh in Finland..." seems to suggest that it cannot be sold fresh elsewhere. Is this the case? (yes, the article mentions a ban in Germany, Spain, and all english guidebooks strongly advise against eating it. I have no idea about eastern Europe WRT commercial sales to individuals as such, but Finland does stand out in its consumption of this fungus)
Taxonomy and naming, second para - why are English common names italicised? This seems odd. (Italics are used for emphasis of a word when it is stated. I concede it is confusing as scientific names and foreign words lose their marking feature. I'll ask Tony on that one)
Fourth para, second sentence: "most closely related to the genus Discina, and also Pseudorhizina, Hydnotrya" - is a word missing here? (I reworded to clarify)
Description, first para, fourth sentence: "Specimens from California may often have more reddish-brown caps" - it would read better if you picked either "may" or "often" (done)
Eighth sentence: "...with transparent spores elliptical and 17–22 μm in length"; perhaps "that are" between "elliptical" and "transparent"? (done)
Second para: "G. esculenta is somewhat similar in appearance..." "somewhat" is unnecessary, especially given the clarification later in the sentence. (reworded)
Distribution and habitat, third sentence: "The hunting period..." Is "hunting" really the commonly used term here? (I've seen morel hunting and truffle hunting written quite a bit actually, maybe its something about ascomycetes...)
Same sentence: "...and it may even appear"; "it" is ambiguous here, since (I assume) you're actually talking about the mushroom and not the hunting period. (done)
Fourth/Fifth sentences: "It can be common in some years.... The mushroom is more commonly found" - this would read better if the word "common" wasn't repeated like this. (abundant )
Sixth sentence: "Enthusiasts in Finland have been reported burying newspaper..." - tense disagreement (past/present) (I wrote it as "have been reported" (perfect passive - i.e. has happened and could keep happening) followed by 2 present active partiples and a past passive one 'inoclulated'. Erm, do you want me to change the participles?)
Second para, first sentence: "...is found widely across the continent,[6] as well as...Mexico". Mexico is part of "the continent". (ok, fixed)
Third sentence: "...and more montane areas than lowlands". "More in montane areas", perhaps? (done)
Fourth sentence: Why are Northern Ireland and Turkey lumped together? (trying to highlight either end of europe that they have been recorded)
Toxicity, first sentence: toxic reactions in general?;) (clarified)
Second sentence: "or misidentification" seems out of place. Maybe something more along the lines of "The wide range of of effects seen led experts to speculate whether reported toxicity was caused either by an allergic reaction, or misattributed due to confusion with another mushroom". (yeah. done)
Third sentence: has an unencyclopaedic tone. (The whole para could use reworking.) (changed to 'become severely ill or perish' - I liked 'perish' here)
Second para, second sentence: "at the time" is implied; if retained, it would read better if it was moved further down in the sentence. (yep. removed)
Third sentence: "and there had not been a fatality reported" - what about "and no fatalities were reported"? ("There had not been" is a little clunky). (got it)(trimmed and reworded a bit)
The first para talks about poisoning. The second para introduces gyromitrin, then goes back to poisoning. Then the third para goes back to gyromitrin. It might read better if the name is introduced in the third para, instead of at the start of the second. (done. should have seen that one)
Third para, third sentence: "However" isn't necessary. (removed)
Fourth sentence: "unclear whether...or that..." Whether and that don't match here. (change to 'to')
Geographical variation, third sentence: "However" is unnecessary given the second half of the sentence. I would recommend ditching "however" and replacing "although" with "but". (removed however, don't think it needs a but though)
Symptoms: Para 1 is a little jargony - "more severe poisoning may present". Para 2 has a lot of big words - they are linked, but even I don't know what "mydriasis" is. The "Treatment" section could also be translated into natural English. (trying here. Tricky but making a little progress)
Carcinogenicity: refs 56-59 don't appear to the used elsewhere in the article. Couldn't they be combined into a single link?
Fourth sentence: ...it is possible there is a...risk" - needs a word like "that" in there. (added)
Fifth sentence: "It is not known if the toxins can be completely removed by parboiling" seems a bit out of place here. (it means potential carcinogens here, clarifyed)
Consumption, tenth sentence: "False morels are also sold prepared and canned, in which case they are ready to be used" - this would appear to contradict the toxicity information elsewhere in the para (and is uncited). (it comes from ref 69 as well, and it means they have been boiled as per the preceding process before being packaged for sale. Would merely adding a 'fully' help or should it be elaborated more?) --> ('False morels are also sold canned after being adequately prepared')?
Sentence 13 - "As well as Europe, Gyromitra esculenta is consumed in the Great Lakes region..." Shouldn't start the sentence with "as well as Europe" (and if you did, it would need the word "in"). (Changed to 'Outside of Europe' as a natural link, or do you think it can disappear altogether?)
Prospects for cultivation, second sentence: is this supported by ref 78? (ref 79 did, but I tweaked it to show how)
Third sentence: "Furthermore, the fungus has been successfully grown to fruiting in culture" - "in culture" isn't clear. "In cultivation" or "in culture media"? (media it is)
Thanks. nice to open the scoring on this one. Do you mind if I strike the above or put it in one of those collapsible box thingies or something? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (COI declaration: I helped Cas a little bit to write the toxicology section) I believe it meets all the criteria, is well written, and all the medical info is up to date.Mr Bungle | talk23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments::fungi known as "False morels", and later (Snow morel) - query capitals (gosh, thought I had them all. gone)
It is also common in Central Europe and less commonly in the east, - is this grammatical? (commonly --> abundant)
As well as Europe, Gyromitra esculenta is consumed in the Great Lakes region and some western states in the United States. - I know Americans are hearty eaters, but doubt if they could swallow even a small continent. jimfbleak (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)(changed first bit to 'Outside of Europe')[reply]
"For vampires in general, it is shown that daylight is not good, but it does not cause them to burst into flames" - prose in general needs a spiff... it's OK (GA quality) but not really professional (FA quality)... Get someone who hasn't seen it to do a copyedit.
Support. I really like the production and reception sections and the free images inside them. I copy-edited some of the article, but after reading the beginning of the plot section, I was… well, lost (hmm, that doesn't work as well here). Some tips for the future: Instead of [[flashback|flashbacks]], just use [[flashback]]s; avoid self-references ("we") and contractions and make use of the edit summary field. I am not convinced that the picture being used has the strongest fair use claim of any possible screenshot. The necklaces, the funeral, the stabbing or some other picture may be better than a close-up of the (already pictured) main character hugging someone whose face cannot be seen. And have you seen this? Excellent work, –thedemonhogtalk • edits07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comingsoon.net link was replaced with the official Comic-Com website. The tvbythenumbers link was inserted to give credibility to the ratings, as two sources are better than one. I know moonlight-archive.com isn't a reliable source, but it's an interview. Trevor Munson said those words (unfortunately to an unreliable source) but I still think it's ok to provide the source. Futon Critic, I know it isn't considered to be very reliable, but that's the only place with that kind of information. Could exceptions be made for those citations? Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, WP:V isn't a guideline, it's a policy. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk13:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the TV by the Numbers reference. I still stand by my comment that the moonlight-archive.com should be allowed to stay. It is an interview, so I don't think (and this is what I think) that it really matters on which site it is posted. As for The Futon Critic references, I will try to find alternate sources. Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion09:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, please take the moonlight-archive issue to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where others can weigh in on the issue. For me, it's a matter of how reliable is the place recording the interview. How do we know they didn't edit the interview or insert some bias into it. While it doesn't appear likely in this case, it's always a concern. Ealdgyth - Talk13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComments
Needs a fair amount of copy editing. Here are some examples from the start of the article:
Lead image caption needs to avoid repetition of "body" in the same sentence.
Opening sentence - no need to specify both "pilot episode" and "first season" since pilots by definition must preceed the first season.
Lede second sentence - need to define "sire" for those not familiar with vampire lore.
Lede third paragraph - rewrite to avoid saying "critic" three times in two sentences.
Plot section, first paragraph - "Mick arrives at the crime scene of the murder of a young woman" is a little clumsy, something like "...arrives at the scene of the murder of.." reads better
"Beth takes the picture, but cannot help but notice large puncture wounds on her neck" - I haven't seen this show, but are we really aware of her inner thought processes to this extent? Can she really "not help" but notice the wounds?
"While thinking of vampire-related titles for her story" - same issue - how do we know what the character is thinking?
"Beth runs into Mick, who she says looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other" this seems like a convoluted way of expressing a simple sequence. I had to read this a couple of times to sort out who exactly said what to whom. You could split it into separate sentences to make it obvious: "Beth runs into Mick. She says he looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other"
"At BuzzWire, Beth's editor tells her that she likes the vampire angle, with Beth saying it just came to her." - sudden jump of scene within the same paragraph. the phrase "with Beth saying" is confusing - is Beth talking simultaneously with her editor? Again this sentence needs a rewrite.
"The next morning, Beth finds the dead woman's car, with a necklace hanging from the rearview mirror." How does she find the car? Just a lucky coincidence?
"Meanwhile, Mick goes to visit Josef, his vampire friend who is 400 years old." - what is the important information here: that Josef is Mick's friend, that Josef is a vampire, that Josef is 400 years old or that Mick visits Josef? It seems like too much information crammed into one sentence.
"Josef seems concerned about the "vampire" murder being bad for their safety." Why the scare quotes around vampire? You haven't told us yet whether this is a vampire murder or not. Do vampires really murder their victims? Aren't they feeding? Is that the same as murder?
"Mick goes to the morgue to get some blood and information from his friend, Guillermo (Jacob Vargas)." what does "to get some blood" imply? Is he really drinking the blood of his friend Guillermo? That's a very good friend.
"He smells the dead girl found in the fountain, and realizes that a vampire did not kill her." Is her body in the morgue? How does he know a vampie did not kill her by smelling her blood?
"Mick and Beck break into the dead girl's apartment and find another of the necklaces, with a vial of blood inside". Who is Beck? We haven't been introduced to this character yet. Or is this a typo for Beth? If so, why is Mick working with Beth? You say "another of the necklace" but this is the first mention of necklaces or vials of blood, so I'm confused.
"Someone calls Beth, a person named Josh (Jordan Belfi), and Mick disappears". Re-order this sentence: Josh (Jordan Belfi) calls Beth, and Mick disappears". You also need to say why Mick leaves (or does he literally turn invisible?)
"...her lecturer Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin)..." only "Professor" should be wikilinked to Professor, since that article is not about the character of Professor Ellis.
These are just examples. The whole article needs a pretty thorough rewrite by someone who hasn't worked on it before. I'm afraid this isn't at featured article quality yet. Gwernol11:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these specific issues, Cornucopia. However, I think you need to get someone fresh to do a thorough copy edit of the article. It still suffers from prose issues and doesn't flow well for the reader. You still have lots of very short sentences in there which break up the flow and make it hard to follow the plot your writing about. The The examples above are examples, rather than an exhaustive list of the issues that need to be fixed. For now, I'm remaining opposed, though I'd be happy to reassess this after further work. Good luck, Gwernol12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another look at the article. Sorry it has taken a while, I have been busy off-Wiki. The article has definitely improved - thanks for the hard work. I've found fewer issues with it, so I've removed my formal oppose, above. However I'm not ready to support it yet. There are still some prose issues I'd like to see ironed out. I've fixed a couple of obvious ones, but several need an editor who is more familiar with the show and this particular episode. Here's what I found:
The wikilink of "sire" goes to Childe (World of Darkness). This seems problematic. The linked article is tagged as having multiple issues. The linked article deals with the term childe, not sire (though sire is mentioned as a synonym). Most importantly that article covers a different mythology from the Moonlight mythology - is the vampire legend in Moonlight really exactly the same as World of Darkness?
In the plot section: "Beth has some one on one time with Ellis..." too informal and unspecific. Does this mean Beth talks to Ellis after the class is over? What do they talk about?
Plot section: "Beth passes out..." its not clear to me why she passes out, since it was Mick who was stabbed
Plot section: "Mick...lights the place on fire" you shouldn't refer to "the place" without having first told us that "the place" is. Can you change "the place" to be more specific?
The Continuity section is misnamed, since it deals with part of the pilot, not its continuity with the rest of the series.
Continuity section: "Vampires also have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well, smell the past and glimpse the future" - there are no senses that can be heightened in order to allow you to glimpse the future. That ability is not a heightened sense, it is something else.
Production section: "Trevor Munson ... spent the better part of two and a half years writing a novel around this character" should read "...writing a novel featuring the character"?
Production section: "The script later fell into the hands of..." again suffers from being too informal and not specific enough. Can you clarify this?
Production section: "...to turn his script into a television series" reword to "...to rewrite the script as a television series"
Production section: "With an almost entirely different cast, a retooled, full-length pilot for television audiences was re-shot and creative control of the show changed hands". This needs to be split into two separate sentences. The information about reshooting the pilot is separate from the information about creative control changing hands. In the second sentence we need to know who gained creative control and why.
Production section: Picture of Bruce Willis - Willis was briefly mentioned as a possible cast member for the film version of the series. It seems odd then that the only photo illustrating this section is of Willis.
Production section: "Originally, Josef was to be portrated by Šerbedžija, who according to O'Laughlin, was twice Jason Dohring's age". Not sure about the "according to O'Laughlin" bit. Is there some doubt that Šerbedžija was twice Dohring's age? I've already fixed the spelling error in that quote.
Production section: "it was a concern that he was more a "father figure" to Mick when Josef was much older" I just can't parse this phrase. What exactly is the studio's concern - that he would seen as a father figure because he was older? Father figures usually are older. This needs to be rewritten to more clearly express the intent.
Reception section: "Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune also praised the lead actors, saying that O’Loughlin's was "passable in the lead role", and that Myles was "reasonably good"" I wouldn't describe saying that the lead actor was "passable" counted as praise, unless you want to include this as an example of "damning with faint praise". I think you need to reword this.
Reception section: I'm concerned that the lede does not properly reflect the reception section. Reading the lede I was left with the impression that the reviews were pretty mixed, with some pans and a few positive. After reading the reception section, its pretty clear that the pilot was almost universally loathed by the critics with only a couple of minor exceptions - and even these amount to faint praise with significant caveats. I think the lede needs to more accurately reflect this.
Hope that is helpful. The article is much better and getting closer to the prose quality required for a Featured Article. Best, Gwernol12:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most of the points raised, though I am not sure what to do with a few. Another user requested a meaning for "sire" in the lead, though I am not sure how to insert it without making it sound akward. Do you think it would be okay if I left it as it is? I changed the "Continuity" section to "Mythology"; I couldn't think of anything else. For the sense thing, seeing the future could be related to "the sixth sense" (I realise how stupid that sounds). The source I used to verify that statement uses those exact words, so I'm not sure what to do. Maybe change it to "Vampires have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well and smell the past. They also develop psychic powers, allowing them to glimpse the future". As for the photo of Willis, I previously had two others (which were more relevant), but they were both deleted. That was the only free image I could find. :D Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the "other user: who asked for sire to be Wikilinked was me :-) My point above was not that it was incorrect to Wikilink sire, but that the particular article you linked to doesn't seem like a good one. The right link would be (in order of preference): 1) an article about the specific meaning of "sire: in the Moonlight mythology (or a link to the appropriate section of an overall Moonlight mythology article) 2) an article about the general concept of siring (again, or to a section in a general article about vampire mythology) 3) If none of the above exist, then find an external source that explains what "sire" means in the world of Moonlight, and use that to explain the meaning. Gwernol21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link to the main Moonlight page, where I wrote a very brief description of a sire. I think the writing is a bit akward, read it and tell me what you think! Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppos-ish comment I have begun copyedititing the article, but I really find the plot summary to be too unfocused, long and unhelpful for someone (like me) who hasn't seen this programme. For example the first plot paragraph: Who are Mick and Beth etc. (private investigator, reporter, can be shorter than in the lead)? Why is it important that Beth tries to take pictures than takes pictures? Is it important that the body was found in a fountain? In the next paragraph, Beth writes an article for BuzzWire, although it has already been stated before that she "is reporting for the online newspaper BuzzWire". In general, the plot summary should be trimmed by one third down to 450 or less words, and the problem will mostly dissolve. I can't comment on the other parts of the article yet, but FA potential is there. – sgeurekat•c09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the plot section seems better now. I'll reserve other comments for when I've finished reading the article. – sgeurekat•c06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (None of the following is meant to sound harsh, but it is my honest opinion as an FA reviewer, to help you get the article to FA quality.) The reception section appears to be a collection of every review that appeared in reliable sources, but in an unordered and unsummarized way. For example, the section mentions in several sentences how four different reviewers compared the series to Angel – why not say once that several reviewers compared it to Angel[1][2][3] and be done with it? Reception of the cast appears everywhere, and info about positive and negative reception is mixed. Many sentences begin with "S/he said". There is no real flow; it reads like a list of reviews was thrown together to appear like prose, which is good as raw data in a GA, but not thoughfully arranged reception information in FA quality. Mind you, I have seen several FA episode articles do the same, so I won't oppose, but I can't give my support either. (To get my point better across, imagine if a wiki reader cares more about (1) whether Tom Shales of The Washington Post gave a negative review, or (2) if the show was similar to Angel, had a good/terrible cast, had (no) potential, etcetera. I.e. focus on the points of reception, not on the reviewers.) – sgeurekat•c15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally wanted to wait with another comment until I have read the article very closely in full, but I just skimmed the reception section and must say, very good job. I'll give the article a good read-through and a copyedit tomorrow, and it's already looking very close to support (at least). Goodnight. :-) – sgeurekat•c19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've run a copyedit through the plot section for conciseness, but you should check again where I messed up in grammar (not so likely) or plot summary (more likely). I have also left two invisible comments that should be addressed because the plot summary there (or the significance of sentences) didn't make sense to me. If the Mythology really constitutes most of the introduction to this episode, the section should either be moved before the plot section or should be merged into the plot section as the first paragraph, as this explains much of the plot. My reading of the Production and Reception section will follow. – sgeurekat•c15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of merging some of the mythology into the plot, which I will do in a few minutes. If you feel that it is not better, then I can change it back and put the mytho section before the plot. Oh yeah, please make sure you keep on pressing control-c on your edits, just in case there are a few edit conflicts. Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I am too unfamiliar with the show, but since I am not a big fan of stubbish sections anyway, I think it could find a place elsewhere. Maybe it works in the production section as an explanation after "the original concept", but that's just an idea. – sgeurekat•c17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it's nearly there, but I've done all I could. You should still try to get rid of some "saying"s in the Reception section. It is also my feeling that the Reception section could do without four or so less quotes (they are little bit overwhelming I think), but I'll leave that decision to you. – sgeurekat•c17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I just did a casual read through and the prose has improved significantly since I last looked at it. Happy to support - well done! —Giggy07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Requirement for professional-standard formatting (overlinked), Cr. 1a.
Overlinked. Many of your links are valuable to readers, and they're significantly diluated by the bright-blue patchwork at the moment. I delinked a few trivial ones at the top, including the date autoformatting, which, please note, is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). Please weed out the trivials throughout: items such as "CBS" repeated link, "eulogy", "assistant", "garlic", hello ...?
I took a spot-check on one single para in the middle.
A certain looseness in the tone, and I see reviewers above have pointed this out. "spent the better part of two and a half years"—well, um ... how long? If WP doesn't tell you exactly, who does?
The dreaded with as a connector (very poor) finished off by the ungrammatical noun plus -ing: "with Bruce Willis being considered".
"The script was then shown to ..."—We know it's a sequence of events, so remove "then".
"to executive produce the project"—nope, readers won't cope with that as a verb, despite the flexibility of English. "to be e ps on"
And there's another "with plus noun plus -ing".
Can you find someone else to go through the whole text and polish it up, please? It's not a huge job, but needs doing so we can be proud of it. TONY(talk)12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Made a few tweaks. Seems good enough now. I think I preferred Image:Rade Serbedzija.jpg to the image of Bruce Willis. Everyone knows what BW looks like. It seems more interesting to see what Dohring's character almost looked like. There's probably some reasoning behind this I don't know about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a (prose/narrative) and 1c (sources). The prose is pretty good but there are errors and narrative problems as outlined below. The plot section needs copy-editing. Also, there are a couple questionable sources (TV Guide and TV Squad, details below).
I don't really understand the genre classification of "supernatural" in the lead. What makes a drama supernatural? In the article about the show, it is called a "paranormal romance".
"Behind the scenes, the pilot underwent several major changes." Not a good paragraph opener. Suggests context that isn't there yet—changes from what? Describe what was changed before you say it was changed. You go on to mention an "original short presentation" that we don't know about.
Run-on sentence in the lead: "Many critics criticized the acting and the writing, one said that it had the 'worst writing of the new season'."
"After the dead woman's lecturer, Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin), has given an eulogy at her funeral, a blonde girl named Chloe attacks him, slashing his neck." The phrase "dead woman's lecturer" is odd. People have dentists and gardeners, but not lecturers. I'm not certain about regional dialects, but "eulogy" normally is pronounced beginning with a "y" sound meaning it should be "a eulogy".
"Beth tracks down Chloe, who explains the professor's vampire-worshipping blood cult and his belief in being a vampire." Meaning he believes he is a vampire, or he believes he can become a vampire?
"Later Mick finds Chloe's dead body, and knowing Beth has gone to Ellis's class, he runs off to save her." Are we to assume Ellis has killed Chloe? Don't make readers guess at this if it was stated in the show. Ellis had a class after being slashed in the neck at a funeral? "Runs off" is inappropriate tone.
"Ellis attacks Beth and though she escapes ..." Prefer "although" for more formal prose.
"When she wakes up, she remembers that Mick saved her as a child and that he was stabbed by the assistant." These happened at the same time? Confusing narrative.
"The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology ..." I'm not convinced what you've listed is a "unique" mythology since I have seen these elements of vampire mythology in other fiction. Please provide a relevant quote from your sources that establishes the mythology as unique. A TV Guide episode recap is not an acceptable source for critical interpretation.
"Joel Silver and Gerard Bocaccio came on board ..." Colloquial, please revise.
"The project was renamed Moonlight when CBS gave it an early pick-up ..." What is "giving an early pick-up"? Explain jargon or wikilink.
The TV Squad source is unreliable, I think. I was looking around the site for their editorial guidelines and I saw "There are no strict editorial guidelines; every blogger's opinion is his or her own." That's bad news. --Laser brain(talk)20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to our guidline, "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." TV Squad's own FAQ (as quoted above) states that they do don't that at all—there are no editorial guidelines. --Laser brain(talk)21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed most of the raised points. I increased the lead size, what do you think? For this line: "The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology", I added a reference to an interview with O'Loughlin. I think the TV Squad ref is okay, it is not sourcing anything controversial or important; it is merely sourcing an editor's point of view. Corn.u.co.piaŢĐЌDisc.us.sion04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved—your use of TV Squad seems okay on second look, but I'm not convinced the particular blogger you cite is anyone special. Why should his views be cited in an encyclopedia article? Do you have any print sources citing TV Squad as a notable blog? --Laser brain(talk)05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the line that mentioned the reviewer, though I left the parts that were described by him; e.g. "Several critics compared it detrimentally with the television series Angel". Is this compromise good enough? Corn.u.co.piaŢĐЌDisc.us.sion10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because viruses are important and despite their tiny size, very complex. Because of their complexity, the main article, Virus, can be difficult to understand in parts, especially by those readers with little knowledge of biology. This Good Article has had two especially helpful peer reviews and I think it is ready to be considered for FA. My long-term project is to improve the coverage of virology on Wikipedia and I want this article to be a useful, general introduction not just to Virus, but to other articles in which viruses are discussed. I thank all my fellow editors whose names can be found in the article's history, but stress that any errors are entirely my own work. GrahamColmTalk14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"composed of either DNA or RNA, a protein coat that protects these genes," – for a general introduction, I'd add some subclause about DNA and RNA, and wiki-link protein.
"plasmids, that can move within, leave, and enter cells and this is the cellular origin theory" – should probably be similar to what is in the lede: "plasmids, pieces of DNA that".
"to study tobacco mosaic virus. He published the results of his experiments which proved that crushed leaf extracts of infected tobacco plants were still infectious after filtration." – sounds a tad awkward. The "his" is probably redundant. And it should probably be "what is now known as the tobacco mosaic virus", if the word virus was introduced only later.
Sure, I don't want to be over-picky. Another point, though: is it important to stress that he published his results? Was that unusual at the time? If not, I'd make it "His experiments showed...". Markus Poessel (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"that caused areas of death on bacteria growing on agar." – a bit ambiguous; presumably the area of death is not on each bacterium, but instead on the agar?
Better now; how about "described viruses that, when added to bacteria growing on agar, would lead to the formation of whole areas of dead bacteria." or similar? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wendell Stanley examined tobacco mosaic virus" – is that scientific usage? I'd expect there to be a definite article.
Yes again, it is scientific usage, like we never say "the smallpox virus" of "the rotavirus", but in an introductory article, I think the definitive article is better, thanks. GrahamColmTalk
"in fertile chicken eggs" – not clear what that means. What are infertile chicken eggs?
The ones you buy from the shop, most chickens eggs are not fertile, that is they will not hatch. But I'll delete the "fertile", it's obviously a distraction. GrahamColmTalk18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"this virus was separated into protein and nucleic acid parts" – I'm pretty sure this is the first time nucleic acid pops up. Definitely to be wikilinked, and I think there should also be a brief explanation of what those are.
"The proteins that attach to the DNA or RNA are known as nucleoproteins, and together form a nucleocapsid." – reads a bit abrupt. Should it be something like "There also exists an inner shell around the DNA or RNA, formed by proteins called ..."?
"Most viruses are sub-microscopic and their sizes range from 20 to 300 nm." – so as not to give the reader pause, it should probably be noted that "sub-microscopic" refers to ordinary light microscopes.
Yes, this is explained in the link, but it should be made clear without the reader having to click on it. I'll find a solution to this. GrahamColmTalk18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Most organisms use DNA, but many viruses (e.g., retroviruses) have RNA as their genetic material." – I think it's sub-optimal for this to be the first time retroviruses are mentioned, and without any explanation.
"Genes are made from DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and, in many viruses, RNA (ribonucleic acid)." - since this is for a general audience, might one want to mention the word "double helix" somewhere?
"Viruses, although simple compared to cell-based organisms, are very efficient at reproduction." - I don't understand that sentence. Why the "although"? Is there a natural link between being complex and reproducing effectively?
"called segmented genomes." - I think it's a bit odd that this is the first mention, properly wikilinked, of genome. The problem is that wikilinking gives graphical emphasis. A reader might think that the new-and-important thing here is "genome", whereas what's significant here is "segmented".
"Most viruses produce a protein that is an enzyme called a polymerase." - wikilink polymerase? And I think the following description should be expanded to be more widely understandable. That the host cell has similar enzymes comes somewhat out of the blue; an extra sentence describing what the polymerase actually does could be helpful.
"Retroviruses are very different: they have RNA, but inside the host cell a DNA copy of their RNA is made." - since this is now the first time retroviruses are mentioned, they might be introduced a bit more directly: "For a certain class of virus known as retroviruses, ..." or similar?
"Main article: Viral life cycle Main article: Viral entry": if those are indeed two main articles (and not one main article and one "see also"), you should probably put them both into a single template: {{main article|Viral life cycle|Viral entry}}
"Other viruses such as HIV are released more gently by a process called budding." - budding links to "viral shedding", which includes both lysis and budding. Should it link directly to the budding section of that article? (With a comment added to that section, so that nobody will change the section title and break the link?)
"The ability of viruses to cause disease is called virulence and the mechanism is called pathogenesis." - any disease mechanism is called "pathogenesis", right? This sentence makes it sound as if that were a virus-specific term.
Is it only micro-organisms, though? What about heat-stroke – does that have a pathogenesis? I would recommend to leave the sentence out altogether, and wiki-link the "virulent" in the next sentence. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"People chronically infected with Hepatitis B virus are known as carriers who serve as reservoirs of infectious virus." - is there a non-infectious Heptatitis B virus? Also, and this is no doubt due to my unfamiliarity with the subject: I used to think that every little virion was called "a virus", whereas from this article, I gather that "virus" is properly a class name ("the Hepatitis B virus"), whereas the individual instances of that class are called "virions". If that is correct, should those people not be reservoirs of virions?
I'll remove the "infectious". WRT "virions", this is tricky. Strictly speaking a virion is a virus particle outside the host and often the term implies that the virions have been purified.
Re virions: OK! Another comment, though: presumably the term "carrier" applies more generally, not only to Hep B? That is certainly how the definition of "endemic" reads, directly afterwards. Should this be "People chronically infected with a virus are known..."? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"also spread by vectors, which are usually biting insects" - sounds a bit awkward as, grammatically, this could be read as a description of the habits of vectors, viz. that the vectors can usually be found biting poor hapless insects. "Blood-sucking insects" would make this clearer, but might not be entirely correct. Is there a way of reformulating this? Also, it might be good to reiterate the way this was introduced in the lede - many readers might not remember the lede's brief explanation of what a vector is.
"Some virus infections are spread by contaminated food and water (Norovirus and Rotavirus)" - can you not get, say, Norovirus by contact with an infected person? Using the same hygienic facilities, say, without direct contact with food/water?
Your version has only food/water for norovirus; its wiki page says it can also be transmitted person-to-person, and that the key substance is fecal matter. I'm pretty sure the latter is correct. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not as hard as it sounds. Person goes to the restroom, doesn't wash his or her hands thoroughly, you shake hands with that person, happen to touch your mouth with that hand afterwards – no visible amounts of pooh involved. I think the current version, with its emphasis on food and water for the norovirus, is too exclusive. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure: I'm not talking about the lead, which now indeed has the other route; I'm talking about the section "Viruses and diseases". Markus Poessel (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Normally plant viruses only cause a loss of yield." - to me as a non-specialist, that sounds like a superficial distinction. Isn't a loss of yield an indication that the plant "isn't feeling too well"? Some general loss-of-form that, if it were to occur in humans which can tell us about these things, would certainly be called a disease?
"These are normally insects, but some fungi, nematodes and protozoa have been shown to be viral vectors." - I guess most people will know what fungi are, but nematodes and protozoa might benefit from a brief subclause of explanation
The addition of "worms" helps - what about protozoa? Is there a brief addition that would make clear what those are? "single-cell organisms"? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Plant viruses are harmless to humans or other animals." - this makes me very curious: is it easy to say why? Can this be traced directly to some difference between plant and animal cells? If there is a reasonably brief explanation, I would encourage you to add it to this section.
"They are important in marine ecology because they release carbon compounds from bacteria they have destroyed back into the environment, which stimulates fresh organic growth." - this sentence could probably be polished. How about "They are important in marine ecology: as the infected bacteria burst, carbon compounds are released back into the environment, which stimulates fresh organic growth" or similar?
"Interferon is produced by the body when viruses are present and this stops the viruses from reproducing." - another case where a brief hint of how this works would be a great addition.
I think this could be even more explicit. Here's my attempt to translate what I found in the wiki article interferon: "The body produces special proteins called interferons, which slow down viral replication within the infected cells, activate certain kinds of the immune system's killer cells, and help the host cells to become more resistant to virus infection." Markus Poessel (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Markus, I don't agree with this, they induce apoptosis programmed cell death. I think my synopsis is better.
OK, I'm no expert - I just go by the wiki articles here... in that case, the small remaining quibble would be that "Special proteins called interferons" might be better – else the reader might think that they were already supposed to know what interferon is. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The description of antibodies would be made more lay-reader-friendly if it included a brief description of how antibodies kill viruses. Do they bind to some specific part of the virus? What do they do?
My personal preference would be to expand this even more – is there a brief way of saying how the attachment of these molecules kills the virus? Mind you, this is optional, but I for one would find it interesting, and think it is worth adding. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Plants have elaborate and effective defence mechanisms against viruses. They have resistance (R) genes that protect them from viruses." - unless resistance genes are the only mechanism, how about "One of the most effective is the presence of so-called resistance (R) genes", plus a brief sentence of how this protection works?
Personally, I think the additional information is very helpful. The spots are, presumably, visible on the plant's leaves and/or stem? If yes, it might be good to say so; before, we're always talking at a micro-level; now, we're presumably talking macroscopic features? Markus Poessel (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protective chemicals: how are those protective? As mentioned a number of times before, giving the reader at least an inkling of how the protection works would, I think, be a significant improvement.
"Vaccination is a way of preventing infections by viruses." - again, I'm not an expert here, and I'm a bit confused now. Earlier on, I learned that infection occurs when barriers like the skin etc. are overcome by the virus; at that point, mechanisms set in that limit infection. As far as I understand vaccination, it stimulates these latter mechanisms - infection occurs, but it is quickly limited and overcome. Yet your first sentence states that infection is prevented, and doesn't even occur. Which is it?
Once more, a brief description of how vaccines achieve their tasks would be a good addition. I have some vague notion that they simulate an infection, so that, when the real virus comes, the immune system is prepared, with suitable antibodies in place (or something like that). If that is the case, I think it should be explained here. A simple statement that vaccines prevent a full-fledged infection can never be as memorable as even a simplified account of how this works.
"DNA replication is then stopped because these drugs lack the hydroxyl groups, which along with phosphorus atoms, are needed to make the strong "backbone" of the DNA molecule." - OK, here is an account of how this works, but it is rather technical. Is there a way of supplementing this with a simplified version? Would it be fair to say that the antiviral drug inserts some faulty instructions into the virion's genetic code; when that code is executed to build more virions, the faulty instructions make it crash? Or something along these lines?
Here, too, I think that a slightly extended version might be better. Ideally, the story should be told at a level where the reader can understand something, not just accept, OK, they stop it growing. If matters are too complicated, then this cannot of course be done, but if there's a simplified, yet reasonably accurate version, I'd gladly read it. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two sentences of further explanation but this is a difficult request. To understand fully how these things work, the reader needs to know about the chemical structure of DNA, (and RNA), in particular the structure of the bases and how they are linked together. These drugs cannot form these links, so the DNA is faulty only by its being unfinished. GrahamColmTalk05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it's not easy, but it would be great if we could find a good solution. The current description is, I think, close, but not quite there. From what I glean from your description, is it something like (please correct what's wrong):
"Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, which are molecules very similar, but not identical to DNA building blocks. When the replication of virus DNA begins, some of these fake building blocks are incorporated. As soon as that happens, replication stops prematurely – the fake building blocks lack the essential features that allow the addition of further building blocks. Thus, DNA production is halted, and the virus can no longer reproduce."
"There is a class of drugs called protease inhibitors which inactivate this enzyme." - is there a difference between "inactivate" and "deactivate"? Also, if there is a simple way of describing what happens, this would make a great addition.
"In 80% of people infected, the disease is chronic and without treatment they remain infectious for the rest of their lives." - temporarily ambiguous; I read this as "the disease is chronic and without treatment" (i.e. untreatable) before reading on and realizing that "without treatment" doesn't refer to the disease, but to the people. "is chronic; without treatment"?
Interferon is only mentioned in passing, in relation to Hepatitis C. Isn't it more generally applicable? And once more, if there's a simple way of saying what those treatments do, this would make a good addition.
References, since this is FAC, and articles are meant to be in top form stylistically as well: citation styles differ a bit. Sometimes, the journal is in italics, sometimes it isn't. sometimes journal abbreviation and author initials use periods, sometimes they don't. To satisfy the stylistic criteria, citations should probably have a uniform style. How about using the templates available for that purpose, such as cite or Citation? In the case of the books cited, this would also provide a direct link to catalogues (via the ISBN).
I didn't mean you should use both. Choose one that's most convenient. The few citations I looked at didn't appear to use any template at all, hence my suggestion. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Markus, would you let me off with regard to this? Those templates can be useful; but they often make editing a real bummer. Given that I have mainly used only two (excellent) secondary sources, I think the article will not benefit from this. GrahamColmTalk05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be picky, and if nobody else minds, I'll let it go, but: how about making the way that author initials treated uniform, as well? E.g. author initials always with a period, and always separated from the last name by a comma in the first instance. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Topley and Wilson, it should probably be "ISBN-10" instead of "ISBN-0". What follows, however, has a mere 9 digits. The citation also doesn't look quite optimal - the title, edition, volume and volume editors sort of run together.
Are there no external links that might be useful? Doesn't the CDC have links to information about virus infections for a general audience (useful for readers that are driven to this Wikipedia article by a sudden, intimate interest in one particular virus)?
The "Virus glossary" is made up of three nested tables, so it looks like an onion or something. There is probably not much that can be done about it, but I thought I'd mention it :)
SupportComments This is an interesting article and I want to thank the editors for writing it. Lay readers like myself really appreciate the work put into these introductions. Here are my questions:
I think the "Virus glossary" was a wonderful idea - very handy.
Viruses are about 100 times smaller than bacteria, and it would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to cover 1 centimetre (0.39 in). - This kind of comparative statistic is very evocative for a reader like myself who doesn't deal in measurements on a daily basis.
When infected by a virus, a cell is forced to make thousands of identical viruses. - Are they always identical?
Yes, ...and no. By appearance they are always indistinguishable, but sometimes there are subtle genetic changes. These changes are important of course, but this is a subtlety that is best glossed over in an introductory article. (I've alluded to this in the "reassortment" sentence). Graham
They reproduce at an extraordinary rate, but cannot do this alone - I wonder if it is worth repeating "viruses" at this point, just to be clear about the "they".
A virus consists of two or three parts: genes composed of either DNA or RNA, a protein coat that protects these genes, and an envelope of fat that surrounds some viruses when they are not within a cell. - So only some viruses have the envelope of fat but all viruses have genes and the protein coat? I wonder if this couldn't be made a little clearer.
Yes, this is true and I will try to make it clearer. Graham
This may be, but it made no sense to me in the context of the article. I asked several other lay readers what they thought this meant and they all thought "round", too, and would not have clicked. I think "icosahedron" would be better than "soccer-ball". Too many people think they know a soccer ball is spherical. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viruses of plants are often spread from plant to plant by insects and other organisms, known as vectors - "viruses of plants" seems like an odd constructions - what about "plant viruses" or "viruses that infect plants"?
Yes, this is the bad language of virologists like me. I'll change this. Graham
Some viruses are spread by biting insects - I was momentarily shocked by this sentence because I knew that viruses didn't bite insects! I think this could be worded better - "insects that bite [insert what they bite]" perhaps?
Oh yes, stupid me, insects that bite! (the bastards), I'll fix this. Graham
Whereas viruses such as influenza are spread through the air by coughing and sneezing - "by the coughing and sneezing of their hosts" perhaps?
Yes, viruses don't cough and sneeze, stupid me again. I'll fix this. Graham
others such as norovirus and rotavirus contaminate food or water - Is "contaminate" a human POV? :) Don't they just "live" there?
No, contaminate is the best word. Outside cells viruses are not living—they are in a kind of limbo. Graham.
they are usually completely eliminated by the immune system, conferring lifetime immunity to that virus - The immunity clause is worded a bit oddly, I think - what about "conferring lifetime immunity to the host for that virus" or something like that?
Some thought required by me here. Graham
The origin of viruses is unclear because they do not form fossils - I thought that a lot of evolutionary work was being done using DNA now. Would this still preclude identifying the origins of DNA-based viruses? (I am sure I have misunderstood something. My exposure to this topic is limited to Richard Dawkins, after all!)
Oh I dreaded this one. I deliberately avoided molecular phylogeny in this article because to date the technique can only "go back" a few decades, not the millions of years that viruses have been (we guess) around.
It might be worth mentioning the limitations of the technique, since the major popular books on evolution mention it. (Even I, who study literature, wondered about it!) Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over time, genes not required by their parasitic lifestyle would have been lost - This just sounds too funny! Seriously, though, I wasn't sure what the "their" was referring to.
Yes, this is odd, I must have been smoking something. I'll get back to you on this. Graham
Still reads the same here. (Someone also just pointed out to me that is odd to speak of viruses as having a lifestyle.) Awadewit (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viruses may have evolved from complex molecules of protein and DNA at the same time as cells first appeared on earth - It might be a good idea to mention when cells first appeared on earth. I'm thinking "long, long ago".
Hey, do we know? Must be millions. I'll see what the latest guessimate is. Graham
Viruses may have evolved from complex molecules of protein and DNA at the same time as cells first appeared on earth and have been dependent on cellular life for millions of years. - Should it be "may have been dependent on cellular life"?
No, by definition, they have to be dependent. Graham
In the late 19th century French microbiologist Charles Chamberland invented a filter with holes small enough to remove bacteria - This is a confusing beginning to the "Discovery" section - a filter for what? It seems a bit in medias res. Perhaps some more background?
Yes, more background required. Graham
A little more background added, but Chamberland was a bacteriologist, he invented his filter to sterilize liquids. It was the later use this filter was put to which is important in the history of virology. GrahamColmTalk18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously don't need all of that material, but some general background would help the reader. This is not a big deal, though. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
French-Canadian microbiologist Felix d'Herelle described viruses that caused areas of death on bacteria growing on agar - "areas of death"? The diction sounds a bit off to me.
Counting these dead areas allowed him to calculate the number of viruses in the suspension - To me, this sounds like one virus=one dead area, but that can't be right.
Here's how it's done. You dilute the suspension precisely, say 1:1000, put a measured amount of this diluted suspension on the lawn of bacteria. Later count the dead areas, multiply this number by 1000 and you get the number of viruses in the measured amount. Graham GrahamColmTalk13:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A problem for early scientists was their inability to grow viruses without using live animals - This sentence is missing the "because" half - why did they need live animals? Why couldn't they grow viruses in the lab?
Because viruses only grow in living hosts. Lab techniques were a later development. Graham
Most viruses are sub-microscopic and their sizes range from 20 to 300 nm. They are so small that it would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to cover one centimetre - Why is nanometre abbreviated and centimetre spelled out? Is this some obscure MOS rule I don't know?
I'll check.
The DNA or RNA of viruses consists of either a single strand or a double helix. - Can there be a single strand of DNA or is DNA always a double helix? I was under the impression that DNA was a double helix, but perhaps not in viruses?
No, DNA can be single-stranded. Yours isn't, neither is mine, but these viruses......
Each type of protein is a specialist that only does one job, so if a cell needs to do something new, it must make a new protein to do this job. This is called protein synthesis. - Can the cell make any proteins not encoded in its genes? How "new" can we go?
Yes and no, a cell can only make proteins encoded in its genes unless a bloody virus gets inside.
There are two images illustrating viruses small size, one in relation to other teeny-tiny things and one in relation to a cell. As the images seem a bit crowded to me, I suggest keeping only the cell. The other chart requires more knowledge, I think.
Yes, I'll dump the chart. Graham
When a virus infects a cell, it forces the cell to make more viruses by synthesis of new viral nucleic acid and proteins, which combine to form complete new virus particles - Should this be "completely new virus particles" or just "new virus particles"?
No, not completely new, quite the opposite, identical, (more-or-less).
The ability of viruses to cause disease is called virulence and the mechanism is called pathogenesis. - Can we add a bit more substance to this sentence or integrate the terms into the surrounding sentences?
Therefore it is not economically viable to try to control them, the exception being when they infect perennial species, such as fruit trees - Can we get rid of the "being"? Ew.
The skin, particularly its surface, which is made from dead cells, prevents many types of viruses from infecting the host. - Is this human specific, mammal specific, what?
Animal, I'll fix this. Graham
Some blood cells eat and destroy other virus infected cells. - Is this easter-egg link acceptable for accessibility?
"Prevention and treatment" is still its own section, but it seems to be a part of the discussion of "Viruses and disease" to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, (fake DNA building-blocks), which are incorporated into the viral DNA during replication - I'm not sure what "fake DNA building blocks" means.
Viruses have genes, they reproduce, they mutate, they adapt, they have sex, they evolve by natural selection, they spread across the planet, they grow in cells in our laboratories, they are, more often than not, a bloody nuisance to other living things; I don't think this philosophical debate is needed in an introductory article. Graham. GrahamColmTalk20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was a debate. I'm reading The Way of the Cell, which explains different theories of life, some of which include viruses and some which don't. I'm confused now. Is this book crap? Am I being misled? Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The virus article has a section on the "Lifeform debate" which begins "Viruses have been described as "organisms at the edge of life",[53] but argument continues over whether viruses are truly alive." - Is this inaccurate? Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that. It's best left in the main article I think. Awadewit, you have moved on, this introduction is no longer needed by you :) GrahamColmTalk21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be curious what others more knowledgeable in this area think should be done about this. The concepts are easy enough to understand, so I think an "introduction" version could be written. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, this has been fun and very useful. Thank you so much for these questions and your edits. I will address all of your points in the article in the morning. It's getting late in the UK. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColmTalk22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of thing is always fun for me. I learn a lot and (sometimes) help improve an article. Thanks again for writing this. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Is an "intro" article--which is supposed to be the function of a lead--something that we want to consider eligible to be FA?
2) I do appreciate the existence of this article, given the technical depth of the virus article.
On quick inspection, the article serves as a solid introduction to the topic, and the language is mostly OK.
The absence of a "see also" section is a little odd, given that this is an article whose existence is predicated on it being a guide to more in-depth articles.
Many of the other virus articles are in a poor state, (apart from Rotavirus of course). How about if I See Also the ones that I have at least managed to draw the life-cycle diagrams? GrahamColmTalk08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have at least two "introduction" articles that are FA - introduction to evolution and introduction to general relativity. These articles serve a necessary function that you outline well - the main article can be too technical for some readers. In my opinion, this longer, less technical article is better than a four-paragraph lead. We are better serving the needs of all of our readers this way. Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, and I also know that Sandy will take this into account when she judges whether or not a consensus has been achieved, there was a time, not that very long ago, (only last year), when I had only made two edits :) Graham. GrahamColmTalk22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Current ref 12 "Ernst Ruska Nobel Prize Autobiogrpahy" is lacking publisher, author and last access date.
Current ref 11, I"m assuming this is a journal article? What is the title of the journal, I can't tell because it's not in italics like the other journal entries
I took the liberty of alphabetizing your bibliography. Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk12:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
For some reason the two external links do not work for me, going to "Page not found" and "Page cannot be displayed-System Error" error messages. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I'll continue to sift through it for prose polishing, but I really think this is an excellent article. Check BrEng spelling? I see "colored", too, as well as "filter". And I think "three main theories of ...". Superb pics! TONY(talk)15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have found a problem in the article, which states in the lead: "is a microorganism". Looking at virus and microorganism, which both clearly state that viruses are not microorganisms, it becomes obvious that this article has some conflict with other articles. This is not a big issues, but it would be best if someone expert on the topic take a look at it.--haha169 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A virus consists of two or three parts: all have genes made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry the genetic information; all have a protein coat that protects these genes, and some have an envelope of fat that surrounds them when they are not within a cell." - shouldn't the final comma be a semi-colon?
"...to cover 1 centimetre (0.39 in)." - I don't think "cover" is the right word here - that suggests area. How about "stretch" instead?
"...that had pores that were smaller than bacteria."
"At the same time, several other scientists proved that, although these agents (later called viruses) were different from bacteria," - first comma seems unnecessary.
"The term virus was first used by the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck who used the words "contagium vivum fluidum" to mean "soluble living germ"." - a comma after the name of the scientist, maybe(?)
Support - I have been following this article through FAC and have read through it many times. For me it is an excellent and very clearly written introduction to a topic I knew little about. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should not "Vaccines" and "Antiviral drugs" be at the same heading level, under "Prevention and treatment of viral disease in humans and other animals"? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this comment: Prevention and treatment" is still its own section, but it seems to be a part of the discussion of "Viruses and disease" to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)?
"Prevention and treatment" is under "Viruses and deseases". My issue is different. I am suggesting that "Vaccines" and "Antiviral drugs" are both "Prevention and treatment of viral disease in humans and other animals" and therefore both should be under that heading. Perhaps I am over picky or I misunderstand. Don't let me drive you nuts.—Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - A few possible wikilinks, although I'm not sure if they add enough to not be overlinking:
Structure#Size, light microscopy -> Microscopy#Optical microscopy techniques (It's a little odd since sub-microscopic is already linking into Optical microscopy, so I'm not sure here);
Structure#Genes ¶1, DNA and RNA (they're wikilinked several times in the article already, but it's an important concept for that section)
Structure#Protein synthesis ¶3, Sense (molecular biology) (Either positive-sense RNA viruses or positive-sense or both, not sure)
Viruses and diseases ¶1, Populations and carriers -> Populations and Genetic carriers (important epi concepts, although they're covered in the endemic article too);
Viruses and diseases ¶2, Host (biology) (Same as population, although it is somewhat covered by host range in the glossary),
Viruses and diseases#Plant resistance, resistance (R) gene -> Gene-for-gene relationship (not sure on this one)
Viruses and diseases#Antiviral drugs, AIDS epidemic -> AIDS pandemic(although piped with epidemic instead of pandemic still).
The only other issue is could you please add an {{Information}} tag to the images and move them to commons(Magnus' commonshelper). They still satisfy criteria 3 for me, and I could move them, but as Graham is the artist on most of them I'd prefer he do it so he clearly gets credit for them. I'd support but I'm not quite comfortable with my grasp of the MOS and the general qualities needed for an FA. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has improved since I looked over it for GA. I wonder if it is not too late, however, to mention the research being put into viruses for use as medicine, such as JX-594. I think that might be of interest to the target audience of this article. bibliomaniac1517:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Oncolytic poxviruses, (such as JX), are very new and only discussed in primary sources. All I could add on this would come across as speculative at the moment. GrahamColmTalk17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a very little complaint but it has bothered me for some time. In the sentence, "A virus consists of two or three parts: all have genes made from either DNA or RN....", do you think it should be "Viruses consist of..." in order to fit with the plural after the colon? Or, alternatively, "A virus consists of two or three parts: all viruses have genes made from either DNA or RNA..."? Each time I read it I wonder briefly if "all" refers to a virus or to parts. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nominator. The major objection raised by the first FAC has been dealt with: McCain-written sourcing has been minimized, with in particular the POW section now being primarily based on the two standard works that cover all the American POWs in Vietnam, Hubbell's P.O.W. and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound. All remaining McCain-written cites now contain an explanation in the footnote for why they are being used. Another major improvement in the article came with the partial release of McCain's military records by the Navy a few weeks ago; the article now gives more specific dates, assignments, reasons for medals awarded, etc., than it did before. Various other improvements have been made since the last FAC as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Stylistic suggestion, but generally any section or subsection over about five paragraphs gets too dense for readers and probably should be broken into more sections or subsectioned. Specifically the Prisoner of War section is huge and daunting to even think about reading.
Ealdgyth, thanks for your comments and link checking as usual. Breaking the POW section into two parallel sections doesn't seem right, so I've divided it into three further subsections. I may tweak the names, but we'll see if this works better. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first source, the Naval Academy history web page, only says that the fixed B.S. curriculum started in 1933 and "later" was replaced by a much more elective curriculum. But we need the year, to support McCain's point that his poor class rank was partly caused by having to take a lot of courses he wasn't interested in/wasn't especially good at. The Military Operations Research Society source is used to fix the date of the elimination of the fixed B.S. curriculum, which was 1968, a decade after McCain graduated. Admittedly a symposium briefing document isn't as solid a source as a paper presented at the same symposium would be, but this material was likely taken from some other Naval Academy history that doesn't happen to be online (or if it is, I couldn't find it), and overall I don't see a reason to doubt it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urf. Im not convinced this is a reliable source for the information, honestly. Check the Naval History sites? Just a guess, but given the date they changed the curriculum, perhaps it was connected to the Vietnam War and maybe something related to that will show it? Ealdgyth - Talk17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the MORS cite has now been replaced by a 1977 article from the Air University Review journal (see this page for a description of the journal itself), which shows the reform to the fixed curriculum didn't start until shortly after McCain graduated, and didn't really take effect until around 1968. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Timberg's The Nightingale's Song p. 46: "Even though he lived it, or something like it, McCain recounts his romance with Elena these days as if it were a dream. In some ways it was. But it wasn't just his dream. With minor variations, it was the dream of all but the most inert midshipmen. Duty, honor, country, sure, those things were important ... [but] the chance of someday being swept away and ravished by a beautiful woman in some exotic locale has always been an unspoken part of the deal. ... McCain's fling with Elena, though rare, was not all that rare. Things like that happened often enough to keep that goofy dream alive." Maybe I should add some of this to the footnote, to try to explain the usage. And thanks for the comment and praise. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:In the section on "Family heritage", I wonder why the focus is exclusively on the paternal line of descent. This seems kind of sexist, unless his mother's side of the family consisted of a bunch of nobodys (and ditto for his paternal grandmother's ancestors, et cetera). I mean, if we're going to discuss the family tree, why only focus on people who had the last name "McCain"? That was a small fraction of the subject's ancestry, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "The family tree has a long heritage of American military service, with ancestors fighting ...", those ancestors include not just McCains but also various Youngs, who produced Elizabeth Young, who married Slew's father in 1877 [Faith of My Fathers pp. 18-20], so there is some inclusion there. Regarding the focus on Jack and Slew McCain, that's the natural thematic approach that every bio takes, but if there is something interesting in other parts of the tree, I'd be happy to see that in. The other avenue to explore is the Teoc plantation in Mississippi, which might be worth a sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCain's maternal grandfather was Archibald Wright, an interesting guy. He made a fortune as an oil wildcatter. Lived to be quite old. Born in Mississippi. A stay-at-home Dad after he hit it rich. (And a second-cousin four times removed of George Washington.)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added Archibald. I've also added Teoc plantation, along with the slaves (I know, possible trouble magnet, but I think it's in context), sharecroppers, and Mississippi John Hurt (how weird is that) aspects, along with a statement that McCain's heritage has always been military, not Southern. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to be clear that I did not ask for more info about his father's side of the family, such as slaves, Mississippi John Hurt, et cetera. Generally speaking, I think it's rarely necessary or useful for a Wikipedia biography to discuss distant ancestors whom the subject of the biography never even met. We got into this kind of thing at the Mitt Romney article, where people wanted to include lots of info about polygamous great-grandparents and that sort of thing. If distant ancestors are discussed in this article, I hope they at least stay here, and do not migrate into the main John McCain article. Again, all of this stuff about his father's side seems undue weight, given the dearth of stuff about his mother's side. It may be traditional to focus on patrilineal descent, but it's still sexist.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, adding the Teoc part was my idea, once the section was 'opened up' (I'd mulled over it previously). McCain did spend time at the plantation, so it and its history is relevant in the very brief way we now cover it. McCain makes a point that the ancestral attachment to a specific place made his grandfather's decision to leave it behind and adopt the rootless life of a naval officer more remarkable. Yes, the Mitt Romney goings-on were awful: people were trying to jam the whole LDS-polygamy history into that article. That ain't gonna happen here. Agree that there's no reason to add any of this to main article. As for sexist, McCain's mother gets several mentions in what I wrote, as a significant influence on John. Had she been born in a different era, she might have become a Navy Admiral herself, or an art professor, or who knows what. As for her ancestors, find more good stuff about them, we'll put it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about that Roberta and Jack eloped in Tijuana, after her parents disapproved of the marriage proposal?[27] Doesn't this seem more pertinent than stuff about distant ancestors? How about that Roberta has a twin sister who's still alive? How about giving the ages to which John McCain's four grandparents lived?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the elopement. Rowena Wright seems a bit far afield; we have almost nothing on John McCain's own siblings. I added the years for Slew, but is there a source for the other three grandparents, including Archibald? From this John McCain peer review comment, apparently we can't use this Wargs genealogy, and this NEHGS summary doesn't list the years for the grandparents (can you buy the full report? dunno, but my WP "budget" has already been spent on Washington Post, Arizona Republic, and Philadelphia Inquirer archive articles :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, there is no full NEHGS report. The full article is two paragraphs long. But it still has some interesting stuff: "his parents were born in Iowa and Oklahoma. His grandparents were natives of Mississippi, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the southern ancestry on both sides. I've also now worked in Rowena, as part of Roberta and Rowena's adventurous travel practice (serves to illustrate origin of McCain's instincts) and as a second cite on Roberta's role in informally educating him. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the reluctance to mention that his mother was born in Oklahoma and raised in southern California. Apparently, those facts do not mesh with the theme that McCain is a southerner and descendant of slave-owners. There are now five footnotes to the article titled "McCain's ancestors owned slaves" though McCain never met those ancestors. McCain did, however, meet his mother. Can we please mention briefly that she was born in Oklahoma and grew up in southern California? It's fully supported by the existing references ("nehgs" and "nyt121407"). Thanks (and many people consider neither California nor Oklahoma to be part of the Southwest).Ferrylodge (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The bit about hitting the power lines in Spain says he was "flying too low over Spain." Was he in formation or alone, and did he get disciplined for it? Just curious, no problem if you don't know. Also, we mention all the awards he got, but do we know if he was ever subject to any formal disciplinary action (aside from at the Academy)?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to know the answers to all of these questions. Please get the DoD to release his full Navy records! ;-) In particular, there's a story that the Spain collision caused a power blackout and a minor international incident, but Timberg says the tale is overblown. Would love to find a Spanish news story from the time on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I'd suggest adding the bolded words: "On July 3, 1965, McCain married Shepp in Philadelphia.[55] She already had two children, Douglas and Andrew, born in 1959 and 1962 respectively;[56] he adopted them the following yearin 1966."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Made a lieutenant commander" should probably be "Promoted to lieutenant commander" or "He made lieutenant commander."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The article says his last bombing target "had almost always been off-limits to U.S. raids." This is kind of mystifying. Why would it have been off limits? I don't doubt that it was, but it might be good to briefly mention the reason, if we know it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to its location in central Hanoi and the possibility of collateral damage. On top of all Hanoi targets being politically sensitive to begin with. Explanation added, same cite covers (the excellent Pribbenow article, for which I inexplicably didn't have a url link before, but now do). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Please change present tense to past tense: "lead led an effort to only write letters home that portrayed the camp in a negative light."[28]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Jack McCain's tour as CINCPAC ended in September 1972,[145] despite his desire to have it extended so he could see the war to its conclusion." This is kind of mystifying, though undoubtedly true. Can we briefly mention why the tour ended (e.g. "routinely" or "due to incompetence" or whatever).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCain says Nixon turned down Jack's request to stay on. Reason not clear, but apparently Jack (and John) somewhat bitter about it. I've been on the lookout for a more neutral source on all this, but haven't run across it yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of my military-knowledgeable sources says doesn't know the reason or a source for it, but suspects it was because during 1972 no one knew for sure how much longer the war would continue, and to keep Jack McCain on until it did would have meant his planned successor would have been put in "command limbo". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These two sentences make it sound like he attended his father's funeral on the same day his father died: "Jack McCain died on March 22, 1981.[186] The same day in late March saw McCain attending his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and then flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life.[186]"Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When used as a verb, the word "nurse" usually means something that only women can do.[29] "Overly, and subsequently Day, nursed McCain and kept him alive". Maybe "tended to" or "cared for" instead of "nursed"?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, this search shows a lot of writers using the same construct, including reporters for the New York Times and Arizona Republic. I know what you're saying, but I think the laxer meaning is now in general use. And "nursed" conveys more the heavy level of care required; see the Coram book on Bud Day for some graphic descriptions of what was involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more past tenses need to be cleaned up. For example, "In September 1964, he became a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi, where McCain Field was named for his grandfather.". Does this mean the field was dedicated after McCain III arrived? If it had already been dedicated, the sentence should read "where McCain Field had been named for his grandfather". Melchoir (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But would like to see something about his mother's side of the family, as mentioned above. And the heading "Final years" bugs me. How about "Final years in Vietnam"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Thanks for all your comments and the support (I got off easy this time, but you're allowed to come back for more later ;-). Yes, I'll add the mother's side later today, it's on my list of things to work further on. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The POW subsection titles are new and I'm still ruminating on them. I've changed it to "Release" for now, which is what the somewhat similar chapter in Faith of My Fathers is called. I'm trying to keep them terse, because they're there are visual separators more than content indicators. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there should be a section on the contemporary legacy of events during these years. Let me be clear, I do not, do not, do not want to see one of those petty little "Controversy" sections pop up in this article. But there must be a few worthwhile things to say. Is this a 1(b) concern for comprehensiveness? Melchoir (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the other articles link back; I'm just wondering if there should be explicit links forward as well. Maybe the box is enough. Melchoir (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the readers don't understand that the "Main article" links actually point to a different webpage. It could also be that 97% of visitors don't care about the details and wouldn't have read the text even if it were returned to the main article. The complaints would be the most troubling to me; you'd think anyone invested and knowledgeable enough to complain would know where to look! Melchoir (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've thought the {{main}} template's wording could be improved, or maybe put in a different color font so that it's more easily seen. I agree that to really know what's going on, you'd have to monitor reader's web sessions and see where they go and what they do. For all we know, lots of readers may just read the lead section of articles and nothing else, in which case nothing we do to make subarticles visible would matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the prose in the lead could be strengthened. I'm not quite sure enough about any of these points to just edit the page myself, so here goes: Melchoir (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"attended many schools growing up as his family moved among different naval facilities" Feels like some punctuation would help, and "among different" is redundant.
"adopting two children from her previous marriage and having another child with her" "Having" seems awkward, and "with her" isn't absolutely necessary.
"five and a half years" Should this be "five-and-a-half years"?
"out of sequence with other prisoners there longer" Needs a verb.
"and then was the Navy liaison" Unnecessarily passive, especially in comparison to the preceding part of the sentence. Would "became" be better?
"divorced his wife Carol in 1980, and married" This time I don't think the comma is needed.
"married the former Cindy Hensley shortly after." I think this should be "shortly thereafter". With "after" you expect a following phrase. (After what?)
I've made changes on these, see what you think. The only one I didn't do was "five and a half years"; a google search seemed to show that at least half the usages like that these days don't use hyphens. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "who were eventually won over by his combination of charm and penitence" -- weaselly and needs to attribute those to someone since not clearly factual. I think there is some more like this but I haven't read it all yet. grenグレン00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. It's from Nicholas Kristof's reporting in this article, where he interviewed lots of people from that era. Kristof wrote: "Some family friends were appalled that a man who seemed so decent, so full of compassion for anyone who needed help, could treat his own wife in a manner they regarded as brutal. But Mr. McCain gradually won everyone around again, with the same traits he now displays after making a mistake: a combination of charm and penitence." If you read the article, Kristof gives specific examples of some friends where this happened. And note this story overall was not a puff-piece; it was Kristof's reporting in it which revealed that John and Carol McCain were not separated at the time he met Cindy Hensley, contrary to John McCain's previous assertions (and those of his biographer Robert Timberg). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not always the best with style but I still think "charm and penitence" should have quotes around it to show that it's not our words. Without the quotes it seems like we are ascribing these as definite feelings when it's (educated) conjecture of a writer. I think it's a fine sentence but that should be made clear. grenグレン07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to get into the quote and attribution business here (too awkward), so I reworded the clause to "... who were eventually won over by the force of his personality and his frequent expressions of guilt over what had happened." This seems to capture what those Kristof interviewed were saying. How does this seem to you? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
I found it an interesting article, as he indeed seemed to live quite a full life at an early age.
I feel as if there are too many parenthetical statements. For a Featured Article, I think most of them can be integrated with the rest of the text.
Is there a MoS guideline about parenthetical statements being bad? If so, where? To me, they're a useful syntactic tool for including extra information without creating a digression or confusing the narrative. In one case, I've restored the parenthetical, for reasons given in the edit summary. I'm certainly willing to look at them on a case-by-case basis, but I don't understand the notion that Featured Articles shouldn't use them much (I may well have missed it somewhere). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider most parenthetical statements unnecessary for encyclopedic writing. If it's a digression, then it doesn't belong. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be your view, and you are free to use this approach in articles you write, but I don't see any WP guidelines against the use of parenthetical expressions. The FA Franklin D. Roosevelt article, to pick one I took at random, has about 20 real parenthetical statements and expressions in it (in addition to abbreviation introductions, date ranges, etc.). So I doubt there is any FAC prohibition or admonition against them either. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I have never been tortured in prison, and it is undoubtedly an emotional experience few are able to comprehend, this statement: and the North Vietnamese were never able to break him again sounds melodramatic and filled with praise. I think it would be sufficient to state that he did not feel as if his spirits were broken after a certain point.
I changed "were never able to" to "did not" which is a bit more matter-of-fact. Who knows what the North Vietnamese could have done if they had tried harder?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quantify this statistic, please: By 1971, some 30–50 percent of the POWs had become disillusioned about the war and less reluctant to make propaganda statements for the North Vietnamese
Some imprecise phrasing was here. Hubbell, the source, says that 30-50% were disillusioned with the war, both due to lack of apparent military progress (meaning they'd never get out) and to the growing anti-war movement back home (which the North Vietnamese were happy to tell them about). As a result, "many" (but not necessarily 30-50%) of the POWs adopted a "to hell with it" attitude — why go through torture or other misery to resist giving a statement offering aid and comfort to the enemy, when members of Congress and half the country seemed to be make the same kind of statements on their own volition? Hubbell concedes that they had a point. I've now expanded and reworded this part a bit, but I can't go into too much description of this in this context. We really need an article on the whole Vietnam POW experience; right now, Hanoi Hilton partly does that, but somewhat illegitimately since a lot of what happened occurred in other camps. Other material is spread out amongst the individual Category:Vietnam War prisoners of war articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a name or organization of who is speaking for all the POWs who cheered the resuming of bombing of North Vietnam? Since several sentences earlier the article states some of them were losing their faith in US motivation for the war, what is the difference here?
The previous answer should clarify some of this — much of the disillusionment was with the lack of progress in the war, not the inherent motivation for it, although there was some of that too. I've also found a New York Times article from March 1973, that confirms that most of the long-time POWs cheered the Christmas bombings, while some of the newer POWs were just scared by it. I've added this description and cite to the text. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state what about Ronald Reagan McCain admired? He was governor of California at the time. What part of Reagan's political or personal actions did McCain highlight as admirable?
Reagan already had a considerable national rep after being elected Governor (he was mocked onstage at Woodstock, for instance). But I've taken out the "role model", since that pertains more to McCain's future political career, and instead have added text describing what McCain admired about Reagan at this time (thought Vietnam service honorable, wouldn't get country into war it was unwilling to win) (whether the latter is really true of Reagan or any other prez is a discussion for a different time). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I can appreciate not all Vietnam Veterans experienced flashbacks, I cannot accept that someone beaten and tortured in captivity for over five years had no adverse psychological effects from the ordeal. I think the article needs to state right out McCain's own quotes about his never experiencing such a thing. (I still wouldn't believe it.)
I tend to disagree. The article already quotes psychologists: "Psychological tests, given to all the returning POWs, showed that McCain had 'adjusted exceptionally well to repatriation' and had 'an ambitious, striving, successful pattern of adjustment'.[159]" Moreover, I don't see why a person who goes through all that would not have positive psychological effects. Solitary confinement provides time for introspection and contemplation, which can be very beneficial, and one can learn a great deal about human nature by being thrust into such an extreme situation. So, I don't think there's any reason to assume psychological damage, especially given that he does not seem to have sustained any brain injury.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being cloistered in a monastery gives one the opportunity for personal reflection. Being beaten within an inch of your life and tortured to say things that go against everything you've been taught does not foster a well-adjusted psychological state. Is there a direct quote from McCain that states he never had any adverse mental effect from his time as a POW? It appears from the article now that he has experienced more trauma from sleeping around and hurting his wife than he did at being tortured. I think that's an odd position of priorities. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the cited source, McCain "felt that he had profited by his experience and had changed significantly" and "learned more about himself, about others."[30] Being subject to physical abuse can sometimes have a strengthening effect, though it's not something one would do voluntarily. Should we put this quote into the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This became a big issue in McCain's 2000 campaign, when Republican opponents started circulating the word that McCain was mentally unstable as a result of his POW experience. (See John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000#Campaign_developments_1999.) McCain had to release 1,500 pages of his Navy and civilian medical records, to show that this was not the case. Although he didn't experience nightmares or flashbacks, the sound keys rattling would startle him (echoing the sound the prisons guard had made); I almost included this once before, and have now done so. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the bigger question of how did the POW experience affect him, the whole last chapter of Faith of My Fathers attempts to grapple with this. I've included the biggest point he makes, at the end of the POW sections: "He also gained an appreciation, from experiencing the mutual help and organized resistance of the POWs, that his earlier individualism needed to be tempered by a belief in causes greater than self-interest.[120]" He makes some other points too, but I think it's better to "show, not tell" here: as the biographical narrative indicates, he hit the ground running (figuratively, not literally) when he came back, with a sense of purpose he didn't have before, and hasn't stopped since. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was astounded that McCain had extramarital affairs in Jacksonville. Having grown up there, I wondered how he found these people. I think I shall chalk that up to his not being very discriminating...
Hmpf! As the footnote text indicates, some (maybe most, don't know) of the affairs were while he was on flight stops around the country, and thus not in Jacksonville. But, from the available sources, McCain seems to have been the "my type is every type" kind of guy ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Praise: The same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by the force of his personality and his frequent expressions of guilt over what had happened Quotes from these friends would help it.
Everyone hates this sentence! (Already changed from previous commenter above.) The quotes from the cite that would be added are:
"We were ticked ... I'd glare at him, and he'd say, 'Nance!' ... If you meet him, you're under his spell. He's irresistible." and
"He has always felt very guilty about it. I have never talked with him for more than 40 minutes when he didn't bring it up, saying he felt badly about it."
Do we really want to bog the text down with these quotes? It risks giving the whole matter undue weight. And for sure we'd get criticism that the quotes are puffing up McCain even more than this text. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be ponderous. Can you include something like ...were won over by the force of his personality, which had the effect, according to Friend X of being "adjective", and Friend Y as "another adjective". --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would end up as
The same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by the force of his personality, which family friend Nancy Reynolds described as "irrestible", and his frequent discussions what had happened, about which liaison office subordinate James McGovern said, "He has always felt very guilty about it."
We're now giving this more space than how he reconciled with his children, more space than the divorce terms, etc. I just don't see the merit in it. Are we doubting Kristof's account of this so much? Are there other sources out there which claim that McCain lost most of his friends after the divorce? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a matter of how much space is devoted to one issue or another, but how information is presented as neutrally as possible. It's a bit frightening to think what impact this article might have on voters. Because of the time of year, this article should get extra scrutiny for POV. This is part of why I am concerned about the unreal aspect of McCain's not being bothered by his POW experience and the extra helping of guilt about sleeping around on his first wife. This illogical juxtaposition of emotions sound like the perfect things a candidate should say to sway public opinion. The editors of this article have more responsibility than other FAC editors. This may be unfortunate, but I don't think so. We have to hold you to a bit of a higher standard knowing how often this article is used by readers, and for what purpose. I admire you for bringing the article this far and working so diligently to make sure all the comments are addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton for three years, so I'm used to the added POV scrutiny and welcome it :-) But we're not claiming that he isn't "bothered" by some aspects of his POW experience. As the article says about his forced "confession", "He was haunted then and since with the feeling that he had dishonored his country, his family, his comrades and himself by his statement,[119][120] but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[89]" And of course, "His injuries left him incapable of raising his arms above his head to this day.[25]" which bothers him every day (he has trouble putting jackets on, and can't comb his hair). But in terms of general psychological effects, he's gotten a clean bill of health from a number of medical/psychiatric exams, many of which were conducted in the 1970s, long before he was viewed as a politician much less a presidential candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much this is worth commenting on further. I guess you can decide. I'm not saying McCain should be under the bed with a knife in his teeth at the sound of loud bangs. There's a difference between having nightmares, anger at your captors, and shame for being broken, and being considered mentally ill. He doesn't have to be diagnosed with a neurosis or a psychosis for him to be affected by his experiences for years after. I wouldn't fault him for it at all. It makes him more human and seem less like a cardboard prop of a political machine. It wouldn't be his tensing up at the rattling of keys that would concern me about his being president. I think the article so far is written very well. It's quite engaging and tells a remarkable story about a young man's life. It just raises questions of logic; if McCain has said that the sum lesson of his time in captivity was that it made him more reflective and stronger, my opinion would be that he really hasn't dealt with the anger and pain of it all, or he's lying. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McCain has said: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. I hate war, and I know how terrible its costs are."[31] Is there anything like this currently in the Wikipedia article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That remark was made in 2008. I prefer to use the quote that he said a couple of days after the 1967 Forrestal fire, that's already in the article: ""It's a difficult thing to say. But now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam."[75]"
McCain hasn't said that that was the sum lesson of this time in captivity. He spends a whole chapter ("Free Men") in Faith of My Fathers on this. Perhaps the key paragraph in terms of this discussion is this: "Neither did we expect to soon forget the years of anguish we had suffered under our captors' 'humane and lenient' treatment. A few men never recovered. They were the last, tragic casualties in a long, bitter war. But most of us healed from our wounds, the physical and spiritual ones, and have lived happy and productive lives since." (p. 345) To support that conclusion, you can also read POW James Stockdale's New York Times op-ed on this, "John McCain in the crucible", which he wrote after McCain was being hit with instability rumors during his 2000 presidential campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is confusing: Later in March, the same day saw McCain attending his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and then flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life.
I've rephrased it: "Later in March, McCain attended his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and the same day saw him flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize now I can fix the date in question - it's March 27, five days after Jack's death, per Worth the Fighting For. I've reworded again, based on that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, but it's very heavily linked, which affects readability, appearance, and the likelihood that high-value links will be followed up. I see "Mississippi" linked many times in one para: two are separate, so one of those can go. "English" should not be linked. See MOSLINK. "Boarding school"? We do speak English. Tons of repeated links (such as "Southern/ers"). Just once, please. Complete audit required. I've removed the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged. See MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT. TONY(talk)10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, thanks very much for your comments. Regarding heavy linking, I've begun the reduction of these. "Mississippi" has been reduced, as has the overlinking in that first section. I'll continue with the other sections tonight. I will say that military articles tend to be more linked than most, due to the many place names, unit names, base names, equipment names, etc. that occur. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding date autoformatting being discouraged, this is the first I've heard of that. I hope everyone agrees, because otherwise I'm going to get whipsawed on this. Also, if autoformatting is out, I'm screwed on the dates and accessdates in all the cites, all of which were done in the ISO yyyy-mm-dd format. Guess I'll have to look for a tool that converts all of these into the hardcoded American format.... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"my father's career. ... At each new school"—Nope, "career.... At"
This article on a relatively rare but devastating form of stroke has been receiving the attentions of WikiProject Medicine for the last few weeks. It achieved good article status and has subsequently been undergoing further improvements and reviews. It has been externally peer reviewed by a neurosurgeon, whose advice was followed in ensuring that the article reflected daily medical practice and covered the medical literature available. I believe it meets the featured article criteria, and would benefit from being accorded FA status. JFW | T@lk23:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - ok, notes below - looks ok, complete yes and neutral, but prose needs soem work. I picked up the following - watch for repetition of words and lots of brackets. I will read again fter changes below, and note what others have to say. prose better now, others may find a few things more but i am pretty happy. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::The diagnosis is generally made with computed tomography (CT scanning) of the head - why not just 'The diagnosis is generally made with a CT scan of the head'?
Done 02:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::before arriving at a hospital - 'before reaching hospital' is smoother
Hmm, to me, I'd eliminate the article here, using 'hospital' as something like, well I am not sure but like a state I guess, and that's how I would use it in the UK or Australia. To me it flows better mentally. I will be interested to see what others think. Not a deal-breaker though. 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
these are aimed at assessing the likelihood that the symptoms are due to SAH and identifying other potential causes. - somewhat cumbersome, but an alternative doesn't leap to mind.
How about these are aimed at determining whether the symptoms are due to SAH or to another cause? Slightly different meaning, but after all, that is the aim, ideally. delldottalk02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::The diagnosis (of subarachnoid hemorrhage) can however not be made on clinical grounds alone - can lose bracketed bit again
::especially given that 15% have a further episode (rebleeding) soon after admission. --> as 15% may have further bleeding soon after admission.'
Changed to especially since 15% may have further bleeding soon after admission, since I didn't want to imply that this would be the only reason. delldottalk02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::Hypertension, if present, should be left untreated. --> Hypertension should be left untreated if present. (no commas needed this way)
::Delayed ischemia is characterized by new neurological symptoms; it can be confirmed by transcranial doppler or cerebral angiography. - bit clunky, maybe a comma and an 'and' make it flow better. 'Delayed ischemia is characterized by new neurological symptoms, and can be confirmed by transcranial doppler or cerebral angiography.'
Done, but what would you think of Delayed ischemia, characterized by new neurological symptoms, can be confirmed by transcranial doppler or cerebral angiography?
::Delayed ischemia is detected in about one third of all people admitted with subarachnoid hemorrhage, and half of those suffer permanent damage as a result. - passive and repetitive after preceding sentence, try 'About one third of all people admitted with subarachnoid hemorrhage will have delayed ischemia, and half of those suffer permanent damage as a result.'
::Ditto in Early morbidity and mortality - combine first two and rewrite first sentence of para 2 for flow Poorer outcome is associated with numerous other factors to 'other factors associated with poorer outcome include...'. And mention the 'many of which are not modifiable risk factors.' at the end or separately.
Reworded, combined, and did away with the modifiable thing, because it seemed patently obvious to me. Others working on the article are of course welcome to add it back in. delldottalk02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::seem to be at a higher risk --> 'increase risk'
Changed to having two copies... seems to increase risk; I think that seems to is important--we aren't sure it does increase risk. delldottalk02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::Neurocognitive symptoms, such as fatigue, mood disturbances, and other related symptoms are common in people who have suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage. --> 'Neurocognitive symptoms, such as fatigue, mood disturbances, and other related symptoms are common sequelae'
::Genetics may play a role in a person's disposition to SAH, since risk (of SAH) is increased three- to fivefold in first-degree relatives of people who have suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage - remove redundant
::'The incidental detection of an aneurysm (e.g. when someone undergoes an MRI scan of the brain for a different reason) presents a conundrum, as all treatments for cerebral aneurysms are associated with potential complications.' needs rewriting - 'An aneurysm may be detected incidentally on brain imaging for an unrelated reason; this presents a conundrum, as all treatments for cerebral aneurysms are associated with potential complications.'
Comments Brief ones, more to come later. Very comprehensive article, top-notch sources, and I especially like that you were able to arrange an external peer review—I'd like to see a lot more of those in science-related FACs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose we could get an image of an aneurysm being coiled? :) An LP image would probably be a nice addition as well, but I'm not sure where to put it.
Doing.. I'll approach a neurosurgeon or neuroradiologist to try and get such an image. We've only one decent LP image on Commons and it's a child undergoing the procedure. Considering SAH is incredibly rare in children, it wouldn't be a good choice. — CycloneNimrodtalk?contribs?17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us with little or no experience interpreting scans, could captions be a tad more descriptive? (In Image:Subarachnoid hemorrhage CT.jpg, for instance—what are we looking at? Is that blood pooling in the posterior horns?)
We have no neurosurgical service in our hospital, so I could not prevail on them to borrow an image. I'll approach Mr Grundy. I will improve the image descriptions. JFW | T@lk16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one more thing: "Xanthochromia and spectrophotometry remain reliable tests several days after the onset of headache." May sound a bit pedantic, but xanthochromia isn't a test per se—you test for xanthochromia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's it from me; this one's ready for the big time :) Congratulations to JFW, Cyclone, delldot, and everyone else who worked on the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could try but it would most likely look ugly, normally the original version shouldn't contain the line. I guess the image provider added it, better ask him. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image from Dr. Gallo just came like that. Don't know why there is a line. It probably could be removed without making too much mess but as JFW said it doesn't really add much I suppose. Just thought the article looked a little bare at the time! — CycloneNimrodTalk?22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SAH.png seems to be a legend to go with a real CT image. I'm not sure if we can use images from the journal under the creative commons license. JFW | T@lk22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can, that's the great thing about BioMedCentral. The entire article, including images, is licensed freely. Why your doubt? It's a great resource for images. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From "Signs and symptoms", paragraph 2: "Seizures make hemorrhage from an aneurysm more likely..." Does this mean that seizures cause hemorrhage from an aneurysm? I don't think so. Axl (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From "Diagnosis", paragraph 1: "Lumbar puncture, in which cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is removed with a needle from the lumbar sac, will show evidence of hemorrhage in 3% of people in whom CT was found normal..." I have never heard the term "lumbar sac" before. Is this a recognized anatomical description? Does the 3% refer to all-comers with thunderclap headache? Probably not. Axl (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Lumbar sac" Googles fine, and AFAIK it is a bona fide description of the CSF space around the distal cona medullaris where we take our LPs from. JFW | T@lk23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this is a remarkably high incidence: 117 confirmed on CT out of 175 with headache. This contrasts with the BMJ article: "Only about one in four people presenting with sudden severe headache will have had a subarachnoid haemorrhage.... Third generation computed tomography scanners miss about 2% of cases of subarachnoid haemorrhage within 12 hours and about 7% by 24 hours." Axl (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suarez goes as far as to state that the sensitivity is now 100%. LP would then only be needed if too much time elapsed between headache and CT (but they don't say that). JFW | T@lk08:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Van Gijn mentions this. It depends on the method used. If all you do is look at the sample, any time is OK for LP. However, bilirubin is only generated after about 12 hours and therefore LP should be delayed if you're using spectrophotometry. Do we need to discuss these finer points in such detail? We have also agreed not to delve into "sentinel headaches" and whether LP is actually necessary. JFW | T@lk23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that you read the article that I linked to. It is not OK to just look at the sample. The sample must be sent for spectrophotometry. I have seen neurosurgeons insist on a repeat LP because it was done too soon. In my opinion, this is an important omission. It only requires a sentence on two in the article. I am happy to add it if this is helpful. Axl (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A survey in the USA a few years back stated that 97% of labs were not using spectrophotometry. I will add something about timing LPs as easily sourced to Van Gijn and Cruikshank. JFW | T@lk08:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From "Classification": "In addition to the ubiquitously used Glasgow Coma Scale, three other specialized scores are in use. In all scores, a higher number is associated with a worse outcome." Although with GCS, I presume that a high score is associated with a better outcome? Axl (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From "Treatment": "Management consists of general measures to stabilize the patient while using specific investigations and treatments to prevent rebleeding by obliterating the bleeding source, prevention of a phenomenon known as vasospasm, and prevention and treatment of complications." This long sentence should be split. Axl (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From "Treatment", "General measures": "Analgesia (pain control) is generally restricted to non-sedating agents such as codeine...." Codeine is non-sedating? Axl (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From "Treatment", "Prevention of rebleeding", paragraph 3: "On the whole, aneurysms of the middle cerebral artery and its related vessels are hard to reach with angiography and tend to be amenable to clipping, whilst those of the basilar artery and posterior cerebral artery are hard to reach surgically and are more accessible for endovascular management." Another long sentence. Also, the technical term "endovascular" doesn't have an appropriate link. I see that endovascular treatment of brain aneurysms redirects to Guglielmi Detachable Coil. Axl (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix the long sentence. "Endovascular" would be a dicdef. It could be a disambiguation page for GDC (the term used by neurosurgeons), EVAR and perhaps those clever endovascular aortic valve replacements. JFW | T@lk23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From "Treatment", "Vasospasm", paragraph 3: "Evidence for [triple-H] is inconclusive and no sufficiently large randomized controlled trials have been undertaken to demonstrate its benefits." The reference (Sen) indicates that no RCTs have been conducted. Axl (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From "Epidemiology", paragraph 3: "Some protection of uncertain significance is conferred by ... diabetes mellitus." Curiously, the reference (Feigin) indicates a relative risk of 0.3 (95% confidence interval 0 to 2.2) for a cohort study, but an odds ratio of 0.7 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.8) for case-control studies. Another reference (Rosengart) indicates an odds ratio of 1.46 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.80) in their univariate model. In my opinion, these conflicting findings do not support the tentative conclusion stated in the "Epidemiology" section. Axl (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feigin is talking about risk factors for developing SAH. Rosengart is referring to the prognosis after having developed SAH; it is no secret that diabetics are more at risk of hospitalisation-related complications. JFW | T@lk23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments"On November 5, 7, and 8 Tokyo Express missions" → "On November 5–8, Tokyo Express missions"? I'll find some more after werewolves have stopped chasing me. GaryKing (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Bordering on support, but I think some parts of the article could benefit from some judicious editing. Otherwise I only have a few concerns:
In the first part of the article, some sentences may be excessive in length and could read better if they were sub-divided. An example is the first sentence. My opinion of course; others may see it differently.
"the Japanese tried three separate times" --> isn't separate redundant? Perhaps not, but if so it's unclear why.
"The US was attempting to destroy the Japanese forces on Guadalcanal and the Japanese were trying to prevent this from happening." Is it necessary to state that the Japanese goal is merely to survive here? How about, "the Japanese were trying to hold their defensive positions until reinforcements could arrive", as was stated later in the article?
In the First Battle of Mount Austen section, the relevance of the two events to the decision to attack and secure Mount Austen is unclear. What have a raid and a skirmish to do with the need to take the Mount? The earlier discussion about Mount Austen seemed more to the point. Please clarify in the article.
Is there a reference for the participation of troops from the British Solomon Is., as listed in the infobox?
Someone removed the word "separate" from that sentence.
I changed the sentence in the intro as you suggested [37].
I clarified the connection between those two events and Patch's decision [38].
I have referenced text in the article stating that British Solomon Island natives took part in the battle as supply/support personnel. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Mostly pretty well written. An important and engaging topic. Now, there were just tons of autoformatted bright-blue dates—especially day and month alone. You have so many valuable links that I decided to remove the auto-lemon. Autoformatting is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). I think the result looks better and is easier to read. No one, let me assure you, minds US date formatting. And now we can have proper date ranges.
A few instances of U dot S dot, which is strongly not my personal preference, so just check that they are required because part of official military titles (divisions, etc.)—I suspect this is the case. Well done indeed. *Plus some of your captions need the lose the final period (Injured soldiers, maps, etc) TONY(talk)12:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your helpful edits to the article. I removed some periods from the image captions and went over it again to try to make sure no "U.S." remained. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I commented during the review of the article. It's well written, and the clear majority of the long sentences it once had have been broken up to make the reading easier. As a note, I believe Cla68 is currently on a short WikiBreak, which explains why he hasn't come back to respond to some of the comment made insofar. JonCatalán (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, I was away from a computer for almost a week but I'm back now. As soon as I get caught up on some things I'll be responding to the comments posted here. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone significant expansion in the last several months and satisfies FA criteria now. The article is about the ring system of solar system planet Uranus. Ruslik (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extensive and comprehensive article complicit with 1a & 1b. Sourcing is consistent and formatted appropriately. Intriguing article and I doubt that there will be any more issues ascertained by those who participate in the FAC discussions. Brilliant article. Thanks for rectifying the issue I mentioned above. Rudget (logs) 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I performed a PR of this article back in May. At the time it already seemed FA worthy, and a check through now shows that the article remains in fine form. Hence I am lending my support.—RJH (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 7 Showalter, Mark R. Lissauer J.J. et. al. "The Outer Dust Rings of Uranus..." is lacking a publisher, which I believe would be the magazine the abstract is from?
Otherwise sources look okay, and the links check out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Commentsbeginning a read-through. Need to watch redundant repetition in prose. I tried to remove as much repetition as I could and improve the flow but I concede this is tricky to do without losing meaning. I think a good balance has been struck now, though maybe a little more could be done I think we're just over the line prose-wise. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first sentence adds nothing and is redundant and sentence 2 can go as either first or second sentence in para 2. This also brings the bolded bit (sentence 3) to the top of the article. Seriously, have a look in 'preview'
I actually merged two first sentences reducing redundancy. Putting the former sentence 2 after the sentence about discovery will split the historical summary. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than 200 years ago, William Herschel also reported observing rings (around Uranus), - remove bracketed bit - clear from flow where rings are
The rings (of Uranus) are extremely dark - remove bracketed bit - clear from flow where rings are
of the rings particles does not exceed 2%. - rings'
The majority of Uranus's rings are narrow and optically dense—they are only a few kilometres wide and have optical depth on order of unity - I don't know what this means, so needs explaining.
The ring system was definitively discovered on March 10, 1977 by James L. Elliot, Edward W. Dunham, and Douglas J. Mink using the Kuiper Airborne Observatory. how about 'Astronomers James L. Elliot, Edward W. Dunham, and Douglas J. Mink made the definitive (and accidental) discovery on March 10, 1977 using the Kuiper Airborne Observatory.' - this makes teh prose more diverse and reduces repetition, and is active tense. Slipping in 'accidental' allows one to delete the repetitive The discovery was serendipitous;
In December 2005, the Hubble Space Telescope detected a pair of previously unknown rings. --> 'The Hubble Space Telescope detected a pair of previously unknown rings in December 2005, bringing the total number to 13.' (and allowing removal of last sentence)
The Uranian rings can be divided into three groups: nine narrow main rings (6, 5, 4, α, β, η, γ, δ, ε),[1] two dusty rings (1986U2R/ζ, λ)[6] and two outer rings (μ, ν). - take your pick - remove rings from the last three, or the first one to 'they'.
This means that their albedo is much lower, when they observed slightly off the opposition. - is this the same as 'viewed from an angle' in colloquial english?
"off opposition" means that the angle (phase angle) between the object-Sun line and object-observer line is not zero. The opposition is when Earth is at the line connecting Uranus and Sun. Ruslik (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) The introduction might be overly detailed/long. For example, the William Herschel idea may be shortened to something like: "although WH made some doubtful claims 200 years earlier.
2) Several names of the ζ ring are used, including ζ/1986U2R, and 1986U2R/ζ. I suggest either stick to the Greek letter, or decide which one is more used in academia. You could probably rename its section to ζ(1986U2R).
The parameters of 1986U2R and ζ rings are different (see Table). They are treated as separate rings in literature. It is actually not know if they are the same ring that has changed its appearence since 1986. Though I change the order of names from ζ/1986U2R to 1986U2R/ζ in the lead matching the main text. Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) Why are the rings named this way? Why some use numerals while some use Greek letters? Was it the order they were discovered?
4) I suggest moving Exploration and Herschel's observations up and merge them into the discovery section (rename it as Historic?).
I merged Herschel's observations to Discovery. However the Exploration need to be kept separate from it, because it contains technical details that do not fit into Discovery section.Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5) Where are 1, 2, and 3? Were they renamed? This might be written somewhere, but I suggest put the history of the names in the first section. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Another really wonderful solar system article from Ruslik (and Wolfman)! This article is quite good. Just a few observations, in addition to Nergaal's, directly above.
Support. My concerns have been addressed; well done.
1. More than 200 years ago, William Herschel also reported observing rings modern astronomers are sceptical that he could actually have noticed them, as they are very dark and faint. "Skeptical" is misspelled, and may I suggest a semicolon after "rings"?
2. The majority of Uranus's rings are opaque and only a few kilometres wide, which means that they have optical depth on order of unity or more. Perhaps wikilink optical depth and unity, or explain them to the reader in layman's terms? The footnote leaves me clueless, and this is coming from someone who knows what albedo is, and who can calculate diameter based on absolute magnitude.
3. the star disappeared briefly from view five times both before and after it disappeared behind the planet. They concluded that there must be a ring system around the planet.[2] The rings were directly imaged when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew through the Uranian system in 1986.[3] Voyager 2 also discovered two additional faint rings, bringing the total to eleven.[3] A continuity issue: the rings go from numbering five in 1977 to eleven in 1986 when just two more were discovered. 5+2=11?
5. The rings of Uranus mainly consist of large particles and but little dust Suggest "particles but little dust".
Since dust also consists of (small) particles a clarification is necessary. I changed 'large' to 'macroscopic'. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. The width variations were measured directly from Voyager 2 images, as the ε ring was one of only two rings resolved by Voyager’s cameras.[3] This statement is made directly above a Voyager 2 picture clearly showing five rings!
Resolved means here that the finite width was observed, not that they were detected. The non zero width of the rings other than ε and η is result of image smear. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. The ε ring is known to have interior and exterior shepherd moons—Cordelia and Ophelia, respectively. Little focus is given to the shepherd moon phenomenon at Uranus; this section is all of three sentences; the dynamics aren't explained at all here.
10. R/2003 R1 and R2 are the provisional names of μ and ν rings. The article states they were discovered in 2005; why then the "2003" prefix attached to their provisional names? A number like that almost always indicates the year they were first detected. I suggest 2005 was the year they were confirmed, not discovered.
Support: I cleaned up a few things. There are inconsistencies of decimal place in the table, and < and ~ need to be spaced. Sometimes you use that dreadful e notation template that squashes up the items; sometimes you space them. Nice work. TONY(talk)12:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets to FA criteria. It passed GA, and I have tried to tighten up the prose. Self-nom. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support(moral or otherwise) - I created the stub and have seen the article grow and looked it over for prose several times. I feel it fulfils FA criteria pending one fix. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the "effects in the built environment" section, but with the long quote cropped out that section is basically about "uses", so I merged the two.
Support (COI declaration - I made six edits to this article prior to this review).
Note, support above is from Jimfbleak even though subsequent indenting makes it look like he is responding to an unsigned support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but there are a few more dash issues; a handful of dashes need to be changed to em dashes (or en, depending on how you want to use them). Also, I'm scared of editing FACs now :) GaryKing (talk)16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naught to do but get back on the horse. Don't know what has scared you, but I would so much rather have a reviewer fix these small things than bring them to my attention. Otherwise, it makes the reviewer seem that s/he doesn't have the ability (or doesn't care enough) to address much more comprehensive and serious issues like prose and content. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Not sure what that means, but since it has no more to do with the article in question, you can explain it on my talk page, or drop it. Whatever you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Current ref 4, Flora de Nicaragua database is lacking a last access date
Same for current ref 25 Ficus aurea Nutt.
Otherwise sources look okay, and the links check out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk19:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm wondering what the specific epithet aurea refers to with regard to this tree - perhaps the colour of the figs (?), but noticed that fig colour hasn't been mentioned.Melburnian (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Support- a comprehensive article, nice work. --Melburnian (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Colour added.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it fulfils all of the featured article criteria and it has undergone a successful GA review. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I don't know why, but I thought this article was about Ellen Page. Some work should be put into that article to become featured, too; heh.
"under 5 ft (1.5 m) tall" – "under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall" – spell out measurements, but not in the converted units
I'm worried about accuracy here; please research the Marni Nixon, Natalie Wood vocal role in West Side Story (my info could be wrong, but it is my understanding that role was not sung by Natalie Wood, so I'm concerned about how well this article is sourced and written). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This source (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/theatre/drama/story/0,,2085160,00.html) which is an interview with Elaine Paige, quotes her response to the question What got you started? as - "Singing along with Natalie Wood on the LP of West Side Story when I was 14. It occurred to me that singing on stage wouldn't be a bad thing to do." That appears to be straight from her mouth, so if there is some historical mistake, I was totally unaware because this is what this usually very reliable source stated. I don't know what I can do, as The Guardian article quotes Paige as saying Wood ... I don't think I can change her own words? I can assure you this apparent mistake is no reflection on the overall reliablility of the article - all sources are of a very high standard. Eagle Owl (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I overreacted (this is one of those "everyone in the musical theatre world knows it" deals, so that kind of error is surprising in an MT article). Perhaps you can 1) use the direct quote (to show it's her error, not ours), and then 2) add a parenthetical about Marni Nixon? Or, alternately, leave out any mention of Natalie Wood, and just say she was singing along with West Side Story? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your thinking - I've just avoided the use of a name and just stuck with "Paige listened to the LP version of West Side Story". Eagle Owl (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
http://www.lupus.org.uk/article.php?i=159 while its not exactly an unreliable source, some may question the reliance on a interview from a source not usually known for interviews. I merely point this out as an informational notation.
Oppose
Overall I think its close to featured article status, there has obviously been a lot of hard work done to this article. However, I think it needs a thorough copyedit before it is ready. Here are some examples if issues I found. I'd encourage you to get someone fresh to review the article:
Lead image - I know how hard it is to get good free images of people, but is there really nothing better available of Paige?
Opening sentence: "...is an English singer and actress, primarily in musical theatre" - this feels like a slightly convoluted way of saying this. Could it be reworded? Perhaps: "is an English singer and actress, best known for her work in musical theatre"?
Lede, second paragraph "...which remains the biggest-selling record by a female duo in the Guinness Book of Records" - this needs to be rewritten since the Guinness Book of Records contains no female duos. You need to source this claim from the Guinness Book, rather than making it seem like they are recorded their duo in the book.
Lede, second paragraph: "Paige made her Broadway debut in Sunset Boulevard in 1996 when she played the lead role of Norma Desmond, winning critical acclaim" reword to "Paige made her Broadway debut in Sunset Boulevard in 1996 playing the lead role of Norma Desmond, to critical acclaim"
Lede, third paragraph: "Paige has been nominated for and won many awards for her theatre roles and has become known as the First Lady of British Musical Theatre" needs commas.
Background section: "Paige now only stands at just under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall..." Now? Has she shrunk? Should this just say "Paige is just under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall..."
Background section: "It was at 14 years of age that Paige listened to the..." better as "At 14, Paige listened to...". You should Wikilink LP.
Background section: "Paige's musical ability was pushed by her school music teacher..." do you mean "encouraged" or "developed" rather than "pushed"?
Background section: "Her father later suggested that she should go to drama school after recognizing her talent" this is a little confusing. When exactly did her father suggest she go to drama school? Can you be more accurate that "later"? Is is really necessary to say "after recognizing her talent"? This could be read as implying he initially didn't see her talent, is that true?
Early Career section: "Paige's first professional appearance on stage was marked during the UK tour..." what does "marked" mean in this context? Should this read: "Paige's first professional appearance on stage was during the UK tour..."?
Early Career section: "About five years previous to Paige's role in Evita, she had almost been cast as the lead in The Rocky Horror Show instead of Covington in 1973" - this sentence should probably come before the section on Evita, so they are in chronological order. The sentence should not contain both "about five years previous" and "in 1973" - use one or the other. It should say "About five years before Paige's role..." not "About five years previous to Paige's role..."
Early career section: "Playing the role of Perón proved to be the defining moment in her evolution to the proclaimed title, the First Lady of British Musical Theatre". I'm not sure what "proclaimed title" means. Do you mean "acclaimed title"? I'd just drop that phrase altogether, since it seems like editorializing. This sentence isn't properly sourced from [45] - the source does not support the claim that her role of Peron was the defining moment for her.
Early career section: "For her performance in Evita, which spanned for 20 months in total, from 1978 to 1980,[16] she won the Society of West End Theatre Award..." could be made simpler: "She won the Society of West End Theatre Award... for her performance in Evita". The length of the show should be mentioned elsewhere since the length is not connected to her winning the awards.
All done. Regarding the image, you would be surprised how few images there are out there of Paige. It's only by chance that I came across that one, so I asked someone from Wikimedia to upload this for me. The image now is actually an improvement to how it originally looked as I had to crop it. Thanks for you comments, the only thing is I don't know who I can ask to copyedit the article. Eagle Owl (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you about the image, its surprisingly hard to find good, free images of living people for use on Wikipedia. Personally I think the one you have is acceptable, though a better one would be an improvement. Your first port of call for a volunteer to help with copy editing would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Gwernol13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did some copyediting in the first few paragraphs. There is a lot of fluffy information in this article taken from interviews. For example, the article says that Dustin Hoffman asked her not to quit theatre, but the information is just something that SHE told an interviewer, so it is not reliable in an encyclopedic sense, and it is trivial and not really encylopedic information. I took out another statement that said that Paige (told somone that she) had some trouble handling her fame: did she go to rehab, etc? If not, this seems true of most celebrities. The nominators should go through the article and try for a more formal, "encyclopedic" tone. Any references that do not contribute encylopedic information, but are just lifestyle type interviews should be eliminated. Also, the list of stage performances does not exactly match the mentions of the stage performances in the narration. This must be corrected. Also, you don't need more than one source to show that Paige played a certain role in a certain show or film. Try to use only the most important, best quality references to verify each claim in the article. I'll try to come back to this article another time to continue. Good luck in your efforts to improve the article to FA quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and comments. I've gone through the article and removed over-citation and some un-needed information and I agree with everything you say, though I cannot find where the stage list does not match up with the narration. Eagle Owl (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now been through the entire article and have removed what I thought was the most fluffy trivia, as well as copy editing the prose. The article is enjoyable to read and gives a good sense of Paige. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your wonderfully thorough copy edit - thanks to you the prose has improved hugely! Your work on the article is very much appreciated. Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can say that I have addressed all of the queries raised. The article has had two good copy edits, so now it makes much better reading. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments: This article has come a long way from when I glanced at it during its GA-nom. I quite enjoyed learning about Paige's life and career, especially since I always preferred her performance in Cats to that of Betty Buckley's. :) Some comments/suggestions pertaining to the lead:
I think that her place of origin (Barnet, North London) should be mentioned in the lead. Perhaps as "Born in Barnet, North London, Paige attended the Aida Foster stage school..."?
Paige has been nominated for five Laurence Olivier Awards and won many other awards for her theatre roles and has been called the First Lady of British Musical Theatre. This is a run-on sentence. How about, "In addition to being nominated for five Laurence Olivier Awards, Paige has won many other awards for her theatre roles and has been called..."?
She has released 20 solo albums, of which eight were consecutively certified gold and another four multi-platinum, and she has been featured on seven cast albums. Paige has sung in concert across the world, and she also hosts her own show on BBC Radio 2. This is also clunky with so many "and"s. Perhaps "Paige has released 20 solo albums, of which eight were consecutively certified gold and another four multi-platinum. She has sung in concert across the world and is also featured on seven cast albums. Since 2004 she has hosted her own show on BBC Radio 2 called..."?
Support - I think we're there. I made a few minor prose improvements, but overall this article looks to be in good shape. Congratulations. Gwernol11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see my username fairly high up there, but I do not consider myself to be a significant contributor to this article; I only made a few copyedits after I stumbled across this FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced what I could, but there were several (for the functioning of the seal incense clocks) that I couldn't find anything on, so I'm rewriting the paragraph now with other sources. I removed all links to Yoshino. · AndonicOEngage.18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced, but we'll need another supporting reference, because that one says that "old atomic clocks..." making no reference to newer ones. · AndonicOEngage.23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how these sources are different, or in any way more unreliable, than any other sources in the article? Can you please elaborate? Thanks, Qst (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if it stated specifically in the reference which science museum, rather than forcing the reader to click through to either link. If you're adamantly opposed to that for some reason, it's certainly not going to cause me to oppose, but it's a nice touch for the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above, while it's not something worthy of an oppose over, it's just a courtesy to the reader to not put in abbreviations that they have to click through the links to to figure out. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the title of the site is "Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres," the name of the organization and the publisher, I don't think it would be desirable to repeat it in the publisher. So, I think it would be better if we stuck with the abbreviation "COSC." bibliomaniac1518:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 99 (Encyclopedia Britannica Online) the publisher is in the link title and the link title doesn't give the article title being linked to.
As a general concern, it's a bit odd for a generalist encyclopedia (Wikipedia) to link to another generalist encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Britannica) as a source.
Links checked out with the link checker tool, sources look okay.
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you thought I was being specific. That was a general "your" to whoever did so. I apologize if you were offended. Ealdgyth - Talk22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I added them (and re-added them—didn't see your message until now). I do think, however, that they should be left, because there are nine or so people helping with this article: might get confusing (maybe confirm that you reviewed the changes?). · AndonicOEngage.23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's wrong with putting a line below that it's been addressed to your satisfaction or a reply, and then when I feel it's addressed it can be struck out. The system has worked pretty well for me at FAC for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Gah, I really should join Tzatziki one of these days - I planned to a long time ago. Others will probably catch MOS issues so I'll focus on prose. I'm really, really picky about one MOS thing, though - why are years linked and centuries/decades not? Generally it's the other way around.
"*The* history of timekeeping devices"? Why "the"? It sounds as if this is the only history of timekeeping devices in all... well, time. Why not "this"? Note that I might be wrong; this might be convention.
Mainly because "this" would be more direct to the article; the article itself is focusing on the entire history of timekeeping devices across the world, so "this" would sound as if it was referring to a specific area. (Note, that wasn't a good explanation, but hopefully you'll understand.) Qst (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The system developed then—which remains in use today—was sexagesimal." - the em dashes disrupt the flow of the prose; so strong a disjunction isn't needed. Commas will do.
"They were probably first used in the Precinct of Amun-Re, however, their use continued outside of Egypt, especially in Greece." - not a complete sentence.
"Mechanical clocks became necessary because relying on the sun had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear days, cast no shadow at night, and the length of hours varied depending on the season." - if one is skimming the lead, that looks like three things. Suggest rephrasing as "[...] had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear as they cast no shadow at night and the length of hours varied depending on the season."
"Mechanical clocks, in all of their varieties, were the standard modern timekeeping device." - "were"?
"From the turn of the 14th century, until the middle of the 20th, they contained various escapements, which transferred rotational energy into discrete motions." - "until the middle of the 20th" doesn't need to be preceded by a comma.
Redundancy: "In the twentieth century, a variety of new methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators, atomic clocks, and the common wristwatch."
More redundancy: "Important times and durations were broadcast by bells, rung either by hand or by some mechanical device, such as a falling weight or rotating beater." - "some" is not really needed, it could be replaced with an article like "a".
"This has inspired several modern replicas, including some in London's Science Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution." - no comma needed before "and the Smithsonian...".
"the comma used immediately before a grammatical conjunction (nearly always and or or; sometimes nor) that precedes the last item in a list of three or more items" - only two items in this list. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still more redundancy: "The astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace, among some other individuals, modified the dial of his pocket watch to decimal time."
The prose is mostly good, but needs a careful copy-edit throughout before it reaches the required "professional" standard. I did a few spot-checks.
I've changed a few pet-hates like upon and in order to.
Caption: "water thief."—The dot must come after the quotemark (MOS).
"While the Greeks and Romans did much to advance water clock technology, shadow clocks were not abandoned."—Why the passive voice? "they did not abandon ...".
"Others also wrote of the sundial in the mathematics and literature of the period."—"Also" is redundant and has the opposite effect to that intended (it weakens the flow).
Unnecessary passive again: "Later, the largest sundial ever built was constructed by the Romans". And more. You need a good reason to use the passive voice, and it's much too much in evidence throughout. TONY(talk)02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder—you may have fixed the issues I mentioned, but I made it clear they were spot-checks only. I was expecting a copy-edit throughout the article. And you haven't even fixed the overuse of the passive voice: it took four seconds for me to find "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Do you know how to change it to active? "Other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims, developed shadow clocks during this time". Passive is all over the place. And immediately above that:
There were also other problems, however, which were never solved. One of these was temperature, as water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze. Another, that the water clock did not account for the fact that the length of days and nights changes throughout the year. Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons.
Keep striving for simplicity and plainness in the prose:
However, other problems were never solved: one was temperature, since water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze; another was that the water clock did not account for the changing length of days and nights throughout the year, leading to variable accuracy.
Can you coopt a word-nerd or two from the edit history pages of similar articles (try FAs first)? You can tell who's a nerd from their edit summaries. Ask nicely, and you might strike a few new Wikifriends who'll be collaborators now and in the future. TONY(talk)10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through it one more time, once I've finished with the refs Ealdgyth pointed out above (because the content is likely to change a bit, or the wording may need to be altered). · AndonicOEngage.14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following reference is completely broken and shows as plain text: {{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Clock|title=Merriam-Webster Online:
Comments Since I know how much of a pain it was to fix all the refs at Cannon, I'll make the appropriate changes myself. I do have some other concerns that I believe should be addressed.
Ref 10 is a book. I've converted this to {{cite book}}. One question, how is 10a used as a reference for "Among the first confirmed shadow clocks were ancient Egyptian obelisks, first constructed around 3500 BC; the oldest existing sundial—not in the form of an obelisk—is made of green schist, and is also Egyptian"? I couldn't find anything from this reference to corroborate this statement.
"By the 8th century bc more precise devices were in use; the earliest known sundial still preserved is an Egyptian shadow clock of green schist dating at least from this period." bibliomaniac1517:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9b was appropriate, but probably not the best choice of a source. It didn't explicitly state that the Greeks had developed a shadow sundial. You could understand that interpretation only if you knew Anaximander was Greek and that a gnomon, which he discovered, is the part of the sundial that casts a shadow. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9b was citing: "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Greeks, yes, but Romans, Chinese, and Muslims? Not a huge loss, though, that sentence was out of place. · AndonicOEngage.19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed page numbers for a, b, and c; I couldn't find d, and I couldn't find the words "Arab" or "engineer" in the book (using the Gbooks search function), so I removed the third instance. · AndonicOEngage.23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped saying which refs I fixed, since it was somewhat pointless... anyway, I went through all the books, and tried to find page numbers. I found them for all, except those which weren't on Gbooks (around five or so, I think), and a PDF document at the end. · AndonicOEngage.19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I don't think this article is quite there yet, and would benefit from someone going through it again. Just a few examples:
"In the 20th century, new methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators ...". When were the later quartz oscillators invented?
"While accurate, shadow clocks relied on the sun ...". Shouldn't that be "Although' accurate ..."?
"The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), proving that they were used in ancient Egypt, possibly earlier than anywhere else." This reads very awkwardly to me. Why not something like "The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), suggesting that they were first used in ancient Egypt."?
"... hourglasses could be reused by turning it over again." There really ought not to be simple grammatical errors at this stage.
"... making the reading of the clock more precise and facile." Are you happy with the word "facile" here? Not sure that I am.
"Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons." Shouldn't that be "clock's accuracy"?
"... unlike water, this element would not freeze under normal circumstances". Makes it sound like mercury refused to freeze, rather than simply did not freeze.
"The oldest working clock in the world is Salisbury cathedral clock, which dates from about 1386, and has most of its original parts." Leave out the part between the commas to see why this doesn't work.
"a popular watch of most American airmen was the A-11" Wouldn't something like "the A-11 was a popular watch with most American airman" be better?
... it does not account for leap seconds or other corrections which are periodically employed to systems such as Universal Coordinated Time"> Should that be applied instead of employed? Or employed by?
"When turned over, a flow of grains of sand passed from the upper one to the lower through the hole. As the downward current of sand was constant ..." Perhaps a good example of Fowler's elegant variation. Current and flow don't quite mean the same thing, so don't be afraid to repeat flow by saying "As the downward flow of sand was constant...".
I echo Tony's point about overuse of the passive voice. Sentences like this: "The oldest documentation of the water clock is from the tomb inscription ..." make the prose feel stodgey.
Thanks for the copyedit, Malleus. I've fixed your points except for the last one. I'll do a copyedit of the whole article and see what I can fix. bibliomaniac1521:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about ready to support now if one additional thing is fixed, consistent use of metric->imperial conversions. From Early Western mechanical clocks: "box-like iron frame, measuring about 1.2 meters (3.9 ft) square". From Candle clocks: "each 12 inches (30 cm) high". From Early mechanical clocks: "Zhang implemented the changes into his clock tower, which was approximately ten meters tall, with escapements keeping the clock turning". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Susong.gif: Image asserts it is redrawn (i.e. derivative) of an original found in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China - a work very much under copyright. Where is support for the claim of publication under the Free Art License ({{FAL}})?
Image:Salisbury 02.jpg claims to be "by Jason Hopwood"; uploader, however, is "Jasenlee" (i.e. Jasen Lee). How can we confirm uploader and author are the same person or that Jason Hopwood has indeed released the image under the indicated license?
Image:Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.JPG: what is the copyright status of the painting? Freedom of Panorama in Poland is limited to "works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens" (i.e. outside). If the painting is under copyright, this is a derivative work.
I deleted Susong.gif (even the source website had removed it), and removed Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.jpg (left a note on the uploader's talk about the possible copyright violation); Relogio stDumont.jpg was deleted by another admin. For Salisbury 02.jpg, we can't confirm that Jasenlee is Jason Hopwood, however, his userpage says his name is Jason (as opposed to Jasen), so it seems to me that that implies he is Jason Hopwood. Finally for ChipScaleClock, I left a note on the user's talk page (on his home wiki). · AndonicOEngage.22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that the photograph is a "derivative work" is clearly absurd. A derivative work depends on the value in the work depicted in it. In this case, it's difficult to see how a photograph of a few clocks has derived any value from the rather out of focus and irrelevant skewed inclusion of an old painting that nobody recognises. If we're to have image lawyers making spurious objections like these, then at least they ought to make an effort to understand the laws that they are pretending claiming to uphold. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to attack mischaracterize my concerns, among other things. I'm done here. When you're ready to discuss concerns civilly and productively, do be sure to let me know. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you will now reconsider your suggestion that my understanding of copyright is poor? I had no intention of upsetting you by my earlier comment, simply to shake you from what appears to be a rather mechanical application of rather fuzzy laws operating in rather grey areas. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone go through the entire article? (When I can easily spot prose issues, it's not a good sign, because I'm not a wordnerd.) You've changed it to twelve hours and 6 orbits, exactly the opposite of WP:MOSNUM, so a check throughout is needed. Have you asked someone like Epbr123 to run through, as well as gotten another set of eyes on the prose, given that I easily spotted errors? There are redlinked dates in the citations; do you scroll through your entire article to check for errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSNUM is in dispute on this issue (not by me); it is only stable because Noetica is on hiatus. The present division between one and two digit numbers is a rule of thumb, and one of several possible ones; it has a dozen exceptions because it is only a rule of thumb. In this case, the satellites and the orbits should both be spelled out, or both figures because they are related; and twelve should probably depend on whether the orbit is exactly half a day (spell out as count), or approximate (figure, as approximation to a continuous quantity.
The writing's in better shape now, but I see little problems at random, such as:
Although similar to the candle clock, incense clocks burned evenly, and without a flame; therefore, they were more accurate, and safer for indoor use.[48] Several types of incense clock have been found, the most common being the incense stick and incense seal ones.[49][50] An incense stick clock comprised of an incense stick with calibrations;[50] most were elaborate, sometimes having threads, with weights attached, at even intervals
Which two commas to remove?
And:
"An example of a candle clock" (caption)—which three words to remove?
Tony doesn't do polishes. He feels that his limited time is better spent by being spread over more articles than it would be if he were to focus too much on any one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, he's pretty busy trying to copyedit guideline and policy pages, and write and copyedit the Dispatches in all his spare time. Smoothest is to have articles copyedited before approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer that most of the first sentence be deleted, but I don't have any particular advice on how to incorporate the title or what you want to say, so I left it. It just doesn't add much, and feels a little "book reporty" to me.
My feeling is that we should lowercase most of the occurrences of "sun" and "moon", but this is a matter of style. The first occurrences should probably be capitalized, but North American style guides, and Wikipedia, prefer what's called the "down style" of capitalization, which means roughly, find any excuse you can to lowercase. This issue came up recently in Roman Catholic Church, where the thinking was that the faithful might be offended by "the church", so it was often left capitalized, but we don't have any faithful sun-worshippers here to offend, and TCMOS, AP Stylebook and NYTM all recommend even lowercasing such religious terms at the first opportunity where it's clear which church you're referring to. The analogy here is, as soon as you know which sun you're referring to, it's time to start lowercasing it. Having said that ... does anyone feel strongly that you need to uppercase Sun and Moon throughout? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted virtually no material from the lead, but I tightened it down to 2 paragraphs, which leaves room for a 3rd paragraph summarizing more from the article. WP:LEAD suggests a 3rd paragraph would be nice.
I don't hate passive voice as much as some (*cough* Tony), but I don't like it either. However, I don't want to take the time to do the research to figure out who the subjects would be if I removed the passive voice; if you guys know, then please remove some of the passive voice that I left.
"the first device able to measure time within the span of a day": I wasn't quite sure what this meant. (I will avoid the usual snarky copyeditor comments such as, "Is there time which is not within the span of a day?") - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to change the lead a bit, per your suggestions. As for "Sun," "Moon," and "Church," I think it's best to leave them capitalized for correctness. Fixed the "span of day" sentence. · AndonicOEngage.12:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, I don't "hate" passives per se; occasionally they're suitable. But here, passives were scattered all over the place in quite unnecessary ways. TONY(talk)04:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything has been fixed down to Incense clocks, with nice edits by Tony, Malleus and Andonic. I changed a couple of words in the lead. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little confusing here: there are nine nominators listed, but no indication about who is going to finish up copyediting the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the confusion. I can do some of the copyediting, but I'm not the best copyeditor around, so it won't be anywhere near perfect. I'll do what I can. Keilana|Parlez ici00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you deal with this then? "In the United States, GPS is regulated by 12 satellites ...". What does "regulated" mean in this context? How is it "regulated" elsewhere? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source, the United States maintains 24 satellites (the Navstar system) that circle the Earth every 12 hours. I'm not sure where this came from. Also from the source, the E.U. is working on its own GPS system, as is China. I'll fix the article. Keilana|Parlez ici02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's one awkward turn of phrase here: "Sundials came into their present form during the Renaissance, with the acceptance of heliocentrism and equal hours, as well as applications of trigonometry; they were built in large numbers in many locations." I can't get it to make more sense/be more fluid; would anyone else like to have a go? Keilana|Parlez ici03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Aveni, Anthony F" reference refers to page 92, but the accessible pages at that link stopped just before that. I wanted to look at it to figure out what to do with this: "It is possible, however, that [the Greeks'] search for increased precision was not due to their interest in science, but rather their desire to imitate nature and the heavens, which formed the basis of their religion." I'm not a classicist, but my sense was that saying that it might be one but not the other doesn't paint the right picture; these two motivations were entertwined for the Greeks of that time. That is, science was to a large degree the pursuit of a way to understand nature and bring man in line with nature, especially for the Stoics. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, it was on googlebooks before; anyway, that's exactly what he suggested, with different wording of course (the author was proposing this view, not saying it was a fact). If you think it's out of place or doesn't make sense, then feel free to remove it, since it'll never be known for certain what their motivations were. · AndonicOEngage.11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting point. He cites "science historian Derek Price", but again, I can't pull up the page that the reference is on. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aveni seems to be talking about precision, not accuracy - i.e. sundials need not have hour marks to be intellectually satisfying. This makes a lot more sense than what the article says: accuracy would be part of ritual correctness. (And the argument is weak anyway; these are Hellenistic constructions, when the Greek religion was beginning to fade.) The sentence as phrased begs several questions, chiefly whether the Greeks would have had any problem pursuing religion and science simultaneously; I think we can do without it. Possibly a footnote, indicating a source readers may wish to follow? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a fan of footnotes for that kind of comment, and that sounds like a good solution to me, unless one of the editors has some direction they want to go with this. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In History_of_timekeeping_devices#Modern_sundials, the paragraph starting "Water clocks were used..." is out of place, and repeats information from the section above, but I didn't want to just yank it because it's got 2 references; perhaps the information and references should be merged into the proper sections. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a paragraph in the Modern sundials section on hourglasses that included information from the 1500's, so I changed the 3-heading to 1 AD – 1600 AD, and gave the hourglass information its own 4-heading. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to move "The hourglass was also used in China, but its history there is unknown" out of the Incense clocks section, but when I searched for "hourglass" in the reference, I get no hits. Can anyone find "hourglass" in that reference? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several things in the second paragraph of Clocks are contradicted earlier on the page. For instance, mechanical clocks didn't "spread quickly" to the West, or at least, not quickly after they were first built in China. The fourth paragraph seems misplaced. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the fourth paragraph (everything seems to already have been in the article, and it was unsourced), going to work on the rest now. · AndonicOEngage.11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information from the two different sections on Wallingford's clock should be combined (3 different sections if you include the sentence from Modern sundials). I'd be fine with a short mention in one section (either one) and the bulk of the material in the other section. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph in Early Western mechanical clocks needs a rewrite. (It's too much for me to figure out, and I have to move on.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to: "During the Middle Ages, clocks were primarily used for religious purposes; the first employed for secular timekeeping emerged around the 15th century." · AndonicOEngage.11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Malleus was working backwards from the end and it looks like he made it to Pendulum clocks, so I'll stop at the end of Early Western mechanical clocks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. I really like feedback, especially that feedback :) I checked your diffs too and I was happy with everything. I left a question on your userpage. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, I'm done with the copyediting now. So far as I can see there are just a few content-related issues left for the nominators to sort out from Dank55's comments above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for opinions. It would be nice to find ways to encourage more and better copyediting at FAC and GAN. Bronze stars on userpages appear to be reserved (in practice) to noms and co-noms of FAs. How about the userbox that says "This user has written or significantly contributed to X Featured Articles on Wikipedia"? Would it be false advertising for a copyeditor to up this count by one, if they provide a link to diffs and comments that indicated that their copyedit contributed largely to the article passing? This might make copyediting "sexier". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
CommentsSupport
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?
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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?
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)[reply]
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. GaryKing (talk)20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk12:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - Talk12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. —Giggy02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
Changed
All in Kelvins now, with C and F conversions which are necessary for most people
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.
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! GaryKing (talk)19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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"
The first sentence actually states "The noble gases are the nonmetallic, inert elements in group 18", so the "nonmetallic" and "inert" characteristics are required. GaryKing (talk)02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".
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.
SupportOppose. The article makes lots inaccurate statements, is not comprehensive and and is not well-written. Some examples (from the end of the article):
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ISBN978-0-08-037941-8.. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, I think at the very least, title is required. That's the most important data for finding the article in the first place. GaryKing (talk)21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? GrahamColmTalk11:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comments - Sources look good, and links check out, except for the Miami Hearld glitch noted above, which is being worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OpposeSupport 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 [52] 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 [53].) 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 [54].NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [55]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
"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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tasso goes to a disambiguation page and I wasn't sure which one was meant (probably Torquato but I didn't want to guess).
"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)[reply]
"twelve", "nineteenth". Well, I'd be happier with figures above nine, and so would MOS. But it's no deal breaker.
"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.
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?
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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)[reply]
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?
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.
A first thought: could you recreate the two maps, so they are higher quality, and preferably using SVG? They stick out rather. Best, Gwernol18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.) GaryKing(talk)18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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, Gwernol19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)That looks absolutely smashing, thanks for the help!
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)[reply]
Not like a quotebox, but like a <blockquote></blockquote> thing.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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"
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. JGHowestalk - 01:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRename "The 1940s" to "1940s" to avoid starting it with an article, and to be uniform with the other section titles.GaryKing(talk)06:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Have made all changes mentioned above by Ealdgyth and GaryKing(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.JGHowestalk - 12:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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. JGHowestalk - 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. JGHowestalk - 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
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'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)
..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.
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 (?).'
I have to continue later fromDistribution and habitatNectar sources. Ok, there's something to go on with anyway. Fairly straightforward fixes. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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,[2] [for this reason] AND [it] has gained an international reputation ODD TERM - BEST DROPPED HERE, is much sought by collectors,[3] and is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera.[4] It is very colourful, but "THOUGH" BETTER the iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment; the colours originate from refraction instead.[5]" Size should be worked in in the lead, which generally should be expanded.
"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."
"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.
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Question I've expanded the lead as suggested. Is the size about right now? Per Wikipedia:Lead#Length:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([63]) be on page 289. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [64]). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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 AfricanC. 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 freyiGameKeeper (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GrahamColmTalk20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
"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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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."
"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."
"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.
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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:GrahamColmTalk20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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 - Talk21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutralSupport. 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)[reply]
*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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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
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)[reply]
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[68] and 2007[69], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). ЭLСОВВОLДtalk13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 62 "Based on PDB 1FBB" is lacking publisher and last access date.
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 - Talk18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've condensed and tightened the Discovery section.
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)[reply]
SupportOppose 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GrahamColmTalk17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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\talk03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.[6] 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.--BirgitteSB19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.--BirgitteSB19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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.
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.--BirgitteSB12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GaryKing (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Talk12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AWoundet_Soldier_at_Guadalcanal.jpg&diff=12690650&oldid=1533546){kind=link}
![[40]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AGuadMapAug7.jpg&diff=12690698&oldid=2375595){kind=link}
![[41]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ALitter_bearers_on_Guadalcanal.jpg&diff=12690704&oldid=7719647){kind=link}
