Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2008: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
August
 
promote 4
Line 1: Line 1:
== August 2008 ==
== August 2008 ==

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Learned Hand}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Balch Creek}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Domitian}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)}}

Revision as of 01:22, 3 August 2008

August 2008

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [1].

Learned Hand

Nominator(s): qp10qp (talk); Slp1 (talk)


When Newyorkbrad left the project, he said in his leaving message, "I am sorry for the pages that never got written and the FA that never got done". He was referring to Learned Hand, a famous U.S. judge and legal philosopher. We feel the article now meets the criteria, and we bring it here as a tribute to Brad. qp10qp (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was endlessly impressed by Newyorkbrad's participation here, and was deeply shocked by his departure. Making this encyclopedia better, in content amongst other things, was for me the only proper way to respond. Learned Hand would have made a great WP editor: he was a clever, fair, hard-working person and a great writer. And a human being too. Remind you of anyone, perhaps? We look forward to hearing your comments, suggestions and edits to the article itself to make this article the best tribute it can be. --Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review here. qp10qp (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I have done a fair amount of minor copy-editing on this article, both recently and earlier on. But the people who have really put in the work have been qp10qp and slp1. This is a hugely impressive effort. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I have a few nit-picks.
  1. The sections are rather lenghty -- perhaps some sub-headings might make it easier to read.
    I would not really like to insert subheadings now, because each section has an organic form. A big effort was made to keep prose clear and provide a smooth read. The reading-ease figures, which you can click on from the box above right, are quite reasonable, I think. qp10qp (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The next Second Circuit vacancy arose in 1921, but with the reactionary Warren G. Harding administration in power, Hand did not put himself forward." This sentence lacks a citation, and some readers might take issue with the characterisation of Harding as "reactionary." I'm not sure the man had any ideology, myself.
    A ref lower down the paragraph covered this, but I've now reffed the sentence to Gunther, where he says: "By then the Republican party had swung sharply to the right: while Hand had hoped that the relatively liberal Herbert Hoover would be the Republican nominee in 1920, Warren G. Harding had been chosen in the smoke-filled room, representing all the conservative business-oriented forces that TR had sought to overcome eight years earlier". This isn't necessarily personal to Harding, more a characterisation of his administration, which represented the anti-progressive side of the party. qp10qp (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since someone else objected to this further down, I have changed it to "conservative". qp10qp (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Conservative" makes sense. Otherwise you'll get complaints every few months from Harding fans -- yes, they exist. Coemgenus 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I think it's an excellent read. Coemgenus 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolvedWeak opposeSeveral MOS issues.
In the lead:

Supreme Court should be "Supreme Court of the United States"
Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A gift for language." - Seems like an opinion
It's a view that all the sources agree on. It's a significant aspect of Hand, because it is unusual for judges to write opinions with such high literary style. It is often argued that without it, he would not have been so famous or so influential. qp10qp (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to cite that fact. miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is cited in the last section, where the relationship between his literary style and his influence is covered. But, anyway, I have now cited it to Schick in the lead as well. (Wyzanski said that a Hand opinion was like a sonnet, but we've left that degree of drooling out of the article.) qp10qp (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if it's cited elsewhere...it is no use to cite the fact in the lead, since you are basically summarizing the article in the lead. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Constitution needs to be hyperlinked because there are many different constitutions
Last sentence seems like a quote dump.
Could you explain further? qp10qp (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, he advocated the "combination of toleration and imagination that to me is the epitome of all good government."
I think there is a better way to sum this information up without using exact quotes. miranda 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but might you not then think it was an opinion? qp10qp (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can sum up an author's intention without using direct quotes. "He advocated strict tolerance of federal/government" or whatever. miranda 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the selective use of quotes can be elegant and telling. There's is a lot more to this quote than I could summarise in my own words. It brings together his attitude to judging and his attitude to government, both of which were combined in his views on the constitution. Hand words it beautifully, and I am not enough of a writer to reword it for him without loss. qp10qp (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "he described himself as a person who advocated "[quote]"."? That would be much better... miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article:

hyperlink "Jan. 27, 1872"
comma after 1872
Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"," not ", - I see several instances of this occurring throughout the article.
We are trying to use logical punctuation, as recommended by the M0S, rather than American style. We place the commas outside the quote marks where they would not logically be part of the quote. qp10qp (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know I am and many others are used to the "," rather than the "", unless you are grouping two different quotes. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
history, science, and languages need to be decapitalized b/c they are general classes not specific classes like Applied Science, Ancient History, etc.
There are two schools of thought on this, and I don't think it matters either way. qp10qp (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just decapitalized them again before reading this. I must be of the other school of thought. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard Law Review needs to be ital.
Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uncle - what was his name since he had so many?
Matthew Hale—I've added it. qp10qp (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Spanish-American" hyphen, not a dash
Because this is a war, the disjunctive en dash is used rather than a hyphen ("Spanish-American people" would have a hyphen). qp10qp (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is Spanish American for the references to people. And, when I research facts on the Spanish-American War, it's always a hyphen and not a dash. miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's Spanish American as a noun but Spanish-American as an adjectival compound. In Spanish–American war, the meaning is Spanish v. American. qp10qp (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where you got this information, because in books, they use hyphens. miranda 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's covered here a bit: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes. To be honest, though, I don't rely so much on the MOS as on more established manuals. Brian Garner, in A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, says: "The en dash is used to join pairs or groups of words wherever movement or tension, rather than cooperation or unity, is felt. It is often equivalent to to or versus. E.g.: 'current–voltage characteristic'; 'the Fischer–Spassky match'; 'the Marxist–Trotskyist split' ." qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Thanks. miranda 08:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"December 6, 1902" - hyperlink
U.S. v. Kinnerly" - future article? if not, delink
Certain to be article. It's an important case, and there's a lot of material on it. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hand had voted for Hoover in 1928 and 1932" simplify the cruft
Could you explain further? qp10qp (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hand had voted for Hoover in 1928, and he did so again in 1932; but in 1936, he voted for the Democrats and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as a reaction to the economic and social turmoil that followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929. - See what I mean? miranda 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comes in the context of Hand's rejection by Hoover in 1930 for the Supreme Court; so we need a pluperfect for the first vote before continuing with the perfect for the next two. qp10qp (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"August 18, 1961" - hyperlink

That's all I can see for now. miranda 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the decision has been not to hyperlink dates in this article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this goes against MOS. miranda 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) ...which says "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, striked those. miranda 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another "21 May, 1944" needs to be May 21, 1944 for consistency. miranda 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The date delinking drive is so recent that it's left one or two ragged edges, by the looks of it. qp10qp (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another point. Does Bill of Rights need to be italicized in Alexander Hamilton's caption if it's not italicized anywhere else in the article? miranda 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that in the rest of the article the Bill of Rights itself is talked about, whereas The Bill of Rights was the title of a book of lectures given by Hand, and this is what the caption referred to. However, I agree this may not be clear and so have changed the wording in the caption, eliminating The Bill of Rights. qp10qp (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I see that, now. Then the caption should read: "Alexander Hamilton, whose constitutional philosophy was analyzed by Hand in his book Bill of Rights, published in 1958." miranda 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think my new wording has solved it by leaving out mention of the book altogether. qp10qp (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask the FA team to keep an eye on the article, but this isn't an FA team mission. We have not rushed the article, I assure you.qp10qp (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like it was part of Mission 3. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, I never noticed that; I do apologise. At any rate, neither Slp1 nor myself are members of the FA Team, though I have helped out with their projects. qp10qp (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's alright. I'm more concerned by the fact that everytime I make a comment at FAC Sandy somewhat attacks me. I was simply notifying the noms, not really making a negative presence here. I just felt that we were unfinished, but after a thorough read, I disagree with my earlier !vote. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not personal. Sandy points out unactionable opposes. It's just a matter of giving some actionable reasons. In other words, an opposer has to give the nominators something they can work on. qp10qp (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. I checked this article at PR, but I double checked here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, as always. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Been having trouble with that. Believe it or not, I relinked it just before putting the article up for FAC, but it's died already. So I have delinked the source: it is easy enough to find (Harvard University Library). qp10qp (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added publisher and ISBN for the ones I have the book for. Let me know if it suffices.--Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Joseph McCarthy.jpg - The license seems to be incorrect here. I doubt this was published before 1923, being that the photograph is dated 1954.
The licence covers pictures whose copyright has expired because they were published before 1923 and also some later pictures whose copyright may have lapsed for other reasons. The source shows that this one comes under other reasons. (I'll leave the two above to Slp1.) qp10qp (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is an entirely separate tag for the 1923-77, published without a copyright notice, permission. I'll try to find it. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got it. Awadewit (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments (I haven't edited this article until the FAC.) A wonderful article. I've read about Hand here and there, particularly in books about free speech, but never a whole biography. Thanks! Here are my prose nitpicks:

  • Friends and admirers often lobbied for Hand's promotion to the Supreme Court, but circumstances and his political reputation conspired against his appointment. - What reputation?
That he had supported the Progressive Party and, in particular, run for a position under their colours. Taft brought this precise point up when he opposed Hand for the Supreme Court, where he said that Hand "had turned out to be a wild Roosevelt man and a Progressive, and though on the Bench, he went into the [Bull Moose] campaign ... If promoted to our Bench, he would most certainly herd with Brandeis and be a dissenter. I think it would be risking too much to appoint him". qp10qp (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we add a phrase or sentence explaining this? My question was meant to imply that the sentence was too vague. Sorry it was too vague in and of itself. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "political reputation" to "political past", and the reader can surely now see that this refers back to his running for office on the Progressive Party ticket, which was already mentioned. qp10qp (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good solution. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His decisions in specialist fields, such as patents, torts, admiralty law, and antitrust law, set lasting standards in craftsmanship and clarity. - "craftsmanship" is a bit vague
That word struck me as a bit odd at first, but I found that it comes up again and again in the sources and in legal appreciation of Hand. It refers to the extreme care he took in seeking precedents and historical data and constructing opinions that logically satisfied all angles. His reinterpretation of the "clear and present danger" test is an example; another is the formula he devised for the Carroll Towing liability case. I think it is hard for us non-legal types to grasp this aspect of judicial decision-making. qp10qp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would be better to say "extreme care in seeking precedents and historical data", then? I wasn't really sure what "craftsmanship" meant in this context, but this is explanation is very clear. Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to use the word craftsmanship. There is even a book of Hand's writings, published in the sixties, called The Art and Craft of Judging. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • who had risen rapidly through the ranks of an Albany-based law firm in the 1860s and by age 32 was the firm's top lawyer - Is "top" perhaps a bit collloquial?
Changed to "leading. qp10qp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of "Early life", the article says Hand was accepted to Harvard University, then the "Harvard" section says he attended "Harvard College". - Technically correct, I suppose?
Good spot: changed to Harvard College for consistency. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • initially focusing on classical studies and mathematics as advised by his late father - "suggested" instead of "advised", maybe?
I like advised because Samuel Hand doesn't sound like the suggesting type to me. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He was "un peu special", as they say in French! --Slp1 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A frequently-cited 1913 decision was United States v. Kinnerley, an obscenity case concerning Daniel Carson Goodman's Hagar Revelly - "was" or "is"?
I doubt it is still cited: certain decisions get cited again and again until they are superseded. Obscenity cases later moved on, thanks to Hand. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • which stemmed back to a seminal English decision of 1868, Regina v. Hicklin - "English" or "British"?
English it seems, based on this Hicklin test and other reliable sources [2], [3] Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget that Scotland has its own legal system. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Hand expected, Roosevelt lost to the Democratic Party's progressive Woodrow Wilson, though he polled more votes than Taft - It is confusing to describe Wilson as "progressive" when the previous sentences discuss Roosevelt's "Progressive Party".
OK. I have cut the word "progressive" there. qp10qp (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several possible war-related positions presented themselves, but nothing came of them, apart from the chair of a committee reporting on the effect of the war on intellectual property rights. - A little hard to follow
Clearer, now I hope.--Slp1 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to: "After the United States entered the war in 1917, Hand considered leaving the bench to assist the war effort. This proved unnecessary, and he was able to spare time from work to chair a committee that reported on the effect of the war on intellectual property rights." If you mean that the job itself seems unclear, I suppose it is. Certainly obscure. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I changed it a bit more, having figured something different out during an edit conflict. Now reads "Several possible war-related positions presented themselves. However, nothing came of them, aside from the position of chair of a committee on intellectual property law that suggested treaty amendments for the Paris Peace Conference." --Slp1 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never really like mentioning things that didn't happen, though; it just gets in the way, I feel. qp10qp (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. True, except that I think the point is that he really did want to join in the war effort, and was very disappointed when the opportunities promised didn't work out. And even embarrassed: it was part of the the reason he couldn't speak out in WWII because he hadn't done anything in WWI. It was more than sparing time, and things that weren't necessary.--Slp1 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the statements are slightly different. Leaving the bench was unnecessary vs. nothing came of his efforts to leave - slightly different meaning. Do we know which it was? Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that since none of the jobs materialised, it wasn't necessary for him to leave the bench. I'm happy to let Slp1 take charge of this one. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hand sought to refresh a senior judiciary that was seen as corrupt and inefficient "reform", maybe?
Actually, the nasty mistake there is that "Hand" somehow must have crept in instead of Coolidge. It was Coolidge who was seeking to refresh the judiciary with new blood. I have changed this to "add new blood". His only influence lay in appointments because he couldn't sack federal judges. qp10qp (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He rarely spoke out publicly, not only because of his position but because he thought fighting talk unseemly in an old man - "fighting talk"? Sounds a bit colloquial.
Changed to "bellicosity". --Slp1 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love that word! Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He concentrated on relations with his judges and on cleansing the court of the odor of corruption - just the odor of or actual corruption?
Worked on this to explain about the patronage appointments.--Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Augustus Noble Hand died in October 1954, but Learned Hand himself remained in good physical and mental condition. - Why "but"?
One died but the other kept going. I think "but" is correct here. qp10qp (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why are they being contrasted? Just because they are related, we can compare their lives? Why not compare them to other people? It all seemed a bit arbitrary. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. The books make a good deal of their long life together, coming from the same family and working on the same bench for decades. But we haven't emphasised that in the article, so I have dropped mention of Augustus here, leaving "Learned Hand remained in good physical and mental condition for most of the last decade of his life". qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He lost his faith in God as a student, and from that point his gospel was skepticism - "his gospel was skepticism" - This phrase rankles this skeptic. :)
I anticipated that this might raise eyebrows, so had taken the precaution, in a footnote, of quoting Hand saying this. The more I read about Hand, the more I realised that this was not just a throwaway line. Look how he talks about his "faith" in that famous Spirit of Liberty speech.qp10qp (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would quote Hand saying it in the text, then. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very awkward to fit in grammatically and we are just about to go into another quote there. Instead, I've changed it to "He lost his faith in God as a student, and from that point, he became a sceptic". The gospel bit is still in the note. I think it is an important point that Hand replaced one kind of zeal with another. It did take faith to hold on to what he believed when that differed from what the government or what the people believed. In the Masses case, he knew full well when he went against the new Espionage Act that he was throwing his changes of preferment out of the window. Scepticism was a faith to him; he wasn't a cynic. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He held it desirable that the members of a democratic society should seek to influence legislative decision-making. - Important part of sentence is buried.
Have tried to make it clearer.--Slp1 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any judicial ruling that had the effect of legislating from the bench troubled Hand, particularly the decisions of Supreme Court judicial review - Seems a bit wordy
OK, I've cut the second half of that, since we go on to talk about his views on the Supreme Court. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've repunctuated this article's quote style three times now, back and forth, after requests at PR and here, and no one is ever happy. That MOS section needs rewriting so that it is clear. It positively guarantees objections if it is followed. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically referring to the quotation punctuation, which does not follow logical punctuation. This part of the MOS, I feel, is fairly clear. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain? I've repunctuated the quoting three times, so clearly I am missing something. qp10qp (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quotations that are sentence fragments and come at the ends of sentences in the article should have periods outside of the quotation marks. Ex: Learned Hand was "blah blah blah". Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Brings us back where we were twice before. qp10qp (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting and engaging article! Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time and trouble. I didn't think you would want to review this, but your comments have helped us improve the article. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My moonlighting interest in US constitutional law is little known. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to link the birth and death dates, and I saw a note saying that the decision has been made not to link these. Can someone please explain why that is? We do it so that date preferences work, and I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't. Raul654 (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search me, Raul. Keeps us on our toes, I suppose. One fallout is that in an article like this which has to use American style (September 12), the delinking has exposed the "12 September" form that we had used as wrong. So we've been playing catch up. qp10qp (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tony1 is the man for these questions, Raul. I have been just trying to keep my head low, and going with what seems to be the FAC flow.--Slp1 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes to WP:DATE (with which Tony was involved) have basically made this not recommended. Readers don't see autoformatting if not logged in, so it just confuses them for no noticeable benefit. Reading User talk:Tony1 should have some answers to your questions, there's been a lot of related discussion there. —Giggy 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with a nitpick. (not blocking but a nice to fix?) The first picture of Hand in the article proper is this one Image:LearnedHand.jpg which is not until considerably into the article. It has no context in the caption whatever. I suggest it might be improved with a date... presumably this was when he was first appointed a federal judge? Are there any pictures of him when he was younger that might be usable earlier on? Other than that, a very nice article about one of the most important jurists of the 20th century. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but <sigh>. We have spent a lot of time and energy on the pictures for this article. Looking at the talkpage you will see our struggles with Harvard, the Library of Congress and pictures from his biography. The first picture in the article is dated 1924 at the Lib of Congress. This is almost certainly wrong (he doesn't look 52, the clothes are wrong for the period, and he is wearing the same outfit and pince-nez as another picture by the same agency also in the LOC which is dated 1910 to 1915). So rather than giving information that seems clearly erroneous, we have omitted the date. And finding copyright free images, as not proved at all easy, despite our best efforts. It would be great if others could succeed in tracking something down.--Slp1 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've lengthened the caption–though, as Slp1 says, we have to be vague because we really have no idea about the real date or context of this picture. For the earlier part of the article, there is the possibility of that Dostoyevskian one in Gunther, from 1893. What has stopped me adding that so far is that we are well-imaged for that period, what with the two pictures of him in group photos, etc. Slp1, what do you think of my adding that one? qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be great. I think one of the group shots is plenty.--Slp1 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think it looks good. qp10qp (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments from someone presumably someone with some knowledge of the subject have been made here and here. The article's authors might want to make some changes based on these. —Giggy 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for the link to very useful suggestions. I will start by fixing the easy ones; and here is a start on the Posner thing. Not the height of legal literature perhaps, but a beginning. [4] Slp1 (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to see an article getting a review from outside Wikipedia. Some useful stuff there, though the assumption of ignorance on the Kennerley typo is a bit galling. We don't pretend to be legal experts, and we've been asking for help from legal experts all along, without really much response. We haven't done any social networking (we are backwater article writers); I never spoke to NYB in my life.
Some people there would like an article about Hand's cases, and certainly there should be one, but this article is more about the popular Hand. The structure of the article uses Hand's life to look at a series of important stages in American history over a very long period, from Lochner to Brown. The chance to do this in a single article is quite rare. The article doesn't dumb down Hand's ideas, but it is aimed at a popular readership who would like to get a handle on Hand, so to speak. The more popular books about Hand don't use legal citations: I raised the possibility on the talk page, but there was not much input from legal people on that score. We could add them, if reviewers would like, but the cases are famous enough to find easily. qp10qp (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tonight I reread Ronald Dworkin's 1994 review of Gunther's book (republished in his book "Freedom's Law"). Dworkin was one of Hand's clerks, and I laughed again at the eye-witness account of the young lawyer who, unexpectedly confronted with Hand as judge in a trial, requested an hour's adjournment so that he could call his office, saying "My senior partner will fire me if I don't give him a chance to argue this case." Sure enough, an hour later, not one but two unprepared senior partners were on their feet in front of Hand!
More to the point, Dworkin divides the issues of Hand's life into four "stories". The first is Hand as part of the story of America 1872-1961, a few years after the Civil War, till just before the radical 60s. The second is the psychological portrait of a shy man, lacking in confidence, who was also charming, and whose marriage was less than he wanted. The third is the professional story: what law students learn about how he changed and influenced law in the 20th century. The fourth story is about Hand, the Bill of Rights and the issue of judicial restraint.
While it's true that I lack a legal background (despite encouragement from my school to enter the field!), nevertheless I think Dworkin is right to see the broad picture; his life is not just his judicial decisions. People who are interested in the legal details can click through to the specific articles, though One is right that these could do with some intensive work (from editors who made different professional decisions than I did, I suspect). I'm still looking at and thinking about some of One's suggestions, especially the Patent law and Posner aspects, but honestly, I do not think it is necessary or appropriate for this article to be a detailed overview of his legal opinions. Slp1 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about and reading around the Patent and Posner issues. Gunther doesn't highlight any particularly important cases in patent law. I realize that Blaustein wrote a book in 1983 on the subject, and there is also a 1940s article referring to his work in this field, but view of the more recent sources on Hand give anything more than cursory attention to his work in Patent Law, including Vile's "Great American Judges: An Encyclopedia". I am not sure why the article would need to emphasize an area that more receent scholars/books haven't.
I feel the same about Posner: it seems that there is a link there, but I suspect a reference to this belongs more in the Posner article than here. Posner's opinions involving Hand's formula are not widely accepted, so I am not sure why this article should include what seems to be fairly tangential subject. It's not like Posner is taking Hand's work to new heights of influence. --Slp1 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For disclosure: I had a minor role in expanding this article (a few KB of text, I suppose). I applaud Slp1 and Qp10qp for the phenomenal work they've done on the article. It meets all the FA criteria and I believe it truly exemplifies the best of the best. I'll see later on if I can find ways to improve the article even further. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport While the article is strong factually, and the writing is very good, I don't like a couple of judgmental statements in it, and a few picky style things. I point at:

Between the wars:

"reactionary Warren G. Harding administration". I think a better phrasing could be found that doesn't include "reactionary". Having read the above comments, perhaps: The next Second Circuit vacancy arose in 1921, but with given that the Harding Administration was far more conservative than Hand himself, he did not put himself forward.

OK, I have changed it to conservative. But we lose a distinction between Harding and Coolidge: they were both conservative, yet Hand was willing to put himself forward under Coolidge, and Coolidge was willing to appoint him. qp10qp (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Calvin Coolidge, gladly appointed" . . . unsourced, who says he was glad? Are there Coolidge letters quoted in Hand's bios? Another adverb, properly sourced, might be good there. Maybe "readily"?

I have removed "gladly", which is not important. I chose the word based on the following in Gunther (275): "Calvin Coolidge was receptive to merit considerations, for he was eager to put the sordid politics of the Harding era behind him". From this I deduced that he was glad to appoint Hand. qp10qp (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a passionate supporter of freedom of speech, and any sign of the "merry sport of Red-baiting" alarmed him." I dislike attributions of emotions to people, and think that it could be better phrased (of course, if the bios quote a letter saying "I am alarmed", then never mind).

OK, I have toned it down to the following: "He remained, however, a strong supporter of freedom of speech, and any sign of the "merry sport of Red-baiting" troubled him." He was actually highly emotional in his letters, but we have largely kept this out of the article in favour of cooler wordings. qp10qp (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar years:

"Once again, his attack on traitor-hunting" Certainly an odd phrasing. What it traitor-hunting? It turns up 196 google hits. Might want to rephrase.

I've changed it to "attack on McCarthyism". He used the term "witch-hunting", but I am reluctant to use that expression without directly quoting him. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Influence:

"Marvin Schick has pointed out that this mythical status is paradoxical." Surely that should be "mythic"? Hand did exist, I studied his cases in law school.

Changed to "mythic". qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, it looks quite good. Over the long term, I'd suggest expanding the parts about Hand's less popular views, such as his (actually very reasoned, though I disagree, I've read it)" opposition to Brown. Perhaps a quote or two. Be interesting to wonder if he had been on the court, or appointed CJ so Warren didn't make it, what would have become of the case . . . but I digress.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. This is what comes of our not being from the United States. qp10qp (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
    • Do we need Albany in the lead, when we are about to repeat it?
We say that he was born in Albany and then that he started out as a lawyer in Albany; if we don't say that he started out as a lawyer in Albany, readers might assume that he started out as a lawyer in New York City. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wording on his name is mushy; it suggests, but does not state, he was named after relatives named Learned and Billings. Is this so? Who were they?
      • Learned was his mother's maiden name; we should say so.
Changed to: "His mother's family traditionally used surnames as given names, and the name "Learned" was her own maiden name." qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holmes recommended him for the Supreme Court in 1923. When? On what occasion? Before Harding's death? (If it is for the vacancy filled by Pierce Butler, 1922 would be better.)
Changed to "by 1923, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wanted him on the Supreme Court". I think he was just recommending him in general rather than for a specific appointment. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Hand starts the lectures with an analysis of the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian positions on the Constitution. This wasn't an original research decision, though: it is based on the emphasis in the sources. I think it appropriate to place a picture of Hamilton in the philosophical section, since Hand's constitutional philosophy specifically derives from Hamilton's. Two other considerations were involved: we were short of good images for this section; and Hamilton is an interesting figure, whose importance to the U.S. Constitution may not be known to everyone—perhaps this will nudge them to look him up. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that Hamilton has been on the United States ten-dollar bill since the 1920s (and various other denominations before that), I think the curious would have probably already looked him up. ;) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that not everyone who reads Wikipedia is American. qp10qp (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is an argument to link to Hamilton (and to Jefferson). The picture is off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify this for me, please? Is the book you are talking about the "Spirit of Liberty"? Slp1 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bill of Rights, I should think. In it, Hand argues that judicial restraint would forbid the striking down of segregation laws; of course, it would also have forbidden the striking down of worker-protective laws, as in the Lochner case. PMAnderson, in what way do you think the wording should be clarified? qp10qp (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would leave out, or recast, These lectures proved to be the last major critique of judicial activism from a progressive. If a progressive = Hand, this is trivial; if it = "from any progressive", I don't think it's true.
I think the word "major" makes it true. Anyway, changed to: "These lectures proved to be Hand's last major critique of judicial activism, a position he had first taken up in 1908 with his attack on the Lochner ruling."
  • Mentioning Frankfurter is likely a good idea, since Gunther does make much of it. However, I think some caution is required too: Boudin, in his Standford Law Review of the book says "... Gunther unexpectedly blames Justice Frankfurter for Hand's sour view of the Warren Court and thus indirectly for Hand's damning doubts in the Holmes Lectures about the basis for judicial review. ... With great respect, this explanation rings of special pleading, seeking to mitigate Hand's unsatisfactory positions."--Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Gunther mentions Frankfurter a lot in this context, but no one else seems to. qp10qp (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ANB says that "Hand had failed two years earlier to attain a federal judgeship", which sounds like the 1907 judgeship was created and went elsewhere. Please check.
What happened was that Congress was going to create this new judgeship in 1907 (at least, the New York legal community assumed so), but it didn't happen; the new judgeship was actually created in 1909, when Hand put himself forward for it again. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should this line from the article (He later described himself as a "serious boy", a hard worker who did not smoke, drink, or consort with prostitutes.) be changed to add quotes like this (He later described himself as a "serious boy", a hard worker who did not "smoke, drink, or consort with prostitutes".)? It just seems like language is lifted from the source material. Remember (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not lifted. "Serious boy" comes from page 30 in Gunther, where Hand says: "I was a serious boy, oh boy, wasn't I a serious boy!". The rest is paraphrased from page 29, where he says he was one of "the very obedient, docile little boys. We went to our classes. We didn't drink. We didn't consort with the hetaerae. We worked every night. And we were nice boys". I think that word "hetaerae" discouraged us from quoting this full on. qp10qp (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice quotation, though, and a sample of Hand's sense of humor; with a link, hetaerae would not be a problem. Some will object that this is not excruciating accuracy in quotations, so this may be better after FAC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the hetaerae myself. In another FAC I was involved with the term "cause célèbre" was taken out because it was a "foreign" non-English word that was too difficult to understand (or link to apparently).--Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you cited, I would remove the prostitute info. I can't tell from his quote whether he was actually referring to real prostitutes (and the quote seems to imply that prostitutes were a common vice) or whether he was just referring to refraining from loose women in general in a joking fashion. In the alternative, I would put the actual quote in the footnote so people know where you got that information from without having to get the book. Remember (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see quite what distinction you are drawing; but prostitution was certainly a common vice in 1890's Boston. (The same page has a calmer quote saying that he "didn't smoke or drink at all in college. Mother wouldn't want me to." Prostitutes would have been right out.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks, Remember, but there is, as you might guess, more than that mentioned above: Gunther talks further about Hand's sexuality on page 76. "Learned had not yet met a "respectable" woman whom he could imagine spending his life with, and he avoided prostitutes. As Charlie Barlow [a Harvard friend] wrote after an evening taunting Learned about his abstinence from worldly temptation: "Chastity, sir, is certainly the greatest aim of mankind on earth and I trust you will cling to yours"." --Slp1 (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. It appears you have a lot of support for the statement that he avoided prostitutes (which I guess was a notable thing at the time). I would, however, put the citation from Guther on page 76 as support for the quote. Remember (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm afraid to say that all-male universities and prostitutes tended to go together in those days, rather inevitably. qp10qp (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not that my opinion matters much, but this article is impressive. Remember (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's opinion matters! Thanks for your comments and suggestions, and of course for support.Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Supreme example of positive collaborative editing by wikipedians. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support: I think that this is a very good piece of writing, and a comprehensive account of the man. Here are the things I would change as well:

  • birth and death date format
Can you explain further? If you are thinking about date-linking that we have decided not to use this in this article --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • which Progressive party - link in intro goes to disambiguation
Thanks, fixed. It was linked correctly at the first mention but not the second. The second link may not be even desirable --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • a sentence on where the weird surname combo comes from
There is something about this in the first section of the bio, but I will add a bit more there.--Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • just for structure, I'd make subsections: a lot of people (like me today!) will just want to look at the article for his legal work: e.g. you could just put the first lot under biography, and then the rest under academic work.
I'm not in favour of this, since the sections are organic and will not yield to subsectioning without an entire rewriting. There is a section about jurisprudence at the bottom, but some of the legal material is necessarily bound in with the biography. qp10qp (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link every case, even if the article isn't there yet and there's that nasty red colour on your beautiful article. This is just because legal readers are good at coming along and going "oh I know that case" and putting it up. This encourages people and it saves people going back later to link it.
I hate redlinks, but probably a good idea.Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. There aren't many without an article. qp10qp (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Red links for all cases now in place. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All cases, also, must have proper citations in the footnotes. Don't know if you two are lawyers, but I think this is essential. For Americans, you're really lucky because the majority of judgments are also online. If you can find them, put in the external links too.
No, we aren't lawyers. As Qp10qp noted, there is a tension about whether the article is a general biography or a source for legal beagles. I think it is quite likely that another article about his cases is required that can satisfy the needs of lawyerly types. But still yes we can add the citations. Will do it as I have time.Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that we aren't lawyers, plus the fact that the general sources for Hand don't bother with the legal citations, was a reason why we didn't think legal citations would add much. We asked about this on the talk page and didn't get much response. Since you ask, we will of course add them to the notes; but I think the cases the article talks about are easy enough to find anyway. qp10qp (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legal citations have now been added for each case. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of judgments: that's what I came looking for. There isn't one! I think you need this. Just put something in there above the see also section: start with the famous ones he's done and that already have articles. There's an article calculus of negligence which you should link to the sentence US v. Carroll Towing.
I would like to see fewer lists at the bottom of articles. They are temptingly easy to add to and soon get out of control. I don't think it would add anything to the article to list the cases we already mention, and to list cases we don't mention would raise the question of why we didn't mention them. On what basis would we choose which to list from Hand's four thousand judgements? I also don't believe that Hand's fame is really about the mass of his judgements: he is known for a small few, but his fame rests more on his public profile. qp10qp (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Calculus of negligence added. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that for an FA (this is just me) a few blue quote boxes go well. This guy was a man of letters, renowned for his clear, incisive and witty judgments. I think that you should putting in a few of his most famous lines here and there.
There are already lots of his more famous quotes included, just not in blue box format. I personally like the fact that they are integrated into the text. Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, I think it's great article. Certainly perfect for a biography: but if you do these few more things to make it a little more helpful for picky lawyers like me, it'll be even better. Wikidea 13:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the FA (and thanks to Qp and Slp for robbing me of an opportunity to nag on command :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 3 August 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [5].

Balch Creek

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)


I'm nominating this good article for featured article because, improved during peer review, it meets the criteria. It describes and tells the story of a short, schizophrenic creek that begins in a forest and ends in a storm sewer in Portland, Oregon. My thanks to User:Epicadam, User:Doncram, User:Ruhrfisch, and User:Ealdgyth, who took part in the peer review, and to User:Juliancolton, who did the GA review. Finetooth (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The first sentence is exceedingly awkward: something of the something in the something of the something in the whatever (or something like that). Consider rephrasing.
  • Second sentence seems to suddenly digress - how about "...is named after (person), who is famous for..."?
  • You use "unincorporated Multnomah County". First of all, the second "unincorporated is unnecessary (though it's fine to describe it as "unincorporated" again later in the text). Second of all, what does "unincorporated" mean in this context, anyways?

More later - I'm busy right now. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (and more comments) - prose is excellent over all, some little things:

  • "This bottom land"?
  • Why exactly is "Guild's Lake" bolded?
  • "in the early part of the 20th century" -> "in the early 20th century"
  • "The creek drops from 1,116 feet (340 m) at its source..." - add "above sea level", if that's what you mean.
  • You use "a minimum of 0" then just "minimum of 0". Be consistent.
  • Redundancy: "including mixtures of red alder and cottonwood trees in some areas" - this is debatable, but I like to strive to be as concise as possible.

Excellent work. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you, User:Nousernamesleft, for the helpful suggestions and for your support. I took your advice and made all of the changes you recommended. I have unbolded Guild's Lake, replaced "bottom land", removed the repetition of "unincorporated" and wikilinked "unincorporated" in the main text. In this context "unincorporated" means not part of Portland or any other city or town with a municipal government. I have added "above sea level" and wikilinked it, fixed the red alder sentence, and inserted the missing "a" before the second "0". I fixed the "20th century" phrase. Most helpful were your suggestions about the lead, which I re-wrote for clarity and concision. The lead included a nest of passive-voice verbs that User:Epicadam had warned me about but which escaped fixing until today. I have replaced them with active verbs. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I reviewed the sources at PR, and the one concern I had was addressed. I double checked them again just now, still look fine. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Ealdgyth. I always appreciate your help. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • there are a few refs that should be combines ("Streams & Water Bodies" is cited in two different footnotes)
  • Are there any named tributaries? The map clearly shows at least one tributary, but none are mentioned anywhere in the article.

Circeus (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You are right about the redundant citations. In response, I found ways to combine or compress several. I think I caught them all. Your question about tributary names is good. I can find no "official" names. The Friends map shows three tributaries, one joining the main stem at Cornell Road and two crossing the Audubon property. I originally thought the bigger of the two Audubon streams was called "Woodpecker Creek", but only one source called it that. It may well have been a "working" name rather than an official one since an official Woodpecker Trail is nearby. In response to your question, I have added the three unnamed tributaries to the course description. Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and your support. Finetooth (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (and comments) A very well-written, interesting and informative article -- just what an encyclopedia should be. I fixed a couple of very small grammatical issues and I have one question about a street name:

    • Industry section: "longterm economic viability as an industrial district." - corrected 'longterm' to 'long-term' per the cited material
      • Did you mean to say "Northwest Northwest" as in: "what later became Northwest Northwest Saint Helens Road and Northwest Yeon Street"?
    • Fish and wildlife section: substituted 'simpler' for 'more simple'

Good show! Geoff (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Both of your changes improved the article. Also, you are quite right about the accidental doubling of "Northwest", which I fixed after seeing your note. Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ragesoss, for checking the images. I appreciate it. Finetooth (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, it looks like you strugged with delinking accessdates. What you did works, but another way to do it (for future reference) is to use the accessmonthday and accessyear parameters, instead of accessdate; that results in delinked retrieval dates. Please consider cleaning out those empty parameters on cite templates in the future, as they just unnecessarily chunk up the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:SandyGeorgia. I removed the rest of the empty parameters in this article, and I will remove them from other articles in the future. I moved the access dates back inside the templates using the two parameters you suggested. This is more elegant than leaving them orphaned. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 2 August 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [6].

Domitian

Nominator(s): Steerpike (talk)


This article has taken a lot of time and effort. As I believe it currently fits all the criteria for a Featured Article Candidate, I'm proud to put this up for nomination. Style should be good, structure is clear, images are free, treatment is comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, etc... I would like to pre-emptively address three possible criticisms though:

  • Size: the current article size is 92kb, however readable prose only constitutes about 65kb. So I see no problems with the current size of the text. There is little that could be shortened in the current format anyway, since several terms relating to Roman history, especially in the opening sections, need at least some clarification for uninitiated readers.
  • Ancient sources: the use of ancient sources is generally discouraged as a primary source for a Wikipedia article. In some sections, I *do* cite ancient authors, but I have tried to use these sparingly, and only when a) the statements are uncontested, b) are used as a direct quote, or c) are used to highlight a controversy.
  • Modern source: some may criticize my "overreliance" on Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian as the main source of reference for this article. However, as noted even within the article: book length studies of Domitian are few and far between, with the only other notable books either written over a hundred years ago (Gsell, 1894) or largely based on the work of Jones itself (Southern, 1997). At present, the work of Brian Jones is simply thé most authoritative source on the Domitianic era.

Any other objections I'd be very happy to discuss! Regards. Steerpike (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from epicAdam (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for starters, here are some WP:MoS problems that can be dealt with fairly quickly:

  • The article jumps between British and American word spellings... choose a variation and then make sure all the following words match up: armor/armour; neighbor/neighbour; meter/metre; defense/defence; offense/offence; pretense/pretence; organize/organise; criticize/criticise; ization/isation; equaling/equalling; traveled/travelled; fulfillment/fulfilment; program/programme
  • There are areas that need non-breaking spaces (i.e. &nbsp;) between numbers and their units of measurement.
  • Units of measurement should be spelled out in the main article text and converted both between US standard and metric units. (i.e. "My house is 15 miles (24 km) from the store." Not, "My house is 15 mi (24 km) from the store.")
  • When providing dates, don't write "the 13th of January" write instead "13 January" or "January 13" (depends, again, on British v. American grammar)
  • You have a number of wikilinks that lead to disambiguation pages... you probably want to take care of those as well: Arx; Bath; Corruption; Dacian Wars; Domitian; Expedition; Flavia Domitilla; Forth; Illyricum; Lucius Aelius Lamia; Nominal; Odeum; Parthenius; Play

I'll check over other parts of the article in a bit, just wanted to give you a head start.

Ok, I went with British spelling and fixed consistency and measurement units accordingly. Non-breaking spaces added and disambiguation pages removed, except "Odeum", which can't lead anywhere else. Should I put a non-breaking space between "80,000 soldiers"? The dates still have to be addressed. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All dates have been checked and fixed now. --Steerpike (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For authors like Eusebius of Caesarea. you usually alphabetize and/or list in references as Eusebius, not "of Caesarea".
  • Current ref 113 is missing a page number (Thompson, Leonard L.)
  • Current ref 94 is missing a page number (Di Martino, Vittorio)
  • http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/casperius/aelianus.html what makes this a reliable self-published work?
  • Also, I know you discussed this above, but there is a LOT that is sourced to primary sources. I don't have a problem with reliance on one secondary source, sometimes folks just don't write about what we want them to, but it's pretty much a given that Suetonius and Tacitus has axes to grind and too much reliance on them leaves you open to OR.
Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed Eusebius and replaced refs without a page with better alternatives. The pageless citations were basically a remnant from a past version of the article. As for "Livius.org", the author, Jona Lendering, has adequate credentials to be considered reliable, I believe. But just to make sure, I've replaced the citation with one from Grainger. As for the ancient authors, I agree that relying on primary sources is dangerous with regards to OR. But I've expressly tried to avoid piecing together the article based only on classical authors. Whenever I do cite these primary sources, it's always for the reasons I mentioned above. But I could cut back on them if you like. I do like to include some references to ancient authors, as their texts are not only very interesting, but still widely read and hugely influential. --Steerpike (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On livius.org, 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. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
On the ancient sources, I totally understand the desire to add some ancient sources, it's just that if you rely on them too much (which is a fine line and something that varies from article to article) you're treding into OR territory. I tend towards the "use them as sources the absolute least you can" school, but that's something that's a personal preference. My rule of thumb is I use ancient/medieval sources for quotes and color, and try to rely on modern historians for facts and all other information. That doesn't always work out, (I had to use Bede a LOT with Augustine of Canterbury, and I certainly can't see forcing you to change out the sources just because of my whims. I'm hoping to find time to actually review the whole article in the next couple of days, we'll see how it goes. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "between 69 and 96, encompassing the reigns of Domitian's father Vespasian (69–79), his elder brother Titus (79–81), and finally Domitian's own."
  • "...whose brief reign came to an unexpected end on 13 September 81." - tantalizing, but could you be a little bit less vague, even in the lead?
  • "The following day, Domitian was declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard, and began a reign which lasted more than fifteen years" - I'm not quite sure what's wrong with this sentence... maybe nothing is. However, I think that "and began a reign" seems not to use Domitian as a subject. Maybe "...Guard, beginning a reign..."?
  • I wonder why there's a citation for exactly one sentence in the lead? Is it a highly contentious statement?
  • "Domitian was born in Rome on 24 October 51, as the youngest son" - how about "...on 24 October 51; the youngest son..."
  • "Modern history has refuted these claims however, suggesting these stories..."
  • You seem to use commas very liberally throughout the article. While I don't think this is grammatically incorrect, it does make the reading a bit difficult sometimes. Would you clean this up a bit?
  • "A number of ancient authors have implicated Domitian in the death of his brother..."
  • "...suggesting the latter had played some part in uncovering the conspiracy..." - "some part" sounds strange - how about "a part"?
  • "A highly detailed account of the plot and the assassination is provided to us by Suetonius," - is provided to "us"? How about simply "is provided"?

Excellent article overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most points have been addressed in my last edit. With regards to the citation, I think someone once made a fuss about the statement in the lead not being sourced. But I've removed the citation now. As for the commas, I used these with the intention to improve readability, especially when the sentences are long, and contain a lot of information. But I'll see what I can do. --Steerpike (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all of my image concerns have been addresses/addressed as fully as possible, so there are no image formating problems when reading the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose MoS problems - sandwiching. Images shouldn't "sandwich" text between them. This happens six times. Also, comments in the image descriptions are lengthy, unnecessary, and sometimes include speculation/"weasel words", for example: "According to some authors, Nerva took part or had advance knowledge of the plot against Domitian. Immediately following the assassination, he was proclaimed emperor by the Senate." The phrase "according to some authors" jumps out, especially without citations to show that there are authors who believe such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandwiching probably depends on screen resolution. I have a 1024 x 768 monitor, and it looks fine to me. So I'm not sure if this can be fixed. I like to include a little more elaborate commentary in images than merely state "what it is". I think this is a bit more informative. And I don't usually cite sources in image descriptions because it's already mentioned in the text. But I could source it if you like (or change the wording). --Steerpike (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't make sense. I have a tight resolution and it sandwiches. There is one image that is only a few lines apart, which would mean even with an extremely tight resolution, it should probably sandwich. I just moved the size to half of my screen width and it sandwiches at ceremonial heir. By the way, MoS does not allow images on the "left" to be directly under a heading, so thats a problem there. All you have to do about the wording is to drop the "some scholars" type of beginning. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your text size then? Anyway, here's a proposal for a different alignment of images: User talk:Steerpike/Sandbox. Would that be better? MOS prefers that multiple images be staggered alternatively left and right. BUT, it also discourages left-aligned images under second level headings. I'm not sure if my proposed solution actually solves this, but otherwise I think aligning all images to the right will look awkward. I've also edited some of the captions, and cut the images of Vitellius and Titus altogether (in my alternative version). What do you think? --Steerpike (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Now, to finish - 1) Under family, first paragraph, add a sentence or two extra. That will open the formatting up and the first paragraph is rather tiny. 2) Year of the four emperors - Move the picture down to the next paragraph, or split the top paragraph in half and move the picture infront of that new second paragraph. Add four lines or so to the second paragraph marriage section, split the top paragraph, move the picture down to the new second paragraph. I say this because the section is a little short and you can go into more detail about the state of the marriage. 3) In the administration section, move the picture down to the second paragraph, split the second paragraph, and add about two more lines. That section is a little brief, even though there is a lot you can say. 4) Military activity picture is 250 px, but other left pictures are 200px. Perhaps shrink it? Also, don't let pictures push the headings to the right, which it appears to do on my screen (Military activity and Dacian war, for example). Add a few lines about the state of military forces, what kind of patterns, leaders, etc. This will give you a new paragraph and you can move the fort picture down accordingly. 5) Standardize the image sizes, they tend to range a lot. If needed, crop the "excess" off the pictures. Domitians statue has a lot of extra hanging around that just takes up space. So does the stone face. Try that for now. It will fix a lot of the problems and fill out the article nicely. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the new version is currently in progress, but not yet completely finished. A few notes:
  • I've moved the dynasty box to the Emperor section. This will clear up some image space in the introduction, and fits better contentwise.
  • I've expanded the marriage section in accordance to your wishes, and cut back on the caption text in the image.
  • Most other images have been moved to fit better with the text-structure. There should be next to no sandwiching left now.
  • You asked to expand the administration and military section, especially with regards to the image placement in the text, BUT there really isn't that much left to say. At least nothing that isn't already mentioned either a) in the section or b) somewhere else.
  • I haven't yet standardized the image sizes. I picked a different size for each image depending on how much detail should/can/needs to be shown. Busts are obviously going to be smaller than full length statues or maps. Images of coinage are naturally wide.
  • I have cropped the statue from Vaison-la-Romaine.
  • EDIT: the rock sculpture has been removed because apparently, it was subject to a special Romanian copyright. I've replaced it with a map, although I will see if I can find a better one yet.
Tell me what you think. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I leave matters to technical accuracy and referencing to those more well versed in the topic than myself. Otherwise, excellent work: generally very well written and well illustrated. Please address the following issues in the lead:

  • "While Titus shared almost equal powers in the government of his father, Domitian was left with honours but no responsibilities." Titus' powers were equal to whose?
  • "encompassing the reigns of Domitian's father Vespasian (69–79), his elder brother Titus (79–81), and finally that of Domitian himself."

I have made a few other copyedits but the text is well structured, flows well and is involving. Fully supporting the article for featured status is pending completion of the minor copyedits that remain. Dhatfield (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences you mentioned have been fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Great work. Dhatfield (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did go back and alter one or two of your copyedits. I think "foreshadowing what was to be his role for at least ten years" is less ambiguous than "foreshadowing his role for at least ten years", which could be read as if the foreshadowing lasted ten years. Also "was carrying on an affair", instead of "had carried on", in the Marriage section. The rumours of the affair were concurrent with the exile and return of Domitia. --Steerpike (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One thing that has been bothering me for a while is this: when do you capitalize the word "Emperor", and when not? I'm afraid capitalization is slightly inconsistent at the moment. --Steerpike (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support changed from Slight oppose I think it's got the basics, just needs some work. Still some concerns over overlinking and jargon, but able to support now.

  • It probably could do with a good copyedit by someone better at it than i am. The prose is servicable, but might be a bit wordy at times.
  • Need to explain what Domitian being hailed as Caesar meant.
UPDATE: I don't think I'll ever be able to fix this. Much as I tried, it would probably take a long and awkward paragraph to adequately explain what the significance of Domitian being hailed as Caesar was. I'm just going to have to assume that it is clear from the context that it is a title connected to the imperial power. The word caesar is not thát obscure anyway. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above about linking revolted and Batavian revolt.
UDATE: Fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon alert - the whole article is full of it. Folks aren't going to know what a suffect consul is, or what the various titles of magistracies are or anything like that. I strongly suggest having someone unfamiliar with Roman history read through the article. I'm too familiar to catch all the jargon.
Ok, general comment about the "jargon" complaints. I'll try to cut back on jargon wherever I can BUT, I can't and won't stop to explain every Latin/Roman term in the article. Not only would that make the text hopelessly convoluted (you should try to work in a definition for client in that paragraph), it would go against FA-criteria which ask that articles don't delve into unnecessary detail, and perhaps most importantly, would kind of beat the whole point of wikilinking, and Wikipedia in general. I don't think there's an elegant way to write an involving narrative on Domitian's life, AND at the same time digress to explain terms like quaestor, suffect consul, client,... I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Domitian (otherwise far inferior to this article, if I may be so bold), and they also use terms like Praetor without explanation. Most of the times, it's clear from the context what the terms refer to (titles, offices), and if not, the explanation is only a click away.
While I sympathize, I only do so to some extent. I write FAs on almost as obscure topics (medieval English bishops, anyone? Quarter Horses?) and get constant requests to explain in the text things that I'd rather just wikilink. In all fairness, Domitian is probably a bigger topic (and more important topic) than Easy Jet, so it needs to be understandable to folks without having to leave your article to figure things out. Suffect consul should be explained, I would think, otherwise people aren't going to realise that while its an honor, it's not as big an honor as being named the main nominative consul for the year. I can see that maybe not so much need for praetor, etc., but when Domitian is acclaimed as Caesar, while it is clear from the context that this is a title, it's not clear why this acclamation is important. If it was clear that Caesar was the title right below Augustus, it would be more clear what the entire context of the event is. As far as client, if you can't explain what the it means in that sentence, you might just go for "spent the night hiding with a supporter of his father" which expresses what a client is without bogging the article down with uneccessary detail. As a last note, the idea is your article is so engaging and interesting that they don't WANT to click away to figure out what a term is, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with caesar, I'm having a hard time fitting in a good explanation of "suffect consul". I don't think it's quite as difficult to do as caesar, but I haven't yet worked out a good new paragraph. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the definition from the Oxford Classical Dictionary: "suffectio was the procedure by which a substitute or suffect (suffectis) was appointed whenever a Roman magistrate resigned or died in office." then later "Under the empire consuls ceased to hold office for the full year; those appointed after the original ('ordinary') pair were suffecti. They did not give their name to the year, unlike 'ordinary' ones, although they had the appropriate rank and title of consularis." (I can supply the exact page number and stuff if you like) It might work well as "...suffect consul, or replacement consul..." in the text with a longer explanation in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I THINK the MOS still says that date ranges have unspaced ndashes, but I'm not sure, so double check that with someone. I went through and changed them all that I saw to unspaced dates, since that was what was being used elsewhere in the article. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert.
Endash is spaced when either of the two parts contain a space (e.g. New York – San Francisco)
  • Might be a bit too much detail in the lead about Vespasian and Titus. It tends to overpower the rest of the lead which should be about Domitian. You discuss nothing of what Domitian DID, like the rebellions he faced, etc. It's all him overshadowed by his brother/father and what people thought of him.
Well the fact is, he was overshadowed by his brother and father during the 70s. His role in the civil war was limited, he had no active part in crushing the Batavian rebellion, and after that time his function was largely ceremonial. That's pretty much the point of the entire section. The only event of significance in Domitian's life during the 70s was his marriage to Domitia. But I've reworked the lead to include a bit more on Domitian's policies as emperor.
I just found it odd to have so much in the body of the article on what he did, but very little in the lead. I've gone ahead and marked this resolved, but you could add another paragraph if you really felt the need for more. The article is big enough that four paragraphs in the lead wouldn't be amiss. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably rework the lead sometime soon anyway. It doesn't quite flow well enough yet. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph of the lead "Traditional views hold that Domitian.." seems a bit awkward to me, perhaps change it to "Traditionallly, historians hold that ..."?
Fixed.
  • Need to explain what a gens is. (Family section)
I've added a sentence here, but I think it's clear from the context that a "gens" is a family line.
Never assume on the reading abilty of 12 year olds. (I always wonder how many 12 year olds are assigned papers and run immediately to Wikipedia...)
  • Need a citation for the older siblings. Are they twins? they are given the same birth year. Do we know their birth dates exactly? If so might list those...
Somewhat surprisingly, I cannot immediately find a proper citation to back this up, so I'll have to put it on hold for a while.
EDIT: The statement is now sourced. Turns out she wasn't born in 39, but around 45. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Helvetia (and all the Roman provinces) it would be nice if you gave modern locations also, so folks don't have to click through to the province articles. Not everyone has a grasp of Roman geography.
Fixed.
  • Probably a bit of overlinking going on. I noticed links for poverty, propoganda, adolescence, poetry, law, bow and arrow, baldness, wig, suicide, anarchy, bodyguard, seige/beseiged, literature, exile, heir, horse, divorce, adultery, democracy, culture, taxes, political corruption, debt, surplus, banquet, dwarf, swamp/marsh, gold, silver mining, chapel, morals/morality, satire, dagger,
Not yet addressed, but I'll see what I can do. I do like to wikilink less obvious terms in the article too, and certainly broad concepts like "democracy", "culture", "taxes", etc.
I'd have less problems with democracy, or propoganda if things like horse and wig and baldness weren't linked (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain who Britannicus is folks don't have to click through to the article.
It says in the paragraph that Britannicus was the son of Claudius.
Missed it! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family section, you've linked "revolted" to the First Jewish War article. You'd be better off saying "The same year the Jews of the Judaea province revolted in the First Jewish War... " or whatever the title of the article is. The current link is titled revolt, and doesn't give any inkling that it links to something besides the definition of revolt. I'm afraid most folks won't click through to the hidden title.
Fixed.
  • Per the MOS, curly quotes are not used for block quotations.
Switched to "Quotation" template.
  • Need a citation for the last two sentences of Youth and character.
Fixed. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year of the Four emperors section - need to briefly explain princeps.
Switched princeps to emperor.
  • Same section, you use Egypt at first, then switch to Ægyptus. Pick one and stick with it, I lean towards Egypt, myself.
Fixed.
  • Same section "Vespasian accepted, and through negotiations by Titus joined forces..." is awkward, consider rewording.
Fixed
  • Same for "... leaving Titus in charge to end the Jewish rebellion." Perhaps "...leaving Titus in charge of ending the Jewish rebellion."?
Fixed.
  • Same for "Support for the old emperor was quickly wavering however.." Perhaps "Support for Vitellius was waning, however, ..."?
Fixed.
  • Year of the Four emperors - explain what the Arx is?
I've edited this out. Only a minor detail after all.
  • You need to explain that a client in Roman usage wasn't the modern usage, otherwise folks are going to think that after Domitian's escape from the Capitol, he spent the night with a business client of his father's.
EDIT: changed to supporter. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section... first paragraph, are you referring to only Rome or to the whole Empire? It implies Rome, although you don't specify where Vespasian returned to, which should be done.
Fixed.
  • Need to explain who Tacitus is.
Fixed.
  • If Domitian's son died between 77 and 81, he was 4 to 8 years old and no longer in infancy. Childhood would be better description.
Fixed.
  • Need a citation on the last sentence of the first paragraph of Ceremonial heir.
  • Need a citation on the last sentence of the second paragraph of Ceremonial heir section.
  • Need a citation on the last section of the fourth paragraph of Ceremonial heir.
  • Need a citation for the last sentence of the third paragraph of Economy section
  • Need citation for the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Religious policy section
  • Need a citation for the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Revolt of Saturninus section.
All citations fixed.
  • I have some qualms about the reliance on the ancient sources for the basic biographical details of the life. It might be best to rely on modern scholars for this, especially as the subject is Domitian and the ancient authors are biased.
Well the problem is that there are no modern sources to provide basic biographical details of Domitian. A historian like Jones has to use the same information from Suetonius as presented here. But I repeat, whenever there is a controversy regarding statements from ancient authors (as in the alleged Flavian poverty under Nero), or bias comes into question, I do NOT quote these writers as presenting factual information.
The major problem is that Wikipedia guidelines want folks to use secondary sources for this sort of information. I'm not going to necessarily oppose based only on this, but it's going to be an issue if it makes it to the main page. There will be some folks that scream because the article uses primary sources and thus could be OR. Using secondary sources protects you from charges of OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut back on ancient sources. The Year of the Four Emperors is still a sore point (I really need Kenneth Wellesley's The Long Year 69 for this section), but otherwise citations to ancient authors were either replaced by modern sources, or are now accompanied by a second, modern citation. But this work is still in progress. --Steerpike (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, but note that I did use some of these sources in the article, such as Agricola and Domitian, Imperial Finances under Domitian...,... In any case, The Emperor Domitian is already an excellent synthesis of all pre-1992 material.
Overall, I'm not ready to support. It's a slight oppose until the issues of jargon have been addressed at the very least. Other concerns are the reliance on ancient sources for basic facts and the need for a good copyedit by someone not connected with Roman history. I'd also like to see some of the above sources used, if possible, if they are worth using. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Comments between your text. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've cut back further on ancient sources. Out of 153 references (not counting duplicates), "only" 32 are still sourced to ancient authors, as opposed to 56 in the original version. But only a few of these are actually used a direct source of "fact" (I'd have to order a new book to fix these). The others are usually sources to direct quotes, and accompanied by references to modern authors. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reign of Domitian has some importance in the history of Scotland, so it would make sense to link it in this article. Maybe not so much Greece or Spain, but certainly Rome. Aside from the fact that Domitian's reign significantly changed the face of the ancient city of Rome, it seems beyond absurd not to link Rome in an article on a Roman Emperor. But I was already fixing the overlinking while you posted this. By the way, you linked "18 September 96" in the third paragraph of the lead, but this date already has a link at the top of the lead. --Steerpike (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates are not linked or not because they were previously linked: they are linked or not so they will display consistently per user preferences. By linking one, and not the other, one of them displays for me as September 18, while the other displays as 18 September. See WP:MOS; either link all month-day combos or delink all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed + overlinking in general. If there's anything else that should be (de)linked, feel free to change it. --Steerpike (talk) 22:33, 2 August 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 August 2008 [7].

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

Nominator(s): Blackngold29, Gary King (talk), Rezter


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. Gary King (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments regarding MoS:
  • Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) is the third studio album by American metal band Slipknot. It was released on May 25, 2004 by Roadrunner Records, and a Special Edition version of the album containing a bonus disc was released on April 12, 2005. Why is "Special Edition" capitalized?
    • Done
  • Add non-breaking spaces throughout.
  • After the album was complete, the band expressed that these side projects "saved the band" and "helped [them] break out of the box [they] were in". The period goes outside of the quotation when only a segment of the sentence is a quote. I see this quite a bit in the article, so instead of me listing every one, just make sure to read up on WP:PUNC.
  • Otherwise, it seems to comply with the MoS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of FLs use the same sources as we have (we also used them on Slipknot's discography) see Sepultura discography, Metallica discography, Nine Inch Nails discography. REZTER TALK ø 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a lot of FL's use them, doesn't mean that the source itself is reliable. 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. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I can't determine how reliable they are, but my point is that if there is so much featured content using the same sources they must have been challenged before and found reliable. If the case is that this article isn't considered FA quality based upon these sources then all articles sourcing these sites should be challenged too. REZTER TALK ø 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to everyhit.com's FAQ page To anyone who submits info: "Please quote your source as we're keen only to print factually accurate information and may need to check it." Seems reliable to me. Blackngold29 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they don't give their sources on the pages themselves. And I'm not seeing that anyone else uses them as reliable, such as Rolling Stone or one of the UK magazines. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following FAs all use the site: Californication, Dookie, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Year Zero, and that with hardly looking. If there is even another site that offers the same info, I cannot find it. I would find it difficult to believe if the topic of UK album sales has never come into play before...and from what I can see everyhit is the only consistant source used. Blackngold29 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the reliability of the source http://www.everyhit.com , whether it is used in other articles is not relevant here, and please see this:

It all began with Janet Jackson. No; not that one! My mum! She had a wind-up gramophone and a wad of 78 singles; 12 inch discs, the 'modern' ones made of thick pure vinyl, the older ones manufactured from brittle shellac. Quite why I was drawn to these as a very young child is unclear. But the combination of the technology, the fusty smell and silky texture of the vinyl and, above all, the magical way in which the music was made was an irresistible draw.

My parents were (and still are) great music lovers. Having been teenagers through the rock 'n' roll era, they had amassed vast record collections. These were carefully stored and catalogued. They were keen that I - and my brothers - developed an appreciation for music and soon we were off to buy our favourites with every last bit of pocket money. Our complimentary tastes worked well and the record collection swelled. We realised that, with our combined tastes and pooled resources, we were building the definitive (post) rock 'n' roll record collection; every track ever to have hit the Top 40.
As a student, I took a job in a record shop. I never saw money in my wage packet. The management cut out the middle man and paid me in vinyl! The staff discount came in handy for family and friends too. The collection swelled. Now, in the 80s, I was purchasing every track to hit the Top 40.
This habit has continued through to this day. Happily, I find myself in the lucky position of getting each new release through the promotions mechanism of the great British record industry.
The website itself gives no reason to believe it meets our WP:V policy; please establish that it meets the expectations for WP:SPS (see the examples at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to just removing the three charts cited to the source, that would be easier (until a better one can be found of course). But I still find it difficult to believe that there is no site comprable to Billboard in the UK. Especially with the large number of albums that are included throughout WP that list UK charts; thusly we are essentially saying that there is no UK singles chart. Blackngold29 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure how much of a difference this makes but on the Discographies project page they list all the sources you have provided as "reliable". See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Useful_resources:. REZTER TALK ø 09:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for a discussion of why various wikiprojects useful sources lists don't always translate into reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyhit.com has been removed until further investigation can be done as to its reliability. Blackngold29 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the first and only album" - if it's the only of course it's the first
  • "Nevertheless, they eventually managed to write more than enough material for the new album, releasing five singles" - the two parts of this sentence are pretty unrelated
  • Pleased don't use the metacritic score in the lead; instead summarise reviewer opinions
  • Is "exercised other musical projects" correct phrasing? Don't think excercised is a good word here.
  • "The musical style of Slipknot is often difficult to pinpoint because of the genres their music covers; however, Vol. 3 is regarded as their most diverse album." – why however; the statements agree?
  • Why is the audio sample in the reception section?
  • Sometimes it’s referred to as Vol. 3, sometimes as the full name. Be consistent.
  • Some of the reviewers in the reception section are wlinked, some aren’t. Be consistent (I don’t think any are linked earlier in the article)

—Giggy 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Giggy 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1c, as certain statements aren't "factually accurate", but are opinions. More specifically;
"The musical style of Slipknot is often difficult to pinpoint because of the genres their music covers, and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) is regarded as their most diverse album." - According to whom?
Removed
"The lyrics of Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) include strong use of metaphors and touches upon themes including anger, disaffection, and psychosis.[16]" - According to whom?
Allmusic... hence the citation. It sounds weird to say, "According to Allmusic, the lyrics...". I'll remove the "strong use", but I don't think this is a case that needs accredited. Blackngold29 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, songs such as "Pulse of the Maggots" and "Before I Forget" use the band's usual "pounding metal" style.[15]" - According to whom is this "usual"?
"Other tracks such as "Blister Exists", "Three Nil", and "Opium of the People" combine the two extremes of their recognizable metal edge with melody, with the most apparent shifts being in Taylor's vocal style.[16]" - According to whom?
Me, ;) Removed
"Despite the initial problems, the writing process eventually became extremely productive." - According to whom was the writing process "extremely" productive? What can be regarded as "extremely" productive? The composition of 10 songs? A 100 songs? The use of the word "extremely" isn't warranted.
Reworded

LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to state that I don't feel my objection has been fully addressed, and deem it valid still. At the end of the day, comments as regards lyrics are opinions, and not factual. Therefore, they need to be accredited. I am vehemently against quotes being misused, and am frankly fed up of seeing them in FACs. Take this from the lead as an example; ".. some critics also added that the album was "a triumph"". That's absolute rubbish, as any minor investigating can tell. Only Q uses the words "a triumph", and as far as I am aware, one magazine does not constitute "some critics". LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have accredited the reviews in the intro, as well as the lyrical themes to Allmusic. Blackngold29 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns still remain unaddressed: "However, songs such as "Pulse of the Maggots" and "Before I Forget" use a more "pounding metal" style.[17] Other tracks such as "Blister Exists", "Three Nil", and "Opium of the People" combine the two extremes of their recognizable metal edge with melody, with the most apparent shifts being in Taylor's vocal style.[2]" These are opinions, and not facts, so need to be attributed to the journalist's opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attributed the remaining statements. I only took into consideration the specific examples you mentioned, I should've realized that you wanted everything attributed. Blackngold29 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning to Oppose
Some comments resolved. --Efe (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some complete dates dont have links (WP:DATES).
  • Some quotations are not using the logical quotation style (WP:PUNC).
    • Example: The magazine also concluded that "the riffs have lost none of their impact, but it seems like finally the group also wants you to appreciate their vocal and lyrical impact." --Efe (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unlinked all dates. That punctuation used in that quote is correct because it stands as a full sentence on its own, so the period belongs in the quote. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent "that" means that the quotation is quoted not in full. Also, what is the rationale behind unlinking full dates? --Efe (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly no expert on punctuation marks but that's how I interpret "When quoting a sentence fragment which ends in a period, some judgement is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." Full dates are unlinked in this article because they are optional. Gary King (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are parts in the first section called "Recording and Production" that are obviously off-topic. "To promote the album, the band toured on Ozzfest and the Jägermeister Music Tour, and made an appearance at the Download Festival. The album's record label, Roadrunner Records, posted an MP3 of "Pulse of the Maggots" in its entirety (excluding the fadeout transition from "Vermilion") on the now defunct SK Radio website for free download for only one day on March 30, 2004. Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) was finally released on May 25, 2004,[14] and a special edition version of the album containing a bonus disc was released on April 12, 2005." --Efe (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it that there is a chart for the singles? This is about the album and not its singles. --Efe (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Artwork only explains the main cover and not the alternate cover. Therefore, the latter fails to comply WP:NFCC#8. --Efe (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not exactly sure how much we could add for a simple picture of the band, let alone any sources. Would simply stating that it is a picture of the band be enough? Blackngold29 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily. Even main covers of albums and songs are deemed NFCC non-compliant. How much more if its just an alternate cover. Also, this is not about the band. The image must increase reader's understanding why the cover is presented like that (especially that its an alternate cover). --Efe (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The artwork section saves more the main cover but the alternate, its not. --Efe (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have looked for an article about the SE, but cannot find one. As far as I can tell it's their picture in front of the Houdini Mansion, but I obviously don't have a source. So I assume it's better to leave it out then add un-sourced material. Blackngold29 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The audio sample Image:Slipknot - Vermilion.ogg's fair use is just a copy and paste. The inclusion of this sample is not well-explained in the purpose parameter and in the article itself, it is not mentioned. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. --Efe (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Efe, that's not a correct statement. The song is mentioned several times in the article itself. There's no problem with the rationale here. --JayHenry (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mentioning the song throughout doesn't warrant a fair use. The sample is used to present the kind of music the album is featuring, or part of the album. And I see no discussion in the section "Musical and lyrical themes" that corresponds to the caption of the sample as well as its fair use purpose. Also, the audio samples lacks copyright information. --Efe (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my opinion that just doesn't have anything to do with WP:NFCC#8. The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section (what would be the sense of requiring information to be repetitive?) nor does it need to repeat the image page. NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This easily, easily clears that hurdle, and is thus a valid rationale and valid use. It's actually a bit silly to suggest that someone could understand a band without hearing any of their music. The source of the audio is clearly identified as Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) and the record label (which by definition administers the copyrights) is also clearly identified. There is nothing to suggest this sound clip is inappropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • using the sample, what do you want to convey to the readers? or enhance their understanding in connection with what is being discussed in the article? --Efe (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you seriously not know? 1) I've never edited this article and don't like Slipknot. I'm a neutral reviewer. I personally don't want to convey anything. 2) It's obvious that the authors of the article included the music sample so that someone can hear the song being discussed and the band that performs it and specifically the song's use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent. This is all explicit. You cannot argue that a musical sample of an album does not enhance one's understanding of an album. -JayHenry (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sir, I am only 18 years old and I may not fully learned the nitty-gritty of WikiPedia yet. But somehow, with my constant editing/contribution, I have learned little by little.
                1. "The caption of the sample doesn't need to be repeated in the musical and lyrical themes section" I didn't say you have to repeat it. The gist only.
                2. I read the first and section and I see no better warranty of the sample's inclusion.
                3. This is about the album so the audio sample have nothing to do with presenting who's band is singing. So what about Slipknot? Hmmm. Maybe the vocals. But I can see nothing in the text that explains their, for example, their blah blah blah vocals.
                4. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This statement does not mean that because you mention the guitars and whatsover of the song, the sample will help readers increase their standing. Besides, its not deterimental to our understanding if the editor will take out the sample (not to mention the sample is "Vermillion" and the text always mention "Vermillion Pt. 2"). --Efe (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I didn't inquire about your age. But I am concerned because you're making distinctions that appear to me to have no meaning. This album is a collection of songs by a band. So a sample of a song is a sample of the album. Hearing the band play a song on the album is hearing the album. Presenting a band's album is the same as presenting the sound of a band as heard on the album. Do you see what I'm saying? The things you're talking about don't have anything to do with image criteria. Slipknot's "blah blah blah vocals" has nothing to do with anything. Look, an album is primarily an auditory thing. You listen to it. Therefore listening to it significantly increases ones understanding. Could someone who has never listened to Mozart truly understand his music? Of course not. That's actually ludicrous for me to suggest, is it not? Despite the vastly lower standard of artistry, the same thing holds for Slipknot. This is very simple, very basic, completely valid fair use. --JayHenry (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh my. Pity myself. I still have to "educate" myself what truly fair use is. Since I will be out for two days, I'll consult, probably, two users on this matter. Good day. --Efe (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: everything resolved. --JayHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
    • Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses).jpg -- This is a visually arresting image. Both the article and the fair use rational would benefit from some discussion of this piece of cover art.
    • Image:Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses) Special Edition.jpg -- I'm less enthusiastic about this image. It's just a picture of the band. Many albums have alternate cover art, but without discussion of the cover art or any evidence of its significance I'm not sure it's really following the letter or spirit of the guidelines to include this. This looks like just a picture of the band to me, and they more-or-less always look like this in their pictures, so I'm not sure it's even very distinctive. I dunno... thoughts?
      • My opinion on this is the cover art is very different from the original and it should be used to help visually identify the product. The content of the cover (for example you saying it's just a photograph of the band) is beside the point. It isn't a limited product, it's a deluxe edition of the album which was released about a year after the original and includes an additional disc. REZTER TALK ø 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Slipknot - Vermilion.ogg -- The official style guideline is: "Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." In this case, 10 % would be about 25 seconds.
  • Thoughts welcome. --JayHenry (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Special edition" is discussed in the second sentence of the article; in addition to the track listing. The FUR of the regular cover art, seems pretty on par with other album covers to me. Blackngold29 01:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So there are two schools of thought on Wikipedia. One is that an album cover is fair use for an article about the album as identification. The other, more conservative school of thought, is that you really ought to have discussion of the cover art itself to justify the rationale. With the first image it's actually more of a content issue. That's a really interesting image on the cover--what's the story behind it?--inquiring minds want to know! With the second image it's trickier, because another goal is that Fair Use should be limited. Very many albums have alternate covers, or different covers in foreign countries, etc. Most people will grant you the first image without any discussion. Is it acceptable Fair Use, however, that every single alternate cover is automatically allowed, even if the image is unremarkable? I think most Wikipedians would agree that's going too far. In my opinion the second image is really borderline: just a non-significant image of the band on a fairly typical alternate issue... --JayHenry (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoaaa, I see non-breaking spaces added to double items such as "12 reviews"; please see the MOS and MOSNUM guidelines on this. Only add hard-spaces where it's likely to be ungainly or confusing for a number to appear on the next line. This is hardly the case in 21 chairs or 12 reviews. The disadvantages of adding willy-nilly all over the place are possible text-stretching (especially adjacent to images), more work for editors, and clunky edit-windows. Tony (talk)

Comments—<frowns and grimaces>

  • FU justification of audio file. There's only one in the article, which is good. Caption: ""Vermilion", the album's second single, makes use of guitar solos and some more melodic song structures which were previously absent from the band's discography." This is not well-written. "Makes use of" --> a single word? Song structures absent from discography? No, songs might be absent or present, but style and structures are something within songs. By "structure", do you mean the formal structure of repeating segments of the music/lyrics? What was different or unusual? Guitar solos: so their first album didn't have these; does the second album stand as unique in this respect, or did it establish this use as a hallmark of their style thereafter? Trying to get a grip on why this FU satisfies NFCC#8 (inclusion leads to a significant understanding).

Prose: Gary, where are your word-nerd collaborators?

  • "Taylor made a point of avoiding the use of profanity in response to people claiming that he relied upon it". The old noun plus -ing, and here, rewording is the best option—"in response to claims that". See: easy! Can we make "upon" just "on", in 2008?
  • "the lyrics of Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) include metaphors and touches upon themes including"—the lyrics touches? "Upon" again.
  • Stylus magazine—would italics make it clearer for the readers?
  • This—> Stylus Magazine called it the most "depressing and emotional" track on the album. The magazine also concluded that "the riffs have lost none of their impact, but it seems like finally the group also wants you to appreciate their vocal and lyrical impact."—Dot after the closing quote would be less clunky, and MOS-compliant. But more importantly, you've lost me on the logical flow. Why "but"? The quote is pretty crappy, so what about paraphrasing the gist of it and making both quotes flow into a cohesive run of statements (with the same ref. number).
  • The "Artwork" mini-section. I've had a go at trying to fix it. Please check my "whenever".

I believe User:Deckiller might be copy-editing at the moment. He's very good and knows the field. Tony (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm has given the article a c/e. I've believe I've fixed the remaining concerns that you have raised. However, about the non-breaking spaces: Earilier in this review Juliancolton stated that they should be added, so they were, now you're saying to take them out. Which is correct? Blackngold29 03:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No problems with the criteria. Prose and aesthetical details can always be more or less improved of course, but the current version is definitely well written enough for FA status. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I had previously ignored the article, but looking over it, I'd say that it is very good in terms of writing, formatting and sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments: I'm not familiar with too many music related FAs, but there are some issues which stood out to me.
    • Organization: The flow of the information in the article seems off to me and I think the structure of the article can be rearranged to improve this.
      • The "Artwork" section seems too small to stand on its own. I would try to integrate the content into the rest of the "Production and promotion".
      • The "Personnel" section seems out of place at the end of the article. I would consider moving it to be a subsection of "Production and promotion". Also, what do the numbers beside each band member's name mean? If those numbers remain in the article, I think some kind of brief description should be included.
      • "Chart positions" looks like it should be a subsection of "Reception". I know in video game articles, a table of review scores is included to the right in the reception sections. maybe something similar could be done here as well.
      • As ended an article with a "Reception" section is general practice on Wikipedia, I would suggest moving the "Track listing further up in the article. Either before or after "Musical and lyrical themes".
    • Excessive use of quotes: I would summarize some of the quotes in the "Reception" section. Some are hard to follow. I'm not sure what "Slipknot still bring the noise" exactly means; I'm assuming something positive.
Overall the article is good and informative, but not quite Featured quality. I'll check back later to see if they are addressed and to check refs/other loose ends. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Reply to Guyinblack25
Most album articles put the prose before the "listy stuff" (track listing, band members, chart info). I guess it could be changed if you still want it to be, but it would be the first time I've seen it like that. The numbers are explained in their article, I don't think too much info should be repeated. Blackngold29 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with that style of organization; all prose then all lists. But I'm no music article expert, and if it works for others, then it can't be all that bad.
I still think some explanation should be provided for the numbers, either that or exclude them as it was very puzzling seeing them there. That and the long quotes are the only style issues I think should be addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Things are looking better, but I still think there are too many long quotes in the reception section. I believe such content should be summarized as often as possible. For example:
  • Instead of John Robb of PlayLouder proclaimed "Slipknot defied all kind of logic by becoming one of the biggest groups in the world", try John Robb of PlayLouder complimented Slipknot's unexpected rise to become "one of the biggest groups in the world"
  • Instead of Robb went on to add, "Its differing textures make it far better than Iowa.", try Robb added that this album is better than their previous album, Iowa, citing its "differing textures".
It looks like the reliability of everythit.com has not been completely addressed above. I would also like to know what makes artistdirect.com a reliable source? I didn't look too deep, but I didn't find much info about them on their website.
These are minor issues:
  • Some of the magazine references, like Q and Kerrang!, include the "accessdate" parameter. I've come to understand that accessdate refers to the date a webpage is accessed. I believe this is normally reserved for when the "url" parameter is used.
  • Some of the magazine references, like Kerrang! and Revolver use the {{cite news}} template instead of {{cite journal}}. This is certainly nothing to oppose over, just my slight OCD desire for uniform formatting.
Those are the remainder of my concerns. I'll check back in later. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
While the {{cite journal}} template does include a space for accessdate, I think I'm gonna agree with you that there's really no point for a non-internet source. I removed them, and cleaned up the news/journal cites. I understand better what your saying about the quotes/prose, I made a few adjustments, including your suggestions. I hope it's enough, let me know if it isn't. Thanks. Blackngold29 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some good steps forward. I wouldn't be opposed to the negative comments in the "Reception" section getting the same treatment and summarized more. My only major concern left is the reliability of everythit.com and artistdirect.com. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Both questionable sources have been eliminated. I'll see what I can do with the negative comments. Blackngold29 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: All of my major concerns have been addressed. My only remaining issue with the article's structure is more of a personal preference. The article looks to be well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive. Nice job. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:47, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2008&oldid=229503630"