Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2008

October 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 01:43, 4 October 2008 [1].

---

Stonewall riots

Nominator(s): Moni3, Dank55

previous FAC

What fun this article was to write. Never will you see so colorful a description of surreal rioting. I had a ball working on it, and I hope you enjoy it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 70 (Christopher Park..) is lacking a last access date.
• Same for current ref 140 (Dunlap...) and the National Historic landmark nomination ref.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Got 'em. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - for a well-written, excellently researched and engaging account. I can't see any issues with the images or sources but there are a few disambiguation links that need fixing—according to the checker. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a disambig for "hustler" that could mean any and all three of those listed in the disambiguation page. Similarly for "lighter fluid" I don't know enough chemistry to decide which one of those is most accurate, and my sources didn't specify. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Graham, but I've got questions about some of them. "They were the first instances in American history when gays and lesbians publicly protested against a government-sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals": well, I wouldn't say that, exactly. The 1965 Philadephia protest was public, for instance; it just wasn't something the media were interested in.

"During the last years of the 1960s, however, many radical political organizations": at the time "radical" was an even more charged word than it is now, and some will complain that calling the entire African American Civil Rights Movement "radical" is POV. I think that's probably why Moni put it the way she did.

"Police raids were routine on gay bars": I'd prefer "Police raids on gay bars were routine"

"Tensions ... tightened": tensions tightened? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a note in some of the edit summaries to revert any unhelpful suggestions. I didn't like "tensions exploded" perhaps it would be better to find another word for tensions? And, would it be a good idea to mention the the earlier protests? With regard to "radical" is it a non-neutral word? Graham Colm ^Talk 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying "erupted"; possibly trite, but the other ways I would usually try to fix this aren't available here. Spiro Agnew's favorite phrase was "radical liberals", and "radical" has been POV most of the time it's been used in American politics. I reverted. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: I did some copyediting for this article, and found it to be both well-written and exhaustively researched. In other words, it's a Moni3 piece par excellence. Well done! Scartol • Tok 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I don't think I have read an article with better referencing etc. Nice layout too. Dincher (talk)`

Comments I've just copyedited this again. It's very close. I left a bunch of hidden comments about some questions I had. Maralia (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• On your blind edits: in an article about how it was necessary for gay people to be secret and there were no places to go, I think it's worth pointing out that organizations like the DOB and Mattachine could only meet in private homes.

• Hm. Not to split hairs, but do you realize that we haven't explicitly said that about either Mattachine or DOB? Nothing is said in this paragraph about where Mattachine met, and about DOB, we only said that the women met in their living rooms to form it. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both Mattachine and the DOB formed in private homes, and met there for the first years of their existences. Let me think of how to incorporate that. If you're sharper than I am right now, Dan, feel free to add it. I'm drawing a spectacular blank. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can add a ref that covers it, Intimate Matters by D'Emilio and Freedman, later tonight. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I take that back, this might not be everything we need. The ref is "D'emilio, John, and Freedman, Estelle B (1988). Intimate Matters, Harper & Row. ISBN 0060158557". The quote from page 320 is: "During the fifties, these groups struggled to exist, as they operated with scanty resources, no models for how to proceed, and the ever-present threat of police harrassment. But they did survive, establishing chapters in several cities..." That's something but it doesn't talk about where they met. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Naw, man. I have the sources (Mattachine: Marucs, p. 24-25 and DOB: Gallo, Marcia (2006). Different Daughters: A History of the Daughters of Bilitis and the rise of the Lesbian Rights Movement, Seal Press. ISBN 1580052525 p. 1-5) but after my little drinking binge there, maybe I can take another look at integrating the fact that both groups formed in private homes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A'ight. I expanded at the pleasure of Maralia. --Moni3 (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be the dirtiest thing anyone has said to me all week. What have you been drinking? Maralia (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish cream. But my statement there was a play on presidential appointees who "Serve at the pleasure of the president". If you took it dirty, that's all you, guttertramp. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Elephant Walk Bar in San Francisco was famous in the mid 1970s, in part, for being the first gay bar to have plate glass windows out front. The plywood at the Stonewall was seen as necessary (as reported by my sources) to keep the police either from seeing into the bar from the street, or coming through the windows during a raid. While raids were routine almost down to procedural in the bar, the police didn't necessarily respect the property of bars they were raiding. Having to chop through plywood was a deterrent.

• Okay. Could we change "to prevent the police from raiding the bar" to "to deter police from raiding the bar"? Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what is causing the confusion in Rejection of gay subculture. If I can explain it here, I will. Just let me know.

• The section that confused me was this:

The Stonewall riots marked such a significant turning point that many aspects of gay and lesbian subculture developed before Stonewall were denied and forcefully ignored. Historian Martin Duberman writes, "The decades preceding Stonewall ... continue to be regarded by most gays and lesbians as some vast neolithic wasteland". In particular was bar culture, or reflections of secrecy and shame that were developed out of necessity.

The last sentence refers to something prior ("in particular was"), but it's not clear what. Additionally, "reflections of" doesn't make any sense to me. Is the gist of this bit (excluding the quote) something like "The Stonewall riots marked such a significant turning point that many aspects of prior gay and lesbian subculture, such as the bar culture and decades of shame and secrecy, were forcefully ignored and even denied"? I'm not asking you to adopt that phrasing - only trying to understand your intent so I can better explain my confusion. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you nailed it, Maralia. Done! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Everything else in a blind edit I will be changing here in a moment. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Here are some comments:

• Why is "undersecretary of state" in the first section not capitalized? I believe this is a proper title. And, who was the Undersecretary of State at the time, who made the statement. Since you are providing a quote, I suggest being more specific here.
• "The case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which in 1958 ruled that One, Inc. could mail its materials through the U.S. Postal Service." - might it be better to link "the case" or just "case" to the article on that case, rather than liking "went to the Supreme Court"? and the "Supreme Court" could link to the Supreme Court of the United States.
• "Tthe social repression of the 1950s " - typo there.
• There are some New York Times citations in the article. Are these articles available online? if so, they should be linked.
• The sources appear all reliable.

Not specifically related to this article, but I noticed the 1969 photo of Stonewall Inn was submitted by the "Contact us" OTRS system. Do you know if the New York Public Library submitted it? are they submitting others? or did the photographer submit it? Having this image in the article adds a lot, and it would be good to get others for other articles. --Aude (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Undersecretary capitalized, I think. Maybe I need Dank55's help on that. I don't know. I mean, an office should not be capitalized unless it's a title: The senator from Illinois said... vs. Senator Barack Obama said... similar with "president". Ack! Dan!
  • You're right on the money with "president" and "senator" Moni3, but anything would look slightly awkward here ... undersecretary of State? undersecretary of state? I'd go with Undersecretary of State X, where X is their last name. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'll get the guy's name in my source, which is at home right now. Give me 8 hours or so.
• If only because I wanted the Supreme Court case linked to a larger word than "case". Because "case" linked by itself seems like overlinking. If you want it changed, I can do that, though.
• I blame the Tt on Maralia's very helpful copyedit *cough* but it's changed.
• Some of the NYT stories are pay-per-view. Do you still want them linked?
• I contacted the New York Public Library (Tom Lisanti in the digital collections department) for this article and for the images in Barbara Gittings. I wrote a very humble and almost apologetic email asking for permission to use the images. For Gittings' article, he allowed only two from the Kay Lahusen/Barbara Gittings collection. But he seemed a lot more agreeable to use the Diana Davies image of the Stonewall Inn. So be nice if you contact him. I, however, submitted the actual image to OTRS. Image:Stonewall Inn 1969.jpg I actually uploaded to Wiki, attached it to the permissions given by the NYPL, but an OTRS volunteer also uploaded it to Commons. Li'l bit o' confusion there, but I sent them the image, which is what I think you were asking.
• Thanks for the review, Aude! --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - With the changes, the article looks good. It's well-written, solidly sourced, etc. Also, thanks for the answer regarding the NYPL. I have seen material from Library of Congress and other such sources appear on Flickr, so was hoping the NYPL photos were part of some project (that I was unaware of) to submit content to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, it's good to see they were willing to help out in this case. --Aude (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the OTRS aspect, Moni3 forwarded us the email with the photo attached, and since I couldn't find it on Wikipedia or Commons anywhere, I uploaded it myself. I probably shouldn't have put the source as the Contact us page, but I like to advertise that wherever possible. :) howcheng {chat} 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [2].

---

Farthest South

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

This is a departure from my normal menu of expedition histories and explorer biogs - a general account of the convergence on the South Pole from the sixteenth century to Amundsen's 1911 conquest. It may seem at times a bit like an extended school geography lesson, but I think it's more interesting than that. The article has been through GA and PR, and has been extended and improved since then, so I hope it's of FA quality now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Wikipedia seems to have quite the coverage of the South Pole. Very interesting articles, indeed. :-)
  • "To quite the coverage?" Something missing? Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed, whoops. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.mundoandino.com/ a reliable source?
  • This is a very large site which provides exhaustive information about South America, its islands, mountains etc. I have only really looked in detail at the Diego Ramirez page, where the information seems to be spot-on accurate from what I know from other sources, and very thoroughly and professionally displayed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, since the information is available in other sources, do you think you could replace it with those? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I can find nothing in or about mundoandino.com that indicates anything to make it a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, the more I look into it, this: Enjoy! Your amigos of MundoAndino.com. at the bottom of the page doesn't bode well for reliability. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, I've changed the source to Knox-Johnston. The MondoAndino site was essentially for travellers, but it did have some interesting information in it. However,I've transferred it to external lnks.Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/magellan.html reliable?
  • Well, it was prepared by the Applied History Research Group at the University of Calgary. It apears to be factually accurate, and I've no reason to doubt its reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Works for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP), from a Royal Bank of Canada Teaching Development Grant (TDO) ?? Reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Where is that? Did I miss that in the article? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Sandy, what is it about STEP involvement that casts doubt on the reliablity of the source? Or is it the Bank of Canada you are questioning? The reliability of a source depends, surely, on how and by whom the material was prepared. This site was prepared by a reputable University department, and is supported by a lengthy bibliography. I'd replace it if there were convincing reasons for suspecting it, but at present I don't see them. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
            • If we click on "Home" from the source and follow up by clicking on "The Applied History Research Group" link, we are brought to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/. I think we can rely on the information on that page to believe that the tutorials are reliable. Quote: "Given the inter-disciplinary nature of these tutorials, committees were formed to guide their content, design, and production. The steering committees are made up of subject experts from applicable departments and faculties at the University of Calgary, Red Deer College, and Mount Royal College. History students at the senior undergraduate honours level and graduate level make up the project teams and are responsible for the research, the narrative, and the web design for each of these tutorials. " Students might be the authors, but they are edited by professors of the relevant fields. Jappalang (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well I think it's an extended school geography lesson :P Image comments:
  • Image:Magellan 1810 engraving.jpg appears to have some vandalism/inappropriate cmts on the image page.
  • Image:James Clark Ross.jpg has duplicate headings.
  • All images have proper dates/licenses/authors, et al, but the image description pages are absolute messes. It would be nice if there were all formatted using templates and proper headings.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments—There are elements of beauty in the writing, but it does need fixing here and there. Someone else, very good, needs to go through it very critically. I almost wrote "Support", but I'd like to come back in a while and re-evaluate. It's very promising.

• • Thank you for those kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why the laboured title? Needs to be more explicit so that search words will locate it. Why the initial caps when it appears in the main text?
  • I'm surprised you think a two-word title is "laboured". I could call the article "Convergence on the South Pole", but that would be laboured. Or is it the parenthetical addition you don't like? As to the capitalisation, Farthest South as a concept is frequently capitalised in polar literature, and equally frequently not. To me the term lacks some impact when not capitalised. It's a question of preference, but I accept there are other views. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Rather than the sexist language, why not "reach by explorers"? There's another instance, "men", shortly after. Not necessary, and rather exclusionary nowadays.
  • Remiss of me to retain the sexist language. Both have been changed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Belief in this land persisted well into the 18th century"—Surely the 19th century (you've already mentioned 1773, so I'm confused; belief in the existence of this land"?
  • "the existence of" is good, and I've incorporated this. Belief in the existence of a fertile southern land persisted into the 18th century until knocked on the head by Captain Cook. Thereafter, although belief in the land continued to exist, they knew it would be barren. I have clarified this in the text.
• You give years for Cook's voyages (twice), but leave us in the dark for Weddell's and Ross's: "in the early 19th century"? (I'm guessing.)
  • You guess (more or less) correctly - first half of 19th century, now included in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Again, why R and P?
  • Less justification for these, so I've removed them. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• "the honour of first achieving the ultimate Farthest South, by reaching the South Pole itself, fell to the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911"—No; this sounds as though he was somehow appointed to do it first. Reword. Tony (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (last point) Reworded.Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PS These are examples from the lead alone. Tony (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am arranging for someone is going to go through the text, as you suggest. Thank you for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support (from Ruhrfisch). I have read this and feel it meets all the FA criteria, as it is well written, has sound references and excellent images. My quibbles follow but are ideas / suggestions, and not actionable requests (except for the full stop):

• First caption - The Amundsen-Scott South Polar Station is shown in the background, across a field of ridged frozen ice, or "sastrugi" this is a complete sentence and needs a full stop. Also isn't all ice "frozen"? Is the word "frozen" really needed?
  • Agreed both points. Also I've wikilinked sastrugi.
• Would it make sense to include the fact that the South Pole is at 90 degrees south early on? Also in the "Other discoveries" section, would it make sense to give the degrees south for each of these places - most people will not be familiar with how far south the Falklands or South Georgia are? This might also be useful for some other locations described that are not new records.
  • To the first point, yes. To the second, I'm not so sure. This article is about the convergence on the South Pole, not, basically, about the general discoveries of land in southern latitudes, of which those mentioned in the article are just a few examples, to provide some historical continuity. To put extra information in on these marginal areas might smack of the "extended geography lesson" (see comments at top) which I am anxious to avoid.
• Would it make sense to briefly mention the subsequent activities at the South Pole - the establishment of the base there, etc? Perhaps a brief "Legacy" section?
  • Excellent idea - why didn't I think of that? It will be done.
    • The new section looks fine, I agree it should not be much longer. WOuld it make sense to add that the station was built and is now supplied by materials brought in by air? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Would a map of Antarctica and nearby land masses, perhaps with numbered dots to show the various Farthest South records, be useful next to the table of records?
  • I'd certainly consider this, but I would need help with the map-making. It could take a while.
    • I made a quick base map here Image:Antarctic farthest south map.png - would something like this work? If so we can discuss it on my talk page or the article's talk page. If not, I will delete the map. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I will discuss on your talkpage Brianboulton (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done overall and congratulations on a very interesting article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I have scrutinised every sentence of this fascinating article. I have made a few edits, but if I have introduced any errors please, please revert them. (I am not as gifted as Tony). Brian has a beautiful writing style; where others tend to write in absolute past tenses, Brian brings life to his prose and allows the reader to re-live the adventures. I fully support this article's FA candidature. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That is most generous - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I just gave this a thorough copyedit. I left one hidden comment on a very minor issue. This is well written and engaging; a featured topic just waiting to happen. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Maralia. I picked up the hidden comment re Puerto San Julian & dealt with it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "After such routes had been established and the main geographical features of the earth had been broadly mapped, the lure for mercantile adventurers was the great fertile continent which, according to myth, lay hidden in the south."

Should "south" be capitalised here?

I tend to capitalise "south" when it is a specific reference, as in "Deep South", or "Farthest South", but not when it is a general direction. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "despite occasional glimpses of what polar historian Roland Huntford describes as "the baleful truth", in the form of the icy and inhospitable islands that were discovered in the waters of Southern Ocean."

If these "occasional glimpses" were the discoveries, then would "that were discovered" be redundant? The phrase "waters of" might be redundant as well, considering we are talking about islands and an ocean (although the phrasing sounds nice).

You are right on both counts: you cannot "discover" glimpses, and oceans are made of water. A case of over-enthusiastic phrase-making, I fear. I have removed the redundancies. Brianboulton (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts! Perhaps a moot point, but it was actually Huntford's "baleful truth" that was occasionally glimpsed. This truth was manifested by the discoveries of islands. With this in mind I have partially restored my original wording, but please feel free to comment further if you think it necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... so what you mean is that people believed in Terra Australis despite occasional glimpses of Huntford's "baleful truth", which is later backed up (proven) by the discoveries? In that case, "the baleful truth" needs clarification. I presume "the baleful truth" is that there is no temperate or tropical fertile land at the farthest south, and the "glimpses" were of the evidence to this truth. Could we go with "Belief in the existence of this land of plenty persisted well into the 18th century, people were reluctant to believe what polar historian Roland Huntford later described as "the baleful truth"—a cold, harsh environment in the south whose existence was borne out by the discoveries of icy and inhospitable islands in the Southern Ocean."? Jappalang (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have put the two versions - yours and mine - side by side, and quite honestly, to me either is acceptable. However, I like your reference to "a cold, harsh environment", so I'm going for your amendment, very slightly modified.Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "After the first confirmed landing on continental Antarctica was finally achieved, in the late 19th century, the quest for Farthest South latitudes became, in effect, the "race for the pole"."

Does "After the first confirmed landing on continental Antarctica in the late 19th century, the quest for Farthest South latitudes became, in effect, the "race for the pole"." read better?

Yes, smoother.

• "However, the first ultimate Farthest South, the South Pole itself at 90°S, was achieved by the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911."

Somehow, I think there is no other ultimate Farthest Souths, right (there is no more south than 90°S)? Hence, there could not be a first ultimate, but only the ultimate; so, "However, the first man to reach the ultimate Farthest South, the South Pole itself at 90°S, was the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, in December 1911."

I made a somewhat hamfisted attempt to change this sentence in response to an earlier review comment. Your version is more elegant, and I'll use it. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Early voyagers

• "The early voyagers of the 16th and 17th centuries were not seeking high southern latitudes, but the expansion of trade routes."

Although the lead does introduce the article, it is a summary. I sort of feel that the first section should introduce the reader to the greater text. Something just did not click for me on reading this opening sentence. I would think of something like "In the 16th and 17th centuries, voyagers were seeking to expand trade routes and looked for various routes to shorten the travel time or new trading grounds. Knowing that the seas to the North are filled with ice, they viewed the unexplored South as a possible venue of new routes." By the way what are "high southern latitudes"?

I agree that the intro to this section was rather weakly worded, and I have strengthened it, though not quite in the way you suggested. I think it important to mention that Spanish-Portuguese maritime rivalry was the chief factor that precipitated the search for a SW route to the Pacific, and I'd rather not draw in the ice-filled waters of the north. I'm not sure at what point people realised that the waters of the north were filled with ice - Frobisher's voyages were 50 years after Magellan - and I don't want to lose the focus of this article. Tell me if you think the revised intro is stong enough. "High southern latitudes" means latitudes tending towards 90°, but the phrase no longer appears in the text.Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent introduction. I do have to clarify that my suggestion did not exclude the mention of the Spaniard-Portugeuse rivalry (it would have your original mention of them as follow-on sentences). Your change is much better. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan

• "Because little if anything ..."

I think we are generally advised against starting sentences with the "Because" conjunction...

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Here Magellan found a deep inlet which, on investigation, proved to be the strait he was seeking, later to be known by his name."

Could we work in a link to Straits of Magellan in there?

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The end of this paragraph is a bit abrupt when considering the subsequent sub-sections. Perhaps a "His discovery of this south passage round the continent encouraged other expeditions to explore this route." or such statement to connect the sub-sections?

I'm not too sure about this. His discovery was of a passage through, not round the continent, and was accepted for 50+ years as the only route to the Pacific (Hoces's accidental "discovery" notwithstanding). Investigation of the Drake Passage really only began with the Nodal brothers, 90 years after Magellan. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, on re-reading, the flow was fine. My initial reaction was overly-critical. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Francisco de Hoces

• Drake needs to be introduced rather than just named "Drake" here. "British privateer Sir Francis Drake" can set up the context for why he would plunder, not explore, in the next sub-section.

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Francis Drake

• "Following Magellan's route, Drake reached Port St Julian on 20 June, where he stayed for nearly two months before sailing south, with his fleet now reduced to three ships and a small pinnace."

Would breaking it up into "Following Magellan's route, Drake reached Port St Julian on 20 June. Harbouring for nearly two months, Drake left the port with a reduced fleet of three ships and a small pinnace." work?

Fixed - except I don't like "harbouring" in this context so I've slightly reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "driven far to westward and southward"

I am not certain "to ...ward" is sound. Am I right to say it is more customary to hear "driven far west- and southward" or "driven far to the west and south"?

Fixed (your latter suggestion) Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Garcia de Nodal expedition

• "... brothers Bartolome and Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal leading the Garcia de Nodal expedition. During the course of their passage the expedition discovered a small group of islands about 60 miles (100 km) SW of Cape Horn, at latitude 56°30’S, which they named the Diego Ramirez Islands after their pilot, Diego Ramirez."

I believe the "Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal leading the Garcia de Nodal expedition" is a case of noun plus -ing. Perhaps "... brothers Bartolome and Gonzalo Garcia de Nodal. Their Garcia de Nodal expedition discovered a small group of islands about 60 miles (100 km) SW of Cape Horn, at latitude 56°30’S, during the exploration of the Drake Passage. The islands were named the Diego Ramirez Islands after the expedition's pilot."

I've more or less followed your suggestion, with a slight tweak. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Captain James Cook

• "second great voyage"

Heh, a bit biased, perhaps?

Yeah - great no more. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

James Clark Ross

• "carry out work on magnetism"

Would replacing "work" with "research" be better?

The "work" was largely the recording of data rather than investigating it. They usually used the word "work" to describe their activities - the word "research" would have been thought of by them as effete and French ("recherche"). Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sits fine with me. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Carsten Borchgrevink

• "following Ross's route of 60 years previously"

I would suggest "following the route Ross had taken 60 years previously", based on a little joke I was thinking of how Ross took 60 years to travel his route (perhaps it is just my silly little mind).

Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Falcon Scott

• "The Discovery Expedition of 1901–04 was Captain Scott's first Antarctic command. The published objectives of the expedition made no mention of the South Pole, but a southern journey was within Scott’s remit to "explore the ice barrier of Sir James Ross [...] and to endeavour to solve the very important physical and geographical questions connected with this remarkable ice formation". <break> This southern journey was undertaken by Scott, Edward Wilson and Ernest Shackleton. Although, according to Wilson, the intention was to "reach the Pole if possible, or find some new land", there is nothing in Scott's writings to suggest that the Pole was a definite goal."

There seems to be a tad of redundancy: both paragraphs state that the expedition's publishings mentioned no objective on making towards the South Pole. The two paragraphs could be merged.

Agreed, and merged. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Polar conquest

• "Then followed the ascent, via the newly discovered Axel Heiberg Glacier, to the plateau, and the final march to the Pole."

Who is the subject?

Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is about all I can nitpick on. Likely, several are not actionable based on personal subjectiveness. Generally, the article is in excellent shape. Jappalang (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these numerous suggestions, most of which are now incorporated into the text. Where I haven't done so, I have explained why. I appreciate the care taken towards enhancing the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I, in turn, fully support this article to be a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support A very impressive article you've written. I've made a couple minor wording tweaks in the past couple days, but feel free to revert if you don't agree with them. While this looks like a drive-by support with little meaning, this is clearly one of the most well-written articles I've seen at FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [3].

---

Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings

Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)

The Age of Kings is arguably the best real-time strategy video game ever made. I've worked on this one a great deal lately as part of the V 0.7 push. It had a fair bit of copyediting done by Pagrashtak and I think it's ready now. Of course I'm happy to act on any comments raised here. Giggy (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment FA is above my ability so I'm not actively participating, but here's a few suggestions which may (or may not) be of relevance:

*Where are the images?

• • I read User:Angr#A parable and found it quite convincing. Since all the reviews linked (heck, most of the pages linked) as sources contain screenshots, I was seeing what reaction going without a screenshot would get. Do you think I should include one? Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*Do single and multiplayer modes need sub-headings? They both look like they would slide onto the end of the main gameplay section, multiplayer in particular is extremely short for a subsection.

• • Merged as suggested. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*I see the acronym RTS being used but it isn't listed in brackets after the first example of 'Real Time Strategy'.

• • Clarified (in lead). Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*"The three human classes of military" (when describing the rock-paper-scissors mechanic) shouldn't that be three classes of infantry? Standard infantry can be referred to as just that in order to separate them from the general infantry class. Using 'human' there almost leads me to expect talk of lizardmen or cat-headed women (whoops, wrong game).

• • I have it that way because that includes archers and cavalry, the latter of which doesn't really fall under infantry. (And because one of the classes is referred to in-game as "infantry", so it could get confusing.) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*"Resources can be converted to and from gold at the player's market." Resources can be bought or sold for gold at the player's market, causing the market price to fluctuate with every transaction?

• • Done as suggested. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Good luck with the nomination, Congrats and thank you for your work on this important VG article. Someoneanother 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking a look :-) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A comment: my guess is lack of images is due to the fact that there aren't any that are free that could be used appropriately within the article. The one of the cover is OK, but any more are simply decoration, and cannot be used as per our fair use rules. I'll see if I can give this article a look through. AOE rocks! (And yes, my nick is based on the cobra car cheat :D) -- how do you turn this on 00:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Free encyclopedia and all. (Love the username, incidentally ;-).) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments ref #31 needs a page number, though otherwise sources look good; links check out with the link checker. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Giggy (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I've done a copy-edit of the article, fixing some awkward phrasings and such. I plan to continue this later. Issues:
  • There are problems with the citation of references, however, specifically with datelinks. If you'll notice, half of the dates appended to the web refs are linked, while the latter-halfish is not. This should be remedied.
  • The section on Buildings section is poorly referenced, but I'm working on that now.

I'll come up with more comments soon. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All the refs should now be formatted consistently. For the buildings section see my 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC) comment to How do you turn this on. Giggy (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: "Where are all the images" is a long way from "I'm having difficulty visualizing some concepts". I encourage folks to judiciously engage NFCC#8 before adding or suggesting images. If the article can be understood without them, they probably won't be supported. Эlcobbola _talk 01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's fair enough, but considering how many points referred to in the article could be illustrated with a single screenshot, I think there's at least a case for suggesting one. For instance, the graphics themselves are given a lot of scrutiny in regards to their quality, the scale is praised, the formations are praised, a wealth of different units are on offer, the villagers being both genders are discussed. A single image could show a group of misc. units in formation in a walled town, next to a castle or wonder, with villagers working in the background - it wouldn't be decoration, it'd be a visual reference for several aspects of the game specifically highlighted in the article. Whether that's enough or not I'll leave to you guys. Someoneanother 01:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with someone here. A single screenshot could provide a ton of illustrative information if properly framed. If a review screenshot doesn't quite have all the contents you want, I'd go and take a screenshot of the game yourself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a screenshot. Giggy (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• "...highly popular Age of Empires..." Is it necessary to say it's highly popular?
  • Not a necessity, so I've removed it. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...The civilizations have varying strengths and weaknesses with regard to..." Should that not be "regards"? (I don't know personally)
  • Fixed. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...Civilian units, called "Villagers"..." Is villagers capitalized?
  • No, fixed. I don't think it's treated as a proper noun in-game. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...There are five campaigns in The Age of Kings, based on historically-based sets of scenarios..." Only three appear to be mentioned... and only briefly. Maybe a brief idea of what happens on each scenario would be good.
  • Uggh. Copyediting hasn't treated that sentence favourably. Improved, hopefully. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...Every player has a "population" limit..." Why is population in quotes?
  • Reworded that sentence. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why is Town Center capitalized?
  • It's treated as a proper noun in-game, if memory serves. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• ..."Extensive cheating in multiplayer games of Age of Empires..." Is cheating supposed to link directly to where it does?
  • Ooh, didn't know we have a Cheating in video games article. Improved link target. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

-- how do you turn this on 12:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've replied inline. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I also notice some sections have very sparse citations, and the Units section has only 2, and Buildings only 1. Is everything covered in those references (I had a look at the refs, all seem reliable). -- how do you turn this on 12:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally the gameplay sections are cited to the game itself. Those references are used for stuff that might be a bit more contentious, if I recall (just got on now, yet to look at the comments above in detail). Giggy (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (David Fuchs) - "arguably the best real-time strategy video game ever made", emphasis on "arguably", I'm sure the Starcraft fans might disagree :P (then again, I've never been able to win a game without typing in those cheats, so who am I to complain.)
  • Agree that there should be some more sourcing in the gameplay section. Just use the gigantic manual the game comes with.
  • "The sequel to Age of Empires, The Age of Kings continued its historically themed real-time strategy trend." feel this is unnecessary with the earlier paragraph's statements and awkward to boot. Hell the entire second paragraph needs some rephrasing. Why not point out the historical time period (the Middle ages) in the first sentence, and then talk about objectives?
  • No mention of campaign/gametypes in the lead?
• " Some reviewers were critical of the presentation of units, which were seen as bland and uninteresting, others with The Age of Kings' similarity to Age of Empires" the way this is phrased, "others" isn't exactly clear.
• "The game won multiple awards and has had a significant impact on future games in the its genre." Let's play spot the bad word addition!
• more to come... (reply to it all in a block below these, if you please.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they should all be fixed. But in order... I've lost my copy of the game (snifs) but I'm going to add a bit more sourcing to the gamplay section. The other stuff is reworded/done as suggested. Giggy (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said, there's the full manual on Replacementdocs, so you shouldn't have any issue citing statements in gameplay. More comments (reply in a block below them, please):
  • "Like many real-time strategy games" - who cares? Just talk about this game.
  • "There are five campaigns in The Age of Kings, each containing" - redundancy
  • "The four major resources" - are there more than four? Last time I checked...
  • "The Age of Kings supports multiplayer over the Internet, or via a LAN" spell out LAN
  • " A multiplayer game can incorporate up to eight players, with all of the single player game modes available. The MSN Gaming Zone supported the game, until the service closed on June 19, 2006. Alternative services, such as GameSpy Arcade, were recommended as a replacement.[9]" Why say 'incorporate'? Why not just state how many players. Also, what about the Mac platform multiplayer (Gameranger?)
  • "Walls and towers are defensive structures and cannot train units. Another type of building available is the Wonder—" Um, that was an abrupt change of subject, especially for the beginning of a paragraph.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again David. All the comments have been resolved. Giggy (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments (adding down here to prevent loss of my remarks from above):
  • Reception and legacy - last paragraph feels very short and disjointed. There are several references to points that I think need expansion. How did the tournament go? Is there anything more that could be said about it? How official is the guidebook really? The three key concepts also seem to be rather unrelated and out-of-place, and seem to constitute a somewhat weak and mispositioned end to the article (I know it requires no true "end", but why are those things in particular mentioned last?)

May be more soonish. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

About the tournament, what's in the article is all I've been able to find. Everything else refers to a tournament for the expansion, The Conquerors. The guidebook, as far as I can see, is "official" in the sense that the game's designer wrote it. He probably knows the game best. I see your point, however, but I, um, don't really have any ideas on what to do to improve it. Do you have any ideas? Giggy (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe integration elsewhere is needed. I'm not sure. I'll keep pondering. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've integrated it elsewhere. I think it is fine now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Great article. However, I suggest a table of civilizations would add more value and information to the article; something like this:

Civilizations in The Age of Kings
Britons	Byzantines
Celts	Chinese
Franks	Goths
Japanese	Mongols
Persians	Saracens
Teutons	Turks
Vikings

And about the images, I'm not knowledgeable about copyrights issues, but I used to see in video game websites tons of screenshots for each game. Did they all get permission to use them? Why isn't the case here? Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems to be leaning too much towards a game guide, don't you think? With the images, the review websites probably do get permission of some sort from Microsoft/ES. However, we work based on our own non free content criteria and a core aspect of that is to use as little non free material as possible. Hence there isn't a multitude of images. Giggy (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about it; that's why I didn't insert the table right away. The idea came when I was reading article, and it occurred to me to know out of curiosity which civilizations were included. Anyways, It's just a minor suggestion. Eklipse (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• A note: "...is a real-time strategy (RTS) computer game.." - is it not a computer AND video game, considering the PS2 release? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Also: many of the ref names have the term "Age of Kings" in them, but the web titles do not have the italicised form of the game's title. Should they be, or do we not bother with the italicising of web ref titles? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • VG stuff clarified. I'm not sure what the deal is with ref titles; I've never italicised them... some do, others don't. I don't know that it matters. Giggy (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - this article looks to be in pristine condition. Well done Giggy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Leaning toward support by karanacs. I thought this was a well-written article. I am actually a big fan of this game, though, so I may have missed places where there is too much video game terminology. Some comments:

• Should the article mention that a player can have multiple town centers, or is that too much detail?
• Quotes should have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means duplicating the reference in subsequent sentences. Check Reception and legacy for issues with this.
• There is no mention of priests/monks. I would consider this a special category of unit that needs it own brief explanation.
• What makes this about.com site a reliable source? Michael Klappenbach. "Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings Game Page". about.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-28. [4]

Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Karen. In order; I think the multiple Town Center stuff is probably too much detail (especially when it's not as big a deal in this game as in, say, Age of Mythology). I checked the reception section and fixed one quote/ref issue, let me know if I missed any. I added some info on monks. Re. the source, according to about.com they have experts in their field writing everything up, and Michael Klappenbach has some qualifications. I haven't found much about him, however, elsewhere on the Internet so I've tentatively removed that reference and statement it was sourcing. Let me know if you think the page linked to is enough for reliability. Thanks again for your comments. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that the about.com is reliable, so I appreciate you taking it off. Good work overall! Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments - David Fuchs
  • "The Age of Kings was to be similar in design to its predecessor, but the design team were careful not to make it too alike. Nonetheless, they attempted to appeal to the vast demographic who played Age of Empires." This doesn't do much for me. Rephrase to be less awkward? The design team was conscious of attempting to capture the broad appeal of the first game without making the game's design too similar" or something.
  • "Because the original AI did not "cheat"," - perhaps a parenthetical would help for non-gamers here, explaining what "cheat" means in this case?
  • "To overcome the other significant objection" - I'm sure there were other objections, so change to "another"
  • "he complained of" - complained about?
  • "It and the trigger system were able to interact, and this was used heavily in the game's campaigns" - passive voice, revise (definitely don't start a sentence with 'it' if you can!)
  • The last sentence of development should be put into a paragraph somewhere.
  • There are some places where refs don't come in the proper progression, e.g. [35][34]. Fix 'em!
  • Ditto with the lone sentence of the reception; doesn't really seem that important, so consider removing.
  • I suggest taking the influence of AoE II and expanding it into a subjection of reception, 'Legacy'. Then, I suggest adding information about the later games in the series, something along the lines of Myst. It doesn't have to be as detailed, but something along those lines.
  • I still think a general gameplay image in the gameplay section would be highly desirable, illustrating the villagers, et al. If you upload it I can write a kickass fair use rationale if you need it :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Most of these are done. The last sentence of development I just removed, it was originally in legacy but it really wasn't doing much anywhere (same with reception). The reception and legacy section (ironically :P) does talk about legacy but I added some extra details as suggested. Not sure on another image; the one being used contains some of the stuff you've asked for (if you want to move it and change the caption a bit, be my guest. The rest should be done. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Eh, really, I think a better representational image can be found. Also, it's so small as to make identifying game aspects impossible. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Is this the sort of thing you're after? Giggy (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • It's far better, yes. You can talk about the female villagers and the lot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
          • OK, added to the article. To clarify, do you think I should use it and the other screenshot, or just this one (leaning towards just this one)? Giggy (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah, axe the cathedral, it's not really that important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• support' Ok, that takes care of my issues, I'll support now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great game, great article. All issues appear to be fixed. -- how do you turn this on 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [5].

---

Steve Bruce

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

I've been working on this article on and off for what seems like about two years, constantly getting distracted and wandering off onto something else. I've now finally knuckled down and got it to what I feel is FA standard, feel free to agree or disagree :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.setanta.com/en/UK/
• http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=sport-qqqm=sport-qqqa=sport-qqqid=71937-qqqx=1.asp deadlinks

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• setanta.com is the website of Setanta Sports, one of Europe's leading sports TV networks. And examiner.ie is the website of The Irish Examiner, a daily national newspaper in the Republic of Ireland. I see no problem with either as a reliable source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, early morning typo. Didn't mean to question the Examiner, just point out that it deadlinks. Corrected above. And I'm in the heart of the Midwest in the US, I'm not always familiar with European news networks, thanks for the explanation! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The deadlink has now been removed, the sentence in question is still referenced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've just found the new URL of the Irish Examiner piece, so I'll put it back in........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

comment - I am unconvinced Image:SteveBruceAutoBio.jpg meets WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're probably right. I've now removed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - First off, assuming that they check out, I love the pictures. It's so rare to see a free photo from the 1980s here. That said, I'm a prose and MoS reviewer by trade. Let's see if there's anything to fix...

• Early life: Second Newcastle United link isn't needed.
• Playing career, Gillingham: The season links don't need to be piped anymore. En dashes are now in the titles. About time the soccer people made that change.
• Another Newcastle United link in there.
• Also an extra Football League Cup link here. And one for old Wembley Stadium.
• Manchester United: "was described in 2006 by the then United captain, Gary Neville, as the best in the club's history." "then United" needs a hyphen, I would imagine.
• "with the result that Bruce captained the team..." This seems strange. How about "which led to Bruce captaining the team..." I don't like which or the somewhat passive voice, come to think of it. You'll have to find something better, I guess. There's a reason I'm only a reviewer.
• "championsip of English football since 1967." And they've gone on to many more championsips since. :-)
• "at a time when Premier League rules restricted the number of foreign players which a club could include in its team." I'd really prefer "that a club could include in its team", as again I'm not a big fan of which.
• Extra Chelsea and Everton links. Also a Newcastle link again.
• "having agreed a contract valued at..." Missing word here.

My main advice is to audit for overlinking, because I'm catching a lot of it. A run-through for hyphens couldn't hurt either, as I'm seeing a few places where they could be added. One example is "twelve point" in 1995-96. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Both the photos from the 1980s were taken by myself, so they're definitely OK. And I'm just in the process of correcting the various typos, etc, in another window :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I will say, however, that the season links do in fact still need to be piped, otherwise you'd end up with things like "Bruce spent the 1978–79 in English football season in Gillingham's reserve team", which reads like complete garbage...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking it as 1978–79 season might make it clearer. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Anyway, I'm back to offer more comments.

• Picky, but a space between references [59][60] [61].
• Later playing career: "which fuelled rumours that the manager was to be dismissed..." Is "fuelled" British English? Not sure about this one yet. At least I know rumours is good.
• Style of play: "He was well known for carrying on playing even when injured..." Don't think the double ing reads that well. How about "He was well known for continuing to play even when injured..."
• Early managerial career: "The team continued to struggle at the start to the 2000-01 season,..." Tos are repetitive. I'd replace the second with of.
• Return to Wigan Athletic: The linked date in here should be removed.
• Other activities: Comma after autobiography? (don't mean the book, which already has one; I mean the word.)

That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments. Yes, "fuelling" rumours is perfectly good British English. Everything else I'll fix tomorrow morning, right now my wife wants to get online :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now, sorry for the delay -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments. Chris, the lead suggests that someone new should be brought in to copy-edit the whole text. It has promise as a nomination.

• "spell"—makes it sound as though it's a real let-down for him; "term"?
  • changed
• "Bruce was rejected"—the reader is tossed and turned back and forward chronologically. Can you iron it out, and alter the paragraph boundary too?
  • changed
• "and becoming"—remove "and"?
  • changed
• Comma after "field", probably.
  • changed
• "England" piped to the "English National Football Team". Is this hidden link wise? Readers are likely to spurn it as one of those useless links to commonly known countries.
  • changed
• "has been described as one of the best English players of the 1980s and 1990s never to appear for the national team." Since this is an ironic turn of phrase, I wonder whether "described by blah" might be better (citation not needed here in the lead if it appears further down). Otherwise, it sounds as though WP is being ironic, which is just a little POV and informal for us.
  • changed
• "Spells" again. I think of a spell in prison, or in the classroom corner.
  • changed
• More chronological jumble?
  • can't see where, could you elaborate?

My eyes strayed further down: "with Gillingham chasing promotion from"; see this. Tony (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Further to the above, I've asked other editors at the football project to provide a fresh set of eyes on my prose..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • .........and the article has now been copy-edited by User:Kevin McE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Late in the 1992-93 season, Bruce scored twice in a 2-1 win over Sheffield Wednesday (the winnier coming in the 96th minute). This was hugely significant to Man United's title win (it was the game that saw Ferguson and Brian Kidd dancing and celebrating on the pitch before full time). Probably worth a mention? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention made -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - With all my issues taken care of, this earns my support. I particularly like how his playing career is given appropriate space. It's easy to overlook this when writing about an active manager. Good job on it. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Bruce was among five former Premier League players signed by Birmingham manager Trevor Francis to add experience to a squad expected to challenge for promotion." I think you ought to say what division Birmingham were in either here or the last sentence of the previous sentence.
• There seems to be a slight inconsistency between styles for division names e.g. First Division or Division One.
• You might want to check for overlinkage. I've removed a couple of repeated links myself.
• "Birmingham made a slow start to the 2006–07 season in the Football League Championship and, after a 1–0 defeat at home to Norwich City, the team's fifth consecutive match without a win, there were calls for the manager to be sacked." Were these from fans again? Or from other people too?
• The prose looks good and the article is extensive. Peanut4 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • All points addressed now, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Above points addressed and it meets criteria 1, 2 and 4. I'm not particularly good at reviewing images at FAC, but as long as they're fine, I have no problem supporting this article. Peanut4 (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did the nominator cap the comments from me and Peanut? They're resolved, but it sets a bad precedent. Only the reviewer should be capping comments, and it should rarely be used anyway. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them. Giants, if you come across this in the future, please feel free to remove them yourself; it's stated clearly in the FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, saw it for the first time on another FAC and thought it would make the page easier to read, nothing untoward was intended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happens all the time. They cause a Template limits problem in arachives so we have to keep them to a minimum; you may have seen one from Ealdgyth, because I've asked her to continue using them, as her source reviews are often lengthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support with some things needing to be fixed. 1. Captions are long, cut them to just what they are depicting. For example "Bruce lifted the Premier League trophy on three occasions." should just read "Premier League trophy", and the body of the text should be responsible for explaining why its important. 2. The "Life outside of football" should be renamed "Personal Life" with no subheadings (all merged into one). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support but I'm not 100% happy with text squashed between images - some of the cup images are a little arbitrary - I know they're in to brighten up the overall article but avoid squashing text... And couldn't you simply say "League" instead of "Football League/Premier League" in the summary of his appearances? And " rifle through his dustbin" is a little tabloid for me... Otherwise, great work. No senior caps. What a crime (and that's a Tractor Boy talking...) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [6].

---

Germanium

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) & Stone & WP Elements

Aside from a few finishing touches, I believe the article is ready to become featured. Many thanks to various users, including Itub, Mav, Edgar181, Axiosaurus, and Jimfbleak. Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

question - Would it be possible to get an image other than Image:Lilit.jpg for the section, I would be happier if it didn't have trademark issues. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this one better? Image:Pet Flasche.JPG--Stone (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! Fasach Nua (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And me jimfbleak (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support and comments COI - I did the GA for this. It has been substantially improved since GA. However, I share the concern about the Lilt bottle, especially as it can so easily be replaced by a image of a PET bottle with the label removed. jimfbleak (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/elem/ge.html a reliable source? Granted, it's not exactly contentious information..

It lists all the references it uses at the bottom of the page. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the guy stopped updating the articles there several years ago, but I have used his articles and wherever I had to double-check his statements in the refs he gives, I did not manage to find errors. About fact-checking: is this ok? Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, it's on the fence in my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise http://science.jrank.org/pages/2398/Element-Chemical.html?

gone

• And http://www.mt-berlin.com/frames_cryst/descriptions/scintillators_gen%20.htm?

gone

• Please note the language where websites are in non-English languages.

added language tags

• Current ref 36 (Alpha Fusion Electrical Energy Valve) is lacking a publisher.

publisher added

• Current ref 47 (Brown, Jr. Robert D ...) is lacking a last access date

added accessdate

• Current ref 49 (Understanding Recordable & Rewritable DVD..) is lacking a publisher

added publisher

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes (such as ORTEC, etc.)

added full spelling to two abrevs

• What makes http://kubton.com/fuzz_guide.html reliable?

Jo the Fuzz gets expensiv this season .... I can not find a credible ref for that ;-)--Stone (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gone withe whole sentence that the pedals got expensive.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

gone

• Likewise http://www.stopcancer.com/germaniumstor.htm?

This ref is used to show that some dumb people take germanium thinking it is a miracle drug. How could anybody find a credible statement for such an idea? Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaced by a credible source--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref 47 doesn't really need an access date IMO because it is an annual report, not a website, and is not subject to change (but it should probably be cited using a different template). I agree with the points about reliability; in general a more established reference can be used instead. I'm a bit dubious in particular about the statement that germanium is the purest element ever obtained, which is attributed to one of these websites. I'd rather see a more detailed reference that compares ultrapure Ge with ultrapure Si side by side so we can really know the difference and the time when the comparison was made. --Itub (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to give access dates is to allow for the use of webarchives in case the link goes dead later. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Accessdate now.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick nitpick, please don't strike through others comments at FAC, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I'm not sure who struck my comments, but it wasn't me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!--Stone (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NO worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Almost support. The article is greatly improved since the last time I read it when it was at peer review (disclaimer: I've done a bit of copy-editing and fact-checking on this article myself). I think it is comprehensive and well referenced. The only caveats are the possibly unreliable references discussed above, and the usual minor inconsistencies in reference formatting (author names and such). --Itub (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked and found only one. Point them out an I get them! --Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are still a couple that appear to have the "firstname lastname" format: Gordon K. Teal and Masanori Kaji (I'm not sure about the latter, but it doesn't have a comma like all the other names). There are also several entries without an author. While in some cases there is truly no known author, at least "SiGe History" has an author in the page footer if you follow the link, and "Germanium for Electronic Devices" says W.K. (I don't know if those may be the author's initials or mean something else, maybe would have to check the full text). I haven't checked the other "anonymous" sources. --Itub (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

is this done?

Done. --Itub (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. The second paragraph in the Applications/Optics subsection is strange. The first sentence should be moved to the third paragraph. The last sentence duplicates the first paragraph and should be moved there. As to IR detectors, Ge is used rarely now—usually in for wavelengthes longer than 20 μm and the Ge's badgap is not so different from that of Si (1.11 eV v. 0.67 eV). I think the article should provide more complete review of Ge IR detectors. You can use this paper. Ruslik (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Right! I changed the paragraph. The point is that Germanium is not used as detector, but as optical element. So the reference you provided deals with the detectors not wit infrared optics, but I try to find a better ref.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

not done?

• Comment The pictures do not adhere to MOS. See here [7]Taprobanus (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one violates what rule?--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the guideline that says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other"? The layout looks OK if you have a big window, but not if it is say 800 px of less. --Itub (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

possibly the ones where information is in the label of the image but not in the text. perhaps move the organogermanim reaction in the uses section? Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For example Image:Renierit.JPG, is left aligned, they should all be right aligned when you begin a new section. Also dont sandwich material between two pics. Taprobanus (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The guideline about right aligning images at the beginning of a section doesn't apply there, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. This is neither the first section nor a "==="-level heading or greater. --Itub (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—It looks good, but unfortunately I have a few issues:
  • Why is it pure chloride GeCl⁴, rather than pure GeCl⁴ or germanium tetrachloride (as is used later)?

    done

  • "first major use were": was or uses?
  • "...was to be the first metallic material discovered to become superconducting..." seems awkward.

    rephrased--Stone (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "...at red heat." is vague.

    quote: Oberhalb Rotglut verbrennt es ( above redheat it burns....) Hollemann --Stone (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Then please either quote it or also give an equivalent temperature. Thanks.

all the very old references use this type of vague words...Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry to be persistent on this, but "red heat" just seems too vague. It's like saying an object is "heavy". There should be some reference that gives a solid temperature. Also, how is the reader to know that this is an old quote? It just looks like a statement of fact. By putting quotes around it and specifying the originator, the authority becomes clear.

doneNergaal (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The silicon article mentions that it remains a semiconductor at higher temperatures than germanium. You might discuss that in the Characteristics section and state at what temperature germanium stops being a semiconductor.
    • Does Figure 2.6.4 of this page help? It shows that the intrinsic carrier density of Germanium increases more slowly than Silicon for higher temperatures. But I'm not an expert so I'm unsure if I am reading it correctly.—RJH (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

not done Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the fact that Germanium is a semiconductor is a notable factor, and the behavior at high temperatures is an issue. It seems to me that this should be covered for comprehensiveness.—RJH (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The infobox lists the abundance of ⁷⁴Ge as ~36%. The text says ⁷²Ge is the most common at ~28%. These seem to conflict.

This was a conflict!--Stone (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The article should explain that β+ is a positron and β- is an electron, rather than assuming reader knowledge.

  done

  • "...none is mined because of its germanium content" is ambiguous. (it can be interpreted as hazardous, &c.)

    done

  • Please address the red links.

    done

    • Except for germanates.
      • According to SandyGeorgia, delegate of the FA director, "there's nothing wrong with redlinks and their removal is not required for FA status, unless the link is to a topic that is unlikely to attain notability". That said, I'd rather just remove the link until someone decides to create the germanate article. --Itub (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
        • So be it then; leave it as an eye-sore. ;-)—RJH (talk)
  • There are several single-sentence paragraphs. Can these be expanded or merged?

it should be ok now Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Enhanced levels of Germanium are generated by the s-process in asymptotic giant branch stars, and this shows up in planetary nebulae.[8]

done added short para--Stone (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Germanium is being used in the search for dark matter.[9][10]

the text already states that "Crystals of high purity germanium are used in detectors for gamma spectroscopy and the search for dark matter." Should this be expanded? Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Germanium sesquioxide is a herbal remedy and has medical uses.

    It's not herbal and if it is a remedy is questioned by a lot of articles. The peer reviewed journal mention it in the context of renal failure after excessive Germanium uptake and it is a minor use for germanium.--Stone (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Well it seemed to receive scholarly attention in terms of its anti-tumor qualities. (bis (2-carboxyethylgermanium) sesquioxide: CEGS.) Yes it appears to be hazardous, but it was used in the 1970s as a dietary supplement.[11] It might be worth a mention even in a negative context.

      Isn't it mentioned in the last section? Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

      fine, I added a note. Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a big issue for me. I just thought it would be good for comprehensiveness.—RJH (talk)

• Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support - Pretty good per WIAFA, but RJH has some valid points. My support is conditional to RJH being satisfied. COI - I destubbed this article in 2002 and paid a bounty on this article to get it to GA. --mav (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please see the WP:FAC instructions and remove the graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not done; OK, I did it myself. Will the nominator please do the cleanup on the FAC to help keep it readable? It is unclear who added the "not done" comments, as they are unsigned, and for me to step back through the diffs on every FAC is very time consuming. Please sign your entries, and avoid graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure why those were added; they didn't seem to help. Perhaps a bot could be written that will perform the graphics cleanup automatically? (At least for frequently-use graphics templates.)—RJH (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • The article does not look very aesthetically pleasing. There is major text squeeze in the history section, which IIRC is frowned upon.

not sure how to solve this Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move or remove one of those images? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

• • The lede seems a tad short at a quick glance - do you feel it appropriately summarizes the article?

pretty much yes-and the other element articles do a similar job. do you have something specific in mind though? Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • I was only checking if the lede covered everything. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
  • The first note (note A) needs a source.

done Nergaal (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • For accessibility purposes, the temperature units in the article (which are in Celsius) should have a corresponding value in Fahrenheit (in parenthesis). Make sure other units (weight, length, volume, when applicable) are in both metric and imperial.
  • Any need for the redlink germanates in the chemistry section? Is there another link it can go to? It's not a big deal, though.
• ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support -Excellent work. My only surprise, Mav's not here? ;) —Ceranthor (formerly LordSunday) · (Testify!) 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I paid a bounty to get this article improved while I was working on getting yttrium up to FA standards. :) --mav (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes; layout issues abound, and they are too non-standard for me to sort. Please go to the WP:ACCESS talk page and inquire if this layout is accessible and post the response back here. Also, resolve the non-reliable source: I am not a chemist, but a (map) historian much interested in the origin of names clearly does not meet WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean by layout issues, but I did post a request there. Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They'll know; I just need to know if a screen reader can process the way those images are laid out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the reference. Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed the last one in the footnotes 73 but we might substitute it by doi:10.1002/zaac.18960120138, when I have access to it.--Stone (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support on the prose. But why is "irritate" linked (to a DAB page, too)? "Nonetheless, none". Comma between "synthesized ranging". In generally, it's a little short on commas. Then again, I see commas that are unnecessary interruptions to the flow: "in the atmosphere of Jupiter,[39] and in some of the most distant stars." 1.66 ppm doesn't sound abundant. Tony (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Dablink fixed. Giggy (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • rephrased the ppm part Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The one thing that strikes me as odd are the "see also" links in the Characteristics section, which goes to the "Germanium compounds" category page, and the "see also" link going to the "Germanium minerals" category. Is there some Chemistry WikiProject style guideline for elements articles? Is linking to categories this way a standard thing for such articles? Otherwise, perhaps there should be articles to link to (stub articles okay), rather than categories.
• Otherwise, the article looks good to me and is understandable to the layreader. I'm not a chemistry expert, so can't say whether or not the article is comprehensive, or if it's citing the best sources for this topic. --Aude (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (conditional) but, you will have to fix these first - 1. The image with caption "Dmitri Mendeleev" is flush against a table. I would move the one image up and the other image down. I don't like images flush against tables because of potential formatting problems. 2. "Rinierite" and a table are under "Production". They sandwich in a subsection. This can be fixed many ways. One, remove the picture. Two, merge all of the sections under the heading "Production" since they have small paragraphs, and then move the table down so it no longer sandwiches text. 3. Remove the "see also" subheading and integrate it into the text somewhere if it is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Got rid of the "See also". Someone added it recently and I thought it was unnecessary, but then I forgot to remove it. As for the images, I'll leave that for someone with the necessary patience to play with it. Quite frankly, I think it is an insoluble problem--what looks perfect in my browser may look hideous in yours and vice versa. --Itub (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a sample version of image changes. With it, the Rinierite will need to be given a sentence in the text, otherwise, there is no in text reason for the image, which could confuse people. I hope this helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:33, 2 October 2008 [12].

---

James Russell Lowell

Nominator(s): Midnightdreary (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because, well, I think it should be considered for featured article. Let me know what you think; any help is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In James Russell Lowell#Marriage and family should "the was made up" be she was or possibly they were? ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for finding that! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I thought that might have been what it was supposed to mean. Hope the article gets FA status, for what its worth I think it deserves it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support from Maralia I made a few minor copyedit fixes here and there. Some other issues:

• Please choose 'anti-slavery' or 'antislavery' and stick with it throughout.
• "In the spring of 1845, the Lowells returned to Cambridge to make their home at Elmwood and had four children, though only one survived past infancy." - Here your habit of joining sentences got a bit out of hand, unless they really had four children in the spring of 1845 :)
• "He was asked to contribute half as often to the Standard after only one year to make room for contributions from Edmund Quincy." - 'After only one year, he was asked...' would make this clearer, I think.
• "A satire, Lowell published it anonymously and took good-natured jabs at his contemporary poets and critics" - Misplaced modifier.

• This remains an issue with the revised sentence. See dangling modifier for an explanation.

• "For six months, Lowell became depressed and reclusive" - There's a disconnect here between 'became' and 'for six months'.
• "Some speculated the offer was because of the family connection as an attempt to bring him out of his depression." - This needs rephrasing; I think it's trying to get two distinct points across, but it's not clear.

From a MOS standpoint, this article is in great shape. There wasn't a single hyphen where an endash should be, only one image needed moving, and the references are consistently formatted. Good job! I did find a couple free images you may want to consider: this shot of an inscription purportedly combining a quote from Lowell with a quote from Shakespeare; and this shot of Elmwood in 1920. Honestly I'm not sure if I'd use either, but I thought I'd let you know they're out there. Thanks for an interesting article. Maralia (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've made all the changes you've suggested (I went with "anti-slavery", by the way). Great comments (and copy edits)! --Midnightdreary (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have updated my comments above. One additional thing: the 'disambig links' tool in the box at right shows several wikilinks that link to disambiguation pages rather than specific articles. Maralia (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the disambig links; they've all been fixed. I think I've also fixed the remaining concerns from before. I made a mistake and completely misunderstood one of your suggestions. Sorry about that! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good; changed to support. Well done. Maralia (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - your thoughtful suggestions and copy edits were invaluable; I would never have caught them on my own. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• No mention of the Spanish Academy? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Err... you might have to enlighten me a bit. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• he was a member of the Spanish Academy, which he was very pleased about.
• the MLA has a prize named after him
• Currently looking for more stuff.. note that if i find many key facts missing, I'll have to Oppose based on 1b. But we're not at that point yet. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally; I would expect nothing less. I certainly didn't purposely leave out information and I try to be comprehensive with these articles but, really, that's never 100% possible. I haven't come across either of your two points in my studies of Lowell. I will look into verifiable information if it seems relevant. --15:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Found info on the Spanish Academy. I might just use the MLA web site as a source for the Lowell prize. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I added info on the MLA's JRL prize - but I'm not sure I formatted the footnote properly. I'm not much of an online source user here on Wiki. Can anyone confirm it is okay? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked both the reference format and the sentence/quote itself. Maralia (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are nothing less than awesome. Thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comments: Engaging and well researched, as usual. I only have a few nitpicks:

• He used his poetry, in part, for reform, particularly in abolitionism. A little clunky with the repetitive commas, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Any ideas?
• shortly after the groom published Conversations on the Old Poets, a collection of previously published essays. Of his previously published essays?
• "leaned for a long while against a tree weeping", according to the Longfellows, who were in attendance. This is the first time that Longfellow is mentioned, but he's linked and introduced later in the paragraph.

Hooray for the Fireside Poets! Perhaps this will be the beginning of a Featured Topic? María (habla conmigo) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Longfellow kept popping up in my research. I wasn't trying to make it look like it was a Longfellow/Lowell reunion but he just kept coming back! I'll make these fixes. And, yes, the Fireside Poets should definitely be a featured topic! Shall we...? My goal is to get a Poe FT first, though. Then maybe some Transcendentalists. So much to do!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once I've beaten Crane into submission, my American lit calendar will be free, free I tell you! Let me know if I can help. María (habla conmigo) 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, with requests:

• Can you explain who the Fireside poets are, briefly in the lead?
• You also might have to change abolitionism to "abolition of slavery" as many non-Americans don't equate the term "abolition" automatically with slavery.
• His poetry has been criticized for being forgettable? Harsh.
• I'm curious how Lowell got on in Spain and what he found so funny about social situations. Can you give examples?
• Never have I seen such a term as "Swedenborgianism". Please define it briefly to keep readers on your article lest they get distracted by a term that could only, by appearance, refer to Abba.
• Inner light and pacifism? Was he a Quaker?
• Well done, as usual Midnightdreary. I enjoyed reading it quite a bit. --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've added info on both "Fireside Poets" and the latest hit single from Abba. I'm also learning that not even Americans know what I mean when I say "abolitionism" so I've fixed that too. Yes, lots of Lowell's critics are quite harsh (and I hardly think A Fable for Critics is forgettable, but I'm a 19th century book nerd). I have no specific examples of any social situations in Spain (biographies seem to gloss over the diplomat years); apologies for that. No, he wasn't a Quaker (he was an Abba fan, err, Swedenbourgian). Thanks for taking a look! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes, per WP:MOSNUM, what is the limit on digits and spelling out numbers? The article has, in two sentences, 15, then fourteen and fifty-six. Why not 14 and 56 ?

• Beginning in 1834, at the age of 15, Lowell attended Harvard College, though he was not a good student and often got into trouble. In his sophomore year alone, he was absent from required chapel attendance fourteen times and from classes fifty-six times.

This occurs throughout the article. Why is the verse after "Lowell's character Hosea Biglow says in verse:" in WP:ITALICS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the article used spelled-out numbers throughout, which is certainly unusual but not against WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. Midnight, what was your intent? Maralia (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gee, don't give me too much credit; I doubt that I had any intention! It's likely I was just emulating the format or presentation of whatever source I was using at the time. Let me see how I can clean up the numbers. As far as The Biglow Papers in italics, I often see it that way (I can't say always_, possibly as an indication that this isn't quite the normal language (similar to the "foreign language words" noted as acceptable formatting under WP:ITALICS). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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