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 17:33, 13 October 2008 [1].

---

TAM (tank)

Nominator(s): JonCatalán^(Talk)

The TAM is an Argentine tank developed in the late 1970s and still in active service. I wrote the majority of this article (well, re-wrote) based on the information coming from the only major written source on the tank - Javier de Mazarrasa's book, La Familia Acorazada TAM. I have attempted to diversify the sources as much as possible by scouring through various English sources (unfortunately, there are no English sources which focus on this specific vehicle), and so I have come up with about fourteen additional references. This article passed an A-class review and was recently peer reviewed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I found no major issues worth mentioning, this fills all the criteria. Domiy (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Page ranges in the references need en dashes. Otherwise, references and sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • All dashes done. Giggy (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• All images are fine. Giggy (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the lead:

• "is a main battle tank in service with the Argentine Army" - "main battle tank" could be some jargon I'm not aware of it, but if it's not, then I'd have this as "is the main battle tank..."
• "in 1994 manufacturing began anew until the Army's request of 200 tanks was fulfilled" - did they fulfil the request in 1994 too? The reader is left hanging, somewhat.
• "but the TAM was ultimately never exported." --> "but was ultimately not exported."

Giggy (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to address the three concerns. For the first comment, I wikilinked to main battle tank since I thought "a" sounded better than "the" in this specific case-well, actually, "the" might be better since "a" may infer that there is more than one MBT in service with the Argentine Army. In any case, I clarified the second point by adding "prematurely closing the production line in 1983", and changed the word in the third concern. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support The article fills the criteria, IMHO. As far as I know from other (non-verifible) sources, the information currently in it is accurate. The pictures included depict reasonably the current aspect of the vehicle. The author of the main source cites is quite well-known nas has several other boks published. Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally supportive. I have a few comments from the top.

• "Profile" means "height", does it?
• "103,333" without the decimal places would be fine, and easier on the reader.
• Can you make it clear where and by whom it was manufactured? Was it the Argentine MoD, and Argentine corporation, or what?
• Do we really need "Spanish language" linked? Who's gonna interrupt their reading to go to that article? Same for British, a word that will confuse most of our readers, I'm sure. "Second World War" and "Atlantic Ocean" too? The low-value links are diluting the good ones, particularly in the first sentences of "Development". Tony (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Profile is the correct word, average height would be a poor substitute though with some of that meaning; Whilst height is more likely to be interpreted as the height of the highest point of the tank. ϢereSpielChequers 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, profile does refer to height. "Profile" might fall under the category of jargon though, although I think it's more specific than "height". I could go with silhouette instead—I'll change it temporarily. I removed the decimal values in 103,300.13. I tried to make it clearer by adding "local mass production", to infer that production took place in Argentina. I delinked some of the words, as well. I hope it looks better now. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I didn't spot any reference in this article to the Falklands War which I believe is the only external war fought by the Argentine army whilst this tank was in service; perhaps this is because none of them were shipped to the Falklands, or none had quite entered service in time. If you have sources that cover this question I think it would be worth a mention in the article as I may not be the only reader who wonders about that. Also were these vehicles used by the Junta against the Argentine people? My understanding is that most of the dirty war preceded their deployment but if they did see any civil repression action that also would be worth a mention. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that an old version of the article did mention that the tank was used in a coup (early 1990s, I believe), but it was mentioned by an unreliable source—I, unfortunately, do not have a reliable source which mentions the same information. On the other hand, I do have a source which mentions they were not used in the Falklands, so I will add that in. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction, the statement was unsourced. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to that, though with an inanimate object like a tank I'd be inclined to use a word like deployed or saw action rather than participated. ϢereSpielChequers 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

• "The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern, well-armed tank, with a high velocity, low silhouette and low weight."

Suggestion: "The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern light-weight fast tank that was equipped with adequate fire-power and had a low silhouette."

Development

• "Despite attempts to procure equipment from the United States, Argentina was only able to secure 50 M41 Walker Bulldogs and 250 M113 armored personnel carriers."

This statement is a bit weird in that Argentina did buy American equipment in their attempts there. What is the reason that they should not be able to purchase 300 armored vehicles from US? Did the US previously promise to replace the Argentinian entire tank fleet? If the contradiction is not clearly explained, then "Despite" should not be used. Suggestion: "In their attempts to procure equipment from the United States, Argentina could only secure 50 M41 Walker Bulldogs and 250 M113 armored personnel carriers."

• "Turned down by the United States for further equipment, the Argentine government turned to the nations across the Atlantic Ocean and put into gear the so-called Plan Europa (Plan Europe)."

"Put into gear" seems a bit informal... Suggestion: "Turned down by the United States for further equipment, the Argentine government turned to the nations across the Atlantic Ocean, putting their Plan Europa (Plan Europe) into action."

• "Argentina went on to procure 80 AMX-13 light tanks, as well as 180 AMX-VCIs and 24 AMX-155 F3s from the French government, manufacturing around 40 AMX-13s and 60 AMX-VCIs at home."

Go straight to the point. "Argentina procured 80 AMX-13 light tanks, 180 AMX-VCIs and 24 AMX-155 F3s from the French government, and later manufactured around 40 AMX-13s and 60 AMX-VCIs."

• "possible substitutes for the existing Argentine Sherman fleet."

Suggestion: "possible replacements for the existing Argentine Sherman fleet."

• "In 1973 the Argentine ministry of defense put in a series of requirements for a tank to enter service in the 1980s. These included a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, grenade launchers, a road range of at least 500 kilometers with a maximum velocity of 70 kilometers per hour and a weight of no more than 30 tonnes. Taken into consideration was the existing infrastructure in Argentina, including railroad capacity, bridges and road capacity, and the several types of terrain which existed in the country. In late 1973 the Proyecto de Tanque Argentino Mediano (Medium Argentine Tank Project) was founded with the goal of studying, designing and developing a future tank for the Argentine Army. The lack of experience and the necessary technology pushed the Argentine government to look for a foreign company to provide it with these things, resulting in a contract being established with the German company Thyssen-Henschel. The contract agreed to a transfer of technology resulting in a program to develop a tank under the requirements issued by the government and under a technical team which included both German and Argentine engineers. It was decided to use the hull of the German Marder armored personnel carrier, and the chassis was strengthened to support the increased weight of the TAM."

Suggestion: "In 1973 the Argentine ministry of defense put up a series of requirements for a tank designated to enter service in the 1980s. The armored vehicle would weigh no more than 30 tonnes and could, at a maximum speed of 70 kilometers per hour, cover at least 500 kilometers on the roads. It would be armed with a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, and grenade launchers. The designers of the tank also had to take into account the existing infrastructure in Argentina, including railroad capacity, bridges and road capacity, and the various terrain which existed in the country. In late 1973 the Proyecto de Tanque Argentino Mediano (Medium Argentine Tank Project) was founded to study, design and develop this future tank for the Argentine Army. Lacking the experience and necessary technology for the project, the Argentine government looked for a foreign company to help to address these shortcomings. It signed a contract with the German company Thyssen-Henschel. The terms of the contract called for German and Argentine engineers to work together in developing a tank which would fulfill the requirements issued by Argentina. The Germans would also transfer the technology to the Argentines, allowing the South Americans to develop and produce tanks on their own. The joint German-Argentine team decided to use the hull of the German armored personnel carrier, strengthening the chassis to support the greater weight of the TAM."

• What did the Germans get in return for this transfer of technology? They seemed to get the short end of the stick here.

• "The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and lethality."

This statement comes from a primary source. Suggestion: "According to its manufacturers, the light and compact Rh-105-30 could destroy its target with its first shot on most occasions."

• "On the TAM, the FM K.4 does not have a muzzle brake and can elevate to 18 degrees or depress to -7 degrees."

Suggestion: "Unlike the Rh-105-30, the FM K.4 does not have a muzzle brake. The locally built cannon can be elevated to 18 degrees or depressed to -7 degrees on the TAM." Furthermore, I think it is preferable to briefly explain the workings of a muzzle brake.

• "The tank's secondary armaments include a co-axial 7.62 millimeter FN MAG 60-40 general purpose machine gun and a second FN MAG 60-20 mounted on the TAM's turret roof as an anti-air machine gun."

Again, a brief explanation co-axial in layman terms would be nice. Is there any way to separate the FN MAG 60-40 link from the general purpose machine gun link (two blue links side-by-side that may be mistaken as a single link)?

• "which computes the gun's fire solutions"

There could be less than military-buff readers around. How about "which helps the gunner in aiming the cannon to hit the target."

• "The tank commander makes use of a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope, with a 2x and 8x zoom."

Suggestion A: "When inside the tank, the tank commander uses a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope to observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects."

Suggestion B: "A Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope allows the tank commander to remain in the tank and observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects."

• "The TAM's engine requirements included low weight and compactness, but with a fast rate of acceleration and high reliability. The program chose MTU's MB-833 Ka 500 diesel engine, producing 720 horsepower at 2,400 rotations per minute."

Suggestion: "Requirements for the TAM stated that its engine had to be light and compact, capable of producing a fast rate of acceleration, and highly reliable. With those terms in mind, the program chose MTU's MB-833 Ka 500 diesel engine, which could produce 720 horsepower at 2,400 rotations per minute."

• "a maximum velocity of 75 kilometers per hour"

Suggestion: "a maximum speed of 75 kilometers per hour"

• "It has a range of 500 kilometers with its internal fuel capacity of 680 liters, and 900 kilometers when adding the two 200 liter external fuel tanks."

Suggestion: "With a 680-liter internal fuel tank, the TAM could travel 500 kilometers. Its range is extended to 900 kilometers if the vehicle is equipped with two 200-liter external fuel tanks."

• "The TAM's survivability is based upon its low profile turret, based on that of the Leopard 1A4s and the Leopard 2's, and physical armor arrayed around the tank. It has 50 millimeters at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the vehicle's sides. This offers protection against anti-armor shells from up to 35 millimeter guns. The turret front is protected by 50 millimeters of steel armor at an angle of 32 degrees. Although the tank's weight and armor protection are light compared to other main battle tanks, it has the advantage of better tactical mobility over the nation's terrain."

Suggestion: "The TAM relies on its low profile turret—based on those of the Leopard 1A4 and the Leopard 2—and armor to survive in the battlefield. Its armor is 50 millimeters thick, sloping at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the sides. This offers protection against anti-armor shells fired from guns up to 35 millimeter calibre. Likewise, the turret front is protected by 50 millimeters of steel armor at an angle of 32 degrees. Although the tank's weight and armor protection are light compared to other main battle tanks, it has better tactical mobility on Argentina's terrain."

• "As a private venture, Rheinmetall Landsysteme built a fourth prototype, completed in 1978. Apart from the existing periscopes for the tank commander, the position was also given a PERI R12 periscope originally designed for the Leopard 1A4. The gunner and loader received a day periscope each, as well. To fire at night, a low light level television (LLLTV) camera was fitted to the mantlet, which moved in elevation with the main gun."

Suggestion: "As a private venture, Rheinmetall Landsysteme built a fourth prototype. Completed in 1978, it added a PERI R12 periscope, originally designed for the Leopard 1A4, for the tank commander. The gunner and loader each received a day periscope as well. To enable the crew to fire effectively in the night, a low light level television (LLLTV) camera, which moved in elevation with the main gun, was fitted to the mantlet." Furthermore, where is this mantlet (a portable protective shield)?

• "The improvement program also made provisions to increase the armor thickness to provide additional protection."

Suggestion: "The improvement program also made provisions to increase the armor thickness for additional protection."

Variants

• "FN MAG 60-20 situated on the turret roof."

Suggestion: "FN MAG 60-20 mounted on the turret roof."

• "Infantry can dismount through a door situated to the rear of the hull."

Suggestion: "Infantry can dismount through a door on the rear of the hull."

• "The VCTM carries an AM-50 120 millimeter internal mortar, with a range of 9,500 meters and a rate of fire of 8 to 12 shots per minute."

Suggestion: "The VCTM carries an AM-50 120 millimeter internal mortar, capable of firing 8 to 12 shots per minute up to a distance of 9,500 meters."

• The second paragraph starts with "Other variants include the ..." and ends with "Variants also include ...". It might be better to reword either of those (preferably the latter).

Production

• "Fabrication of the TAM began in 1979, in Argentina, with the intention of manufacturing 200 tanks and 312 VCTP infantry fighting vehicles, for a total of 512 armored vehicles. However, production ended in 1983 due to economic problems with only 150 TAMs and 100 VCTPs built."

Suggestion: "Argentina intended to manufacture 512 armored vehicles—200 tanks and 312 infantry fighting vehicles—and started production in 1979. Economic problems, however, forced the program to stop in 1983 after 150 TAMs and 100 VCTPs had been built."

• "Although originally 25 VCA-155s were planned for production starting 1990, only 19 were completed and delivered by 1995, along with 50 VCTMs."

Get rid of the noun plus -ing. "Although 25 VCA-155s were originally planned for its production which started in 1990, only 19 were completed and delivered by 1995, along with 50 VCTMs."

• Why did the article stop at 1995 for the production? Are there no reliable sources that can confirm if TAMSE is still in operation and producing tanks?

• "The factory is completely covered, with two warehouses for storing components, quality control laboratories, a project office, an engine test room and a firing range. Also participating in the production of TAM and variant components were Argentine companies Military Factories General San Martín (manufacturing the chassis), Río Tercero (turret and armament) and Bator Cocchis, S.A."

Suggestion: "The factory is completely covered. On its premises are two warehouses for storing components, quality control laboratories, a project office, an engine test room and a firing range. Besides TAMSE, other Argentine companies were also involved in the production of TAM and its variant components. These companies include Military Factories General San Martín (manufacturing the chassis), Río Tercero (turret and armament) and Bator Cocchis, S.A."

Export and combat history

• "In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs, although upon completion of 20 of these the order was canceled due to budgetary problems in the country."

Suggestion: "In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs. The order was, however, canceled due to budgetary problems in the country after 20 tanks had been completed."

• "The TAM achieved 950 out of 1,000 points, while its closest competitor only earned 750 points, but in the end Ecuador did not procure any of the vehicles presented."

The mention of its competitors "only" scoring 750 points seem a bit biased. Perhaps, "Although the TAM scored 950 out of 1,000 points, outscoring its competitors, Ecuador did not procure any of the vehicles presented."

• "The Iranian deal fell through after Saudi Arabia and Iraq appealed to Germany to cancel the order, which it did. The Saudi Arabian deal fell through when Israel appealed to Germany to cancel the order."

Suggestion: "The Iranian deal fell through after Saudi Arabia and Iraq successfully appealed to Germany to cancel the order. The Saudi Arabian deal, in turn, fell through when Israel appealed to Germany to cancel the order." Even so, there is a repetitive sentence structure... Furthermore, why did these countries appeal to Germany? Should Argentina not be the sole decider, or were these TAMs of German manufacture?

General

• Remove the periods from all units of measurement per WP:MOS#Unit symbols and abbreviations.

Aside from the copyedit I did, the above are my comments and suggestions for this article. Jappalang (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I took most of these suggestions into consideration. Some responses:

1. These included a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, grenade launchers, a road range of at least 500 kilometers with a maximum velocity of 70 kilometers per hour and a weight of no more than 30 tonnes. - The maximum road range is not 500 kilometers under the condition that the tank is going at maximum velocity, so I didn't add that in.
2. No source really specifies, but you'd imagine that they got paid.
3. The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and lethality. -> According to its manufacturers, the light and compact Rh-105-30 could destroy its target with its first shot on most occasions. - I don't understand; the claim on the second sentence has almost nothing to do with the claim in the first sentence. It went from being lethal, to being able to destroy a target on its first shot - these are not necessarily the same thing.
4. I made the change to the sentence, but muzzle brake is wikilinked.
5. Co-axial is wikilinked, as well.
6. I don't feel like "it helps the gunner aim" is really the most accurate description, since that can encompass a lot of things. I added something similar, but I didn't take off "fire solutions".
7. "When inside the tank, the tank commander uses a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope to observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects." - This seems redundant in several places. The second suggestion is not necessarily true.
8. A lot of these edits seem like re-writes of sentences that had nothing wrong with them, but making them more complex. For example, the re-write of the engine choice—I decided to keep what I currently have.
9. Velocity is a more exact word than speed.
10. The mantlet is the same as it is in every tank. I wikilinked to Gun mantlet.
11. In the variants section, I didn't make the change to what was relevant to the internal mortar. The copyedit makes it seem as if rate of fire and range are inter-related, which they're not.
12. TAMSE is not producing tanks. Production ended in 1995.
13. I don't see how mentioning how many points its competitors received is biased—it's not an opinion, it's referenced fact.
14. Sources are not very clear, but a lot of the technology used on the tank was German and so the Argentines did not necessarily have the right to sell all of it (like the gun).

Apart from the above, everything should be changed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If I seemed direct in my comments, I apologize. I truly appreciate the effort put into improving the prose of the article! JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1. With the clarification, I can suggest "The armored vehicle would weigh no more than 30 tonnes, move at a maximum speed of 70 kilometers per hour, and cover at least 500 kilometers on the roads. It would be armed with a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, and grenade launchers."

2. I think it is common knowledge that they got paid, but the amount of payment they received for the transfer would be relevant. It is not a big issue if this amount cannot be found (it could be confidential, but it could also have been released through various news sources), but let me know so I can strike it.

3. "Lethality" is subjective and one would expect all firearms to be lethal anyway. By putting "lethality" as an advantage, it is expected that either a source states the weapon can kill much better than other weapons. As this statement comes from a primary source, that opinion can be questioned (hence, the suggestion of adding in the "according to the manufacturer"). The source also states no qualifier to "lethality" other than "greater firepower" and "high first-shot kill probability". Replacing "lethality" with the "greater firepower" (which does not truly translate to better killing ability) is another option.

4 & 5. Yeah, I wikilinked it during the copyedit, but I suggested adding brief explanation of their workings as I am of the mind that the reader should not click on the link to find out what it generally means but to find out more of the term in detail. This is just an opinion.

6. Your change is much better.

7. The essence behind the suggestion was to suggest an importance to the mention of the periscope. If the original sentence is stuck to, please replace "makes use" with "uses".

8. See below.

9. Velocity comprises direction and rate of displacement. Why should a tank use velocity?

10. That is fine.

11. Eh, I do not think "capable of firing 8 to 12 shots per minute up to a distance of 9,500 meters" implies that the rate of fire is dependent on distance.

12. TAMSE's stoppage since 1995 should be mentioned in the article because the paragraph mentioned its reactivation in 1994 to produce an additional 120 TAM tanks as well as VCA-155s. The article then dangles with production numbers for 1995 (which based on the 1983 figure of 150 TAMs, meant that 70 TAMs in the 1994 order were not produced—200-150=50 tanks were produced).

13. Yes, but we can certainly do without the "only".

14. Hmmm... is it possible to find sources that can clarify this situation further?

There is no need to apologize. What I written above (specifically the suggestions) are my opinions. Like Tony said, the prose is generally fine, but I found it a bit phrased in a technical manner. Hence, I tried to offer a spicing up of the language (Note: the Suggestions are not issues except where there are other questions to them). When put in a technical manner, tank jargon—phrases which most tank buffs would understand—are often introduced (e.g. coaxial, muzzle brake, etc). A reader with a lesser interest in tanks can be overwhelmed and find it less motivating to read further on. Linking is just a work-around (no need to fret about those comments on the terms that are wiki-linked, I left them unstruck for others to think about); it totally fails when there is no article on the term. I missed this out the first time, but what is a "hydrodynamic par converter"? Jappalang (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are some responses,

1. Changed.
2. Unfortunately, the value of the contract isn't mentioned. Argentina's news sources also do not have a well designed online archive, and I haven't been able to find any articles relevant to the TAM.
3. I changed it to "increased lethality".
4. Well, the definitions would be rather long (at least a few sentences each term) and it this may be a breech of the term that the text should not go off topic. Generally speaking, in books "big words" are not defined in the text, as they expect you to go look it up if you don't know it. The problem with tank articles is that they will be full of jargon, since those are terms in their simplest form (in relation to other tank-related jargon).
5. (Actually #7) Changed to "uses".
6. Well, when a tank is moving then it will have a direction. I think either speed or velocity are fine, but I don't see the point in changing back and forth.
7. I reworded the rate of fire and range sentence. Hopefully, it sounds better now.
8. Well, the article says 120 of both TAMs and VCTPs. I notice how this can be confused as 120 TAMs and 120 VCTPs. I don't have specific production numbers, unfortunately, although I assume that enough TAMs were produced to fulfill the requirement of 200 tanks and then the rest were VCTPs. But, breaking it up like that would be original research.
9. "Only" removed.
10. Unfortunately, no. The case is similar to the case described in the AMX-30E article. The Germans could not sell the Leopard 1 without British approval because the British owned the license to the Royal Ordnance L7. Just that, this would be original research. I don't have a general source that describes copyright laws with this type of equipment, unfortunately.

I think I took care of most of it. Only a few more points to discuss. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I struck some but I think I will re-list for clarity my remaining concerns.

• On "velocity" versus "speed": Everything has a direction when moving but we do not commonly refer to their rate of displacement as velocity. An important point as stated in the velocity article is that as a vector quantity, velocity must have its unit (eastward direction in this example) as "meters per second east" and not simply "meters per second". Velocity does not equal speed, and I am certain it is not commonly used to describe the capability of a vehicle. Hence, all mentions of "velocity" in this article should be changed to "speed".
• What is a "hydrodynamic par converter"? Note that Google shows no result at all for this phrase; however, it suggests "hydrodynamic torque converter" or simply "hydrodynamic converter". I think the unique term deserves some explaining.

Besides the difference in opinion over wiki-linking to and briefly describing jargon (but which I am prepared to overlook in light of the explanations), the other concerns are minor and likely subjective. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, all instances of velocity will be changed to speed. And yea, I forgot to translate "par". Par is torque in Spanish. :( I will change it to hydrodynamic torque converter. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

With all the major concerns resolved, I looked over the article again. I have a couple of questions:

* is the Cold War tanks template necessary?

* why is the TAM categorized as a Tank of Germany even though the European country does not use it? Is that category correct (i.e. should it be named "Tanks produced by Germany")?

Regardless, other minor concerns aside, I believe this article is comprehensive as the sources allow it to be. It has appropriately used sufficient images to illustrate the tank and its variants. The article reads well and is generally smooth in its prose. Hence, I believe it to be worthy of Featured Article status. Jappalang (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we are adding both the Cold War tank and Post Cold War tank templates to tanks which were used in both; i.e. tanks developed during the Cold War, but remain the main battle tanks of their respective countries (such as the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, etc... we are trying to avoid conflicts about what tanks to include in which templates, and what not). Furthermore, I took off the "tanks of Germany" category (that was there before I started editing the article) and added two more. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - looked through it, found a gap and some other minor problems. I addressed the one, the submitter fixed anything else. Seems about 100% complete. Doesn't seem like anything could be missing, and this is a small topic, which is covered well. I haven't seen anything that this could be opposed over. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Downright clunky prose. See my copy-edits for some very preliminary indications of the kinds of things that need to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the edits you made took out important information, which was definitely not redundant. Some examples,

Due to a lack of resources and experience, the Argentine Ministry of Defense established a contract with German company Thyssen-Henschel to transfer the necessary technology. - That wasn't redundant, despite the fact that the next sentence says that the vehicle was designed by German engineers. The fact that Argentina lacked the resources and experiences is an important fact.

I don't see what I could change "adequate" with. To me, the adjective is pretty clear, although perhaps it's not as clear to others. Adequate firepower would simply refer to adequate enough to defeat current threats. I changed the sentence to, The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern light-weight fast tank with a low silhouette and sufficient firepower to defeat most modern armored threats.

In all the tank-related articles I've put through FAC, having a decimal conversion is preferred to rounding up or rounding down.

The rest of the edits are fine.

Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have copyedited where I thought it would help, and I'm hoping it's looking better. I'd like to work to get rid of that oppose, however. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed "scuppered", which you added, to "scrapped". According to dictionary.com scuppered is a synonym of "massacred", and so I don't think that would have been the correct word to use. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't forgotten. :P JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support After a read of this, I can see no issues. -- how do you turn this on 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Read the article, can't see any problems that haven't already been addressed. Skinny87 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding article. The only thing that somewhat bothers me (its a pet peeve, so it doesn't count insofar as S&O !votes go) is the presence of the tank portal link out on the main page. A check of the tank portal's FAs shows this isn;t one of them, but if this does become an FA on the tank portal I would recommend removing the portal link on the main page and integrating into the MILHIST template on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how is that done? JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Its coded into the Milhist template (actually, it was at my suggestion that we do this :) When an article is selected for use on a particular portal the milhist template is updated with the code |portal1-name= and |portal1-link=. The first part denotes the portal on which the article is used, the second links directly to the article on the portal (selected aricle/x, where x is the number used). At a glance, you can see this on the talk page for Iowa class battleship, and as a bonus for we can add the code regardless of whose portal the article actually appears on, thereby allowing us to include all aplicable projects within the template, thereby cutting down on the need to include portal links on the article name space. Unless something has changes, we can support up to five different portals within out template. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just did it to all the FA tank articles, which are on the portal, and I'll do it on the TAM's page if it passes this FAC. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Concerned about overreliance on one source: JonCatalan, do you speak Spanish? The MilHist A-class review raised concerns about overreliance on one source, and you replied that there was no info from Argentine newspapers. I found these with nothing more than a very quick google search on only two newspapers: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. I have not read these sources in detail, but they certainly indicate that more sources do exist, and give rise to concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article. As far as I can tell, you haven't used any of these sources. Because Jbmurray has lodged an Oppose on prose (that remains unaddressed), and because he speaks Spanish, I suggest further work with him, or another Spanish-speaking editor (such as Titoxd) will help assure that this article meets 1b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his concern was addressed. He spent some time copyediting the article, but after I left another message on his Talk Page he hasn't responded or reported back here. I will take a look at those articles later, though. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Those newspaper articles cover, to a degree, some trade deals and I will hopefully replace a number of references with those when I come back from class, or tomorrow morning. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking that sources be replaced for the sake of diversification of sources: I'm asking if the article is comprehensive and well-researched. That is, is anything left out or not accurately represented by the one source you used in writing the article ? Switching some sources for the sake of diversifying the sources won't address the concern; the concern is thoroughness and comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I added what I could get from those articles you provided. They mostly had to do with illegal arms transfers by former Argentine governments, and one mentioned the amount of tanks planned for the Iran sale. La Nación mentioned something similar, but instead said that 60 tanks were going to be sold to Iraq. Mazarrasa, by far the only major and researched source on the TAM, doesn't mention Iraq, and I think that La Nación mixed Iraq with Iran (not the first time a newspaper has gotten things like that wrong). One of La Nación's articles claims that the TAM was built by the Germans to work in conjunction with "heavy tanks", but the Argentines were not capable of building heavier tanks. I'm not so sure that I should add this, since this is the only source that mentions that and La Nación has already shown tendencies to get some facts wrong. The TAM's weight was specific to the terrain it was supposed to fight over, so it doesn't make sense that it was to fight alongside heavier vehicles. I have worked with another editor, who has supported the article (DPdH), and we haven't been able to find a great deal of sources in Argentina proper (apparently there are some military magazines which mention it, but these are almost impossible to find without living in Buenos Aires). JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I do not have time to research this article thoroughly just because I happen to speak Spanish: I will give you one example of my concern:

The article says:

In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs. The order was, however, canceled due to budgetary problems after 20 tanks had been completed. A similar order was established by Panama in 1984, although this contract was also canceled, for unknown reasons.

Noting the prose concerns of Jbmurray about contracts being "established", I think deeper research should yield something better than "for unknown reasons".

Advierten que Panamá podría embargar la fragata Libertad says:

La historia del juicio es la siguiente: en 1983 la empresa estatal Tanque Argentino Mediano (TAMSE) firmó un contrato con una empresa intermediaria de Palleros constituda en Panamá, llamada Agrometal para vender a Irán 60 blindados por un monto de 90 millones de dólares y con una comisión legal de 9 millones.Sorpresivamente, en 1984 cuando ya había asumido el gobierno radical otra empresa denominada Ventes, también avalada por TAMSE, hizo una oferta por un precio menor lo que enojó a los iraníes y abortó la venta. Entonces, Palleros inició un juicio en Panamá por el cobro de su comisión y resarcimientos de los gastos en que había incurrido, argumentando que la operación se había frustrado por una decisión del Estado argentino.En 1990, Humberto Romero, ministro de Defensa de Menem, aceptó un arreglo extrajudicial por 15 millones de dólares a pagar en cuotas, que fue objetado por Economía. En 1995, la Sala II de la Cámara Civil y Comercial de Buenos Aires falló a favor de Palleros para un pago en bonos, pero el retraso que se habría producido en la liquidación de las cuotas hizo que el demandante reabriese el juicio en Panamá y se trabase embargo sobre bienes argentinos en ese país.Consultados voceros de la Armada sobre esta situación se abstuvieron de confirmar o negar la existencia de la advertencia de la Cancillería.

And there are bodies, too. From A Estrada le habrían dado US$ 1,8 millón en Uruguay:

El capitán de navío estaba imputado como partícipe necesario de la venta ilegal de armas y había sido indagado por el juez Urso el 21 de agosto. Cuatro días después apareció muerto en su departamento.Urso y el fiscal Carlos Stornelli allanaron la casa de Estrada el 27 de agosto y secuestraron una serie de documentos sobre la empresa fantasma Hayton Trade, intermediaria en el contrabando de armas a Ecuador, y sobre transacciones con Panamá vinculadas al Tanque Argentino Mediano (TAM). Entre los documentos confiscados figurarían comprobantes de transferencias a la cuenta secreta de la Exter Banca, en Montevideo.En Uruguay rige un estricto secreto bancario, por lo que Urso deberá tramitar el levantamiento de los datos reservados ante los tribunales de ese país. En el allanamiento a la casa de Estrada, Urso también secuestró notas entrecruzadas con la Dirección Nacional de Fabricaciones Militares (FM), documentos sobre las empresas Hayton Trade y Debrol, y papeles sobre transacciones con Panamá por unidades del TAM supuestamente pactadas desde 1985 en adelante.

The article has one sentence about Panama, which doesn't appear to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Considering the text above from two articles only, I suggest deeper research would reveal that we can say more than "canceled for unknown reasons", which should not be a satisfying explanation to our readers. Likewise, the article has one sentence about Ecuador, when the news sources indicate an arms scandal. I am not suggesting that this article has to delve into all of the arms contraband scandals mentioned in these articles: I am asking that you convince us that the article has been thoroughly researched, and that there is nothing in the 15 links I gave above that should be included. Perhaps Jbmurray or Titoxd will have time to look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those articles are talking about the possibility of political scams, related to the Argentine arm trade with other South American companies (including Panama and Ecuador), and I'm not sure if a lot of the information in those articles can be taken as facts. The articles don't really make it clear why the Panamanian deal was canceled. For example, in one of those quotes it mentions that TAMSE had offered the tank for cheaper than they had offered it to Iran, which angered the Iranians and caused TAMSE to temporarily cancel. It then blames the government for making that decision, and then goes on to say how later the Ministry of Defense decided to offer the Panamanians a deal in which they could pay in installments. It's not very clear, and then says that the bank allowed the payments to be done in bonds, but due to budgetary problems it was decided to stop selling Argentine goods to Panama. So, would it be correct for me to say that it was canceled because the Panamanians couldn't afford the tank? It weaves in and out about the arms scandal, and claims that some payments were made to a "secret account", but doesn't really specify. The article doesn't mention anything related to the TAM and Ecuador, just that Panamanian payments were arriving in banks in Montevideo, Uruguay. My greatest worry is how Clarín leans politically. Unfortunately, my Argentine friends are currently sleeping, but I know that a few Argentine newspapers have left-wing or right-wing tendencies, and what I'm afraid of is that a lot of this information is peacocked in order to make it sound worse than it actually is, or at least exaggerate the situation. I guess I could add information on why the Panamanian deal could have been canceled, but I don't really feel comfortable adding information about an arms scandal, especially when none of my published sources agree. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So, considering all of those factors, you feel that "for unknown reasons" summarizes the situation best? This is but one example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I should not that Jbmurray's "concerns" had to do with him deleting a sentence which mentioned that Argentina has established a contract with the German company to design the TAM, not establishing export deals with other countries. Although, I do get your point. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, those articles are not discussing the offer to sell the TAM to Panama. They are talking about an attempt to sell Iran the TAM through a Panamanian company. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:28, 10 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 17:33, 13 October 2008 [17].

---

Richard II of England

Nominator(s): Lampman (talk)

This is a complete rewrite of a B-level article. GA-nomination has been skipped, but it has undergone at least a partial peer review. All major issues of the man and the reign have been addressed, and the article is sourced with reliable sources throughout. The heavy reliance on one source (Saul, 1997 - c. 50%) I believe is a natural consequence of that work's standing as the only up-to-date, academic, full-scale monograph on the king (the last such dates to 1941, and must be considered outdated). Lampman (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment All the links to the Oxford website are subscription-only. Also, is there any reason ref #5 isn't split up into separate references by page? Otherwise sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• There was a recent discussion about this on the talk page, and the consensus seems to be to use doi on subscription required sites, so I did that. As for ref #5, that's same thing - Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - so since it's a webpage there's no page numbers. Lampman (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, misread, I thought ref #5 was a published work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Wilton diptych2.jpg has been nominated for deletion, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wilton diptych2.jpg. The others seem fine to me. Giggy (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm on it. The nomination doesn't seem to have any merit. The image won't be deleted, worst case it'll have to be cropped. Input on the nomination would be appreciated. Lampman (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image was kept, for the record. Giggy (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quite a few dablinks need fixing. Giggy (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's only three, and one is the {{otheruses}} link at the top of the page. The other two are now fixed. Lampman (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Overlinked: why "deposed", "tyrannous", "courtiers", "retinue", and for god's sake "personality disorders" (which will give us a very 21st-century skew on the concept). This article is not for the nine-year-old grade-school student, and we can assume that the reader speaks good English (if not, there's a radical thing called a dictionary, or even Wiktionary, but that's over to children and non-native speakers). The more lexical definitions you link, but more you dilute the considerable number of high-value links: we don't want to do that. Tony (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Though I agree with you in principle about overlinking, I'm not sure I agree with the examples you've given. The history of the indentured retainer in medieval England is a complex one. It is probably not well understood by most non-experts, much less so by nine-year-olds, and I don't know of any dictionary that would fully explain it. As for "personality disorders", this is deliberately a 20th/21st-century expression, because - as you will see from the relevant section - it relates to modern historians' assessment of the king, from a psychoanalytical perspective. I did remove a handful of other links though. Lampman (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that, although the courtier article is pretty poor. Favourite might be better. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link on courtier. Favourite is linked elsewhere in the article. Lampman (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• "Richard became second in line to the throne when ..." here or below it should be mentioned he was 4 at the time, to save us doing the maths.

• Done

• "This was preferred over a regency led by the king's uncle, John of Gaunt, ..." "to", not "over"? Preferred by whom?

• Changed

• "was later used as a Messianic analogy, as can be seen in the Wilton Diptych." perhaps rather overphrased?

• Changed

• the silent sitting on the throne was "on solemn festivals" according to the source.

• Added

• capital D for Duke of Ireland, no? This was exceptional & unique & a new creation, one of which is worth saying.

• Added

• "The duke of York, who was acting as keeper of the realm, had little choice but to ..." has he been linked before? I think not. Again sb Duke.

• No, only in a footnote. Linked

• "– were revealed to plan the murder of the new king, " - grammar

• Changed

• "wherefrom Richard's two wives came" - ?!

• Changed

• "and gave them @ badges with his White Hart @ ." add livery at either @

• Done

• " most recent academic biographical book " "biography" then?

• That would be a bit inaccurate, as he has been the subject of an extensive biographical article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography since that (see Tuck, 2004)

"full-length academic biography" would be better then. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Richard's exclusive reliance on the county of Cheshire " not previously mentioned & worth expanding on.

• It's mentioned in the sentence that begins "By installing de Vere..", but I didn't make the connection between Chester and Cheshire clear enough. Fixed

• The tomb already contained Anne

• Added

• Court culture and patronage. International Gothic, which I have just revamped, is worth a link. There was a general increase in royal grandeur across Europe at the time, and royal pretensions. The over life-size Westminster portrait appears to be unprecedented in England, if not Europe, and again fits in with international trends. Chaucer was not just a civil servant who wrote; he read aloud to the court, & seems to have been rewarded for his writing. "Geoffrey Chaucer, served the king as a diplomat and a clerk of The King's Works before devoting himself fully to literature" is wrong - his two careers apparently peaked over the same years. In this context his relationship to Gaunt might be worth a mention. Did not Gower's change of heart follow Richard's death, and include some canny backdating of his works?

• I've added IG as a "See also" link, and I've rewritten the sentence on Chaucer. As for Gower, it's hard to say. He might have been in the service of Bolingbroke as early as 1393,[18] though he could of course not openly criticise Richard while he was still king. While these are all interesting issues in and of themselves, I think it would be undue weight to get too far into it in an article about Richard II. In Saul's words: "there is little or no evidence directly to connect the poetry of the court with Richard's patronage." (Saul (1997), p. 361.)

• Generally there are not many pictures - the miniature of Chaucer reading could go in. The Liber regalis coronation miniature is here, and there are more from the Gruuthuse Froissart around.

• I've added another couple of images

• Aren't we going to have the handkerchiefs?

• This I considered trivia, though I wrote a note about it on the talk page

Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments! Lampman (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Changed to Oppose, see below. - although the article slightly lacks excitement, which is a pity given the subject. I would still like to see more on the court & its culture culture, since Richard was one of the few medieval English monarchs interested in the arts - perhaps rather more so than in politics. There should also be a concluding passage explaining Henry's treatment of his memory and how his overthrow eventually led on to the Wars of the Roses. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Several sources state 6 January as his death date, not 14 February. Which is right? -- how do you turn this on 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to know which sources those are. Most reliable, academic sources operate with a date on or around the 14th (Pollard (2004): "Most chroniclers believed that he died on 14 February, but how he died will never be known for sure."), but, as the article says, he was starved to death in secrecy, so we'll never know with certainty when exactly he died. Lampman (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jan 6 was his birth date of course - is there perhaps confusion? Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • There are books I own that mention it as an alternate date. Here is an online source I'd consider reliable. -- how do you turn this on 22:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly an RS when there are so many other better ones. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just one, and it happens to be sourced to a book. I have a few kings and queens books at home. I'm certain they say 6 January as an alternative date. I'll check them when I get back. -- how do you turn this on 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Saul's Richard II seems to feel that the death happened in February, and discusses the contemporary sources that give dates between the middle of Feb to the last day of Feb. Tuck's ODNB article agrees. It's going to take more than the peerage site (which uses Wikipedia as a source for some of the other information!) to make this other than a probable transcription error (Which seems likely given that the day and month given for his death is the same as his birthdate) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support It was an enjoyable read, and I tweaked up the text a bit. Though some things, like the arts are lacking, as Johnbod notes. Wasn't he the first English king to have his portrait painted? Surely that's something interesting that should be mentioned? -- how do you turn this on 22:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

first surviving panel portraits (as opposed to ones in manuscripts, coins or tomb effigies), yes. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the support. I think you're right about the portrait, I'll see if I can find sourcing for it. Lampman (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support with a couple of quibbles.

• I may have missed it, but you mention in "Coming of Age" the third paragraph, Gaunt and Buckingham, but I don't know where you introduced Buckingham before? Flogging my brain, isn't Thomas of Woodstock meant here? I seem to recall that one of his earlier titles before Gloucester was earl of Buckingham...

• Good catch! Gloucester, Buckingham and Thomas of Woodstock are indeed one and the same person, but it's inaccurate to call him Gloucester before he received this dukedom in 1385. I've amended this, and put in a brief explanation.

• When was de Burley executed?

• Added

• Second crisis... third paragraph, the sentence "The house of Lancaster..." is really awkward. Perhaps "The house of Lancaster not only possessed greater wealth than any other family .,..."

• Done

Overall, an excellent article and one that doesn't neglect anything on the recent scholarship I'm familiar with, although it should be noted that I'm much more an Anglo-Norman person than a Plantagenet person. One book I can recommend is Prestwich's Plantagenet England 1225-1360 part of the new Oxford History of England series. Excellent overview of recent scholarship. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support and kind comments. Prestwich's Plantagenet England is indeed a useful reference, but for this period the next volume in the series - Harriss's Shaping the Nation: England, 1360-1461 - is more relevant. Lampman (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. To us Anglo-Norman people, all that stuff past Henry II is just ... modern history (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Problems could arise from the "Ancestors of Richard II of England" being in the closed position. The "see also" should be integrated. Also, the "English Royalty House of Plantagenet" seems to be very bulky and possibly causing problems. The "Titles and style" in the info box seems a little off ("The King" as a title, when there is already a "King" title, for instance). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I moved "Ancestors" down, and removed the "Plantagenet" box and "The King". Lampman (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose by karanacs. I thought the article was interesting and informative, but the prose really didn't seem to be up to FA standards everywhere. I've listed some examples below.

• "Joan of Kent had been involved in a marriage dispute between Thomas Holland and William Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, from which Holland emerged victorious" - this is a very interesting way to phrase this concept. I assume you meant that two men were fighting over her hand, but "involved in a marriage dispute" could mean a lot of other thins. Is it really important to know this information, anyway?
• "In addition to discontent with the royal council came an increasingly heavy and more wide-ranging burden of taxation,." - this is very awkward to me.
• The article needs a comma edit. There should be no comma in instances like this "he did this, and did that" unless both halves are complete sentences by themselves ("he did this, and he did that")
• "Richard had, in spite of his young age, shown great personal qualities in his handling of the rebellion. " - this sentence seems like someone's opinion. Should it be attributed directly in the text to whoever wrote the sentiment?
• The prose need to be tightened. For example, "It is only with the Peasants' Revolt that Richard starts to emerge clearly in the annals" should be, "After the Peasants' Revolt, Richard began to emerge clearly in the annals" - except in this particular case what does this mean?
  • second example: "set about on the task of negotiating a permanent peace with France" - why not just "began negotiating a permanent peace with France"?
• "In spite of great sums of money awarded to the Empire, the political alliance never gave any military results" - does this mean that the Empire did not attempt to do anything militarily, or that they lost every time?
• Watch for passive voice. Most of the time sentences in passive voice can be rewritten. This helps flow and can tighten the prose quite a bit
• "Awkward phrasing: "De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family, and when Richard made him chancellor in 1383, and created him Earl of Suffolk two years later, this provoked the hostility of the more established nobility"
• "and obviously never did, as Richard would be dead within four years" - this might work better as a footnote; it seems a bit jarring where it is.
• A template should not be used as article text (with its own section). The template on ancestors should go at the bottom of the article.

Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, I've implemented some of your suggestions. Lampman (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

• "denied these charges, that would have amounted to treason" which is treason, the charges, or the denial?

• Changed

• "where the Duke of Ireland was routed" I had to do CTRL-F to discover that this refers to de Vere. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Changed, thanks. Lampman (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Moral Dilemma Support I'm on board with Karanacs in thinking that the writing is just a teeny bit uneven in places, like a skating rink with a slightly warped wooden floor. My heart says weak oppose (Don't count that, Sandy!), but I'm afraid if I do that then I'll cross the nom over some intangible No Consensus tipping point and make it have to wait (if the wise and sensible waiting rule is accepted) another 28 days.. so Support. But please don't dump this article like bad news and move on to another one; please find a couple folks to smooth the writing. See forex "According to Hereford Norfolk"... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, and I'd be happy to work with anyone who wants to tweak the article further. I wasn't quite sure about the example you mention, but I guess it must be considered a participial phrase, and requires a comma. Lampman (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Good job and much improved. Just one thing, the 5th reference "Tuck (2004)" should be broke down into specific page references. This will be a pain in the arse to do no doubt, but all the others show specific pages. - True as Blue (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. As I mentioned above, "Tuck (2004)" refers to a website - the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.[19] That's why there are no page numbers. Lampman (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Placeholder-oppose - the writing is awkward in places with some redundant wording, I will try to fix this as I go, but revert me if I change the meaning inadvertently. This oppose is a placeholder really as it does need a bit of a tweak before being up to scratch. Nearly there, though and this FAC should be successful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Abbey of St. Andrew - someone should make a stub really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I never wikified this; someone else did but I've removed. A Google search on "Abbey of St. Andrew" and Bordeaux returns very few results, most of them relating to the birth of Richard II. I honestly don't think this is a very notable institution, apart for being the birthplace of a king. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family - unless 'upstart' has a particular contemporary connotation I have missed, this comes across as negative POV.

It was certainly how the elite thought at the time, maybe adding "" would do it, if the reference uses it. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::::ok, that's fine then, I wouldn't worry about quote marks but maybe a link to an explanation in teh future may be a good thing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to sleep now but will chip in tomorrow. It still needs some massaging. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the seealso section is a problem - I don't understand why International Gothic is there - if important, there should be some elaboration in Court culture and patronage section, or somewhere, if it is too tenuous, then the link should be just dropped. As well, the Cultural depictions of Richard II of England should be a short paragraph rather than just a link. Shakespeare's plays have been crucial in their representations - as he is a playwright and not a historian, I'd take the para on shakespeare out of Character and assessment proper, and make a subsection cultural depictions at the bottom - with some mention about appearing in numerous films and their treatment of him, did any deal with the homosexuality, were they faithful to shakespeare or have some attempted to use more direct historical records? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I try to satisfy everybody, but when one person says International Gothic should be included and someone else says it should be taken out that becomes impossible. In or out, I don't really care much. As for the cultural depictions, to the best of my knowledge Shakespeare's play is the only culturally significant fictional portrayal of the king, and as such doesn't seem enough to warrant a separate section. Of course the play has a long performance history, but in my opinion that belongs in Richard II (play), and not here. Lampman (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, you now have three reviewers saying the cultural section needs expansion - please don't try and play us off against each other, we are clearly all saying the same thing! Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about the International Gothic link - there seem to be opposing views as to whether or not it should be included. You're saying that it should be removed if it's "too tenuous", and I'm leaning towards this opinion. As for culture, it has been suggested above that more be added e.g. on the biographies on Chaucer and Gower. I have expressed my views on this; that this would constitute undue weight since there is little evidence to connect either of these men to the king. However, we have to distinguish between court culture in Richard II's own time, and posthumous depictions of the king. If I understand you correctly the latter was your main concern, and as I said above, I believe a performance history of Shakespeare's play belongs in that article, not here. Lampman (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems I was misreading your comments above, where you said adding more on the poetry would constitute "undue weight". I don't agree on this, but it is an acceptable point of view. However it now seems you meant this to apply to any expansion of the whole culture section, which three reviewers have clearly asked for. This swings me back to an oppose. Let's be clear no one asked for International Gothic to be a See also - the request was for some of the easily available and significant additional material to be added to the section to justify the link, which I might add you are very well qualified to do, but it seems you have dug your heels in over this. Given the level of detail accorded to the political history of the reign, this goes against the comprehensiveness of the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I misread the comments above and got you and Casliber a bit confused. I wasn't principally opposed to expanding the culture section if there was a consensus on this; I've expanded it somewhat now, hope this helps. Lampman (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I don't know enough about international gothic to know whether it is significant or not, just that it shouldn't just be a seealso link. You already have a paragraph on the shakespeare, and it wouldn't be a section, but a subsection of the last section. Also, there have been many films, and any major motion picture release can be argued to be culturally significant - given he is a controversial figure, its is important to note whether subsequent protrayals dipcti him in a negative or positive light. Like it or not, this is how 99.9% of people who read teh article are gonig to come in contact with the subject. It doesn't have to be much. No-one would oppose on a succinct paragraph (already half doen with the shakespeare material already there, and a brief summary of some of the film versions. I may have some material accessible at my mothers' but it may take a day or two to add). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about what you called "elaboration in Court culture and patronage" - ie the cultural aspect of Richard's own court (a centre of International Gothic). I'm not aware of other significant later depictions of Richard, though there may well be some. The cultural aspects of Richard's court seem more relevant to me - frankly too many "history" biographies are let off the hook on this here, just as too many political historians underplay the cultural aspects of the subjects of their biographies. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, I don't mean to be difficult; so since the consensus is that there should be more on the culture, I've added a bit more than 1k on this. As for movies, as far as I've been able to find there hasn't been a single one made (though there have of course been some adaptations by the BBC and other TV stations). Lampman (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there were no films of this play at all! Wow. The stuff on Giledgud performing it and then a different play of Richard are interesting, but neither are unequivocally important. On reading it, I can see how the shakespeare material blends in to the natural flow of where it is currently placed, thus moving it creates as many problems as it solves. OK, not a deal-breaker and over the line. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support! Lampman (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: mixture of citation methods. See Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools; do not mix the citation template with the cite xxx family of templates as they provide different styles. Pick one or the other, not both. There were numerous inconsistencies thoughout the citations in dashes and plural page nos; I think I got them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your fixes, it seems I was too sloppy with my "p"s. I've converted all the citations into cite xxx. Even though I generally prefer these, I used the citation template in places because the cite xxx template is sometimes too restrictive, but I found a way to make it work. Lampman (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to Oppose - see below & above on culture section, plus various other points not dealt with - there really should be a concluding section linking Richard's deposition to the War of the Roses. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• The culture section is expanded. As for the Wars of the Roses, that's already commented on in the introduction. Lampman (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed: "...Shakespeare, whose narrative held Richard's misrule and Bolingbroke's deposition responsible for the fifteenth-century Wars of the Roses.[1] This is an interpretation no longer accepted today." - this does not exactly cover my point, and actually is rather confusing. What is no longer accepted today? If it is that Henry's deposition led to the WoR then this should be expanded on, as it would seem rather a necessary precondition to get a good civil war going.

When editing, I noticed some American spellings which of course should not be there. Has the article been checked for ENGVAR? Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added material to the section myself, and I think it now covers the ground ok. I note that a book by Jenny Stratford], "Richard II's Treasure" is to be published next March by Boydell, and will no doubt contain additional material worth adding. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - changed back as the article meets FA standards, though some points made by various reviewers should still be dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support—Damn good read. The overlinking seems to have been addressed. Does MoS allow single quotes for words as words? ('gyration'). Not sure I understand it, anyway—is it in quotes because the source (ref 38) used it? That's unclear, so the word as word versus the quote from source functions are confused. I'd use a different word without quotes. Tony (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PS and Lampman, are you going to do a little reviewing yourself? We'd love a bit of help from skilled people. Tony (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. MoS seems to prefer double quotes, so I changed that throughout. I used "gyration" because this is the word that is most often used about this event in the literature (not just ref 38; do a Google Book search for "Richard II" and "gyration"). It's a rather obscure word, and today mostly used in geometry, so I put in the more contemporary "circuit" in parenthesis. I appreciate all the comments here, and you're right I should probably give some back. I'll be on the lookout for a subject where I feel I can contribute. Lampman (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Weak oppose In general, I think this is an excellent article. I read it through twice and learned quite a bit - that is my favorite kind of FAC reviewing. There are just a few places that are a little vague or poorly explained:

• The first major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, during which the young king comported himself well, and played a major part in suppressing the rebellion. - "comported himself well" seems like a strange choice of words to me

• Changed

• By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony - harmony with whom?

• Expanded

• For the next two years Richard's rule was seen by many as tyrannous - by many chroniclers?

• Expanded

• In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. - It seems like these two events are connected - could we show that more explicitly?

• Expanded

• This is an interpretation no longer accepted today - "today" will go out of date - perhaps "twentieth-century historians"?

• That wouldn't really work, as you can see I've based this on late-twentieth/early-twenty-first sources. I changed it to "Contemporary" - surely if historic consensus should change radically, the whole article would need to be rewritten anyway?

• though this does not exonerate Richard from responsibility for his own destiny - fluffy

• I've changed it a bit, but I'm not quite sure how else to word it. It must be seen in conjunction with the next sentence, which is explanatory.

• I think it is the word "destiny" that is bothering me - I don't think someone can be responsible for their own destiny, considering the word has the ring of "fate" about it. Perhaps replacing that word would solve the problem? Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Deposition?

• Historians agree that, even though his policies were not unprecedented or entirely unrealistic, the way in which he carried them out was too extreme, and this led to his downfall. - "too extreme" is a bit vague

• Changed

• Shortly after Holland's death in 1360, Joan married Prince Edward. - It is unclear whether they were married in 1360 as well.

• Added

• This anecdote, and the fact that his birth fell on the feast of Epiphany, was later used in religious imagery, as can be seen in the Wilton Diptych. - Could this imagery be explained, rather than just referred to?

• Expanded

and redone Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed an inconsistency in the capitalization of "Commons" - I wasn't sure whether it should be capitalized or not.

• I like to use uppercase when speaking of the lower house of parliament, and lowercase about the social category of non-nobles

• Although that year's poll tax was the immediate cause of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, the root of the conflict lay in deeper tensions between peasants and landowners, which were in turn caused by the demographic consequences of the Black Death and subsequent outbreaks of the plague - a bit convoluted

• Split up

• On 28 June at Billericay he effectively ended the Peasants' Revolt. - How?

• Expanded

• Was this a battle? Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• More of a skirmish

• Despite his young age, Richard had shown great personal qualities in his handling of the rebellion. - "personal qualities" is a vague phrase

• Changed

• It is only with the Peasants' Revolt that Richard starts to emerge clearly in the annals. - It might be worth explaining to the reader what "the annals" are.

• Wikilinked

• De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family,[25] and when Richard made him chancellor in 1383, and created him Earl of Suffolk two years later, this antagonised the more established nobility. - awkward wording

• Split up

• Richard's close friendship to de Vere also caused displeasure, exacerbated by the earl's elevation to new title of Duke of Ireland in 1386. - caused displeasure to whom?

• Expanded

• Furthermore, he assured legal backing from Chief Justice Robert Tresilian that parliament's conduct had been both unlawful and treasonable. - slightly awkward wording

• Changed

• Towards the end of the 1390s began the period that is often referred to as the "tyranny" of Richard II. - could be worded more strongly

• Removed "often"

• The passive voice is what is causing the weakness. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Activated

• The fines levied on these men brought great revenues to the crown, but the legalities of the proceedings were questioned. - Who did the questioning?

• Added

• He was then free to develop a courtly atmosphere in which the king was a distant, venerated figure, and art and culture, rather than warfare, were at the centre. - The article claims that art and culture were at the center of Richard's court, yet the reader has no idea of this until the very end of the article. I'm wondering if some hints of this can be added to the biography section?

• I've deliberately kept the political and cultural history apart for clarity. I'm not sure how to make this change without re-writing the whole article, but I'd be happy to hear concrete suggestions

• Perhaps this material could be mentioned in the lead? That way it would not be such a surprise to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - per WP:LEAD and the "no surprises" principle, it should be. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Which is also a really good song by Radiohead. I've added a sentence in the lead.

• Chroniclers, even those less sympathetic to the king, agreed that Richard was a beautiful man, possibly in a somewhat feminine way - This is a strange statement - perhaps we could just quote the chroniclers?

• Changed to quote form

• Another major historiographical question concerns Richard's political agenda and reasons for its failure. - "another" is a weak transition

• Changed

• Image:Richard II of England.jpg - Could we try and find the source link for this image again?

Or upload a better one - it is very washed out. The best full length I can find is this (at zoom), or the BBC has this head and shoulders. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - new image uploaded. Awadewit (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing and images look good to me. I am not enough of an expert to judge whether or not the artistic patronage section should be expanded. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - I expanded it somewhat myself last night, after my comments above, & would not now oppose on this. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it is good to know that - I feel reassured! :) Awadewit (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and copyediting. Please let me know if the changes are satisfactory, or if there is more. Lampman (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a few remaining ones which should not be difficult to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope that takes care of it. I've also added more on the perceived connection between Richard and the Wars of the Roses. Lampman (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am most happy to support this article - thanks for working on such an important biography! Awadewit (talk) 14:36, 13 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 17:33, 13 October 2008 [20].

---

Problem of Apollonius

Nominator(s): Willow (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it exemplifies the best of Wikipedia's work. This is a legendary problem on which dozens of mathematicians have worked, from Apollonius of Perga to the present. The problem can be solved by a great variety of methods, illustrating for students the richness and relatedness of mathematics, and highlighting some episodes in its history, such as the resurgence of geometry in the early 19^th century. The problem is also relevant for modern navigation systems such as the GPS.

The article has undergone a Peer Review and became a Good Article over a month ago, with few changes since, indicating that it is stable. It has 43 kB of readable prose, one table, 23 static images and one animation that clarifies a mathematical transformation. It also has 72 inline-cited references (some are doubled up into a single citation), 11 books for further reading, and 7 external links to reputable websites. But above all, I hope that everyone enjoys the article! :) Willow (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Note to reviewers: please do not change &-n-d-a-s-h-;'s to –, and other such HTML coding; I do that on purpose to help with proofreading. Thanks!

Comments

• Current ref 34 (Eric W. Weisstein "Four Coins propblem) is lacking a last access date. Also, shouldn't it be Weisstein, Eric W. to fit with the rest of your references?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I couldn't evaluate the non-English sources ... even the Latin. Ecclesiastical medieval latin did not prepare me for mathematical Latin! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Ealdgyth, for your scrupulous attention to detail! :) I think I've fixed up that reference. And now that I know your preferences, I'll give you only medieval Latin to evaluate: Sensus noster iam marcescit, et in nobis refrigescit iam fervor ingenii; si quaeratur, quis hoc fecit, respondemus, "Nos affecit labor frequens FACii." ;) Willow (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(flees from the Latin) Argh! College memories... Argh! Thanks Willow, looks like you're done! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks solid. I knew that Willow was working on it and she's definitely made a change in the article. Good luck! —Sunday | Speak 20:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, m'lord! :) A rose by any other name... :) Willow (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• What gorgeous images ! But they need to be within sections, not above them; I hesitate to move them in myself, as that will create some layout problems (and there are a couple that are creating white spaces already). Also WP:MOS#Quotations on pull quotes and quotation mark/graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The pull-quote from Apollonius might be stricken soon, based on other critiques, so I won't fix that just yet, although I would be interested to know whether {{cquote}} templates are categorically forbidden in Featured Articles? I kind of like the big splashy quotation marks, but others such as the royal pentomphaloid of blessed memory dislike them intensely, and I can imagine they might seem, well, a little unprofessional. :( In any event, I'll bow to the consensus, whatever that is.

The pull-quote has been stricken. Willow (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The image layout is a bit of a quandary for me. As I'm sure you're aware, it used to be a layout requirement that left-aligned images came before the subsection heading. Now that wording has been softened to: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."

I can try to do that in some places, such as the beginning of the "Solution methods" section (Figure 3) as well as Figures 9 and 11; however, I don't see any solution for Figures 6–8? I'm sure you don't want me to interpolate unnecessary text just to satisfy an image layout issue. Willow (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I might've found an agreeable compromise on the image layout issues. Does everyone like the present layout? Willow (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is a subject of discussion at WT:MOS (See Prince of Canada et al). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd much rather make geometrical animations and write medieval Latin poetry all day for Ealdgyth than wade through (or into) such conflicts, which depress me and tie my stomach up in knots. :P Can you just tell me what to do once it's all over? I really don't care one way or the other, as long as I can explain my topic without too much interference from the MoS. Thanks, Dan! Willow (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Second that thought :-) It looks very nice, but there's still one left-aligned image left under a third-level heading (in "Number of solutions"). Can that be moved right? I think the left-right alternating business is purely aesthetic and much less important than accessibility for readers who use screen readers, but honestly, I'm not sure how a screen reader would do with all the math formulas anyway. MoS suffers from WP:TLDRitis, but if you want to consult Graham about how his screen reader does with the article, you could post something brief to the talk page of WP:ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy, for your kind encouragement! :) I'll definitely follow your advice on asking Graham for help. The lone holdout image you mention, Figure 11, is a special case. After some brooding and ignoring all rules, I moved it from the proper right-aligned to left-aligned. The dilemma was that a right-aligned Figure 11 stacks on Figure 12, pushing it down and causing unwanted whitespace just before the poem by Frederick Soddy, as you can see here. Figure 11 can't move upwards because it must come after the Table of the preceding subsection, and it's not really practical to switch the order of the subsections, since Figure 11's subsection refers to the one preceding it. I kind of like the present look, but I also don't want to shut anyone out of understanding the article due to an easily fixed layout glitch. Hoping that this is an OK solution, Willow (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support and comments A really nice article, but two concerns: jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Forced image sizes. These override my thumb preference settings, and, although the images are excellent, make for an ugly layout. If this had not been at FAC, I would have removed most or all of the image sizes. I was going to withhold support on this issue, but I'll be away a for a few days, so supporting now in expectation of a fix.

• I can't decipher to whom this support belongs, no sig, and it will take me a long time to step back through the diffs; please add an {{unsigned}} template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I know forced image sizes aren't customary, but the default image sizes were too small to read the subscripts on the figure labels, such as the "2" in d₂. Is there a way of setting a minimum size? Whether a layout is ugly might be a little subjective (for instance, I find the defaults worse than the present article, naturally) but it seems that illegibility is something we can agree on. Willow (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The image size preferences have been removed except for those in the table. Those were maintained for consistent spacing of the table rows. Willow (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd I'm not a FA regular, but MOS:IMAGE does say If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified. so too small labels would be a reason to give explicit sizes. I would say default size works well for most here but figs 6, 9, 10, 13 and the unnumbered fig near fig 3 seem a bit too small to me. (should that fig be given a number for consistancy?) --Salix alba 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• opening sentence - ...is to construct circles that are tangent to ("touch") three given circles - I really don't like "touch"; tangent is linked and explained later in the text. An explanation in the key sentence disrupts the flow and seems inappropriate. Someone who can't pick up the idea of tangency pretty quickly won't get far in this article anyway. jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize about the "touch" interfering with the flow and I've tinkered with other ways of saying it; but it's hard to satisfy all the desiderata at once. I feel that the lead has to be able to stand by itself; I don't think we can expect that the reader will read the rest of the article or even follow the links. This is especially true for people who might be reading a geometry article on a cell-phone with a slow connection. (An admittedly unlikely scenario but, hey, geometers can dream, too. ;) I also feel that the lead has to be accessible to people who have never learned the mathematical definition of "tangent to". I could remove the "touch" and interpolate a parenthetical sentence, e.g., "(Two circles are tangent if they touch at a single point.)" Would that help, or would it interrupt the flow even more strongly? Willow (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the parenthetical "touch" and added an explanatory clause, which I think is not too disruptive to the flow of the writing. Willow (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Supportive comments by Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC). Congrats, Willow, great article. (I read til Inversion methods for now.)

Thank you very much, Jakob! :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a Support or a Comment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother forcing the distinction. Third bullet in the instructions plus the subsequent sentence clearly suggest the artificiality of this distinction. What does count is the addressing of critical comments. Tony (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Jakob means to say that he's leaning towards Support because he likes the article and will do so once his relatively minor concerns are taken care of. Which I'm trying to do...the main outstanding thing left is to re-write the lead paragraph to encompass more of the technical details of the article without losing readers because of accessibility. I'm brooding over that and will likely dive in on Monday. Willow (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Except for the lead section issue, I would already strike the "ive comments" above, but I will wait until that point is covered more adequatly. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lead: "Apollonius' problem can be generalized in several ways. The three given circles can be of any size and at any distance from each other" - the wording is a bit unfortunate, I feel. After all in the original problem the positions are arbitrary right off the start, right?

You're quite right; that test was moved from somewhere else and not updated appropriately. I fixed the wording and made it a little more colourful at the same time. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Statement section": Given your apparent talent with images, I think that section would benefit of an image of a tangent vs. a secant.

Sure, that's not hard. :) Do you think that tangent/secant lines/lines, line/circles or circles/circles would be more helpful? Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I just thought of a circle, and a tangent line and a secant line.

• Same section: I don't understand why you talk about two lines being tangent or not.

Perhaps I was misguided in this, but it seemed necessary for completeness to discuss the meaning of tangency for all of our geometrical objects, not just the obvious ones. That's also why I discussed how points could be tangent, and whether something was tangent to itself. Does that seem reasonable? Did I understand your meaning correctly? Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see too possibilities: either you stick to the case where solutions are circles (proper, i.e. no points or lines), in which case you don't need to discuss when two lines are tangent, because at least one of the entities in question is a circle. Other case: you do allow lines as solutions (as you do in the "Resizing two given circles to tangency" section. If you do this, the lead has to reflect this somehow.

As an aside: I have never heard people calling parallel lines tangent to each other. The projective plane image you may have in mind, i.e. considering the points at infinity, does IMO not really allow to call them tangent: parallel (distinct) lines intersect in infinity, but they are not tangent there (think of two great circles on a basketball).

I understand your point, but please consider the case of two tangent circles in the plane? They will become two parallel lines if we carry out inversion in a secant circle centered on their tangent point. If we say that inversion doesn't change the tangencies of inverted objects, by adding a point at infinity (rather than a line at infinity), then the two parallel lines are tangent at that point, aren't they? I'm imagining it's like putting two tangent small circles (not great circles) on the sphere so that their tangent point is the North Pole and then projecting down stereographically? Does that seem reasonable? Willow (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not check the details, but it sounds somewhat reasonable. I suggest putting some of these thoughts into that section and finding a ref for this so as to escape OR.

Update: I'm doubtful that such a projection transforms two tangent circles into parallel lines, because the intersection multiplicity of the circles is 2, whereas the intersection of two lines (intersecting at infinity) have multiplicity 1. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Figure 3: Showing the hyperbola you are talking about would be nice.

That image is much harder for me to make, but perhaps I can write a computer program to do that. I wanted to do that anyway for another article, so thank you for encouraging me! :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• A general markup concern: you use bold face pretty freely. I would not do this: it drags the readers attention to single symbols, it is also not standard in math books to use bold face for points, say, and also, I guess, the MOS has something in this direction. Also, the labels à la CCP don't deserve bold face, in my view.

Let me brood over that? I like the boldfacing to indicate that two things are different in character, e.g., points and lines. But I've been known to change my mind — sometimes many times before breakfast. ;) Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another markup thing: I am a bit irritated by switching so often between TeX markup and standard text. I personally prefer standard, because the flow is better. Most of the formulae (!hey ;) don't need TeX, for example the ones in the "Lie sphere geometry" section don't at all. I would suggest replacing every occurence of TeX, where it is possible, by standard markup.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any TeX in the text of the article? If you meant the TeX equations in math mode, I'm really sorry, but I think I'd like to keep them that way. I find the TeX formatting much better than my kludgy formatting with italics and subscripts. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's about

$\left(X_{1}|X_{2}\right):=v_{1}w_{2}+v_{2}w_{1}+\mathbf {c} \cdot \mathbf {c} -s_{1}s_{2}r_{1}r_{2}.$

I mean, I won't insist, but why is the above nicer than

(X₁ | X₂) = v₁w₂ + v₂w₁ + c·c − s₁s₂r₁r₂

Admittedly, the difference in quality isn't glaring, but I do prefer the LaTeX version on my screen, particularly for its spacing and positions of subscripts. De gustibus nihil disputandum est, perhaps? :) Willow (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it "Viète's reconstruction"?

Because he was explicitly trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to reconstruct the original straightedge-and-compass solution of Apollonius? Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I didn't understand that from the said section.

• "Multiplying out the three equations and canceling the common terms yields formulae for the coordinates xs and ys" - I don't see ad hoc why this gives linear equations. Could you specify what you mean by "canceling"?

When multiplied out, all three equations will have x_s² + y_s² on the left-hand side, and r_s² on the right-hand side. Subtracting one equation from another eliminates these quadratic terms, leaving only the linear ones. Should I explain it more fully in the text? Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote out the fuller explanation; undoubtedly, many people would've gotten that. Thanks for catching that and improving the article; that's a very important part of the article! :) Willow (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK.

• "s_1–3" is usually written "s₁ ... s₃".

Yes, you're right, I was just trying to save space. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's been fixed, I think. Does it seem OK to you? Willow (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the first equation in "Lie sphere geom", why do you use the congruence symbol?

I was trying to say that this is the definition of the five-dimensional dot product. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. AFAIK, the standard symbol for this would be ":=" or ${\stackrel {def}{=}}$, or simply "=" and say a magic d-word in the text.

• You should introduce or at least wikilink the |...| notation of the Euclidean norm.

OK, I'll do that right away, that's a very good suggestion. :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's been fixed, I think. Does it seem OK to you? Willow (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the rôle of the orientation of the circles. On the one hand you call it "for visualization", but then it is also the sign in terms of these tangencies. The only widespread meaning of orientation is the clockwise-counterclockwise thing, AFAIK.

We should consult G-guy to explain this cryptic nomenclature, but I've definitely read it in my sources. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first question that comes to (my) mind in the inversion section: if the inversion is undone by applying it again, how come that a problem becomes "simpler" when applying the inversion? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the operation of inversion can render the problem more symmetrical, e.g., by making given circles concentric, or transforming them into parallel straight lines. Another good example of that is the Steiner chain, which I've been fitfully working on these past few weeks. I'm sure that a real mathematician could give you a better explanation and better examples, though. Willow (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely; this is the usual reason to restate a problem, from the application of Cartesian coordinates to the Langlands conjecture: to get a new form which contains the same information, more conveniently arranged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have read the rest of the article:

• Pairs of solutions: the text is partly almost the same as the image caption. Consider trimming down the caption of the image? In general, your image captions are really long.

Yes, I'm kind of talkative. I also know my own weaknesses and project them onto others: I sometimes skip the main text if I can get the idea from the figures and the captions. Others might like to do that as well. ;) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Inversion to an annulus: Wikilinking "concentric" might be good.

That's a good suggestion, although the article concentric definitely needs some TLC. :) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is "in tandem" English or Latin? I mean, is it common English use? Never heard that one.

Yes, I've heard it before; I hope that I've used it correctly! :) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Figure 7 and 8 have a number of captions (in the image) that don't seem to be used. e.g. r_inner, r_outer. I would remove these things, they just clutter up the image.

Actually I need to keep them becuase they're needed to define the solution radius and the distance of the solution circle from the concentric center. I think I've fixed up the captions to Figures 7 and 8 to agree with the text on that score. Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• is there a reason for not using standard header markup at "Shrinking one given circle to a point" and the next one? The equal spacing before and after the heading looks a bit odd, I find.

I didn't realize that I could go down one more level in subsections with five ='s in a row! Live and learn something new every day at Wikipedia :) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• You mention that Euclid solved the PPP and LLL case. It might be good to say that every middle school kid (at least in Germany :) learns this, and this is apparently much easier.

To benefit students with less enlightened curricula, I explained those two cases in more detail in the article. You probably noticed that there's a daughter article that goes into all the special cases. Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is, at last, a critical (in the original sense) point: the lead is, I have to say, fairly unbalanced. The generalizations, strangely, occupy a third of the lead, but much less of the article. Another third is occupied by the historical stuff. The current lead section gives the impression: it is an old problem, somehow there are 8 solutions, this can be done more generally.

I read above that your intention is to make the lead interesting or readable to the general public, but this should not be at the expense of matching the content. Please consider adding some hints how the solutions were achieved. You don't have to go into the details, obviously, but somehow the flavor of the many pretty complicated thoughts of the "ancient" geometric guys should be in the lead. This wish corresponds to some guideline "do not dumb it down", right?

Dang, the more I think about it, especially in light of the question which "glasses" (acc. to Gg below) one wears, the more I come to the conclusion that outlining the solution methods, and somehow showing that the problem is a very nice example of how (some techniques in) mathematics evolved over time, is a must. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another statement I miss a bit in the article is a qualitative comparison of the methods. As far as I personally see it, the geometric methods are terribly complicated, the algebraic is pretty nice (and by way of introducing these coordinates, the problem is almost trivial, which could be a nice info for the lead, too), finally the Lie sphere idea puts the other ones to shame with respect to elegance and simplicity.

• Of course I share your view that the Lie sphere approach puts others to shame by its elegance and simplicity, but it is important to realise that the beautiful algebra involves solving quadratic equations, and classical geometers were interested in "geometrical" (for them, straight edge and compass) constructions. Solving quadratic equations is ugly from this point of view, and so the other geometrical solutions (which are indeed terribly complicated) are actually simplifications of the direct translation of the algebraic solutions into classical geometry. What is simple and what is beautiful depends upon the glasses we use. Geometry guy 20:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm aware of this. Anyway, some evaluation should be in the article. Even saying that the problem amounts to solving quadratic equations is a good hint, and should be understandable to many, what the problem's nature is like. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree. However, our ability to include evaluation is limited to what reliable sources have to say. Here I leave the discussion in Willow's capable hands. Geometry guy 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're getting a little subjective here, no? Perhaps there are other ways of viewing the the complexity/elegance of the solutions? I need to 'fess to my own pair of glasses here. I've a childhood love for geometry (at least those that I can visualize easily) and true love lasts a lifetime; I find the geometrical solutions cool and fun, even a little bit racy, like a good paranormal romance novel. On the other hand, I find the algebraic solutions, well, a little anticlimactic, rather like a textbook on accounting. Sure, they're true — but are they Art? ;) I'm not this way, but a jaundiced eye might see Lie spheres as just a convenient tool for 5-column bookkeeping. (gasp — forgive me, G-guy! ;)

That said, I'm open to discussing the methods more in the lead, provided that it engages and doesn't scare off potentially interested readers. I think that might be possible; where there's a will — and people of good will and good sense — there's surely a way, don't you agree? :) Willow (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective, moi?! ;) Alas our poor eyes, jaundiced or otherwise, cannot fully appreciate the geometrical beauty of the Lie quadric, constrained as they are by having two dimensional retinas. If these were three dimensional instead, then those 5d column vectors would come to life as points in projective four space. We would then see the Lie quadric, a three dimensional hypersurface, criss-crossed with lines, stretching majestically out to infinity, just as easily as we can see its two dimensional analogue, the hyperboloid of one sheet. Now that's geometry! And perspective it is best painter's art. Geometry guy 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The wording "The eight solution circles differ from one another in how they enclose (or exclude) the three given circles; the eight circles correspond to the eight ways of enclosing or excluding the given circles." is a bit repetitive. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on orientation. In plane geometry there are two ways that two circles can be tangent: from the inside (one circle inside the other) or from the outside. In Moebius (or inversive) geometry, these two ways are equivalent, because an inversion, centered on a point which is outside one of the circles but inside the other, exchanges the two pictures. Lie sphere geometry resolves the ambiguity in a different way: by orienting the circles. For visualization, such an orientation can be viewed as little arrows or chevrons pointing either clockwise or anticlockwise around the circle. Now we can redefine "tangent" to mean "oriented contact" rather than just "contact": two circles make oriented contact iff they touch and the arrows on the two circles are pointing the same way at the contact point. Lie sphere geometry keeps track of the orientations by letting the radius of a circle have a sign. Willow has denoted these signs by the s's. Geometry guy 08:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would epsilon or sigma be clearer than s? Some people who do not understand Lie groups nevertheless have met the usual conventions of mathematical notation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would absorb the signs into the radii, but this may be a too advanced viewpoint. An ε would be preferable to an s at the college level, at least for math majors who've done permutations or tensor analysis. I'm not sure it would help the rest of the readership. Geometry guy 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly arbitrary section break

• Qualified support. I've given Willow way too much grief and not much help over this article! She has made it into an impressive piece of work. I'm happy to support it now modulo the scientific citation guidelines. A general citation would be helpful to the reader at the beginning of the sections on : "Statement of the problem", "Intersecting hyperbolas", "Inversive methods", "Pairs of solutions by inversion", "Gergonne's solution", "Ten combinations of points, circles and lines" and "Number of solutions". I also added two tags. I think these are easily fixed, and hope to cross out "qualified" very soon! Geometry guy 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've fixed all my concerns and a lot more besides. Change to "enthusiastic support". Geometry guy 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - these could easily be opposed issues, but I believe they will be easily remedied: 1. "Statement of the problem" has no citations, and a citation needed tag. Please provide at least a primary source to look at. Two or three references, even if broad, would make the section better. 2. "History" End of the second paragraph in this section needs a citation. 3. "Intersecting hyperbolas" there is text sandwiched between two images. I don't know what can be done to fix this, but it may cause problems. 4. The captions of the "figures" are lengthy, and might be best to be mentioned in the article and point to (figure 1, 2, etc) instead of being in the caption. 5. "Algebraic solutions" should have some citations to where these equations come from so people can look at them later. If they, and the next sections, are using the references at the very end, could you please make that clearer at the beginning (something to say, according to ___ the equations are: ). 6. Figure 7 and 8 are left formatted and cause some formatting problems. Perhaps move to the right, or cut the captons down as I suggested above? 7. Sandwiching problems with figures 9 and 10, which could be fixed if you cut the captions down in the way suggested above. 8. Figure 11 causes the subheadings to format improperly. It is because it was an image put before a subheading. Could you fix this? Thats it. All formatting issues and a few primary sources needed to be refered to more often for people like myself to go back and check more easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've fixed 1, 2, improved 3, and fixed 8. Regarding 4, other reviewers have pointed to the benefit of long captions, so I'm going to respect Willow's editorial choice here. Regarding 5, the general reference is at the beginning of the section per scientific citation guidelines. With no disrespect intended, the equations in this section are trivial. Regarding 6, what counts as a formatting problem is somewhat subjective. Regarding 7, I only get sandwiching problems on a widescreen browser, where it is not a problem: as I narrow the browser the sandwiching goes away. I've tested my improvement of issue 3 in a similar way. Geometry guy 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Further to this and Randomblue's comments, I've copyedited the captions (over 700 characters removed). Geometry guy 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Update: Thank you for everyone's thoughtful reviews and suggestions! I'll return to improve the article tomorrow. Per Sandy's advice, I've been working with Graham87 to address the accessibility of the images; I made {{Alt Image}} as a workaround, but the ever-resourceful Simetrical heard our plea and updated the MediaWiki software itself in r41364, which should go live soon (keep checking Special:Version!) I'm brooding over the lead and the formatting issues, which I'll hopefully amend to all your satisfactions tomorrow. Thanks for your patience! :) Willow (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I need an accessibility expert reviewing FACs :-)) I just sent the Germanium editors to see Graham87; maybe you can help out if you become knowledgeable in this area? So far, I suspect I'm the only one reviewing for WP:ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as I trust the concerns listed above (see G-guy, , Ottava etc.) will be addressed. Some potential wikilinks include:

• shrunk to zero [[radius]]
• generalizations to even [[higher dimension]]s
• tangent, although two [[Parallel (geometry)|parallel lines]]
• of distances to two [[fixed point]]s
• on the [[Sides of an equation|right-hand side]]
• [[Linear independence|linearly independent]]
• must lie on the [[Bisection|perpendicular bisector]] line
• pertain if the [[speed of sound]]
• is not [[Isotropy|isotropic]]
• boundaries of an [[infinite set]]

• are the [[curvature] and radius
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done except fixed point (mathematics), as this isn't the meaning here. Geometry guy 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support in terms of prose. I do hate whatever template produces those lines of clunky equations. Why do they have to be so big? Why does the font have to be so unattractive? I see at least one example where the template hasn't been used on stand-alone equations, and it's much nicer (although almost too small now). Tony (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support per Jakob. Randomblue (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The points I have raised are just examples, they certainly don't form an exhaustive list.

• 1) ref 34 has a date problem

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2) ref 43 has an inconsistent dot

  Sorry, I don't understand this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Willow's convention is to not put any dot in abbreviations of names. Fair enough, but it should be consistend throughout. For example, ref 43, "McMullen, Curtis T." needs to be changed. Randomblue (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ben (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 3) Why are Reye T and Gosset T redlinked?

  Unlinked. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 4) ref 52 and 53 have inconsistent dots

  And I don't understand this, either. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Schmidt, R. O. -> Schmidt RO, etc. Randomblue (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ben (talk)

• 5) the four instances of 'Ecole' should be 'École'

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 6) '(d=1)' -> bad spacing

  I don't see this, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  "which is higher than that of a regular (or rectifiable) curve (d=1) but less than that of a plane (d=2)" there is also d=2 which should be d = 2 :) Randomblue (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ben (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 7) "Apollonius of Perga (ca. 262 BC – ca. 190 BC) posed and solved this famous problem in his work Επαφαι ("Tangencies"), which has been lost." How can we know he actually solved the problem? Maybe write 'thought to have solved'.

  His solution was described by others in works that haven't been lost. This is noted in the history section. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, but to what extent can we affirm he solved the problem using "descriptions" of his proof? Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

    To the extent that this what the reliable sources say. :-) Geometry guy 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 8) "Many eminent mathematicians have developed various geometrical and algebraic methods for solving this problem". Why 'eminent'? Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

  I don't think many people would question it, but I've removed it anyway. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 9) "which has practical applications in trilateration". Why 'practical'? This seems redundant.

  Theoretical applications exist for many pieces of mathematics. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 10) "These eight circles represent the solutions to Apollonius' problem and are sometimes called Apollonius circles" I find this is misleading. When there are less solutions we still call them 'Apollonius circles', right?

• Reworded this the reduce the number of occurrences of "eight". Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 11) In the second paragraph of the lead I count 5 occurrences of "eight"

• See above. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 12) "difference d1−d2" wrong spacing

• I think I fixed this. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 13) "Viète solved all ten of these cases using only compass and straightedge" needs rephrasing. Viète certainly used other things to solve these cases (such as hard work, thought, paper, ...). What you mean is "Viète found all solutions to these ten cases, and the constructions can be made using only compass and straightedge."

• Ahh, I think the current wording is better. To solve a problem using only a compass and straightedge has a precise meaning, and a wikilink is provided earlier in the text to explain this if someone isn't sure. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say my wording was better, just that the current wording needs to be changed (to be specific, the verb "solved" needs to be changed). Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed by adding "constructions". Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 14) in the fourth paragraph of the "Viète's reconstruction" section, I don't understand the convention for explicitly describing the cases. For example, "CPP case (a circle and two points)" but "CLP case".

• A circle, a line and a point. The convention is noted in the first paragraph. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, I read over this again this morning and I understand what your point was now. It looks like the convention is to explicitly describe the cases the first time they're mentioned, and then just use the abbreviation after that. Ben (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• 15) "and again in 1936 by Nobel laureate Frederick Soddy" why is 'Nobel laureate' relevant?

• I guess it's not, but it is interesting. Removed it. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 16 "to construct H. Rademacher's contour for complex integration" is the text going to be consistent with the references with regard to dots in names?

• I can't find this sentence. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Very last section. Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. The text uses full names or surnames only. I've fixed H. -> Hans. Geometry guy 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 17) "Apollonius' problem can be framed as a system of three coupled quadratic equations." what is a 'coupled quadratic equation'?

• A quote from a book I came across while looking for a way to be precise: "problems describing different types of mechanics may be coupled through a variety of mechanisms with varying degrees of interaction. Both of these characteristics are difficult to generalise and quantify and lead to a certain vagueness when discussing coupled problems in general terms." Nevertheless, I had a go at clearing this up. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I feel a bit stupid, but I still don't understand what this means. Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Nor do I, but I do understand what a quadratic equation is and have wikilinked it. Here "coupled" simply means that the three equations involve all three unknowns x_s, y_s and r_s, i.e., they are not separate quadratic equations for each unknown. I've wikilinked it. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 18) "The three signs s1, s2 and s3" -> s1, s2 and s3 are not signs

• It's useful to be able to refer to the "signs" as a group, so I've reworded it a bit to make the definition explicit. I hope that is ok. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 19) "(2 × 2 × 2 = 8)" Maybe 2^3 would be a more appropriate.

• I think the point here is to visually highlight that each sign gives rise to two possible solutions. There is nothing wrong with 2^3 if you really think it would be better though. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 20) "The general system of three equations may be solved by the method of resultants." Good to know! So what is a resultant? I would like to take this as an example to show that the level varies extremely within the article. Some trivial points sometimes take 3 lines to explain ("Apollonius' problem can be framed as a system of three coupled quadratic equations.[23] Since the three given circles and any solution circle must lie in the same plane, their positions can be specified in terms of the (x, y) coordinates of their centers. For example, the center positions of the three given circles may be written as (x1, y1), (x2, y2) and (x3, y3), whereas that of a solution circle can be written as (xs, ys). Similarly, the radii of the given circles and a solution circle can be written as r1, r2, r3 and rs, respectively."), and then bluntly, in half a line, the reader is assumed to know resultants.

• The method is described in detail following that sentence. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, but I still don't know what a resultant it. Maybe add a wikilink. Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done (not by me). Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 21) images: 'succinct captions' is part of criterion 3. Clearly not satisfied for nearly all images.

• Agreed, but I think some leniency should be given for mathematical images. According to WP:CAP, make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture. The images in this article contain a lot of information that, with a good explanation, go a long way to help the reader see what is going on - even if the article is over their head. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, but a lot of useless (by which I means already explained in the article) appears in the captions. For example, in Figure 2, the following is useless: "In each pair, one solution circle encloses the given circles that are excluded by the other solution, and vice versa. For example, the larger blue solution encloses the two larger given circles, but excludes the smallest; the smaller blue solution does the reverse." Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've copyedited the captions (a reduction of over 700 characters), but I don't want to remove information that is useful to the reader in interpreting the symbols, colours, etc. appearing in the image. Geometry guy 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 22) "one example is the annular solution method of H. S. M. Coxeter" dots?

• Not sure about this one?

• Fixed. Ben (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 23) "using only a compass and straightedge" delete a before compass or add a before straightedge

  Done. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 24) "Many simple constructions are impossible using only these tools" 'simple'? POV. Actually, because they can't be perfomed using compass and straightedge, they could be described as difficult!

  Removed simple. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 25) "Therefore, van Roomen's solution—which uses the intersection of two hyperbolas—might violate the straightedge-and-compass requirement." 'might'. So we're not actually sure?

• Reworded. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 26) "Prior to Viète's solution, the mathematician Regiomontanus doubted whether Apollonius' problem could be solved by straightedge and compass." Is it necessary to point out that Regiomontanus was a mathematician?

• I guess not. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 27) "Viète first solved the simpler special cases of Apollonius' problem" What do you mean by 'the simpler special cases'? Do you 'some of the special cases'? Also, I'd avoid using "simpler".

• Reworded and added to the example simple case to show why it's simple. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 28) "Apollonius' own book on this problem—entitled Επαφαι ("Tangencies", Latin: De tactionibus, De contactibus)" why is the Latin title relevant?

• Some older books will refer to it by its Latin title. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 29) "Whereas Poncelet's proof relies on homothetic centers of circles and the power of a point theorem, Gergonne's method exploits the conjugate relation between lines and their poles in a circle. Methods using circle inversion were pioneered by Julius Petersen in 1879;[15] one example is the annular solution method of H. S. M. Coxeter.[16] Another approach uses Lie sphere geometry" In two lines you manage to fit in many 'sophiticated' tools with no explanation whatsoever. This could frighten people, who might expect a 'soft' introduction in the 'History' section.

• I think up until this point, the history section keeps things fairly straight forward for the interested reader. The point of these last two paragraphs is to note that other methods have been developed (with a hint as to how), with supporting wikilinks and references for the more experienced reader, and discussion of the methods later in the article. The less experienced reader can still take something away from the paragraphs, by noting that people have worked on the problem even in (relatively!) recent times. On the other hand, not mentioning these would leave a gap in the history in my opinion. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 30) "(In complex analysis, "infinity" is defined precisely in terms of the Riemann sphere.)" 'defined precisely', sounds redundant.

• Removed precisely. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 31) "In general, any three distinct circles have a unique circle—the radical circle—that intersects all of them perpendicularly" citation needed. Also, 'radical circle' could do with a wikilink.

• wikilinked Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 32) First sentence of 'Pairs of solutions by inversion' : "solutions to Apollonius' problem generally occur in pairs"; later in the section, "solutions to Apollonius' problem generally occur in pairs"

• Fixed Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to deal with as many of these as I could. Ben (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 33) "Inversion has the useful property that lines and circles are always transformed into lines and circles, and points are always transformed into points." -> reference needed

  This is standard, and covered by the general ref that I added to the beginning of the section. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 34) the serial comma is not respected throughout, see for example "three given circles of radii r1, r2 and r3"

  I prefer to neither respect nor disrespect the serial comma :-) It is useful where it adds clarity. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 35) still remains point problems in references 34, 54 and abbreviation problems in references 52, 53

  I've fixed what you call the "point problems." I don't know what you mean by "abbreviation problems." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  First names of authors in full. I've fixed them I think. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 36) the citations needed need to be dealt with

  I added the citations needed. And I've fixed them :-) Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 37) Mathematical facts should be referenced, as for the article Group (mathematics). For example, the whole "method of resultants" goes unreferenced. Randomblue (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've added some general citations to cover standard facts. Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 38) "Célèbres Problêmes mathématiques." The current spelling for 'problem' in French is 'problème', not 'problême'. However, the old spelling might have been 'problême', although I doubt it. Also, French titles usually only have a capital on the first word.

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 39) "Pappus d'Alexandrie: La Collection Mathématique" check capitalization.

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 40) "Traité de Géométrie" capitalization

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 41) "Inversion in a circle with center O and radius R consists of the following operation (Figure 5): every point P is mapped into a new point P' such that O, P, and P' are collinear, and the product of the distances of P and P' to the center O equal the radius R squared" -> 'inversion' and 'collinear' could do with wikilinks; why 'new'?, the point need not be new; why 'every'?, your definition does not apply to O
• 42) 'Lie quadric' could go with a wikilink

  Added a wikilink, but there is no page on this yet. I don't know enough about the space to create anything more meaningful than what is given in this article, but the description given in this article suffices for what follows. Ben (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've made this into a redirect to the beautiful article on Lie sphere geometry :-) Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• 43) "This formula shows that if two quadric vectors X1 and X2 are orthogonal (perpendicular) to one another—mathematically, if (X1|X2) = 0—" why is 'orthogonal' not 'mathematical'?

  Reworded. Ben (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• 44) Geometry: Euclid and beyond -> capitalization of English titles

  Fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 45) "Apollonius problem is to construct one or more circles tangent to three given objects in a plane, which may be circles, points or lines. Thus, there are ten types of Apollonius' problem" 'Thus' seems to be the wrong connecting word. The result ("there are ten types of Apollonius' problem") doesn't follow immediately from the premise. Also, the result needs a reference.

  Reworded. Still to look for references for this and the citation needed tags mentioned above and below. Ben (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the sources:

• "Statement of a problem" section could use a citation or two. Especially where the article cites GPS as an application of the problem, a citation could go there.
• There also is a citation needed tag in the applications section. I think a reference belongs in the beginning section of that paragraph.
• Otherwise, I think this article meets the FAC criteria 1c, which concerns sourcing. I did some looking around on Google Books and Google Scholar to see if key papers and books are included as citations in this article, and that appears to be the case. --Aude (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done. (Fixed my own tags and more besides.) Geometry guy 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Status? Does anyone know the status? WillowW hasn't edited since the 30th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead

• Reminder Since Willow seems to be on a wikibreak I just want (in case it's somehow lost in the long running of the candidacy) to remind those of you who kindly work on this article at the moment that there is still a central problem with the article, namely the lead section. Please see my comments above. For the moment this issue still prevents me from supporting this article being featured. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, good point. Luckily, I'm allegedly an expert on WP:LEAD. How does it look now? Geometry guy 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, is better. But could still be improved: first, it's still unbalanced: generalizations get lot of attention, inversive methods are not mentioned. I mean I don't wanna insist that every subsection has to be covered proportionally, but it's a point. More importantly, the lead doesn't flow that well (e.g. I'd incorporate the limiting cases in the description of the solutions, since this is factually linked. Likewise the number of solutions (8) should be connected to the (not yet extant) mentioning of the inversive strategy). Another example where the flow is interrupted is the line break after the first paragraph. It closes with history, and the next paragraph starts with history, too. Finally, I'd love to have a qualitative description of the development of the solution methods. Currently they are soberly listed, but convey little or no enthusiasm to people not acquanted to this stuff. Also "..., or additional symmetries" doesn't speak to me at all, instead it may even be distracting since people may wonder: "he? a circle is already pretty symmetric. what additional syms?". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to have a go at it? Geometry guy 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've given in another go, incorporating some of your suggestions, while also following Willow's view. Geometry guy 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, just at the same time I pasted my 2c (edit confl.). I tried to emphasize the evolution of the ideas behind the solutions, thus somewhat merging historical order with mathematical stuff. What do you think? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My rewrite also merged history with solution methods, so we seem to be broadly agreed on that. I like the "solutions by algebraic means" and the "pairs of solutions" stuff, but I find the last three sentences of paragraph three somewhat empty of content and would rather tell the reader something interesting instead. What do you make of my version? Geometry guy 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Good that we have the article history! OK, my sentence with Gergonne is not great. In principle I do like the following two ones, though. Rewording and adding a little more flesh may be in order, certainly. Your version: Giving some trendy keywords as you do with GPS and Hardy-littlewood (I don't know if the latter rings a bell with general readers, though) is certainly a good method to remedy aridity or emptiness. I would personally refrain from putting two much folklore like the poem and the letter to the princess. Are you up to merging the two drafts? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can give it a go. One reason I added the (reliably sourced) folklore is to replace assertions like "important special case" with some facts about the special case that might indicate to the reader that it is important and interesting, but I guess I overdid it. I similarly don't like "to great effect", but there are facts that can be deployed there. Geometry guy 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a shot. Inevitably, incorporating both our thoughts has added a few hundred bytes. Also inevitably, I've probably tended to favour my own structure. Geometry guy 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. Another issue I just refound when striking my above comment is the question with tangency of parallel lines (see above). I personally think they shouldn't be considered tangent (since their intersection multiplicity is one, not two, at infinity) but Willow seemed to be of this opinion. This is not that big of a deal, one could simply remove this statement if it is wrong (which I believe). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look above, but the discussion I found was under a stricken comment. Are you concerned that two distinct parallel lines are described as being tangent at infinity? Ben (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Perhaps I shouldn't have striked out the comment, but later I became aware of this being still an issue. For convenience I post it here again:

• Statement section: I don't understand why you talk about two lines being tangent or not. I did not check the details, but based on the common interpretation of tangency meaning intersection multiplicity two or higher, two parallel (distinct) lines do not qualify as tangent (use Bezout's theorem, for example, which computes their intersection multiplicity (at infinity) to be 1). I suggest finding a ref for this claim, if you consider it still right, so as to escape OR. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  You're thinking in terms of projective plane geometry, where there is a line at infinity, and parallel lines do indeed meet with multiplicity one. That's not relevant here: the natural geometry is Moebius or inversive geometry, where there is just a point at infinity (as in the Riemann sphere). In that case all lines meet at infinity (obviously!) and parallel lines are tangent at infinity. I corrected this issue some time ago. Is further clarification needed? Geometry guy 08:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • All right. That makes sense. I hadn't caught your edit there. The current wording "two parallel lines can be considered as tangent at a point at infinity." is still vague. With your explanation here it becomes understandable. So, perhaps add what you just explained me. A precise reference for this idea would be good, too. So, I'm happy to support this article being featured. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think Geometry Guy has already added a reference, but I've checked that it's discussed in Needham's Visual Complex Analysis so I can add another if you want. Ben (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  One ref per fact is fine! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  The Needham ref might be more accessible (in every sense) for more readers, so I don't mind if you want to substitute it. Anyway, thank you Ben, Jakob and Randomblue (et al.) for helping to do justice to Willow's fine work. Geometry guy 18:18, 13 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 02:22, 13 October 2008 [21].

---

Operation Tractable

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)

This article concerns the Canadian half of the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy, from the capture of Falaise to the closing of the Falaise Pocket. Passed its GA on June 16, 2008 (followed by copyedits from User:EyeSerene and User:SGGH), passed its ACR 10 days later, underwent a peer review shortly after that. Minor copyediting for MoS and prose tightening have been ongoing throughout the last half week by myself. I believe that it meets the criteria for Featured Article. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://montormel.evl.pl/ (refs 11, 16, 20, 22, and 31) reliable?
  • Memorial Mont-Ormel is the memorial/museum/archives situated on Hill 262 commemorating the Polish 1st Armoured Division
• What makes http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/can-eve-rod-nor-cam-e.htm reliable?
  • Juno-Beach Centre, the Canadian memorial/museum/archives in Corseilles-sur-Mer commemorating Canadian actions throughout the Battle of Normandy. Both are the official sites of museums on the conflict, I would think that that would make them reliable enough for usage. Regards, Cam (Chat) 23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
• By contrast, Polish casualty figures for Operation Tractable are known. In their movements against Chambois and Mont Ormel, the Poles put their losses at 325 killed, 1,002 wounded, and 114 missing.[31][14] Prior to the Chambois and Ormel actions on August 14–18, they lost a further 263 men.[23] This brings the total Polish toll for Operation Tractable at 1,704 casualties, of which 588 were fatal. -> Is there any non-Polish source for Polish casualties, to compare and contrast?

I do know for a fact that Roman Jarymowycz mentions them in "Tank Tactics". I do not, however, have the pg. # for the statistic on me at the moment. I'll take a look if I can find the book again. All the best, Cam (Chat) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Operation Tractable began at 1200 on August 14, with 800 Lancaster and Halifax bombers bombing German forces." Awkward sentence structure.
• Time inconsistencies: "Operation Tractable began at 1200" but "At 7 pm on August 20, 1944".
• "On morning of August 20"—Needs a the.
• "Composed of close to 20,000 men and 150 tanks before the campaign, it had been reduced to a mere 300 men and 10 tanks." "mere" sounds POV.
• "Prior to the Chambois and Ormel actions on August 14–18," "Prior to"-->Before, it's simpler.
• "a 20 minute ceasefire"—"20 minute" should be hyphenated.
• "Although the first day's progress was slower than planned, Operation Tractable resumed on August 15, with both armoured divisions pushing southeast towards the hills east of Falaise." Awkward.

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All Fixed (I think). Cam (Chat) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Is the 2nd SS Panzer Corps the correct formation as 12th SS Panzer Division was part of the 1st SS Panzer Corps ? I can see where later in the article 2nd SS Panzer is correct with the details about DAS REICH etc.

Ah, probably should have been more clear about that. 1SS-PC was attacking from inside the pocket to try and get out, 2SS-PC was attacking from outside to try and get 1SS-PC out. Cam (Chat) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• On August 16, the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division broke into Falaise itself, encountering minor opposition from Hitler Youth units

This should be changed to opposition from units of the 12 SS Panzer Division. The Hitler Youth did not take part in any fighting in Normandy. The division was made up of ex member of the HY, who had to be over 18 to join the Division like many of the 18 year olds in UK & US divisions of the time. [ref]Reynolds, Michael. (2007). Steel Inferno: I SS Panzer Corps in Normandy. Spellmount Books. ISBN 978-1-86227-410-5(will find the page number if required)[/ref]

Fixed. Even then, some sources do mention Hitler-Youth battalions in Normandy (although that varies from source to source. Per Exemplar, Bercuson & Copp mention it, as does Van-Der-Vat, but D'Este, as far as I know, doesn't). Cam (Chat) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support If these points above can be clarified Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. My sourcing issues have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I found the article very engaging (I had to fight the temptation to skim ahead and find out what happened to the Polish forces on Mount Ormel!). I am, however, concerned about the sourcing. I understand that the websites referenced are official museums. However, unless the content that you are citing was written by published historians, I do not consider those to be exceptionally reliable sources. (I am, for example, working on the article Battle of the Alamo, and I will not rely on the website of the group that maintains the museum and archives).) They are essentially self-published by the museum. There is also a minor issue with the MOS: All measurements should be in standard and metric. There are several measurements given only in miles. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In Rebuttal:

• • Both of these source issues are relatively easy for me to fix. While I can't eliminate all of the references to those sites, I can definitely decrease my reliance on them (on account of having purchased a few books I didn't have when I first wrote the article). I'll do my best today & possibly tomorrow to reorganize some sources. I can also cite some stuff from the books I already used instead, although it will make for a much less diverse reflist. I'll also try to look a bit deeper into who wrote the Memorial Mont-Ormel site & JBC site. All the best, Cam (Chat) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I have almost completely removed the JBC from the reflist (only 2 references compared to 8 before). The section on the Battle of Hill 262 is proving somewhat more difficult, but the rest is proving relatively easy. Cam (Chat) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • I appreciate your hard work in resourcing much of the article. I am still troubled that a statistic (the number of deaths in the campaign), is sourced to a self-published website. The few remaining references to the websites don't really involve controversial data, but this one could be. Is there any way that could be sourced to something else? Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • fixed. I found it amid the footnotes of Jarymowycz's book on WWII Tank Tactics. Cam (Chat) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support

It's a good article, Cam, and I only have a few niggles to iron out before I wholeheartedly support the article.

• • 'The action at Falaise was the largest encirclement in the West during World War II, though it pales in comparison with the large encirclements on the Eastern Front, such as during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.' - That needs a citation
  • Some of those redlinks could do with stubbing out, IMO
  • Aftermath section could do with being a bit larger when I look at it; it seems a bit too brief really. Skinny87 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All conditions met, moving to full Support Skinny87 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Love the prose. Nevertheless sourcing needs work. (per Karana). — ceranthor ^(strike→) 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I see a featured article, although one that could perhaps have some work with the sources. At any rate, you got my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 9 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 02:22, 13 October 2008 [22].

---

PNC Park

Nominator(s): Blackngold29

I began working on this article in April 2008. It has since grown and received reviews from a number of users. I have attempted not to rush it into any stage of the process, but now feel it is ready for a FA review. I will do my best to address any comments. Thank you. Blackngold29 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://www.hoksport.com/projects/pnc.html reliable?
  • This is the official website of the company that designed the stadium. Here's a potential replacement. [23] This is a great newspaper article from when the stadium opened, and is a high-quality source by any standard. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that, if possible, it would be better to replace it with that newspaper article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Both of them (said article and official site) are currently citing the sentence. Is there a problem with leaving both there, as it is confirmed in multiple other sources and it is the company's official site? Blackngold29 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I suppose it would suffice if you added the newspaper article in addition to the existing source. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://chronicleconsulting.com/proj/sea.html reliable?

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Website of the company that inspects PNC Park. Not sure how reliable that makes it, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it seems to be the official site of the company. It isn't really a controversial claim and I would like to keep the statement as it's a one of a kind bit of info. I'll remove it if needed though. Blackngold29 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll leave this one up to the other reviewers to decide (not that I don't believe you, I just want to be sure that it's reliable). Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Comments - Finally, a topic that I'm truly an expert in, having attended 17 Major League Baseball stadiums, including this one. I'm quite pleased to see one of them come here, but think that it does need improvements.

• The Pirates' attendance in their first two seasons in the stadium is given, but I'd like to see what the figures look like now. A brief check of the ESPN website shows that average attendance is now down to about 20,000 a game. This is probably due to the team's failure; it shouldn't be hard to source that.
  • Added to the "Seating and ticket prices" section. Blackngold29 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• To our fine image experts: What is our policy on having panoramic pictures that take up the whole screen? Personally, I hope this can be kept because it's a beautiful photo.
  • Agreed, there are a few more that I could upload from FlickR, but I thought the current one was the best. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Didn't hear anything about this, so I'm striking it until given a good reason to do otherwise. I love the picture anyway. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Lead could use expansion to three paragraphs. First paragraph isn't that big either.
  • Expanded to three paragraphs, I generally dislike long intros, but it should be close if not adaquate now. Blackngold29 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "fifth home to the Pittsburgh Pirates," Picky, but perhaps replace to with of.
  • I like "of" better too. Changed. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Built in the style of classic stadiums, such as Fenway Park," Classic is a problem, because reviewers here think of it as POV, even though virtually all baseball fans would call Fenway Park classic (even Yankees fans like me). I'd prefer how this is handled in the body, with the term coming inside quotation marks.
  • I put quotes around it and cited it again. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Why no mention of the influence provided by Camden Yards and other new ballparks? To me, I see many of the new baseball stadiums as trying to imitate the success of these stadiums, and honestly saw more of them during my PNC visit than I did of Fenway and Wrigley Field (another ballpark I've seen in person).
  • I don't think I saw any sources that mentioned Camden. I'm sure there are many different parks that influended it, but I think Fenway and Wrigley were the most predominant. I'll look for a source, and add it if there's one out there. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The link I provided at the top does discuss Camden a bit and says that it "started the retro trend in major league ballparks". I'm sure that the success of the new stadiums inspired the Pirates owner to build PNC, but it's not a deal-breaker if the sources aren't clear enough to avoid OR. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Hyphens for second smallest and third cheapest.
  • Done. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Planning and funding: "Discussion about a ballpark took place, however, due to the possibility of the franchise's relocation to a new city;" Why is however used when there is really no contrast with the prior sentence.
  • I took the ; out, how's that? Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There was no change, but I'm satisfied that the other additions help create contrast. One thing: is "they" referring to the discussions or the stadium? Possible tense issue if it's the latter. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I re-worked the wording. Hopefully that makes it clearer. Blackngold29 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Couple of money figures need non-breaking spaces.
  • Bah, I got most nbsp, but forgot the money. Got 'em. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Design and construction: Why is foot linked? I know how long a foot is, and our readers surely do as well.
  • It came up in the peer review, I figured it couldn't hurt. Blackngold29 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will track this and come back with more comments once these are addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Still in Design and construction: Two straight sentences start with "PNC Park was constructed..."
  • Altered. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• "In addition, all 23 labor unions involved signed a pact that they would not strike during building process." Should be the building process.
  • Added, also got the nbsp for "23 labor..." Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Opening and reception: Don't think there should be a hyphen in "high-ticket prices".
  • Removed. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Contractions like in "best he's seen so far in baseball" are bad unless they are part of a quote.
  • It was a quote from the article, must've forgot the quotation marks. Added. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Men's Fitness, as a printed publication, should be in italics. In fact, please check the references and adjust those as well.
  • Added. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Statues: Hyphens for "... foot" uses. And don't repeat Honus Wagner's first name.
  • Added and removed respectively. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Two days later, the official opening of PNC Park," Try "Two days after the official opening of PNC Park,"
  • Altered. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Alterations: "thu making PNC Park..." Typo.
  • Corrected. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Other events: "PNC Park has also hosted various concerts, including The Rolling Stones and Pearl Jam, in 2005." Has the stadium only held concerts in that year? If not, a little tweak is in order.
  • Tweaked. Blackngold29 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One more picky thing that I touched on earlier. All printed publishers of references should be given in italics. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other newspaper articles should be changed. Not sure if this applies to books, though. I think they're fine as is. I'll support when this is done. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all. Book and magazine titles are automaticall italics due to their templates. Blackngold29 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments - overall, this is a good article, but there are some things to address before I can support.

• In the history section, the article should say something about the old ballpark. What was wrong with it? Why was a new ballpark needed?
  • Well, I would think wear and tear of 30 years would be assumed, but I added location and traffic issues too. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Discussion about a ballpark took place" - I think it needs to say "Discussions ..." (with plural).
  • Done. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "team studied the challenges of constructing a new ballpark" is followed by the sites recommended for the stadium. How is site selection a "challenge". What challenges did the team report about in the report?
  • Expanded on. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Kansas City-based HOK Sport designed the ballpark." - that's a very simple sentence, too simple. Something more could be said about their selection as architect, such as when they were selected.
  • This has been brought up before and I looked for further info, but couldn't find much on any bidding process. I added a quote from the cited article about HOK being the leading stadium architect; they were also awarded the New Pittsburgh Arena without much fanfare. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "PNC Park was constructed over a 24-month span–three months faster than any other modern major league ballpark" - I believe this is not true. It might have been built quicker than any stadium up until that time. However, ground was broken on Nationals Park on May 4, 2006 [24] and officially opened on March 30, 2008 when the Nationals played the Atlanta Braves [25] which makes the construction quicker than 24 months that it took to build PNC Park.
  • As of 2001 it was the quickest, clarified. Blackngold29 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, I have only reviewed the first two parts of the history section, and will look at the rest later. --Aude (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments

• In the Opening and reception section, the article cites Ahjua as saying PNC Park is one of the "top ten places to watch the game". I'm not sure exactly how many MLB baseball teams there are, but it's around 30. So, PNC Park is in the top third of all stadiums. It's a new stadium being compared with Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum and other older stadiums, so not surprising it's ranked highly. But, I don't know how remarkable or notable it is to say it's one of the "top ten places to watch the game."
  • He didn't say "top ten major league park", there are hundreds of minor league stadiums across the US and I'm sure in other countries. I think he was implying top ten stadiums in the country or world, not Major Leagues. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Same issue with saying "In 2008, Men's Fitness named the park one of "10 big league parks worth seeing this summer."" - at the very least, this seems redundant with the Ahjua quote, and perhaps the article does not need both.
  • That was added to show that even years after it has been there it is still rated as one of the best in the game. It also re-enforces the notion that it is a widely held view that PNC Park is one of the best. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Many of the workers who built the park said that it was the nicest that they have seen" - compared to what else they have seen? I presume that workers on the project are local Pittsburgh construction workers who work on various other types of projects in the Pittsburgh area, which are not as high profile or notable as a stadium project. Thus, I'm not sure the significance of including that statement.
  • The article its cited to talks of one worker who has been involved in construction since Mellon Arena in the early 1960s. 23 different unions were involved and I doubt all workers were from Pittsburgh. I could take it out if you really feel it shouldn't be there, but I get the vibe that most workers were not local. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• In the Other events section, the article mentions the Pittsburgh Panthers. It's not obvious that this is a college team. Perhaps the two sentences can be reworded, to start off saying, "The first collegiate game at PNC Park was played on May 6, 2003, between the Pittsburgh Panthers and the Duquesne Dukes.." Then provide more of the details.
  • Reworded. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Images - I know there are reasons why you can't have a picture of a statue, but the "PNC Park at night" photo doesn't really belong in the "Statues" section. It could go in a different section. The PNC Park at night picture is forced at 200px, which overrides user preferences. Please don't force the pixel sizes. Otherwise, the photos work well with the article, and the sandwich looks good. :)
  • With the exception of the panaramic picture, they were thumbs when I added them, somebody must've changed them. Fixed and relocated. Blackngold29 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

--Aude (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I'm satisfied with your explanation for including the various quotes in the "Opening and reception" section. I believe the article is factually accurate and comprehensive, with use of several books along with various news and other sources, and the sources are all reliable. --Aude (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image comments - There are some great images there, but I cant see Image:RobertoClementeStatueatPNCPark.jpg or Image:NLC-PIT-PNC.PNG meeting WP:NFCC#8 or the article meeting featured article criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not to learned in the picture area. Are you saying that they should be re-sized or eliminated? I think the Roberto one is a good picture, but I could understand removing it. The logo on the other hand, being that it is the building's official logo, should probably stay. I mean all sports teams have logos in their articles—Calgary Flames (an FA) has two. Blackngold29 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think that the logo is essential to understanding, if you look at WP:LOGO it discusses band logos, and I believe that stadia logos falls into the same category. A stadium can be uniquely identified visually with a picture of the stadium, most stadia don’t have logos, and the articles are fine without them. The m:mission is to create a free encyclopaedia, and this non-free material is not significant and it’s use is contrary to the mission of WP Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the logo. In addition, I have replaced the Roberto Clemente Statue picture with a free image of the Roberto Clemente Bridge with the Park in the background. I moved their locations so the Bridge would be near the prose that discusses it. With that, I believe all pictures are from the Commons. Blackngold29 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article meets criteria 3 in full Fasach Nua (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support While I am by far a bigger hockey fan than baseball, its good to see a sporting venue article get this sort of treatment. Good job. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - All my comments have been addressed, and I'm satisfied that the questioned sources are reliable enough for what they're citing (they seem similar to using Aramark to reference concession info). Looks like it meets FA criteria to me, though I did leave a couple more notes for you. Consider them opportunities to apply some extra polish. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many errors, including a missing verb in the lead; maybe Giants2008 will run through one more time. See my edit summaries and inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All inline queries have been taken care of. I'll run through again. I feel that intro's are the weakest part of my writing and it has been expanded since the FA review began, so that may explain some of the shortcomings. Blackngold29 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm stunned that I missed that. Bad job by me. I have virtually no experience with thorough copy-editing, but I'll take a shot at it later today. Please monitor my changes carefully so I don't mess anything up. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my first copy-editing pass, covering the lead and most of History, is done. I'll do more tomorrow, assuming that the first batch of edits is up to par. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes look great. I've been working on it for so long, I like to see how other people would write things. Yeah, definately keep going. Blackngold29 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My humble attempt to provide a copy-edit has concluded. Not to brag, but I improved it quite a bit. I did run into a couple little issues in Other events, which I'll post here.

You have definatley improved the article. Thanks a lot for your work! Blackngold29 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "During the game, late Pirate Roberto Clemente received the Commissioner's Historic Acheivement Award;". He couldn't have received the award, because he had been dead for 24 years. Perhaps change it to say he was honored with the award.
  • Reworded. Blackngold29 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• "A goal of the drill was to test the response of 49 western Pennsylvania emergency response agencies." Don't like the double response here. The source said it tested communication, but I didn't want to take such direct wording from it. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I had difficulty with wording in that section too. It now read, "...test the response of 49 western Pennsylvania emergency agencies." Which I think is suffic in getting the point across. Blackngold29 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support from Giggy. Only some very minor niggles.

• "which is considered to be the "leading stadium design firm in the [United States],"" - considered by whom?
  • The article doesn't really make it clear. From my understanding, they appear to appear to be unparalelled in their field. The only thing I could think to add would be "...acording to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette." Would that be alright? Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• "which relayed building plans 24 hours per day" - when you say relayed I expected a target (eg. "relayed plans from X to Y") or something like that - am I misreading?
  • It now reads "relayed building plans to builders 24 hours per day." Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Fans seated in the section are allowed "unlimited hotdogs, hamburgers, nachos, salads, popcorn, peanuts, ice cream and soda" for an entire game" - what's the catch!? If it costs more to get a ticket in that section you should probably say so
  • There is no catch that I can see, I don't believe prices were raised anymore in that section than others. It does sound almost too good to be true, but when your trying to attract people to watch the Pirates... Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Could a caption be added for the infobox image?
  • Would "A view of the field from the press-box" or something similar be acceptable? Blackngold29 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy (talk) 01:51, 13 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 02:22, 13 October 2008 [26].

---

Congregation Beth Elohim

Nominator(s): Jayjg ^(talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an extensively researched account of the history of a Brooklyn congregation. The article recently achieved GA status, and has been significantly improved since then. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images meet criteria; all free with proper license/date/author/publisher where applicable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tentative supportTony (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC); I've read only the top part, and found a few things that need explication. Please write for non-experts.
• Comma after the closing quotation marks (name).
• I'm distant from the topic, but the early objections to "practice" and the issue of reforming them sounds interesting. Perhaps it's too detailed to go into it, though. But other details seem not as important (someone was paid $150 a year, someone else $75 a year?).
• "Men and women sat together"—please write for non-experts. We're left to presume that this is unusual or undesirable under normal circumstances ... (at the time?)
• "Moderate reform services"—Now I want even more to know about this.
• "New accommodations"—a little precious; why not "a new building/location"? Does "accommodations" come from the source? If so, it's an ideal opportunity to avoid duplication. Tony (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your helpful comments. Regarding them:
    • Comma fixed.
    • The sources aren't really specific about which practices they wished to reform, but in general the kinds of changes congregations were making at the time were a result of the Reform movement in Judaism, and I've now linked the term to that article. Regarding the salaries, I thought they added some interesting color regarding salaries at that time; $6.25 or $12.50/month sounds like very little to today's ears. Also, it might be helpful for those with more knowledge to compare to other salaries at the time.
    • I've now added a phrase and link to the article regarding the traditional separation of mean and women in Jewish services.
    • Again, the source doesn't explain, but the link I've added to the previous mention should help.
    • I've re-worded per your concerns. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Has Tony been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Not by me, but I don't know if anyone else has. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there an organizational principle in the references? I'd really rather see them alphabatized by the first part of the ref, so that folks can find things. Right now, if there isn't an author, it's hard to figure out where to look for the full reference.
• Per the MOS, you need to put the link titles in the references in upper and lower case, there are a few that have parts in all upper.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note the link checker tool is showing some pages as a soft deadlink, but they worked fine with clicking on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Regarding the references, I've re-organized them, with helpful headings, and made them essentially alphabetical; what do you think? I'm open to other suggestions. Also, I've fixed the link titles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That works fine. At least the reader can now find the references easier with the subheadings. (It's not the way I would have done it, but it works for the reader and they should be able to figure it out so all is good!) Looks good, you're all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Elcobbola:
  • Image sandwiching in the "State Street" section. See MOS:IMAGES
  • Image:Congregation Beth Elohim stained glass window.JPG is a derivative work. Was this window made for the sanctuary (i.e. in 1910)? When did the artist die? As an unpublished work, it would not be PD if the author died after 1938.
  • Honorifics such as "Dr." and "Reverend" should not be used per MOS:BETTER. Эlcobbola _talk 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I think you've fixed all the image issues, except for the stained glass window one. I don't know whether or not there are copyright issues with this image, nor do I know anything else about it. I'm fine with removing it if people feel that's best. Also, I think I've now removed all the honorifics, but please let me know if I've missed any. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, if we don't have the information to determine that the window is in the public domain or freely licensed by the author, the image should be removed. Эlcobbola _talk 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Still there, need resolution on this from Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Per the advise of an image expert, I've modified the copyright information on the image, which should satisfy the concerns. I'm willing to remove it, if required, but in any event, shouldn't the discussion of the copyright status of the image be happening on Commons, not here? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Elcobbola is a Commons admin and good at resolving issues; has he been asked to revisit? (If I understand correctly, Elcobbola is saying we need the date of death of the author of the window; has that been added?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
              • No, they haven't been. I'll just remove the image from the article, and let the issue get settled on the Commons. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
              • O.K., the image is gone. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Re the section heading "Recent events", see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think I've fixed it now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I was too brief :-) I see you added those as of linked years: I don't know when those awful things crept back in to MoS, but someone should see if Tony's paying attention. I was only referring to the title itself: "Recent events" needs a more precise heading, avoiding the use of recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've changed the title to "Events since 2006" and removed the linking to "as of 2008". Does that fix the issues? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I think there has been a misunderstanding here. See my comment here. The initial edit you (Jayjg) made to add the As of 2008 link is indeed deprecated, per Wikipedia:As of, but the correct change would be to add {{As of|2008}}, which will still put the article in the hidden category stating that the article needs updating, but will output plaintext. This is not 100% certain, as the MOS link to Wikipedia:As of may date from the time the old Template:As of (in 2006) was being used, not the version created in February 2008. I've asked on the template talk page for comments. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
          • O.K., I've added the "As of" template where required, and it appears to be working. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The "as of year" links are deprecated per WP:As of and the discussion regarding it that took place at the Village Pump. However, they should not be outright removed as they still serve a functional purpose. Instead they should be converted to the {{As of}} template as appropriate. Links of the form [[As of Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year}}, and links of the form [[As of Month Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year|Month}}. This will output the plain text "As of [Month] Year" and categorise the article appropriately, but not create a wikilink in the article. See the template documentation for more options and information – Ikara ^talk → 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Per above, I've added the "As of" template where required, and it appears to be working. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Kablammo:

Lede:

• "currently located at". Why not just “located at”?

• "attempted four failed mergers". It makes it sound like the congregation was attempting failure in mergers. Can this be rephrased?

• "currently the largest". As above. This may not age well.

Early years:

• "$150/year". Use prose, as you did later on in paragraph.

• "the congregation became known as the ‘Pearl street synagogue’". Check caps here.

• On the events of 1882–83, you mention in successive paragraphs that only heads of household were members. Are both mentions needed?

State Street:

• Second paragraph, first sentence-- I suggest last clause be changed to "Sparger moved there in 1891", or else recast the sentence. Then clarify which “congregation” is meant in the following sentence.

1909-1929

• Second paragraph: "was 'doomed': in his words," seems oddly punctuated. Replace the colon with a full stop, and make the next part "As Lyons said at the time:", or some similar construct.

• Fourth paragraph: "and in 1928[2]–1929"— the distracting footnote could go at the end of the sentence.

• Last paragraph of section, last sentence: Maybe split this into two, and clarify what the members were resigning from—the committee or the congregation?

1930s

• Second paragraph, first sentence—why not split this into two at the colon?

WWII

• First sentence, fifth clause— "by then" seems unnecessary as the time is clear.

In general, the article would not be harmed and probably would be improved by splitting some of the multiple-clause sentences into shorter declarative sentences. That may be a matter of personal preference, but there seem to be a lot of colons and semicolons in the article.

These comments are suggestions, and not an Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough review. Regarding your comments, in order:

Lede:

• "currently located at". Why not just “located at”? I used "currently located at" because this is its fourth location, but I've now removed the word "currently", since it's been at its "current" location for almost 100 years.
• "attempted four failed mergers". It makes it sound like the congregation was attempting failure in mergers. Can this be rephrased? Good point. I've rephrased it to avoid the misleading implication.
• "currently the largest". As above. This may not age well. Yes. Re-worded to avoid aging issues.

Early years:

• "$150/year". Use prose, as you did later on in paragraph. Fixed.
• "the congregation became known as the ‘Pearl street synagogue’". Check caps here. Yeah, I didn't like it either, but it's a direct quote, and I was reluctant to change it.
• On the events of 1882–83, you mention in successive paragraphs that only heads of household were members. Are both mentions needed? Good point, missed that, fixed now.

State Street:

• Second paragraph, first sentence-- I suggest last clause be changed to "Sparger moved there in 1891", or else recast the sentence. Then clarify which “congregation” is meant in the following sentence. Good point, done.

1909-1929

• Second paragraph: "was 'doomed': in his words," seems oddly punctuated. Replace the colon with a full stop, and make the next part "As Lyons said at the time:", or some similar construct. Fixed.
• Fourth paragraph: "and in 1928[2]–1929"— the distracting footnote could go at the end of the sentence. Fixed.
• Last paragraph of section, last sentence: Maybe split this into two, and clarify what the members were resigning from—the committee or the congregation? Thanks, I have clarified.

1930s

• Second paragraph, first sentence—why not split this into two at the colon? Because it's an example, backing up the claim made in the first clause of the sentence.

WWII

• First sentence, fifth clause— "by then" seems unnecessary as the time is clear. Good point, removed.

In general, the article would not be harmed and probably would be improved by splitting some of the multiple-clause sentences into shorter declarative sentences. That may be a matter of personal preference, but there seem to be a lot of colons and semicolons in the article. I like semi-colons and colons; they make writing more interesting, and help tie thoughts together. :-)

--Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support promotion to FA. No major issues, although I would expand the meaning of the word shamash to mean beadle or sexton. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I've made the changes you suggested. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment footnotes need to be consistent - some simply say "NYT" others have "TNYT". YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Good eye, thanks! All fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Although the linkchecker shows that all seven reference links to the Congregation Beth Elohim organization's site are forbidden, empirically they are accessible without any problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - nicely done, mazel tov! dvdrw 03:11, 12 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 02:22, 13 October 2008 [27].

---

Crush (video game)

Nominator(s): MASEM

Bringing this video game article to FA. On the shorter side, but it is one of those games that got some but not a lot of attention despite the critical reception for it. I've double checked prose/references/images, and had a few others copyedit on the prose.

I will note (knowing their reliability will likely be questioned) on two of the references used: MoDojo is under Federated Media Publishing (website), while blog-style posts, the article is an interview with the game's producer. SegaNerds is also a blog-style source under B5Media (website), but also, the article used here is a interview with the same person. --MASEM 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Initial comments - David Fuchs
  • Image check: I'd like to see the fair use rationales beefed up, especially the 'purpose' section.
  • The lead doesn't mention much beyond the Escher bit about development.
  • Is there anything more to the plot? You can go to two paragraphs, you know :P

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've talked more about the purposes of the images in both FURs and captions (to id gameplay elements). I've added a note about the coincident element with SPM to the lead to expand it out. As to the story -- well, it's told over maybe about a half-dozen 1-minute cutscenes in the game; I'll go back and play through the cutscenes (there's no good story references out there beyond what I have, even at sites like Gamefaqs) to see if it can be fleshed out more (like, what exactly was troubling Danny to drive him to insomnia). --MASEM 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. Also, if the images are at the actual resolution, they aren't really low resolution; you can descrease the size slightly (say, to 350 or 400px without decreasing the visibility of items mentioned in the text significantly. Also, explain why no free replacement is available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationales for game screenshots have been expanded, and images at 400x2xx something (same aspect ratio) have been uploaded over the old ones. --MASEM 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, image concerns met. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The final line of reception should be merged in somewhere, not left by itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Merged at end of previous paragraph (there's not much where else it can go) --MASEM 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and copyedited, clarified, and added inline comments when I was confused. Take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, I fixed the "primal" thing. --MASEM 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The present "Story" section is a bit unclear on at least one point. It states that Danny's insomnia is caused in part by repressed memories, but then later states that (further?) repression of childhood memories offers a cure for that insomnia. Not quite sure what to make of this apparent contradiction. Perhaps there's some nuanced explanation that needs to be unpacked here? D. Brodale (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrected; Danny ends up facing those memories as the game progresses. --MASEM 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's still no expansion of the lead and any longer of a plot summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded these both from before as much as reasonably possible with the information provided. Again, the story in the game is all of about 6-10 minutes long told between levels, so the length of plot is appropriate for the game. The lead appropriately touches on the major points in the article and really cannot be made longer without starting to duplicate too much in there or unbalancing information in it. --MASEM 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Redundancies a problem. And 1a more generally.

• My pet hate is "in order to", and there are two instances in the very opening para. Please remove the first two words in the second instance, and check through the rest of the article for this (usually) redundant little urchin.
• Second para: "mechanic" is someone who fixes your car. I think it has to be plural here, or maybe just removed (what's wrong with the "gameplay" alone?). And here it is again, twice. Is it a mechanism? Process? Facility? Function?
• "Game's"—redundant.

Is Deckiller around? He might know the right person to come afresh to this and massage the prose. Try reading this and undertaking the associated exercises; I usually shy from promoting my own stuff, but here I think you'd benefit from developing a "radar". Tony (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I will give Dec a buzz to see if he can work any more out, but I did take the advice to heart to work some things out in the current prose. I will note that gameplay mechanic (singular) is a term used by both board/table games and video games arenas to describe one particular facet of a game's rules or logic ("gameplay" refers to the game as a whole, while "gameplay mechanics" refer to mulitple features), but yes, it can (and has here) been replaced with "feature", "element", or other appropriate words to avoid the issue. --MASEM 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Followup to say Deckiller has given this a passthrough and I've corrected a statement based on a comment he left. --MASEM 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't really give it a pass; I just corrected maybe five or six things. Sadly, I don't really have time to sit down and copy-edit article right now. — Deckiller 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I note the sources noted above and those sorts of things should be decided by each reviewer.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the story section needs a bit of expansion. At the moment it basically tells of the problem with Danny and how it's fixed, but doesn't touch on what the player actually does in game to achieve the end result ("during which he is able to organize his thoughts and face his childhood fears" is not enough). Giggy (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Some of Danny's thoughts, represented by glowing neon icons, are only activated when the world is crushed in a manner that properly completes them and remain in view" - might just be me but I had no idea what this was saying
  • The latter point, I've basically stated what the manual states (which is simpler than the above); thoughts activate when crushes, are no obscured, and are on-screen.
  • On the story, there's a very very loose connection between it and gameplay. I've expanded to point the weak connection of marbles (as in "losing ones marbles") and monsters so that they come up in gameplay. Also had to play the last, annoying level again to get the story ending (which is as vague as it seems) right. --MASEM 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Giggy (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Support:

• "The protagonist is Danny, a teenager suffering from insomnia, who uses an experimental device to explore his mind and return his life to normal". What is "back to normal"—life before insomnia or life before the device?
• "This gameplay element was coincidentally similar to one in Super Paper Mario" It may be best to remain neutral and remove "coincidentally", as, unless a point is trying to be made, is pretty much redundant as both were made in 2007. Seems to be pre-emptively countering some assertion, if that makes sense.
• Lead could be beefed up with a litle bit of development info; the Eshcer reference seems insufficient.
• A minor query: is Danny's actual age revealed in the game? Where is his home set?
• "he is able to regain control on his sanity by". Should it not be "of" as opposed to "on"?
• "semi-intelligent female persona" This intermediate could mean anything to me, so I don't know what this device is actually like. Maybe you could elaborate or be more specific.
• I'm uncomfortable with this trend for novel-length captions. It serves a purpose here, but you could cut it down if able.
• "Crush spans forty levels spread across four worlds". "spans" and "spreads"? I don't know, maybe you could say that it contains four worlds, with ten levels in each.
• "The goal of each level is to collect marbles" Remeber to specify this as the player's goal, and not just "the goal".
• "Danny possesses limited jumping ability". I've yet to see a VG character that can jump infinite heights; I know it helps the phrasing to flow, but it doesn't mean anything in its present state.
• "Scattered throughout the levels are spheres and cylinders, which the player can roll when crushed appropriately, and can be used as platforms or to depress switches." Just generally an awkward one. Could you reword please?
• "Mottram noted that at the time during the development of Crush, the gameplay of Super Paper Mario had not yet been revealed, and thus were surprised to learn that the two games shared a similar feature" Not sure about this sentence. Seems to be missing a statement of who were surprised, although it is obvious.
• "received,[4] however". Should there not be a semi-colon here?
• ...There seems to be a growing consensus not to use review tables now; I must have missed that one. Could you explain the reasons for me, Masem?
• I don't know why the main text of this section is sandwiched between two one-sentence paragraphs. They cover different subjects, but still.
• "this was made up for by". Watch out for informal phrasing.
• Again, I'm not sure, but I didn't think that external links are supposed to be in the main body of text. Correct me if I'm wrong.
• I know it's an interview, but I'm not sure how reliable "Segar Nerds" is. An author is given for this; a surname is not stated, so I'm not sure if the name should be given.

Okay, generally a decent article. I'll give it another look once the amendments are made. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All points (other than the following) have been corrected. On review score tables, it is not that the project is moving away from them, but they aren't always necessary: a more "complete" table can be found going to the linked aggregrate review sources (MetaCritic and GameRankings); this is also closer to how movies tend to organize their reception section. It is not that I couldn't add it here, but I feel it wouldn't really add much (thus, consider this more an experimental approach to see if the lack of a review table still gives a good read). On Sega Nerds, if it was anything but an interview, I would have replaced it, but it is an interview, they've seen to have done such in the past, and based on the Mottram interview, details are consistent with the few other details from other reliable sources (eg Gamasutra), so this is where I feel the source is reliable for the information it is providing: the developement section. --MASEM 11:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to support. One things still bugging me: "Large spheres and cylinders are scattered throughout the levels which the player can roll when crushed appropriately, and can be used as platforms or to depress switches". How about: "Large spheres and cylinders are scattered throughout the levels which the player can roll when crushed appropriately. These can also be used as platforms or to depress switches, required to...". But if you're alright with it how it is, then just leave it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I caught your edits and when through to verify the punctuation w.r.t. to the quoting, and also took some of the longer quotes to shorter snippets (such that all are partial sentences, thus putting the punctuation outside the quotes); the one ellipse was actually from the original quote but I nixed that. I also double checked the spelling again. --MASEM 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the ellipses; I think Tony says it's OK to change dashes and ellipses to our house style even when original source is different, but it's no big deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said above, I don't really have the time to sit down and copy-edit an entire article; I might make a tweak here or there, but that's really all I have time to do. — Deckiller 03:57, 10 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 00:26, 11 October 2008 [28].

---

Colton Point State Park

Nominator(s): Dincher and Ruhrfisch

We are nominating this article for featured article because we believe that is represents some of the best work that wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows three FAs as models (Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, and Leonard Harrison State Park - its sister park) and has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Juliancolton and Finetooth). We also want to thank Pat for information on Henry Colton, and all reviewers here for their input. Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• What are you doing here? Get back to peer review! :P Anyhow, images all meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking the images - I will work on some peer reviews next (I take this an actionable request) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm being sarcastic :P god knows you've done enough PR's for twenty wiki-lifetimes... :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I knew - just forgot the emoticon ;-) to show it (and I had neglected PR a bit to get this ready too) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks as always for your reference check and all of your work at FAC and PR Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - As ususal, an excellent article on an interesting subject.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind words and support Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much (and for your peer review)! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Questions: I do apologise to the nominators, but I need a bit of help! What does "situated on the west rim of the Pine Creek Gorge" actually mean? Does it mean within the gorge on its western side, or outside the western boundary of the gorge? I know the map ought to tell me this, but the map doesn't show the limits of the gorge, only the creek. Also the words "Colton Point State Park" are squeezed into a small corner of the pale area of the map, but that can't be he whole area of the park. I'm sorry to trouble you, but can one of you help a poor befuddled Brit lost in the depths of rural Pennsylvania? Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The park is on the slopes and at the top of the gorge. Will look at the map next. Dincher (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Colton Point State Park is the cream colored area on the west side of Pine Creek. Dincher (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing this out. Colton Point State Park is the ivory colored region west of the creek in the map in the article. The ivory area to the east of the creek is the neighboring Leonard Harrison State Park. On the same map, brown is private land and green is state forest. For a map with topographic contours (sadly beyond my capabilities as a mapmaker), see the official park map here, which is listed as the first "See also". It also shows both parks together.
• As for geography, the park extends from the creek in the bottom of the gorge up to the rim and part of the plateau to the west. The park's man-made facilities (picnic shelters, overlooks, latrines, etc.) are almost all on the plateau above the gorge - the overlooks on the map are on the rim itself and the picnic pavilions are all very close to the rim. Only the Turkey Path trail descends into the gorge itself. The word "situated" was added in Peer review - it used to just read "is on the west rim of the Pine Creek Gorge". Referring to the parks as being on the west or east rims of the gorge is pretty common in the literature. Any suggestions on making this clearer are greatly appreciated, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm beginning to get the picture, although I daren't use the official park map link you suggest, as my computer goes into meltdown for some reason whenever I try to take it into PDF. Before I settle down and read the whole article, I wonder if there isn't just a bit too much general information about Pine Creek Gorge in the first section, especially the last paragraph which isn't about Colton Point State Park at all? The adjoining map is fine, but the text refers to many locations which aren't on the map, and the map refers to places not mentioned in the text. Hence my geographical confusion. A bit less information on the gorge, and a bit more on the location of the park within the gorge, would in my view help. But I'll get on with the rest of the article now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The park is within several overlapping layers of protected areas. The oldest is its status as a state park, then it became part of a National Natural Landmark, then a State Natural Area and then the State Scenic River. Scenic River status also protects much of the walls of gorge within the park: quoting Owlett (p. 80), "Under the state system, the width of the protective corridor only encompassed the land visible from the opposite shoreline, instead of protection from ridge to ridge. [as the federal system would have done]. The problem is how to make this clearer without greatly expanding the section. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I tweaked the first sentence of the Scenic River paragraph to read Within the park, Pine Creek and the walls of the gorge "visible from the opposite shoreline"[11] are also protected by the state as a Pennsylvania Scenic River.[12] to make it (hopefully) clearer. Is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Would this work to make the park boundary more clear? "It is on the west side of the Pine Creek Gorge, also known as the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, which is 800 feet (244 m) deep and nearly 4,000 feet (1,219 m) across at this location. The park extends from the creek in the bottom of the gorge up to the rim and across part of the plateau to the west." Finetooth (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply Thanks to both of you - I have made the chaqnge Finetooth suggested in the first paragraph of the lead, and also tweaked the park map caption to hopefully make that clearer. As for the emphasis on the Pine Creek Gorge, that is the main reason for the park's existence and the main reason people come to the park. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: My previous confusions have been largely allayed by some thoughtful rearrangement of the content. I still have a few issues, but not of sufficient importance for me to withhold support from what is a thoroughly researched and beautifully presented article. The large panorama was a joy to behold - I wish I was there. Anyhow, a few inevitable quibbles:-

• Bearing in mind the title of the article, the first three subsections of the History section are really the park's prehistory. That's OK, but I found the "lumber" section in particular rather long, and wonder if that much detail is really necessary in the park article. It's quite a long time after the lead before we meet the park again.
  • I will work on trimming it a bit - I am always amazed at the ecological holocaust the Gorge has recovered from and we may have given a bit too much detail to show what was lost. A similar comment came up at Peer review, so time to get out the chainsaw, as it were. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I trimmed a bit and moved three sentences on spars to a note. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Couple of tiny points in the lead: "...who cut the timber..." Is "the" necessary? And there is a slight ambiguity in the sentence "The CCC built the facilities at Colton Park before and shortly after its opening", in that "its" could be thought to apply to the CCC. The sentence could be amended to read "before and shortly after the park's opening".

Edited per your suggestions. Dincher (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• History (Modern era): This reader would be interested to know why the start date for work on the park is so vague - "either in 1933, or in June 1935". Why the lack of precision - it's not that long ago. Some people alive today might even remember!

My educated guess there is that work began in 1935. Considering the sources. The PADCNR work is largely PR and the work of the Millner fella would be more precise. It's his job to be precise DCNR wants to tell a good story. Many of their articles about PA state parks that were constructed by the CCC give 1933 as the starting date. Dincher (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, two reliable sources give two different dates. I agree on the 1935 date as being much more likely - I also read that the CCC (which began nationwide in 1933) worked on improving Leonard Harrison first, then worked on building Colton Point, which seems more consistent with 1935. Would it make sense to just use the 1935 date? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so; nothing really gained by having the two dates, unless you want to say: "...in 1935 (1933 according to some sources)", but pesrsonally I'd just give more likely date. Brianboulton (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1935 it is. Dincher (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Finally, its probably that Brit thing again, but "concession stand" doesn't indicate to me what was operated by the CCC up to 1953. I assume they sold things, but a few more words of explanation would clarify.
  • They sold food and drink and souvenirs / trinkets - I will add a phrase next. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on a monumental article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful comments, support and good advice. I will leave the other two comments for Ruhr to ponder and answer. Dincher (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too for your kind words and support and help. It is a wonderful park and I am glad the article does it some justice, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang

Thanks for the support and the thorough review, suggestions, etc. Dincher (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• "Colton Point State Park is a 368-acre Pennsylvania state park in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, in the United States."

I would be surprised if a Pennsylvania state park is not in Pennsylvania... Perhaps, "Colton Point State Park is a 368-acre state-protected park in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, in the United States." The link to the "List of Pennsylvania state parks" does not seem necessary in light of the navbox and infobox.

There are 120 Pennsylvania State Parks articles, four of which are FAs, all of which start with a version of this sentence. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, although I would not be convinced by an "other articles do this too" argument, establishing a consistency for a topic (Pennsylvania State Parks) is convincing. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "and have led to the entire park being listed as a historic district"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "and have led to the park's listing as a historic district"

done, thanks

Native Americans

• "including one just north of the park near what is now the village of Ansonia."

Could "is now" be rephrased? The language would not be precise if Ansonia was merged into another town five–twenty years from now.

While I understand your point, I do not see this happening. Ansonia is an unincorporated village and does not have a sepearate legal or political existence. As such it has been there over 100 years. If you insist, we will change it to "as of 2008" or some such wording (eeek! a word ending in "ing" (and another one) ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not fret, it is but a suggestion (the whole precise language issue is still debated on, so I would hardly call this a "must-act" when considering settlements. Fads and other more temporal stuff, however...). Anyway, if you do wish to change (and avoid "as of"), would "near what would later be the village of Ansonia" be acceptable? If not, I am willing to ignore this. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That works for me - thanks and hope I did not come across as grouchy - I really appreciate all of your careful work and suggestions on this FAC, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Native Americans almost entirely left Pennsylvania, although some isolated bands of Natives remained" (contradiction: regardless, even though)

Suggestion: "Native Americans almost entirely left Pennsylvania; however, some isolated bands of Natives remained" (contradiction: nevertheless)

done, thanks

Lumber era

• "The first lumbering activity to take place close to what is now Leonard Harrison State Park occurred in 1838"

It sounds a bit funny... as in "The first lumbering activity occurred in 1838", treating the activity as a natural phenomenan than a man-made activity... Suggestion: "The first lumbering activity close to what is now Leonard Harrison Park was in 1838 when [...]"

done, and changed it to Colton Point, thanks

• "the General Assembly passed a law allowing splash dam construction and clearing of creeks to allow loose logs to float better."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "the General Assembly passed a law which allowed construction of splash dams and clearing of creeks to allow loose logs to float better."

changed to " the General Assembly passed a law which allowed construction of splash dams and creeks to be cleared to allow loose logs to float better" to get rid of both -ing forms, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1879 Henry Colton, who worked for the Williamsport Lumber Company, supervised the cutting of white pine on the land that became the park, which was then owned by Silas Billings."

Suggestion: "In 1879 Henry Colton, who worked for the Williamsport Lumber Company, supervised the cutting of white pine on the land owned by Silas Billings; this land would later become the park."

done, thanks

• "When that burned in 1905"

The subject (lumber) never switched to the mill, I believe... hence, it could have been misread as "when that lumber on fourmile run burned in 1905". Suggestion: "When that mill burned in 1905"

thanks for the good catch, done

• "which became a fire hazard, so much of the land burned and was left barren."

Could it be rephrased as "which became a fire hazard. As a result, much of the land burned and was left barren." Instead of reading it as "so, much of the land" (conjunction—therefore, much of the land), I read it as "so much of the land" (exaggeration—Very much of the land); hence, my short span of confusion here when I consider the comma that separated the clauses.

done, thanks

• "Disastrous floods swept the area periodically and much of the wildlife was wiped out."

Perhaps "disastrous" can be dropped? Floods could be beneficial, and in this case, the reader can judge the effects of the floods (the eradication of wildlife ) for themselves.

One of the floods of the era was the Johnstown Flood that killed over 2000, but I can see how disastrous might seem POV, so it is dropped, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Conservation

• "one of the first to criticize Pennsylvania lumbering and its destruction of forests and creeks."

Suggestion: "one of the first to criticize the Pennsylvania lumber industry and its destruction of forests and creeks."

• "almost all of the virgin forests"

For a more formal tone, how about "almost all the virgin forests"?

• "after a 6-mile buggy ride, he then had to hike 7 miles"

Drop the "then"; the sentence already started with "after".

• "At least he reached 'The Point',

"At least" (implying he could have gone further—which did not get elaborated—but did not) or "at last" (end of his journey)?

All done, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern era

• "The CCC was founded by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, and created jobs for unemployed industrial workers of Williamsport, Jersey Shore and Wellsboro."

I am not too sure, but I think it is a violation of parallel structure to adopt an active for the first clause then a passive for the second. How about "The CCC, founded by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, created jobs for unemployed industrial workers of Williamsport, Jersey Shore and Wellsboro."?

sounds good, thanks (and done)

• "The work of the CCC at Colton Point is still visible today and is one of many examples of the work of the CCC throughout northcentral Pennsylvania."

Consider more precise language. Their work might not be around 20, 40 years from now. In fact, as noted later, some of their works no longer survive (what about later)? Generally I think "now" and "today" are frowned upon. Suggestion: "The CCC's work at Colton Point is one of the many examples of their activities throughout northcentral Pennsylvania."

Changed to "Much of the work of the CCC at Colton Point is still visible as of 2008, and is one of many examples ..." Is this OK? One of the unusual things about the park is how little it has changed since the CCC built it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1936, the same year the park opened, Larry Woodin of Wellsboro and other Tioga County business owners began a tourism campaign"

Drop "same", it seems redundant.

Dropped, thanks

• "while pavilions 2 and 5 have log columns supporting a pyramidal roof."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "and pavilions 2 and 5 each has log columns that support a pyramidal roof."

Changed to your version, thanks

• "The CCC also built six rustic latrines with clapboard siding and gable roofs in the park"

Since we are focused on the park, there is no need for "in the park", right?

Well the CCC as a whole built way more than 6 latrines ;-) but I see your point. Dropped "in the park", thanks

• "Three overlooks were constructed by the CCC, as was a rectangular gable-roofed maintenance building with wane edge siding and exposed rafters made of logs."

Suggestion: "Additonal structures constructed by the CCC include three overlooks and a rectangular gable-roofed maintenance building with wane edge siding and exposed rafters made of logs."

Not sure what was wrong with the other version, but it is changed to your version, thanks

• "Workers used locally-found, natural materials in construction that minimized interference with the natural surroundings"

"Workers used locally-found, natural materials in construction that blended with the natural surroundings"

Changed, thanks

• "As of 2004, the park does not have telephone or electrical lines, but does use solar cells for limited electricity needs."

Suggestion: "As of 2004, the park does not have telephone or electrical lines, although it uses solar cells for limited electricity needs."

Done, thanks

• "changes in the rail line"

Should it not be "changes to the rail line"?

It should and now it is, thanks

• "Conrail abandoned the section of the railroad passing through the gorge on September 21, 1988."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "On September 21, 1988, Conrail abandoned the section of the railroad that passed through the gorge."

Attempted no more, now changed, thanks

• "Another Times story on the West Rim Trail in 2002 cited the park as a starting point for hiking it and noted the beauty and wildlife found there."

Suggestion: "Another Times story in 2002 cited the park as a start point for hiking the West Rim Trail and noted the beauty and wildlife found there."

"Start point" sounds really odd to my ears. If you insist, we will change it, but I have not done so yet Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is okay not to consider it; I just felt that the West Rim Trail was too far from "it". On further reading, I think "found there" could be ambiguous: the trail or the park (I presume it should be the park)... Suggestion: "Another Times story in 2002 noted the park for its beauty and wildlife, and cited it as a starting point for hiking the West Rim Trail." Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Colton Point and Leonard Harrison were each part of the twenty-one state parks chosen by the DCNR Pennsylvania Bureau of Parks for its "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks" list. They are the only two parks treated as one unit for the list. The DCNR describes the parks together,"

It seems abrupt to see the article state twenty-one state parks for a "Twenty [...] Parks" list. How about "DCNR Pennsylvania Bureau of Parks treated Colton Point and Leonard Harrison as one state park in its "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks" list. It describes the two parks together,"?

No. It does not say they are one state park and gives separate links to their separate official web pages. I cannot change the fact that the DCNR is unable to count, but they did publish a list titled "20 must see parks" with 21 parks on the list. It took a lot of work to come up with this wording and I do not see your suggestion as an improvement (much as I appreciate your effort). I have replied to everything to this point, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, darn officials should take up arithmetic lessons. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pine Creek Gorge

• "and added public access points to reduce abuse of private property."

How does the addition of public access points to a state land help to reduce abuse of private property? A bit of explanation perhaps?

Added by trespassers to this sentence. Dincher (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay... so the intent is for people to enter the park through the public access points instead of traipsing through private property to get to the park. Perhaps "and added public access points to reduce incidences of trespass on private property by park visitors."?

Not quite - the public access points are for the creek, which is a state scenic river through the whole gorge. So this applies to access to the whole length of the creek (not just the mile or so in the park), not access to the park. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh... so how about:

Suggestion A: "and added public access points to reduce incidences of trespass on private property by visitors to the creek."

Suggestion B (after thinking on how do you protect against an activity): "It refused to allow dams to be built on the creek or power plants to draw water from the stream. The state also added public access points to allow people to visit the creek without trespassing on private property."

Suggestion C: "No dams were allowed to be built on the creek, nor water to be drawn from it by power plants. To allow people to visit the creek without trepassing on private property, the state added public access points." Jappalang (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the suggestions, I used A with the word "trespassing" from C, i.e. and added public access points to reduce trespassing on private property by visitors to the creek. Is this OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Geology and climate

• "gorge itself formed only about 20,000 years ago"

Drop the "only"; the statement started with an "although".

Done and thanks

• "near the present village of Ansonia,"

Suggestion: "near what would later be the village of Ansonia,"

Done, thanks

• "and the lake's glacial meltwater overflowed the debris dam, which caused a reversal of the flow of Pine Creek."

Suggestion: "and the lake's glacial meltwater overflowed the debris dam, reversing the flow of Pine Creek."

Clear and more concise, thanks

• "While the gorge and its surroundings appear mountainous, these are not true mountains: instead years of erosion have made this a dissected plateau, causing the "mountainous" terrain seen today. The hardest of the ancient rocks are on top of the ridges, while the softer rocks eroded away forming the valleys."

Suggestion: "Although the gorge and its surroundings seem to be mountainous, the area is a dissected plateau. Years of erosion have cut away the soft rocks, forming the valleys, and left the hardest of the ancient rocks relatively untouched on the top of sharp ridges, giving them the appearance of "mountains"."

Works for me - thanks

• "Five major rock formations are present in Colton Point State Park, from the Devonian and Carboniferous periods."

Suggestion: "Five major rock formations present in Colton Point State Park are from the Devonian and Carboniferous periods."

Changed to your version, this section done I think, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecology

• "The forest was up to 85 percent hemlock and white pine, with the rest hardwoods."

"The forest was up to 85 percent hemlock and white pine; hardwoods make up the rest of the forest."

Done, thanks

• "Many animal species that are now vanished inhabited the area."

More precise suggestion: "The area was inhabited by many animal species, most of which have vanished by the end of the 20th century."

While I understand this sentiment, the sources do not specifically support most species now being extinct. There are still over 40 species of mammals in the Gorge today, so would something like "The area was inhabited by a large number of animal species, many of which have vanished by the end of the 20th century."? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better. Please put it in. Jappalang (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is in, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Pine Creek was home to large predators such as Wolves, Lynx, Wolverines, Panthers, Fishers, foxes and Bobcats; all save the last three now locally extinct."

Why are "foxes" non-capitalized and "Wolves" capitalized? Furthermore, the last clause is an incomplete sentence. Suggestion: "all are locally extinct except for the last three as of 2007."

The MOS convention followed is that species names are capitalized, while genera are not. See Wikipedia:MOS#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms "In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalisation should be used for species names. This could involve the use of: ... title case for common names of species throughout (per WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history;" Changed to your suggestion for last phrase, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, although I have to say it still sets up some confusion (me not being an biologist and all...). In light of this, I rearranged the list a bit to place those non-capitalized terms at the rear instead of in the middle (aesthetic reasons). Please revert if this messed up the meaning or intent of the original structure. Jappalang (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am confused over the capitalization of the species here... per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms, I think it is acceptable for all the non-birds to be not capitalized.

See above please, and the talk page for this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_102#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The virgin forests cooled the land and streams. Centuries of accumulated organic matter in the forest soil caused slow percolation of rainfall into the creeks and runs, so they flowed more evenly year-round. Pine Creek was home to ..."

Each of the first two sentences seems to be disconnected from the sentence following it. Could the flow be improved?

I tweaked these four sentences so they now read The virgin forests cooled the land and streams. The creeks and runs flowed more evenly year-round, since centuries of accumulated organic matter in the forest soil caused slow percolation of rainfall into them. Pine Creek was home to large numbers of fish, including trout, but dams downstream on the Susquehanna River have eliminated the shad, salmon,[c] and eels once found here by blocking their migrations.[2] Habitat for land animals was destroyed by the clearcutting of forests, but there was also a great deal of hunting, with bounties paid for large predators. Is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "dams downstream on the Susquehanna River have eliminated the shad, salmon, and eels once found here."

Can it be briefly expounded on why dams would eliminate the fish?

They migrate to the ocean and back - dams stop most of this. Will try to add something, stopping for the night now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Add once found here by blocking their migrations. with migrations linked to Fish migration. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

State Natural Area and wildlife

• "Within this Natural Area, all logging, mining, and oil and gas drilling are prohibited, and only foot trail access is allowed."

Suggestion: " Within this Natural Area, logging, mining, and drilling for oil and gas are prohibited. Furthermore, only foot trail access is allowed."

Changed. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Despite the logging, there are still some old-growth hardwoods and hemlocks on Fourmile Run."

I think due to "despite", "still" can be dropped.

Still has been dropped

• "The current population of deer in Pennsylvania are descended from the original stock introduced beginning in 1906, after the lumberman had moved out of the area."

Suggestion: "The current population of deer in Pennsylvania are descended from the original stock introduced since 1906, after the lumberman had moved out of the area."

Changed. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Despite the fears of anglers, their diet is only 5 percent trout."

Suggestion A: "Despite the otters' diet of 5 per cent trout, anglers fear the animals would deplete the game fish in the gorge."

Suggestion B: "Although trouts make up 5 per cent of the otters' diet, anglers fear the animals would deplete the game fish in the gorge."

The fears preceded the reintroduction of the fishers, the studies followed their reintroduction. Thinking of a way to say this better - thanks for pointing out the problem, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reread the original in Dillon and I did not recall this correctly. I used a tweaked version of A, namely Despite the otters' diet of 5 percent trout, some anglers fear the animals would deplete the game fish in the gorge. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "They are generalized predators and will hunt any smaller creatures in their territory, including porcupines."

Suggestion: "They are general predators, hunting any smaller creatures such as porcupines in their territory."

General predators doesn't sound correct to me. Generalized sounds better. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am not certain of the distinction either (I based it on the greater Google hits for "general predator", which of course may not be correct form). Can someone provide a third opinion? Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked both refs on fishers - ref 59 (DCNR) does not use the words "general" or "generalized" in conjunction with predator, but ref 60 [29] calls them a "generalized predator", so I think that is what we should go with. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can accept assurances from one of the sources. Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Gypsy Moths, which eat all the leaves off trees, especially oaks"

I think "all" can be dropped; "off" would suggest the removal of the leaves from the trees.

When you take your shirt off do you take off all your clothes? Not always. Dincher (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another point. The caterpillars in question do strip the leaves from the trees. They are left bare. The word all is important in getting this point across. Otherwise one might think that just some of the leaves are eaten. Dincher (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the key point is that the caterpillars will strip all the leaves in the trees no matter what, right? If that is the case, there is no issue with this (my initial assumption was that the caterpillars only ate their fill and would cause severe but not total devastation of the leaves). Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Important Bird Area

• "The woodlands are inhabited by the Ruffed Grouse, Pennsylvania's state bird, and Wild Turkeys."

A likely problem with serial commas: there is the ruffled grouse and wild turkey, but what is Pennsylvania's state bird? How about "The woodlands are inhabited by Wild Turkeys and Pennsylvania's state bird, the Ruffled Grouse."?

Changed. Dincher (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Trails

• "Colton Point State Park has some challenging hikes in and around the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, with 4.0 miles of trails that feature very rugged terrain, pass close to steep cliffs, and can be very slick in some areas."

"Challenging" is subjective (and not the opinion of the source either)... problem is that if this is dropped, it could likely mean the elimination of the first clause... so, "Colton Point State Park has 4.0 miles of hiking trails that feature very rugged terrain, pass close to steep cliffs, and can be very slick in some areas."

• "Turkey Path is a difficult trail"

Likewise, "difficult" is subjective and not mentioned by the source.

I have been on the trail. I dare say that the only creature that would not find it to be difficult would be a mountain goat. Dincher (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This source [30] "Hiking Pennsylvania" on Google books gives the Turkey Path 5 boots, or its "most difficult" rating. I can add it as a ref if this is OK. Perhaps "Hiking Pennsylvania" rates Turkey Path as a "most dificult" hiking trail"? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:V would prefer a verification from a published reliable source (if several hiking guide books stated or classed the trail as difficult, that would be good). I am not challenging your claim, but I wonder would other hikers have a different view. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the ref to challenging and difficuly and left the text as it is. Dincher (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "However, there is also a Turkey Path from Leonard Harrison State Park on the west rim of the gorge down to a point on Pine Creek just downstream of the end of this trail."

Is this the same path (i.e. Turkey Path runs through both parks) since the Path connects the two parks...?

It is. See the map. Dincher (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... so it is not original research if the article just states that the path (as one) runs through both parks instead of saying "However, there is also a Turkey Path" (therefore a different path)? If not, can it be phrased that way? Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have thought about this point for quite some time. I don't understand what the issue is? It seems pretty plain to me that it is essentially the same path. Dincher (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises from the DCNR officially calling them two separate trails of the same name (probably to avoid saying that hikers should ford / wade across Pine Creek, which can be dangerous, esp. when water is high). Other sources tend to refer to them as one path though. Again different reliable sources say different things on the same topic. We tried to show this, hope this helps make it clearer. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise that I did not explain my concern clearly. What happens is this: on reading "Turkey Path is a difficult trail", I immediately had "Turkey Path (Colton Point)" in mind (using Wikipedia naming terminology). The subsequent text talked on this subject. I then read "However, there is also a Turkey Path from Leonard Harrison State Park". This made me think of "Turkey Path (Leonard Harrison)"; that would in effect means two Turkey Paths (imagine if you write a Wikipedia article, that would be two different articles), which might not be the same path. What I was trying to clarify was: are these two paths the same (in Wiki-terms, why not delete-merge the two articles into just "Turkey Path")? If they are, then instead of "However, there is also ... ", the sentence should have read "The path continues further downstream across the creek into Leonard Harrison State Park ...". Are there no sources that can confirm the two paths are one and the same? Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Found this page[31] in Fergus' Natural Pennsylvannia. I think that source conclusively states they are the same path (hinted at by the other sources). Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Added it thanks. Dincher (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it to read Turkey Path is a difficult trail,[62] 3 miles (4.8 km) long (down and back within the park), that follows Four Mile Run down the side of the canyon, descending over 800 feet (240 m) to Pine Creek and the rail trail at the bottom of the gorge.[9] [...] The park website classifies it as a "down and back trail" since there is no bridge across Pine Creek.[9] However, the Turkey Path continues in Leonard Harrison State Park, going from a point on Pine Creek just downstream of the end of the trail in Colton Point up to the Leoanrd Harrison overlook on the east rim of the gorge. According to Owlett and the DCNR Pine Creek Rail Trail map, the creek can be forded with care when the water is low, and the Turkey Path connects the two parks.[16][23][40] Is this OK? I also note the Leonard Harrison State Park official web page calls the Turkey Path a "difficult trail" here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "When the West Rim Trail opened in 1982, it was only 21 miles long and ended just south of the park, but it was extended 9 miles north in 1985, passing through Colton Point."

I think "only" is an unneeded emphasis and can be dropped.

Only is gone. Dincher (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Camping and picnics

• "Camping is a popular pastime at Colton Point State Park, with 1,989 persons using the rustic camping facilities in 2003. The campsites are rustic, which means that there are no modern amenities like flush toilets or showers."

Awkward explanation of "rustic", and I see noun plus -ing. Suggestion: "Camping is a popular pastime at Colton Point State Park; 1,989 persons have used the camping facilities in 2003. With no modern amenities like flush toilets or showers, the campsites take on a rustic nature."

• "An Organized Group Tenting area can accommodate up to 90 campers. This is for use by organized youth or adult groups, and 1,490 campers used these facilities in 2003."

Suggestion: "An Organized Group Tenting area, intended for organized youth or adult groups, can accommodate up to 90 campers. 1,490 campers used the area in 2003."

• "The park has approximately 100 picnic tables and five CCC-built picnic shelters which can be reserved. Some 15,379 picnickers used the park in 2003."

Suggestion: "The park also has approximately 100 picnic tables and five CCC-built picnic shelters which can be reserved. These facilities were used by 15,379 picnickers in 2003."

Done, done and done. Dincher (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hunting, fishing, and whitewater

• Is the hunting and fishing seasonal?

Yes, but I don't think we need to spell out when it is permitted. The seasons vary by the game in question, etc., Perhaps we could change it to seasonal hunting, but then one might as for the particulars of the season. Dincher (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that might be opening a can of worms when unintended. Jappalang (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "which is Class 1 to Class 2 whitewater"

Should it be clarified as classification... "which is classified as Class 1 to Class 2 whitewater" or is this suggestion redundant...

Classified it is. Dincher (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nearby state parks

• "Colton Point State Park is entirely within Shippen Township"

"Entirely" seems redundant.

You are correct. Fixed, corrected, etc., Dincher (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

• Image:Pine Creek Gorge Cabins Crop.JPG

Is this cabin "Wetumka" or "Osocosy"?

Reliable sources sadly do not say which it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just my comments, opinions, and suggestions. I must say that some sections really engrossed me, and I had to frequently tear myself from it. This is a good start. Jappalang (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your very careful reading and comments, I will make most of the changes and reply to those where the changes are problematic today (busy in real life). Just wanted to get an initial thanks and reply in, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Do rebut if my suggestions would make things worse or are faulty in assumption. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All queries (and my nutty suggestions) have been resolved. Remembering the engrossing time I had reading it, I am fully backing this article for Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of your careful; work - this is one of the most thorough reviews I have ever seen at FAC and the article is better for it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support All my concerns were addressed in the article's PR. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your peer review, edits, and support - any chance you're related to Henry Colton? ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed I am, though I doubt he's the correct one. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, now that the dust has settled. As noted above, I peer-reviewed the article. I thought it was impressive then, and it is more so now. I'm especially impressed by the close attention to detail in this article. I could give many examples, but two will suffice. The main map's little picnic tables showing locations of picnic shelters is one. The other is the richly-detailed explanation of the gorge geology. Finetooth (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind words, peer review, edits, and support. Glad someone noticed the picnic tables on the map. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and kind words! Dincher (talk) 10:25, 9 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 00:26, 11 October 2008 [32].

---

Khan Noonien Singh

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets criteria. The paragraphs of plot are balanced by an extensive design section and three paragraphs of reception and response. There ya go. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an expert at sources, but they appear to be fine. I can, however, say for sure that the links check out with the link checker. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images check out fine. Giggy (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would reluctently agree with Giggy, however, a question, could Image:Khan-and-company---star-tre.png be replaced with an image taken from the trailer, rather than the more tightly commercially controlled film, per WP:NFCC#2? (I haven't seen the trailer in years so the answer could be no)Fasach Nua (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, why do both images have copyright dates of 2008? Space Seed was broadcast in 1967 and Wrath of Khan released in 1982, no? Эlcobbola _talk 16:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The trailer didn't have any good shot of Khan which showed his glove, a significant portion of his costume, and some of his followers (either way, the trailer's quality wouldn't be conducive to proper identification.) Elco, you're right about the dates, I went back and fixed that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Prose was/is a problem. FACs shouldn't have this number of simple typos. Perhaps you could try using a spellcheck program in future? Things I couldn't correct:

• Erricsen or Ericssen?
• "he uses McGivers's attraction to him in getting her to revive the other supermen", three verbs in one phrase is too many, this should be changed.
• "The character of Khan was critically received." This could be misread that he was received unfavorably, again this should be changed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

His name was given as Erricsen, then Ericssen; it's not a mispelling. I fixed the other issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A few spot-checks show that much of the prose is OK (within reach of the required standard). During candidature, it would be nice for an unfamiliar editor to carefully run through it. There are things to admire in this nomination.

• "While most of the supermen were killed or sentenced to death, Khan and 84 others escape Earth via the sleeper ship SS Botany Bay." Check past tense here.
• "and nearly kills Dr. Leonard McCoy."—odd way of expressing it. Vague. Does he try to kill him?
• I hate "meanwhile" in plot accounts. Just remove it.
• "Spock sustains a lethal dose of radiation repairing the Enterprise, allowing the ship to escape the Genesis weapons' effects just in time, but Khan believes he has doomed his enemy before dying himself." Urky-purky.
• Whilst ... what's wrong with "While"? Tony (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that... I had fixed those issues previously, but I was having issues with my copy and paste (it kept on pasting an entire article in whenever I performed a word search, go figure.) The above have been fixed now, and I've asked a couple users to look over the prose when they have time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

Otherwise sources look fine, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a search for citation, and I can't find any mix of {{citation}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit tab shows the citation template in use at the bottom. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about being difficult, Eald, but I've gone through all the refs and I only see cite journal, cite news, and cite web. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not being difficult, but something is calling the {{citation/core}} template. Any idea what might be calling it?

Can you check it now? I reverted to an earlier version of {{cite journal}} as I noted it was randomly not formatting volume/issues correctly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

that did it ... weird. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure if the revert was the reason; adding a pages= parameter to one of the journal cites may have also done it. *shrug* Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've done a bit of copyediting, and I've read the article a couple of times, and found nothing of concern. The article appears to be quite well-written. Well done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support looks good from what I could tell, went through twice. if you make it more clear what actors play what. This would reduce any "in universe"ness and can be achieved by "(actor's name here)" after a character name. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Added in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:38, 5 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 00:26, 11 October 2008 [33].

---

Rosetta@home

Nominator(s): Emw2012 (talk)

I'm nominating this article because I think it fulfills the featured article criteria. I've been working regularly on the article for the better part of three months, and now feel that it does justice to an interesting and important example of distributed computing being used for protein structure prediction. During my time working on the article, it has become listed as a good article and undergone two peer reviews (one before and one after GAN). David Baker, the head scientist on the Rosetta team, has read the article and called it an "outstanding job"; I've incorporated his emailed suggestions. Thanks in advance for comments and suggestions. Emw2012 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by jimfbleak No time to read properly yet, but I notice that all of the images have forced thumb sizes which override user settings. Can these settings please be removed? Also, MoS suggests that images should all be right-aligned or alternate - why is one image left aligned? jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Alignment has been fixed and forced sizes have been removed for all images, but I think the image in the Project significance section (especially) and the image in the Volunteer contributions section (currently 180px × 122px and 180px × 83px) are now too small to convey their intended information. According to WP:MoS#Images, there are exceptions to the policy on forced sizes: "Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image" (e.g. the detailed screensaver in 'Project significance') and "Detailed maps, diagrams or charts" (e.g. the bar chart in 'Volunteer contributions'). Considering that I'd like to restore the previous sizing for those images (300px × 203px and 450px × 207px, respectively) or very slightly smaller. Please let me know what you think. Emw2012 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My default is 180 px, and I expect to have to click on images if I want more detail - that's the whole point of thumbs. I'm not going to oppose just on this issue, and for time reasons I'm unlikely to be able to do a full review, so probably won't support either unless it's still here in two weeks time. Really just wanted to raise the issue (if it hadn't been FAC I would have just removed the forced image sizes). jimfbleak (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unless anyone objects, I'll keep off forced image sizes per your suggestion. Emw2012 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image question - What efforts have been made to get the publishers to release the non-free screenshots on a GFDL licence? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Originally, all of the images were non-free. I emailed the creator of the Rosetta@home logo; he said something to the effect of "it would be fine to use the image on Wikipedia", but did not respond when I asked him to fill out the standard free license release form. Considering that I haven't made an effort to get the screensaver freely licensed by the Baker lab. I will email them again later today. The next two images, superpositions of solved and predicted protein structures, were both made by me in PyMOL after a fairly long search for the atomic coordinates of the predicted structures. The bar chart in 'Volunteer contributions' took a while to get appropriately licensed, but now all images on http://boincstats.com are under a free CC license. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the Rosetta@home screensaver image ([34]), would a free license apply to only that particular screenshot of the screensaver, or all screenshots of that type of Rosetta@home screensaver? Emw2012 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, if an image (e.g. the Rosetta@home logo) were not under a free license, would it not be shown on alongside the lead if the article were to be made 'Today's featured article' some time in the future? Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://boincstats.com/

• The site converts XML data exported by distributed computing projects on the BOINC platform into various charts and tables (see http://boincstats.com/page/faq.php#9). It is included in a list of sources for "More detailed statistics for Rosetta@home" on an official project page here: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/stats.php, and is almost certainly the most widely used of those sites. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/suppmat/0887-3585/suppmat/prot.21636.html gives me a "forbidden" message.

• I saw that on the link checker as well, but somehow could still access the site. I'm not sure what's going on there -- perhaps I should remove the link and only include the other reference information? Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no problem accessing the site. Perhaps link checker is incorrect in this case. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't blindly trust the link checker, I always try to click through to the article itself. In this case, I'm still getting a 'forbidden' notice, perhaps you both are on an academic network? It's a Wiley Science reference, it appears, so by chance is this an scientific journal accessed through a database? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not on an academic network. Just an ordinary, commercial IP. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I too had no problems with this. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=669&nowrap=true#10910 is a forum thread, but it's their own forums and their own maintained FAQ. Borderline, but probably okay.
• http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=3934&nowrap=true#51199 is likewise from the forums, it needs a publisher

• Done. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, the "Rosetta@home forum" links, need to be investigated by other reviewers to make sure that they are legitimate uses of the forums, and they ALL need to give a publisher outside the link title.
• Current ref 27 (David Baker ... Publications on R@H's Alzheimer's ..) needs a last access date.

• Done. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 35 (Liu Y et all ) needs a last access date.

• Done. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 36 (David Bakers's Rosetta!home journal archives message 40756) has the author and the publisher run into the link title. They need to be broken out from the link.

• "David Baker's Rosetta@home journal archives" is the actual title of that page, but I've added proper author (David Baker) and publisher (University of Washington) information. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise all the forum posts need to be audited against the content to make sure that they are allowed usages under WP:V and WP:RS.

• All cited forum posts are authored by either project scientists (e.g. principal investigator David Baker; project scientists are listed as such under their username in each post) or, in one case, a moderator of the forum (moderators in this forum are liaisons between project scientists and project volunteers). I'm aware of the WP policy against using forum posts as references, but consider this particular kind of forum posting both verifiable and reliable considering that they are made project scientists or forum moderators appointed and endorsed by project scientists. I have only used these forum posts in cases where they provided information that is otherwise unavailable, for example in the project website, the scientific literature, or other sources. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention one forum post that was by a regular user, current reference #61 ("Foldit forums: How many users does Foldit have? Etc. (message 2)". Retrieved on 2008-09-27.. Considering it simply explains how to estimate the number of Foldit users by multiplying the number of users on each page of the list of all users by the number of pages in that list (i.e., 50 users/page * 1189 pages = 59,450 users), I think it is verifiable. Also, since the author is pseudonymous and the site's publisher is uncertain, I've omitted values for those attributes of the cite template. Emw2012 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment was looking for a direct mention/link of Levinthal's paradox in the article but failed to spot one. Shyamal (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Great point -- I've incorporated a sentence on how it relates to Rosetta@home in the Protein significance section. Emw2012 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I peer-reviewed this article a week or two ago and all my major concerns were addressed. My only remaining minor quibble is that the disease-related research section lacks flow. I suggest experimenting with deleting the sub-headings. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note, many citations are incorrectly formatted. Please assure that all citations list a publisher so they can be checked for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I could've sworn I added publisher information for all forum references in a recent edit, but guess I hadn't. That's now done. In keeping with practice in scientific publications and what I see in other featured articles in the sciences, I have omitted listing publishers for journal citations. I have also left references to http://boincstats.com without a publisher, since no such information seems to be available (it is a website made by a single man, who I have listed as the author; rationale for reliability is in a previous comment). If they should be there, please let me know, along with anything else I should add. Emw2012 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments and almost a Support - this is quite a comprehensive and well written article but I put myself in the shoes of an enquiring reader and found a few thing that could be answered:
  • The computing section does not make it clear how it distributes work on say a single protein to different user machines to ensure that they dont actually search the same conformation space, perhaps this is part of the BOINC platform but it seems to me more domain specific and worth explaining.

• I've added an explanation of that in the last few sentences of the ' Computing platform' section. Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • To minimize power consumption or heat production from a computer running at sustained capacity, the maximum percentage of CPU resources that Rosetta@home is allowed to use can be specified through a user's account preferences. The times of day during which Rosetta@home is allowed to do work can also be adjusted, along with many other preferences, through a user's account settings. - I would suggest that the primary motivation is more likely to allow other background processes to execute rather than to prevent heating of the CPU.

• Since Rosetta@home is run as a lowest-priority task, it throttles back whenever background processes (e.g., ripping/burning media files, virus scanning, etc.) request resources that Rosetta would otherwise be using -- see the sentence preceding your quotation. In light of that, the most important things would be power consumption and heat production, no? Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Protein 3D structures are currently determined experimentally through X-ray crystallography or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The process is slow (it can take weeks or even months to figure out how to crystallize a protein for the first time) and comes at high cost (around $100,000 USD per protein). - my understanding is that there are proteins such as GPCRs which cannot be crystallized in their "real-life" conformations.

• While a few GPCR proteins have been crystallized, you're right that GPCRs (and membrane proteins in general) are especially difficult to solve in terms of structure. I've added information on what Rosetta@home is doing on this front in last few sentences of the second paragraph of the ' Project significance' section. Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • In other words, Folding@home's strength is protein folding, while Rosetta@home's strength is protein design and prediction of structure and docking. - I find it hard to see this contrast, is it that it reverse engineers the structure of a "locking protein" from a target's active site ?

• Folding@home is interested in modeling (via molecular dynamics) the trajectories of the backbone and residues as the protein folds to native state. Although better understanding of those trajectories could possibly help structure prediction, Rosetta@home is much less interested that, and instead focuses on the position of all parts of the protein in its native state. Rosetta's methodology for protein docking prediction is described in the third paragraph of the ' RosettaDock' section. Let me know if and perhaps how I can further clarify this. Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. I have some minor concerns about the compliance to WP:RS but I hope this stimulates the project team to publish a proper description report and help replace the citations to the discussion forum. Shyamal (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Shyamal (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I am waiting for these issues that are above my technical expertise to be settled so I can register my support. I have been following this article since its GAN days and find it fascinating. I have always wondered what Rosetta@home was and this is a wonderful (and for me, satisfying) explanation. (I did some minor copy editing a while ago.) —Mattisse (Talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm close to support. However, I reviewed the section on Alzheimer's disease, and it was kind of inaccurate. What the project was doing was quite accurate, but it was less so on describing the biochemical nature of AD. I corrected it, but I wonder if the same thing is wrong in the other sections on what is being done with the work here. Also, and I consider this important, is how much bandwidth does this project use? With some ISP's limiting the amount of bandwidth that can be used per month, will this project be hurt. It may not be germane to the article, but if I were seeking out information, I'd wonder. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• There isn't much information out there on how much bandwidth Rosetta@home uses per day (or per workunit). I've initiated a conversation at the Rosetta@home forums here: Daily bandwidth usage for Rosetta@home. Unfortunately neither a project scientist nor moderator has dropped in, so there may be reliability issues. And though possible, it would be probably be difficult to verify. Let me know what you think about including information from that Rosetta@home user regarding bandwidth usage. Emw2012 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear to be much, but I don't think a forum passes the WP:RS test. It appears that it takes 1-2Gb per month, which if you're limited to 200Gb, is kind of significant. I wish there was something more reliable as a source. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that there may be reliability (and verfiability) issues in forum posts by users who are neither project scientists nor moderators. Given the criteria at WP:SELFPUB, however, there may be a case for including the post in question.

Also, I'm not sure how you got to a bandwidth usage of 1-2 GB per month, considering that 1024 MB was the maximum requirement for the most bandwidth-hungry computer being measured (which had eight CPU cores, making it an outlier). The remaining computers being measured (all single core, 2.8-3.0 GHz CPUs) used around 250 MB per month on average, i.e. one 800th of a 200 GB-per-month capacity.

I agree that this is somewhat important information, but a well-vetted source seems simply unavailable. There is other equally important information that is unavailable for this and similar projects: how much extra power per hour is consumed by running the project, how much heat, how much RAM does an average workunit use, etc.? Because of a lack of reliable information, these questions may be beyond our current scope.

Finally, I want to reiterate that all but one other forum post referenced are written by project scientists and moderators, not miscellaneous users. So I think other forum references used hold significantly more weight. Excluding all forum references would seriously deprive the article of non-controversial and in my opinion acceptably-sourced information. Emw2012 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, bad math on my part. Dammit, I'm a doctor, not a computer scientist. (Can't use that Star Trek reference enough.) 250 mb is less than .1% of some of the limits I've read, unless you're using a cellular access to the net. Not really worthy of adding to the article.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note, this FAC has been up for almost a week. It is not clear to me that reviewers have checked individually sourced statements as suggested by Ealdgyth, I am uncertain if images are cleared, and it is not apparent that any reviewer has checked Scholarly sources for any coverage of any criticism, controversy or weaknesses per the information in the nominator blurb: " David Baker, the head scientist on the Rosetta team, has read the article and called it an "outstanding job"; I've incorporated his emailed suggestions." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding images, a recent comment on Fasach Nua's user page seems to imply that s/he thinks the article fulfills criterion 3. I've asked for help vetting sources at Wikiproject MCB's talk page. Emw2012 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are still missing publishers and incomplete information about sources, and no response if any potential criticism has been adequately researched and covered, considering the Baker endorsement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• In my previous response to your concern over lack of publisher information, I said: "In keeping with practice in scientific publications and what I see in other featured articles in the sciences, I have omitted listing publishers for journal citations. I have also left references to http://boincstats.com without a publisher, since no such information seems to be available (it is a website made by a single man, who I have listed as the author; rationale for reliability is in a previous comment). If they should be there, please let me know, along with anything else I should add. Emw2012 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)". I just reviewed every reference again, and, among all the references needing a publisher to my understanding, found one without a publisher; there was also one without an author and one without an accessdate. Since several websites do not list an author, I have omitted that attribute to corresponding references, listing only publishers. Let me know whether you think the information on references is now satisfactory; if it isn't then please let me know which references to add to and what you'd like me to add. I will search around for any potential criticism and incorporate any findings before the end of Friday. Thanks again, Emw2012 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a sample of the work needed, from two sections only; it should be apparent to reviewers when a statement is sourced to an internet forum or a self-published source, so they can evaluate the statements for reliability. Boincstats.com as publisher was missing on several in those sections only, forum sources weren't identified, and there were other misc citation items like missing accessdates. Please complete this work thoughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I couldn't really make up my mind. My problems with the article center around the "Disease-related research" section. My problem with this section is with the tiny paragraphs and each given a subsection while not being that large. I have a similar problem with "Comparison to similar distributed computing projects". I would recommend removing the subheadings, having it in one large section, and finding a way to merge the paragraphs in a more fluid way. Sorry if I couldn't be more of a help with a better review. It was an interesting article and I didn't really see anything that didn't appeal to me besides the above. Ottava Rima (talk)

In light of there now being two experienced editors who have suggested removing subheadings in the 'Disease-related research' section, I'll take care of that soon. I will expand the subsections in 'Comparison to similar computing projects' to at least two paragraphs each; I think they can be filled without simply adding fluff. Emw2012 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - If the "new rules" are that a decision to promote has to be made within a week, then I will register my support now, having no problem accessing the source cited as "forbidden" above by Ealdgyth and accepting Ealdgyth's and Shyama's evaluation of the sources as RS, as well as my own evaluation of the matter. Also, per GrahamColm's support. Was waiting for Orangemarlin's response, but with the week deadline I will not wait longer. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is no such "rule". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Thorough and well written. For the references that cite the forum, you can use the Template:Cite web with publisher="boinc.bakerlab.org". Forums can be reliable sources, depending on who's contributing and who's moderating. There is a general rule not to trust user generated content, however, there are exceptions if the user is an expert writing in their field, especially if there is editorial oversight to ensure quality and accuracy. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• New comment-I just cleaned up the citations in the medical section. I checked them to make sure they verified the statements, which they did. But the citations were kind of hard to use, lacking PMCID and PMID in almost every case. Not being a computer person, the rest of the article is not very clear to me, but someone might want to do a citation clean-up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I was hoping you would also clean up PMIDs from the top of the article, so I won't have to do that work. (Pointing to PMIDs is preferable to pointing to journal abstracts or journal free full text, as the journals sometimes take down abstracts or free full text. Also, it makes the citation method consistent with other bio/med articles, using Diberri's PMID template filler, and avoiding subscription only URLs. We should, however, link to the journal URL when it provides free full text not provided at PubMed Central. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is turning out to take up quite a bit of my time. I noticed that citations were messy even outside of the section I reviewed. For example, there are a lot of citations that use "et al" using just the main author and not italicizing the et al. At this point, this article should not be promoted to FA until the citations are cleaned up. I'll work on them, but usually with articles I read the abstract or source to see if it confirms the statement. This may take me a long time. I should have looked more carefully.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on those, Orange; I was chipping away at a few of them myself, but it is time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 9 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:Raul654 22:48, 7 October 2008 [35].

---

Samuel Johnson

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk), User:Malleus Fatuorum (talk) and User:SandyGeorgia (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it use to look like this. After 700 edits, and an addition of citations from many major scholarly sources on the subject, an extensive peer review, and constant reviewing on the talk page with full scale MoS check, plus a full scale image and ref check, I think it may be FA standards. If not, well ... User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:SandyGeorgia performed over 400 quality edits in the push to FA status, examining every minute detail with punctuation, grammar, language and MoS. They are the main reason why this is not simply a GA, and why I feel confident that this is FA quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary of declarations on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment During a conversation with his biographer, Johnson became infuriated at the suggestion that Berkeley's idealism could not be refuted. In his anger, Johnson powerfully stomped a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, "I refute it thus!"[200]

Presumably this interpretation of Johnson's emotions is based on a misunderstanding of the word alacrity? 86.44.27.122 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was based on the language in a contemporary biography, but I think that reference was dropped when reffing to Boswell directly. Regardless, I reworked the paragraph, as it was too long for something explained in the quote box. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.samueljohnson.com/index.html? (Why not quote it directly?) It's probably a marginal source, but it kinda stands out in the otherwise excellent sources used!

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is only hosting the primary source and nothing else. It was just nice to link to an online version. If you want, I can replace it with a hard copy and page numbers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a courtesy link; in this case, it's probably better to cite the hardcopy, and add that link to External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the links and put in books. I thought it would be best to use biographers who string those line together as to avoid any possible "OR" claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good compromise, that site works REALLY well as an external link. Perfect for it. And let me compliment again on the excellent quality of the sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This gave me an opportunity to buy three biographies that I didn't have and really forced me to spread out in order to accommodate a few people that were wondering why ___ was relied on while ____ was not. I think, out of the original list of random biographies grouped at the bottom of the page, there were only 4 works not chosen (but no major biographer was left out, and all other writers were given prominence on individual article pages that related). Johnson has a huge amount of criticism, and I think every single piece will make it in some form on Wikipedia after I am done. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• Image:Dictionary2.jpg and Image:Dictionary3.jpg - Could you add the complete publication information to the source field? I would, but the image resolution isn't high enough.
• Any images that are in the PD could be moved to Commons. It would be nice to share these images with other projects.

I look forward to reading and reviewing this article! Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Added the printing information. I think Elcobbola might be able to help with the Commons. I tend to stick to Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can do about copying them over in a week or so, after I return from my vacation. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola is working on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

File Upload Bot is my hero. I moved all but one (Image:Pembroke_Lodge.jpg - the bot, apparently, doesn't move previous versions and we'd want the original, uncropped version; I'm too lazy to do it manually at the moment). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I moved the uncropped version to the Commons. Do we care about the cropped version? It doesn't appear that much was cropped. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue of overly dense citations was discussed here. Now capped for FAC readability. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• (comment) I commend the nominator for the effort put into this article, but the level of citation in this article is excessive. I oppose the nomination on the grounds that the over-citation is a hindrance to reading and suggests that wikipedia is a sentence-paraphrasing service. (Any critical reader without a background in wikipedia's politics would be very confused by the amount of attribution; the article would have her believe that "Johnson was born in the family home above his father's bookshop, near Market Square in Lichfield, across from St. Mary's Church" is a point of contention. It's like putting a question mark in the reader's mind after each sentence.) Specifically, you do not need to cite commonly attainable elements of biography, yet essentially every sentence in Biography has a citation. I am not opposing to make a point, and if this objection is felt baseless, that's fine. However, I will note that the article does not follow one of the core policies of wikipedia, attribution—while the policy clearly notes what we consider worthy of citation, no discretion in attribution is apparent here. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• I should also add that if the consensus of editors is that removing citations would make the article worse, then don't (but admit that you've adopted an a priori position). I have not written the above in the "do this to get me to support" sense. It's an opinion, and one that is I think supported by the policies of wikipedia, regardless of how far citation is carried as a matter of practice. Certainly I won't be commenting further unless others feel the position is warranted, and specifics become worth discussing. Whiskeydog (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that this objection is actionable. The WP citation policy sets a minimum standard of what should be cited, not a maximum. There are advantages to a heavily cited article:

• Allows the reader to find the source for the information so they can read more information about that particular tidbit.
• Ensures that there is no confusion on what a particular citation covers. If a controversial fact is embedded in a paragraph, we don't want to confuse readers into thinking that the whole paragraph comes from that source, when it might only be relevant to the controverisal fact
• Makes verifiability a whole lot easier. Anyone can add any information to the article; with the sources clearly noted for every piece of information it is much easier to see if someone is adding unsourced information, fake information, or is twisting the source to say something completely different.

Karanacs (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add - I don't consider any information on an individual who has been dead for 200 years as "common knowledge". Such assumptions would have Washington chop down cherry trees and other confused tidbits thrown in. I believe that dates and locations before 1900 always need a citation. These are the things most easily confused. This is just my thoughts on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is a mythology surrounding Johnson, it is particularly important to separate fact from fiction. Having extensive citations allows readers to verify these distinctions for themselves and increases Wikipedia's legitimacy as reference source. Awadewit (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Going with that theme - FAs never really needed to be cited. Then ten cites were enough. Then twenty or so were enough. What if this progresses to the point that in the year 2120, Wikipedia would require at least 240 citations? Well, we are in luck. Always thinking about the future. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK then. I don't get it, and every time I make another effort to "get", or comment on, the way wikipedia works now, it's clear that there are just entirely different mental sets involved. So, there is no point in me participating in FAC—I refuse to sanction the idea that this death by a thousand citations is a good thing. We've got people who complain that every tiny MoS "violation" affects readability, but no one seems to mind a footnote-stop cutting every sentence off from every other. Karanacs' arguments I've seen before in many places, and I find them entirely hypothetical, conjuring a reader who interacts with the article in a way that I highly doubt is realistic. Those who agree with my position don't come here, and so the self-selection continues. Anyway, over and out. Whiskeydog (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people agree with your mentality, Whiskeydog. There is an old tradition of it. It would probably be easy to have a version of such pages that is "clean" that someone could click on and would be the same text without any of the citations. Who knows. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling it an "old tradition" is a classic device of rhetoric (I don't know which 'un). Now, how about I introduce a new measure of citation density? Samuel Johnson actually has 378 footnotes, over 10,519 words=0.036 citations/word. If the average sentence is 17 words (17-sentence), we have 0.61 citations/17-sentence. Let's compare that to the recent FA Tulip mania, surely an article whose abstract humanities overlay requires good citation. With 73 footnotes and 3545 words, it has 0.35 citations/17-sentence. I am proposing a limit of 0.40 citations per 17-sentence. Please add this to the featured article criteria forthwith—See?—all I had to do was please the quants. Now it's actionable, dude. Whiskeydog (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the comparison made above does not reflect the academic reality, nor deal with comprehensiveness. Furthermore, his numbers are clearly off, as they have no regard to material that needs to be cited, nor does it acknowledge that some sentences run over multiple lines while sharing the same citation in order pages, which this does not have such instances. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear whether this is a general comment about FAs, or a specific criticism of this article. If the former, then the issue would propbably be better raised on the talk page. If the latter, can you provide some examples of spurious citations Whiskeydog? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whiskeydog was specific enough that his point can be applied to this candidacy, and to be fair he did make disclaimers. Ironically though, the second next cmt kind of underpins his argument about self selection, but also reinforces Malleus words "would propbably be better raised on the talk page" : It the treatment of titles is a small point, fix or put a note on talk; if it is substantial enough to posit as a deal breaker on FAC and is followed by five or six posts; well then we might as well all go home. I suggest this broad conversation is taken else where, either to this FACs talk, or better, the FAC talk. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I left "facetious" in the edit comment for my last comment; I'm sorry that still wasn't enough. (Neither my sense of style nor humour translates here well enough, and the last place I should therefore hang out is FAC.) Good luck with the nomination! For the tallying, I've struck the oppose and put 'comment'. Oh, and thanks SandyGeorgia for the citation reduction; definite improvement! Whiskeydog (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, Whiskeydog! Tony1 did a small bit of copyediting (finding little to change) and Ottava Rima reduced some of the citation.[36] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Working on coalescing and combining refs from the same page range, saving these versions for posterity:

• Version initially viewed by Whiskeydog: [37]
• Version after Ottava Rima removed duplicate citations: [38]
• Version after I finished coalescing refs: [39] (diff)
• Diff from fully-cited version to current: [40]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support—Well done indeed. Tony (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Capped comments, ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: MOS:BETTER advises against honorifics; there are several instances of "Dr" and "Mrs" that might best be dispensed (if not used within a quote, obviously). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  The only instances of "Dr Johnson" are in quotes (he was/is often referred to as Dr Johnson); I'll leave Mrs Thrale to Ottava. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue on what to do about that - there is the Henry and Hester, which could have the repeated first names. Other uses: 1) "Mrs Harriotts", it sounded silly having Harriotts, as it could have been mistaken as the plural, but this could be dropped. 2) "a young woman, Miss Morris," I don't know her first name and Wain/Bate lists her as "Miss". 3) "Miss Frances Reynolds" to note the feminine reading of the name. 4) "Rev. Strahan" George Strahan. 5) "Dr Warren" Thomas Warren. 6) "Dr John Paradise" John Paradise. 7) "Dr Delap" John Delap. 8) "Dr Samuel Swynfen" Samuel Swynfen. 9) "Dr Christopher Nugent" Christopher Nugent. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the MoS page that seems to discuss it in-depth. If someone could help make heads or tales of this, I would be much obliged. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. If you think removing the honorifics will cause confusion to the reader, go ahead and leave them in. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Dr Johnson, that MoS page states: "In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included." That would be the case for Johnson. With the Thrales, we have the two of them (him and her). With Frances, again, it's because Frances could be a him, etc. There are a few cases where we need to WP:IAR here, similar to the Reagan and Clinton articles, where it was difficult to distinguish him and her and consensus was to ignore naming conventions. I'm not sure, though, why we need the honorifics on Strahan, Warren, Paradise, or Delap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed excessive titles, rewrote a section, and hopefully there is no problem. When a title mattered, I just put the job behind the name. The MoS seems to say that if two people of the same name are in the same sentence, to use the full for the first name, and then the first name for the next, but that seems rather confusion. I don't know. I put possible changes up. Others can respond on what they think. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Involved support - I was so excited to see the improvement in this article that I copyedited it last month and again just before the FAC nomination. Fine work, and certainly meets FAC standards. Maralia (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

However, you were only ranked 5th. :D Thanks for all the work. I don't care if this page makes FA or not, I just like strong, critical pages. The FA thing is just a nod for Sandy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well done, surely this is a worthy FA. Dincher (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Capped comments, Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I am very sorry to have to oppose this article, but it is far from comprehensive. It has an excellent and thorough description of Johnson's life but only a cursory discussion of Johnson's works and no discussion of his influence on other authors. A reader coming to this page will not leave it understanding what kind of a writer Johnson was. Considering Johnson is notable for being an author, this is a serious omission.

• The first part of the "character sketch" section should be deleted - it is a just a list.
• The "Depression" section should be broken up and inserted into the article where appropriate.

• I find the TS section out of all proportion to the article. I would put most of this information in a footnote. The article should indeed have a paragraph on this posthumous diagnosis, but hardly an entire section. SJ is famous for being an author, not for being ill, however, the space devoted in this article to his depression and his TS makes it seem like he is more famous for being ill than for being a writer.
• There is no discussion of SJ's artistic legacy - how did his writing affect other authors? He was a huge influence on 18th-century literature and the scope of that influence is not explained in this article at all. (Johnson's influence on novel-writing in the second-half of the 18th-century was enormous, for example.)

• I think more on this could be added, but I think this section is much improved. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are many places in the article where IDs have been left out that would help a reader unfamiliar with the 18th century. Here are three examples, but a review of the entire article is necessary:

• Explaining the title years later, he told his friend Joshua Reynolds - Explain to the reader who Reynolds is.
• Samuel Richardson, enjoying the essays greatly, questioned the publisher as to who wrote the works; only he and a few of Johnson's friends were told of Johnson's authorship - Explain to the reader who Richardson is.
• However, Johnson slowed on the work as the months passed, and he told Charles Burney in December 1757 that it would take him until the following March to complete it. - Explain to the reader who Burney is.

• There are many places in the article where the use of quotation marks is confusing. Here are some examples, but the entire article needs to be reviewed for this problem:

• Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation" in the community, having opened a parchment factory which produced book bindings - Why is "reputation" in quotation marks? It is unclear whether this is an actual quotation or whether these are scare quotes.
• When Johnson turned four, he was sent to a nearby "school" on Dam Street, where "Dame" Anne Oliver, the proprietor, gave lessons to young children in the living-room of a cottage. - Why are "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks?
• However, John Taylor, his friend, dismissed this "praise" because Johnson's father had already published the translation before Johnson sent a copy to Pope - Why is "praise" in quotation marks?

• Ottava has done more work on these; this should be addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a long list of prose copyedits. If the editors would like to go through them, I will put them on the article talk page. For me, the primary problem with the article is that it does not describe Johnson's works in any detail or his literary legacy. For models, see other recent biographies of authors that have become FAs: Emily Dickinson, Honoré de Balzac, and Edgar Allan Poe. Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "only a cursory discussion of Johnson's works" You are under a mistaken impression that "comprehensive" means something that is not covered by "summary style". Please see Wikipedia:Summary style. 2. "no discussion of his influence on other authors" There is nothing in a biography that would demand such, and Wikipedia policy has always put such in the other pages, with a link back. Its not a two way street, as the redundancy is frowned upon. 3. "Considering Johnson is notable for being an author" You are quite mistaken. 4. "it is a just a list." Your definition of "a list" does not match either the Wikipedia definition nor the dictionary. 5. "be broken up and inserted into the article where appropriate" Except that it is a general overview based on a long history of psycho analysis and not part of biographical history. This was clear from reading the section. 5. "I find the TS section out of all proportion to the article." Then I would suggest you read WP:WEIGHT which would require it to be of such a significant size. 6. "There is no discussion of SJ's artistic legacy - how did his writing affect other authors? " This is a biography page, not a works page. If a work affected someone else, then that work is discussed. A writer is not a work, and a work is not a writer, and the two are separated on Wikipedia. 6. "Explain to the reader who Reynolds is." Joshua Reynolds is his friend in that context, and thats all that is necessary in that context. This is already mentioned in the article. 7. "Explain to the reader who Richardson is." Except that it doesn't matter, and would be adding in unnecessary and redundant text. MoS explains what the "wikilinks" are for here. 8. "Explain to the reader who Burney is" Same as above. 9. "Why is "reputation" in quotation marks? " All subjective terminology would be in quotes, but this is from a source, so it wouldn't matter. 10. "Why are "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks?" Because it wasn't an actual school and she wasn't an actual dame. 11. " Why is "praise" in quotation marks?" Because its a quote.

I would suggest you read up on the MoS and clear up your confusion about "comprehensive". You made this same mistake during the Tolkien review. MoS is clear on what links are there for: "Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles." Ottava Rima (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. "Comprehensive" means "neglects no major facts or details" and "accurately represent[s] the relevant body of published knowledge" (see WP:FA?). This article does not do that, considering there is so much scholarship on Johnson that focuses on his works and a large portion of Johnson's importance relates to him as an author. I am arguing that the general reader does not get a good picture of Johnson the author from this article - they do not really know what he wrote about or how he wrote. I understand very well what comprehensiveness means. Links are for deepening understanding, not acquiring it in the first place. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• 2. Influence on other authors is a key part of Johnson's legacy and all of the recent author biography FAs have had this. There is no Wikipedia policy that discusses this topic. It has simply become common practice because it makes sense to include this crucial topic in the biography.
• 3. SJ is probably the most important English author of the 18th century. He is indeed notable for being an author. That this idea is not conveyed in the article is really scandalous. Let us not be silly here.
• 4. It is a prose list.
• 5. The section contains elements that would make much more sense in the chronological history, as they are told in date order. Besides, SJ didn't exist in a static depressive state, as the section makes clear, so it would make more sense to tell the story of his depressive episodes within the biography itself.
• 6-8. You need to explain who these 18th-century figures are so that it is clear what having a friend like Reynolds means. You cannot assume the reader understands this. This goes for all of these examples.
• 9-11. Why it is necessary to quote individual words? It is very confusing and suggests scare quotes. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "neglects no major facts or details", see "summary style" and "wikilinks" above to show that it is not "neglected". We have these for a reason. Each major work is mentioned, and all given lines according to their weight. Everything else goes onto the subpages, as per MoS and WP:WEIGHT. 2. Prove the influence. You can't. There is a difference from respect and influence. The only possible thing that could have "influenced" anyone, would be his biographies, which are already given a significant portion of the page. 3. "SJ is probably the most important English author of the 18th century" I guess Pope and Swift can pack up their bags and go home, because they no longer matter. Poor Fielding and Richardson, you no longer matter. Wordsworth, your style was interesting, but obviously wasn't good enough. Good bye you Federalists, your contributions don't matter, just like you Signers. 4. Still need to rely on an actual definition of a list. 5. WP:WEIGHT - you cannot apply later diagnosis upon a history. That would also violation WP:OR. Can you find a concern that isn't in direct opposition of Wikipedia guidelines or policies? 6. See the Wikilinks entry of MoS above to show that I don't. 9. "Why it is necessary to quote individual words?" Are you serious? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made my arguments known. People can take them or leave them. Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have had change my statement to "strong oppose" because the discussion below has revealed the editor is utterly resistant to changing the article to include a discussion of Johnson's works or his legacy which he could easily research in works of literary criticism. His claim that Johnson was not an influential author is false (anyone on Wikipedia can check the Jane Austen article for one example of an author Johnson influenced) and anyone with access to the MLA database can see the long list of articles and books that connect Johnson to multiple literary traditions. The fact that the Wikipedia article on Johnson is inferior to the Britannica article, which is written by Robert Folkenflik, a world-famous expert on Johnson, is of course to be expected. However, we could certainly do better by including a discussion of Johnson's works and his legacy. I would like to point out that Folkenflik himself reads the Wikipedia article on Johnson frequently and has commented about its quality on a listserv that I belong to of 18th-century professors. Wouldn't it be nice if the next time he looked at it, it was beyond reproach? Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reread the article because I know that substantial changes have been made. I am impressed with expansion with the "Legacy" section, however, I am still opposing because I feel that the article's coverage of Johnson's works, particularly their themes and style, is insufficient and the use of quotations is confusing:

• I'm happy to see that more information has been added on the works. However, I still do not feel that this information is well-integrated yet. For example, Rasselas is happily now no longer just described as a philosophical novella: The Idler did not take up all of Johnson's time, and he was able to publish his philosophical novella Rasselas on 19 April 1759. The "little story book", as Johnson described it, describes the life of Prince Rasselas and Nekayah, his sister, who are kept in a place called the Happy Valley. The Happy Valley in the land Abyssinia was a place in which there were no problems and any desire was quickly satisfied. However, the constant pleasure does not lead to satisfaction, and Rasselas escapes, with the help of a philosopher named Imlac, explores the world to witness how all aspects of society and life in the outside world are filled with suffering. They return to Abyssinia, but do not wish to return to state of constantly fulfilled pleasures found in the Happy Valley.[136] Rasselas was written in one week to pay for his mother's funeral, and to settle her debts; it became so popular that there was a new English edition of the work almost every year. It appeared in many works of fiction through characters reading the book, such as Charlotte Brontë 's Jane Eyre, Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford and Nathaniel Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables. Its fame was not limited to English-speaking nations, and Rasselas was immediately translated into five different languages (French, Dutch, German, Russian and Italian), and later into another nine.[137] - The plot, themes, and publication history of every work cannot be described. It takes a lot of time to figure out what to discuss and what to leave out about the works. This article has a lot of details right now that would be hard for the general reader to stitch together into a coherent narrative. I believe that this article can be absolutely wonderful, but I think it still needs some more careful pruning and perhaps slight reorganization. Just adding these details doesn't quite cut it. We have to make sure that general readers come away with a sense of Johnson the man and Johnson the writer. Right now, the details are just clouding the general picture.
• There needs to be broader discussion of the themes of Johnson's works, either in a separate section or in a coherent way that the general reader can understand in the biography. In the "character sketch" section, the article states that "Johnson's Christian morality permeated his works", however, the reader would not necessarily know this from the descriptions of the works and the statement ends there, not offering an explanation.
• There needs to be a broader discussion of the style of Johnson's writing - what kind of a poet was he, for example? What poetic genres did he write in? How did he write as a critic? Was he acerbic, compassionate, etc.? We need to give readers an idea of his language.
• Confusing quotations:

• There are still isolated words in quotations that are confusing. For example: When Johnson turned four, he was sent to a nearby "school" on Dam Street, where "Dame" Anne Oliver, the proprietor, gave lessons to young children in the living-room of a cottage. Johnson especially enjoyed his time with Dame Oliver, later remembering her fondly, and when he reached the age of six, he was sent to a retired shoemaker to continue his education. - Why are common words like "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks? If these words are important to quote, why is "Dame" not quoted later? This tendency to overquote and not make it clear who is speaking occurs throughout the article. Rarely are these quotations cited - the reader does not know from whom the quotations are coming.

• Ottava has done some work on this, should be addressed now. All text has always been cited, although we did substantially reduce the citation density at the request of other reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• The interviewers were surprised that "a School-boy should know Macrobius", and he was accepted immediately - Here is an example of why it is important to know who said the quotation - is this a twentieth-century biographer's description or a direct quote from the interviewers? The reader is not entirely sure.

• No longer in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• This first love was not to last, and Johnson later claimed to Boswell, "She was the first woman with whom I was in love. It dropped out of my head imperceptibly, but she and I shall always have a kindness for each other." - Is this a quotation from Boswell's biography that is quoted in a twentieth-century Johnson biography? If so, the note should read "Qtd. in..." - There are numerous examples of this problem. Awadewit (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• No longer in the article, AFAICT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "school" and "Dame" are in quotes because they are in quotes in every biography on Johnson. It wasn't an actual school. She wasn't an actual Dame. These were the names given to them by others. It is common to put such things in quote. 2) "Rarely are these quotations cited" All quotes are cited. "is this a twentieth-century biographer's description or a direct quote from the interviewers" This would not matter, because this is a fact of a situation and not dialogue. Only dialogue or opinion needs to have direct citations, and this is per MLA and Chicago method standards. The reader is easily able to determine where the quote came from because of the reference at the end. Anything else would be redundant and unnecessary per both methods detailed. 3) "If so, the note should read" Or not, because it is not necessary per standard convention. 4) "There needs to be a broader discussion of the style of Johnson's writing - what kind of a poet was he, for example?" The use of the term "imitation" and other such words are already there to describe these. If you think they are inadequate, then it really can't be helped. 5) "There needs to be broader discussion of the themes of Johnson's works" Utterly impossible. Not even Donald Greene who had his whole career to discuss such things was capable of doing so. Not only is there not a unifying theme between his tens of thousands of writings, that if you did attempt to even talk about more than one or two individual works at a time, you'd fill books. His politics is discussed. His religion is discussed. You ask for what does not have a basis. Why isn't Shakespeare's themes there? He only wrote a handful of plays! Johnson wrote for 60 years, having regular news paper columns, diary entries, speeches, books, prefaces, etc etc. Each different. Each varying. And yet Shakespeare is an FA without such. Your standards do not match. 6) "The plot, themes, and publication history of every work cannot be described." And yet you asked for it. With these contradictions, I believe that your oppose has no grounds. Therefore, you will not be given any further responses from me until you sort out your own thoughts and apply actual FA standards based on actual comparable FAs. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The quotes are unclear to readers. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2) I gave examples of quotations that have unclear sources - it is important to know if a quotation comes from an eighteenth-century source or a twentieth-century source or the reader will be misled.

4-6) It is not utterly impossible to discuss the themes of an author's multiplicity of works. See, for example, Balzac. The problem with this article is that it is overwhelmed by details, as I have tried to illustrate, and the lay reader cannot understand the kind of writer Johnson was. Other reviewers agree with this assessment. To be clear, at no time did I ask you to add a plot summary, publication history, and theme description of every work. There are many ways to describe the works of an author in an article. I am pointing out that, so far, the integration and coverage of that topic is not up to FA standards. Considering all of the other recent author biographies that have become FAs have had significant discussions of the author's works in some way, this article is not comparable. (And please do not compare this article to William Shakespeare, which has sections on "Plays", "Poems", and "Style", just the kinds of sections that this article is lacking.) Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "he quotes are unclear to readers." Then I would wonder at their ability to read English. Sorry, but this is a very old and very standard convention. People even use "air quotes" while speaking. We have a "simple English" Wikipedia for those who may not understand these standard conventions. Every major biographer uses them. 2) You gave examples, but that does not mean you are correct. Once again, standard English conventions do not support you. 4-6) I'm sorry, but you couldn't even talk about Proserpine in context of others who were cited as being compared to Shelley's version, so your objection is absolutely absurd. Shakespeare is the only acceptible comparasion to Johnson. Shakespeare is the only one even close to Johnson in mass. Shakespeare does not have what you want, therefore, what you want does not qualify under FA standards. Don't like it? Try to put Shakespeare up for an FAR review with your objection, if you truly believe what you are claiming. Otherwise, your objections are pure nonsense, as I have already demonstrated above. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And Awadewit, for you to have an objection under 1b, you have to prove that there is a detail missing, then you have to prove that it qualifies under "major". You have done none of this. You can't even put forth specifics. Therefore, you cannot even begin to claim that your oppose is actionable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the point about the quotes - I am trying to point out where the article fails to communicate to readers. If you do not want to improve the article, so be it. Continuing to discuss this matter is apparently fruitless.
  • Should be addressed now; please let us know if you see other instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• You misunderstood my point about William Shakespeare. If Samuel Johnson had as much discussion of Johnson's works as the Shakespeare article does about Shakespeare's works, I would have no trouble supporting it. I reiterate my point - please note that the Shakespeare article has extensive sections on Shakespeare's plays, poems, and style. The Samuel Johnson article does not have any such sections or their equivalent.
• You wrote on my talk page "you are still treating him [Samuel Johnson] as an author, when he was a in fact a scholar". As far as I know, Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres. Those works were influential and need to be talked about. He is taught in literature classes. Scholars in English departments have made careers studying him. The introduction to the Cambridge Companion on Samuel Johnson calls him "a great English writer" (2) and describes him and his influence this way: "The attention he has received is the mark of many things: it is a sign that his personality continues to fascinate, that his works continue to speak to the experience of modern people, and that he and his works represent a complex cultural authority that provide some readers with deep,intelligent instances of moral, social, and literary insight, while symbolizing for others the worst excesses of absolutist and ethnocentric rationalism prodcued by the Enlightenment." (1) Notice the emphasis on both his person and his works. I do not understand how your claim regarding Johnson can be reconciled with this summary statement, which accurately reflects the scholarship of this entire volume.
• The Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson discusses Samuel Johnson's styles and themes in a broad fashion, something you have claimed is impossible. In fact, the introduction states that this is the entire purpose of the work: "the essays are designed to approach single works and general themes in Johnson's thinking from a number of different yet complementary persepctives" (2). I will give sample quotes from Howard Weinbrot's essay entitled "Johnson's poetry" to illustrate how this is possible and some ideas that are missing from the article:

• Helpful summary of poetic genres: "Samuel Johnson's preeminence rests upon the extraordinary intellectual and moral achievements within his prose. That truth universally acknowledged nonetheless admits a complementary truth - Johnson is a great prose writer in part because he is a great poet. Johnson wrote poetry throughout his life....He wrote a blank-verse tragedy, translations, adaptations of classical poems, satires, love poems, poems warning of the dangers of love, elegies, epitaphs, comic parodies, serious prayers, odes, sonnets, meditations on his inner psychological and spiritual being, and in the nature of things, poems that combined several of these genres." (34)
• Theme: "The intimate relationship between the general and the particular, the author and the reader, informs much of Johnsons's literary theory and poetic practice" (35)
• Style: "Johnson also uses questions pleasurably to involve us in his poem and in our own education" (35)
• Style and theme: "Johnson's poems frequently exhort us to examine, look, mark, observe, remark, see, survey, and then apply the fruits of discovery to our actual lives." (36) - "Johnson figuratively embodies his empiricism" (36)
• Theme: One aspect of Johnson's inner and outer empirical world was its Christianity that so improved classical pagansim" (36-37)
• Style and theme: Johnson's poems "often engage readers in their own education and encourage response and partnership with a humane, experienced guide. He urges toward a specific moral end while also recognizing variations in the path we may choose to take." (37)

Using works like the Cambridge Companion helps us write articles for the lay person because Johnson scholars, who have spent years introducing Johnson to lay audiences, have already done so. As you can see, these kinds of statements would give general readers a much better idea of what kind of poet Johnson was than the fragmented, overly detailed information currently in the article. In addition, they would provide an overview of the kind of poet Johnson was. However this is just a beginning. The Cambridge Companion has essays on several topics that would be helpful, such as Johnson's essays, his conversation, important themes such as Christianity and imperialism, etc. Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "I am trying to point out where the article fails to communicate to readers" And it is a common English feature, so you would have to not understand basic English to get it. It comes up in news papers every day. It comes up in books. It comes up in coversation. Its a standard English convention. 2) "had as much discussion of Johnson's works" Johnson's actually has more discussion than what Shakespeare's page does. It also has a lot more history, because we actually have biographies of Johnson and know who he was. 3) "Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres" Then once again, you have proved your ignorance. Being a writer is not being an author. Writing news stories, essays, and other prose works is not the same as a major poet or a major novelist. 4) "he Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson discusses Samuel Johnson's styles and themes" Before you start making stuff up, please realize that I actually own this work and used it in the biography. Chapter one "Extraordinary ordinary: the life of Samuel Johnson" biography. Chapter two "Johnson and the arts of conversation" biography. Chapter three "Johnson's poetry" which does not say much beyond what is already in the page. Chapter four "Johnson, the essay, and The Rambler, a 14 page chapter which talks about his newspaper career, which has already been discussed in the page. Chapter five "Johnson and the condition of women" biography. Chapter six, "Johnson's Dictionary" part biography, part talking about the origins of the Dictionary which is covered in the page. Chapter seven, "Johnson's politics" part biography and covers what is already discussed in the page. Chapter eight "Johnson and imperialism" is the same as seven. Chapter nine, "The skepticism of Rasselas" does not cover anything beyond what is already discussed and is mostly biography. Chapter ten, "Shakespeare: Johnson's poet of nature" covered in the page. Chapter eleven, "Life and literature in Johnson's Lives of the Poets" already covered in the page. Chapter twelve, "Johnson's Christian thought", already covered in the page. Chapter thirteen, "From China to Peru": Johnson in the traveled world" biography. Chapter fourteen, "Letters about nothing": Johnsona nd epistolar writing" biography.

So far, all you did was prove that most of the essays on Johnson deal with his biography. Furthermore, your quotes are not objective, but opinions thrown out without any proof and cannot be used in a biography. Now, if you have any real arguments, please provide them. The fact that you didn't even acknowledge that the Cambridge Companion is used is utterly disturbing to say the least because it reveals that you didn't even bother to look at the article, which negates any claims you may have to object. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Awadewit, having a 10 page essay in the Cambridge Companion does not mean that it falls under weight. There are three other books that collect essays on Johnson, and there are plenty more works on his biography. You still haven't been able to acknowledge WP:WEIGHT, which clearly says "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Also, your statement above seems not to acknowledge that there is a big section on his philosophy of poetry which goes into his two major poems. That reinforces the fact that you haven't actually bothered to read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres" Then once again, you have proved your ignorance. Being a writer is not being an author. Writing news stories, essays, and other prose works is not the same as a major poet or a major novelist. - This distinction is not supported by the scholarship. There is no distinction between "writer" and "author" in literary criticism. There was in the 1950s, but we are no longer in the 1950s. You are insisting upon imposing your theoretical views of literary criticism onto the article. This is a departure from WP:NPOV, which states that we have to represent all major views in the article. Clearly, that Johnson is a major English writer in many genres is an important view of scholars, found throughout Johnson scholarship.
• Before you start making stuff up, please realize that I actually own this work and used it in the biography. - These personal attacks do not become you. I used the CC because I saw it in the "References" and thought you would have easy access to it, because the essays are written by important scholars in the field and represent a diversity of opinion. The book therefore is not just the opinion of one scholar, but a collection of the most important voices in Johnson scholarship. Do not cavalierly dismiss it under WP:WEIGHT, especially when you have used it yourself.
• You have apparently misunderstood my argument. You list many things that are covered in the article. Mentioning them is not enough. I gave the example of poetry, where the general statements regarding Johnson's style and themes were missing from the article, but could easily be added. Rather than try to the improve the article so that it is easier to follow, however, you chose to dispute every single thing I said.
• Furthermore, your quotes are not objective, but opinions thrown out without any proof and cannot be used in a biography. - These are quotations from scholars - we use literary critics' arguments in articles about writers.

Throughout this review, I have only offered suggestions to improve the article. At this point, however, I no longer feel like subjecting myself to the personal attacks that I am constantly undergoing here. If the article changes again, I will be happy to review it again. As of this point, I am unwatching this page. Awadewit (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• A great read! Excellently written! Therefore, I support but I have to stress something I think Awadewit already mentioned. The "legacy" section treats the posthumous works about Johnson, but not his real (artistic) legacy, namely his influence on the next generations of writers. And I think this is a serious flaw that should be taken care of.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy has been rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And what do you suggest? There is nothing even close to establish his influence. Did someone write a similar dictionary? No. Are there any notable influences within Johnson criticism? No. See, thats the key. The "influenced" has to be notable to Johnson. There isn't a direct influence. No one followed his poems. No one followed Rabelais. Find a notable work that can be said to follow Johnson. The Romantics did their own thing. The Modernists did theirs. Johnson was know as a character. He was known for his biography. All of the criticism out there focuses on this. WP:WEIGHT demands that it is the focus of the article. If you can find a legitimate author who relied on one of Johnson's works to write another important work, please provide proof. Otherwise, stop speculating. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There are entire books written on Johnson's influence - I found them in the MLA database last night. See Reception history of Jane Austen for one example of Johnson's influence. Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but reception history is not the biography page of Jane Austen, and thus you contradict yourself. Furthermore, WP:WEIGHT would not have such a section. This is a biography. The pertinent sections where his life caused works has been cited to those of significant sources. Furthermore, Jane Austen is a novelist, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And if someone may think that she has a point that Johnson influenced Austen, there is no such critical claim found. There are only comparisons, which are not influences, nor do they have weight. Even her own page says "Bradley emphasised Austen's ties to Samuel Johnson, arguing that she was a moralist as well as humourist", but doesn't have a real influence. They are connected only through analogy, and analogy is not critical. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have your own section. Don't hijack what others say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(I believe I am allowed to comment anywhere on the FAC.) Here is Johnson on the Jane Austen page. I am not comparing apples to oranges - you asked for a writer who was influenced by Johnson. I gave you one that is cited here on Wikipedia. There are many more, of course. Writers of all stripes were influenced by Johnson because he was so influential. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Support for a beautifully written, comprehensive encyclopaedic article. It is a difficult task to write about Johnson without it turning into a book—such was his life and influence. What the editors have achieved here is awesome; one of, if not the best encyclopaedia articles about him. The FA process is about presenting our best work to the world and setting the paradigm for content, style and quality to less-experienced editors. This is the best FAC I have seen this year. My congratulations go to all editors involved. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure that the many editors will greatly appreciate those kind words. A lot of people have been putting in a lot of effort and its nice for it to be recognized.Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question for all reviewers - To achieve consensus on this point, I would like to know whether the community believes that an author article should discuss the author's works in some depth (e.g. Balzac and Mary Shelley) or if mentioning each one in a few lines is enough (e.g. Samuel Johnson). I have argued above that the Johnson style is too cursory since authors are notable for their writings and Ottava Rima has argued that readers can read other articles and this style is WP:SS). Please weigh in on this important issue. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Should this be on the talk page and not here? Graham Colm ^Talk 14:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering it is a point of dispute in this FAC, I believe we should talk about here (it is the main reason I am opposing). Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you done making a point? Does this disruption have a purpose? London has three lines devoted to it. The Dictionary has a whole section. The Rambler a paragraph. Vanity has 3 lines and Irene has 5. His Shakespeare and his Lives have multiple lines and paragraphs. The Idler has a paragraph as with his The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides. His political pamphlets are given two paragraphs between them all. Every major work has a section devoted to them as per their WP:WEIGHT. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm no literary scholar, but I think Awadewit has a fair point. I'm in no position to judge whether Johnson's literary works had influence or (apart from the dictionary) were any good. It does strike me that most of the publications are noted in the context of Johnson's life and we learn about the publiciation from an external POV (did it make money, when did he write it, it was translated, etc). We learn very little about the literary work itself. For example, Rasselas is described as a "philosophical novella" but we learn nothing more about its contents. Such things could be written without reading the poems or opening the books. I'm not saying the editors or sources haven't done this, but they might as well not have is the point. We learn a lot about Johnson's character and life, but next to nothing about the literary works themselves.

The "Legacy" section isn't what I would regard as such, for an author: a list of biographies is followed by an "in pop culture" paragraph. If Awadewit is right, and that Johnson's literary works have influenced future writers, then this is the place for that to be covered. The influence of his dictionary on the English language certain deserves mention. Colin°^Talk 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries and similar things were reduced based on a few editorial requests during the peer review. It was determined then that there was significant redundancies and that it would take far too much to explain the plots. By the way, Awadewit isn't right about him "influencing" future writers, as he wasn't a fiction writer or regarded as such. He was a scholar and a "character". And those biographies were some of the most celebrated works of the 18th century, so I wouldn't dismiss them so easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because Johnson wasn't primarily known as a fiction writer doesn't mean he didn't influence fiction writers (that is fallacious reasoning). Besides, it was Johnson's moral essays that influenced novelists. Johnson also influenced other essayists and poets. His influence was profound. I urge all those that have access to the online Encyclopedia Britannica to compare Wikipedia's article to theirs. Unfortunately, at the moment, theirs is superior because it explains the kind of writer Johnson was (comparing the section on Rasselas is particularly illuminating). If anyone would like me to send them a copy of the EB article, I will. Just email me. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. You only have statements in which people compared the two. This does not mean that one influenced the other. And if you think Britannica's is superior, then why not stick to reading that one. They are allowed Original Research. They are allowed baseless conjecture. They are allowed to do whatever they want about weight. And they don't have to rely on sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Austen scholars have indeed said that Johnson was an influence on Austen. The citations are there for you to follow if you do not believe me. I am offering Britannica as a comparison because we often do that, to check the quality of our articles, since EB is written by actual scholars. I'm not sure what you think is baseless conjecture in that article or why you think the Britannica doesn't rely on solid scholarship, but I'm not sure others will agree with you. EB is usually viewed a relatively decent tertiary source. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Austen scholars" - you still haven't proven this. As I pointed out, the closest thing was not actual evidence. Furthermore, you haven't actually provided real citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

They are in the article. Read the article and check the citations in the footnotes yourself. Or, you can see all the notes we have amassed on Austen here. They contain statements such as Austen "developed her mastery of balance from Pope, wisdom and playfulness from Johnson, gendered power-struggle and immediacy of representation from Richardson, relation of books to life from Lennox, pathos and domesticity from Cowper, grotesque from Burney" (203) from Isobel Grundy in the Cambridge Companion (there are many more). This is tiring. Here are some citations from Johnson's influence and legacy. I have only done the briefest survey of the MLA database (and only books) as there are thousands of Johnson entries, and here are three different books on Johnson's importance, dealing with three different areas:

• Philip Smallwood, Johnson's Critical Presence: Image, History, Judgment
• Nicholas Hudson, Samuel Johnson and the Making of Modern England
• John Needham, The Completest Mode: I. A. Richards and the Continuity of English Literary Criticism

I am not going to do extensive research for this FAC because I don't have the time at the moment since I am on vacation. Awadewit (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you did any research, you would realize that those books don't provide what you think they provide. They discuss Johnson and his works, but not people influenced by Johnson's works. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For those wondering - Needham's book is ignored by Donald Greene, who, in 1989, talked about the major contributions to the area of Johnson's studies. Regardless, Needham talks about Johnson in the 18th century. Hudson's work does the same (a quick view at Amazon demonstrates this: "this volume will give you a better appreciation of the author of The Rambler, Rasselas, and Lives of the Poets, by presenting, not 'the Age of Johnson,' but 'Johnson within his Age.'" Albion, Paul Monod ). Note the word "within". The other, Smallwood's work, is a side by side analysis, but does not demonstrate influence, only context. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But context is important and these books demonstrate the influence that Johnson had on his society. This is exhausting, OR. There are countless articles and books that demonstrate Johnson influenced other writers in addition to the entire society. This point is not made in the article. You know it and I know it. Do not try to claim that scholars haven't made this point when entire books have been written about it. Awadewit (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:WEIGHT carefully and then reread Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Wikilink#Internal links for why that action cannot be done. Weight must follow the predominant thought by the predominant scholarship, and be given proportion based on the predominant scholarship. In an article on his biography, the stress is placed on his biography. Not for speculation. No section to say "here is what the rest of England looked like in comparison" or anything else. Those works can serve as primers to students needing to learn context. But they are not scholarly works that analysis Johnson's actual connection in a way that deserves more prominence in this biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I definately agree with Awadewit: any author at FAC, save perhaps quite recent ones, should cover literary criticism and the author's artistic legacy, based on the scholarly literature. This article does not cite a single source of either type. Biographies are only one type of work that should be used in such an article, nor should the article be weighted based on biographies. The scholarly literature on the author should also be summarised. Biographies provide details about the person's life. Different books and articles analyse the writings and legacy. The more you scream that to even look at such articles would violate undue weight, the more you look completely ignorant of basic facts about academic scholarship. Particularly after Awadewit has pointed you towards books by name that you could use, which you dismissed out of hand as not being covered by biographies! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson is not "any author", let alone an "author". Regardless, the page doesn't cite a single source dealing with Johnson's works? Are you serious? 1. Clingham, Greg (1997) - deals with Lives of the Poets, 2. Griffin, Dustin (2005) - deals with his political works, 3. Hitchings, Henry (2005) - deals with his dictionary, 4. Lynch, Jack (2003), - also a great essay on Johnson's dictionary, 5. Watkins, W. B. C. (1960), - an important comparative critical work, 6. Weinbrot, Howard D. (1997), - all about Johnson's poetry, 7. The many biographies are all written by literary experts in the field and all contain some critical analysis of works. Greene's work even includes a bibliographical analysis of the critical studies in Johnson from 1970-1989. I don't think you have actually read the page at this point based on what you just stated above. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clingham is used to cite this: The work was finished in March 1781 and the whole collection was published in six volumes. As Johnson justified in the advertisement for the work, "my purpose was only to have allotted to every Poet an Advertisement, like those which we find in the French Miscellanies, containing a few dates and a general character. That is the only citation to Clingham. An entire book analysing the Lives to the Poets, and you don't cite a single biot of its analysis, only Johnson's stated intent.
• Griffin: This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism and This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. Again, a pretty trivial usage.
• Hitchings: Used only for history of dictionaries:
  • On the morning of 18 June 1746, over breakfast at the Golden Anchor tavern in London, Johnson signed a contract with William Strahan and associates to produce an authoritative dictionary of the English language. The contract stated that Johnson was to be paid 1,500 guineas (£1,575), ... in instalments based on delivery of manuscript pages; all expenses relating to the project—ink, paper, assistants, etc.—were to be paid for by Johnson
  • Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, published in 1604, was the first monolingual English dictionary. Again, you have an entire book on the subject, and ignore the content except to fit it into a solely biographical framework.
• Lynch: This is an INTRODUCTION to an edition of the Dictionary. It's used somewhat, (actually far out of proportion to the weight you should give an introduction to a mass-market edition of a book), but, again, no to little discussion of the dictionary itself occurs using it, only the history of its creation.
• Watkins: Not once used to discuss Johnson's works. It may well be an impoprtant comparative work. So why didn't you use it?
• Weinbrot: Used for one sentence that discusses a single poem: "The poem is an imitation of Juvenal's Satire X and seeks to be "the antidote to vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes""

If you even read these works, then you should have actually used them in a significant way in the article. You cannot claim your sourcing is fine because you used major literary analyses if you don't actually use them to provide any literary analysis. Particularly, your claims that you used a major comparative work, Watkins, when you never actually use to cite any comparison whatsoever, is outright fraud on your behalf in your claims about the article.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid excess markup, per WP:TALK guidelines. Will someone please remove the markup? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the Britannica article, thanks to Awadewit. I now oppose this FAC on the grounds of not being comprehensive and not giving due weight to the areas one would expect in a literary biography. [see below] On three areas (details of his life; description of his character; analysis of his works) this article is over-specific on the first, light on the second and virtually absent on the latter. For example:

• • His "Final moments" are covered with great precision as to which dates he was at which locations. The EB article mentions a stroke, his "dread at the prospect of death and judgment, for he feared damnation" and his "late conversion". Does one really need to know "He soon left for Islington to visit George Strahan"?
  • The article describes school director Hunter's brutality in an awkward way which leaves the reader wanting for more information. In contrast to the insipid "disatisfied with his education", EB says Hunter's regime "instilled such terror in the young boy" that years later he "trembled" when reminded of it. The EB uses the priceless quotation about Hunter, who "never taught a boy in his life—he whipped and they learned."
  • The section on the dictionary mostly covers everything but the dictionary. We get his life while writing it, plus mention of other works he wrote at the same time. In contrast the EB article tells us quite a lot about the dictionary itself.
  • I may have missed its mention here, but the EB says Johnson was tall and, latterly, huge and strong. Some physical description is warranted.
  • The EB describes him as "the foremost literary figure and the most formidable conversationalist of his time" neither of which are apparent from the article.
  • The EB says "Johnson is well remembered for his aphorisms, which contributed to his becoming, after Shakespeare, the most frequently quoted of English writers." Neither of these facts are mentioned here. This is surely a topic for his Legacy section!
  • The EB says "Johnson's criticism is, perhaps, the most significant part of his writings." I don't see anything on his literary criticism.
  • The EB goes on to say "As a critic and editor, through his Dictionary, his edition of Shakespeare, and his Lives of the Poets in particular, he helped invent what we now call "English Literature."" This bold statement is far stronger than the "he made lasting contributions to English literature" in our lead.
  • The EB gives merely one word each to his depression and his TS. I think that, or a footnote as Awadewit suggests, is too little. However, the TS section could spend less time detailing the various 20th century physicians who posthumously diagnosed Johnson. The section tries to prove the case in front of the reader, rather than describe and state the conclusions to which authoratative minds have agreed. The article says Johnson had "signs consistent with several diagnoses in the DSM" yet only gives us one: TS. The wording "It is not without interest that" should be avoided.
    • Colin, I can only respond on the TS section, as it's the only section I've worked on and represents the only sources I have access to. I've reworked the section a bit; please have a look. I combined and eliminated some wording as well as mention of specific physicians unless they are known to contemporary readers. The wording "It is not without interest that" is a direct quote from one of the reports; eliminating it will be awkward. I've tried to leave text that satisfies three needs: 1) to demonstrate that Johnson's posthumous diagnosis is as strong as it is precisely because of the writings of Boswell and others, 2) the need to contrast his diagnosis with other speculative and not well accepted posthumous diagnoses (such as Mozart), and 3) to provide the context for understanding his life, work and personality. If EB gives one word each to this, they clearly miss the mark in placing the work of Johnson in the context of contemporary understanding, and we should be aspiring to do a better job than EB has done. Please have a look, but I think that cutting any deeper will eliminate the context we provide that makes this article superior to EB and explains Johnson's life and work in the context of current understanding. We have the opportunity to write a much better article than EB: we should do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Further discussion of the Tourette issue on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You say (on this FAC discussion) "those biographies were some of the most celebrated works of the 18th century" yet this isn't clear to the reader. Wikilinking them doesn't give them "celebrated" status for every episode of Lost has an article on WP! It is possible to become so familiar with one's subject that one forgets what other people don't know.
  • Lastly, the EB covers his literary works in a way that gives the reader a real flavour of what sort of author this was and where his works fit within literature. All I get from this article are dates when and locations where he wrote.

The where and when stuff really doesn't help the general reader and should be trimmed to that which is necessary to build a picture of his life. Spend more time describing Johnson the character and more time on his literature itself, and the reader will come away with a better picture of the man. Colin°^Talk

1. "this FAC on the grounds of not being comprehensive and not giving due weight to the areas one would expect in a literary biography" Weight is based on criticism, not Genre. Please read WP:WEIGHT. 2. "Does one really need to know "He soon left for Islington to visit George Strahan"?" I'm sorry, you are favouring the vague and inaccurate Britannica account that doesn't give any real understanding of how he died why? 3. "EB says Hunter's regime" Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research which adds "flavor", otherwise known as "falsities". 4. "The section on the dictionary mostly covers everything but the dictionary." Except that the first three paragraphs contradict this claim. 5. "Some physical description is warranted." Where? When? When did Johnson become tall? When did he become "robust"? Perhaps you are favouring one of the greatest flaws of Britannica. 6. "neither of which are apparent from the article." I guess you didn't read the "Character sketch" section which makes this clear. 7. "Neither of these facts are mentioned here." Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research. Britannica does. 8. "The EB gives merely one word each to his depression and his TS. " More proof of why the Britannica fails as an encyclopedia. Every major biographer talked about his depression, and every major biography after 1985 talks about his TS. 9. "yet this isn't clear to the reader." Read the second sentence. 10. "Lastly, the EB covers his literary works" The Britannica is not Wikipedia, and has different standards. They ignore criticism to provide a general tool for a childish intellectual understanding. They aren't scholarly. Furthermore, the Britannica works pages completely differently, and if you prefer the Britannica's style, then why bother with Wikipedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Please don't tell me to read WP:WEIGHT. I'm quite familiar with it thank-you and I wasn't referring to it. A biography on a literary figure should spend some time discussing his literature. This article spends virtually none.

2. I didn't say I favoured the Britannica article. It's coverage of his death is slight. However, WPs is way too detailed yet somehow misses off aspects the EB found time to mention.

3. You are saying the "trembling" and/or quotation is false; that EB just made that up? You might be right. I can't argue that point.

4. No, apart from the last two sentences, the first three paragraphs tell me nothing about the dictionary. If you can't see this then I suggest you take a break and look at it with fresh eyes. The first paragraph is about the contract. The second and beginning of the third paragraph is about other dictionaries.

5. Eh? Are you telling me none of your sources tell you about physical aspects of the man? Are you saying EB is wrong and he was short and slender?

6. I had read the "Character sketch", thank you, and I've read it again. It says nothing about him being "the foremost literary figure and the most formidable conversationalist of his time". He loved his cats, apparently.

7. You are saying that EB's scholars are the only people to have mentioned Johnson's aphorisms!! Come on, even I've heard them. As for the 2nd-most-frequently-quoted statement, again, you are saying the EB just made that up? Perhaps they did; that's quite an allegation.

8. I agree with you that the EB article is too short on these aspects. I gave some practical suggestions on how the TS section could be more focussed IMO.

9. Ah, the second sentence in the lead. Which is supposed to be a summary of the body. So where does it say that in the body?

10. I've been around WP long enough to know the restrictions it imposes. It can be a handicap. But there are some serious holes in the coverage of Johnson's literary work that this article should fill. I don't prefer Britannica's style and don't subscribe to it. A scholarly work will have more detail than an encyclopaedia for the general reader, which is what WP is. I don't need to know what Johnson had for breakfast on the day he signed the contract for his dictionary. Colin°^Talk 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I would suggest you read the William Shakespeare page. You will notice that works like Richard III receive very little mention. 1. "I'm quite familiar with it thank-you and I wasn't referring to it." I was, and it contradicts your desire for certain pieces of information. 2. "I didn't say I favoured the Britannica article." Then don't mention it in an oppose. 4. "tell me nothing about the dictionary." So, the time table of how long he worked on it tells you nothing? And the comparative claims to show what he was working against? Or the fourth paragraph detailing how he had to retain assistants tells you nothing? Or do you mean it doesn't tell you whats inside of a dictionary, then I would point out that its a dictionary. 5. Unless you can provide when and where it matters, then it doesn't. He grew. He changed sizes. There are mentions of his scars. There are mentions of how people reacted to his mannerisms. That is scholarly. What you ask for is Britannica junk that is put in there to entertain children. 6. Because such claims are speculation and unverifiable. We discussed his communication skills and intelligence. The rest belongs in an opinion column. 7. "to have mentioned Johnson's aphorisms" To have lodged such outrageous and unscientific claims about them, yes. 8. They aren't very practical, as the section covers a lot of medicine in a very brief timespan, and would warrant an expansion based on WP:WEIGHT. 9. It doesn't have to be in the text at all as there is a significant coverage of Boswell within the work, which is what the line is about. 10. Mock as much as you want, but the signing the contract during breakfast is an important character detail and included in all of his major biographies. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm about done here as it is evident you are more interested in arguing that finding if even one of my points is worth pursuing. If the most you want to say about the dictionary (yes, the words on the page) is that "It's a dictionary, duh" then I really give up. I imagine all of Johnson's biographies mention his stature, yet you refuse to mention it because you think such comments are childish? Opinion of Johnson does deserve mention here, though in WP it needs to be attributed rather than directly stated like on EB. I'm afraid the reader really does need the help of others in working out whether he is considered the greatest/best/etc because few of us are so well read as to make that judgement ourselves. The claim about his quotability might be outrageous, but his aphorisms are well known and a reason he is well known to the population -- yet the word doesn't appear in the article. I'm glad the biography is now celebrated in the body text, despite what you wrote above. Finally, my "what he had for breakfast" point is gentle mocking but apt. There are lots of things that one would expect to find in "all of his major biographies". Those are books and this is an article.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea: I think this is generally an excellent article. It is well written (though the detail of his comings and goings really bogs the reader down at times) It is clear that those who have worked on this have done their research, are using high quality sources, and care passionately about the subject. Colin°^Talk 08:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've just seen the note on my talk page about changes made to the article by Ottava: "I trimmed out 3k worth of text and then added in 9.5k worth of text in terms of elaborations of plots/subjects of works, influence on contemporary works, more detailed explanation of biographies, added a section on his influence on criticism and response, and organizations/celebrations based around his character." I'll have a look later at these changes. Colin°^Talk 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read the article. Regarding the works, there is now some information in those places where there was none. The legacy section is also much improved. I would have preferred a little more about the dictionary (perhaps a definition or two and a brief comparison of his approach when compared to modern dictionaries) as it is his most noted work. Some of my other points remain unaddressed (for example, there is no mention of his stroke which is the subject of at least one medical paper). Since I'm no literary expert, and improvements have been made, I feel I should retract my oppose. Given the otherwise evident quality of the article, I now support it for FA status. Colin°^Talk 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I added this. It needs to be cleaned up, but it makes clear that this was a stroke. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Awadewit. When the editor who has raised two dozen other articles on related subjects to the featured level asserts that the candidate article lacks appropriate attention to the subject's work, we should take notice. She makes a very good argument regarding comprehensiveness: her objections are reasoned and specific. So opposing per criterion 1(c). Durova^Charge! 18:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the "two dozen other articles". Thanks. Bate never brings them up. Greene never brings them up. Wain never brings them up. They are the main Johnson scholars. Striking because you can't do it, as actual critics never used Awadewit as a source, and thus would be OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I had written this: I'm referring to Awadewit's 24 featured article credits, which all relate to English literature from this period and slightly afterward. She knows her stuff and it very much looks like her suggestions would make the article more informative. Suggest you address these points through improvements to the article. Best wishes, After seeing that edit conflict, strongly suggest a change of approach. Straw man arguments and sarcasm aren't likely to improve anything. I don't take that kind of behavior personally, and I hope neither does Awadewit, but it's not constructive or suitable. Durova^Charge! 18:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You think that Sandy and Malleus would have let it go if it wasn't already comprehensive? Or the extensive Peer review? Or the people on this list don't have more experience than her? If you had a real objection, you would have made it. Instead, you are basing it off of favoritism, which the FA process is not about. Awadewit failed to produce any actual proof. None of the major biographers mention anything even close to what she says. I have 24 biographies on my desk right now. I have 5 book collections of articles, plus loose articles. You want to say the page is not comprehensive? Get some real proof instead of defending someone who is throwing out baseless accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You attempt to reverse the burden of evidence and make a very serious allegation of misconduct. Please withdraw the claim, you are basing it off of favoritism. You cannot know what motivates me and that assertion is a violation of WP:AGF. Your response also insinuates that a positive peer review and SandyGeorgia's allowing a nomination onto FAC constitutes some expectation of promotion. Of course that doesn't always happen. Please, let's interact on a more productive and collegial level. I can be persuaded to change my opinion, but not by such tactics as this. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If saying that one user's comments are more highly respected than others, thats the definition of favourtism. You stated it yourself. You also disrespected the countless editors who worked hard on this piece and have far more FAC experience. And the "burden of evidence" is not on me. You don't have to prove your innocence. If she thinks that there is something missing, she better find it and point it out. Otherwise, it cannot be added. Right now, the work covers every single major biographer and Johnson scholar. All it takes is a quick glance through the reference section to see that. "SandyGeorgia's allowing a nomination onto FAC" Also, its her nom. Its not her "allowing" it onto FAC. Its her putting in over 200 edits towards making this FA worthy and going through every single medical article she could to actually fill out a topic held by the majority of scholars, a topic which Awadewit said didn't belong. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, a second attempt to sway this opinion with the straw man fallacy is no more persuasive than the first try. It would be favoritism if my trust in Awadewit's opinion were unmerited. Her two dozen featured articles on closely related subjects are an objective measurement of her knowledge in this field. I know a bit about Johnson, and a bit more about Austen--enough to appreciate what she's saying, and her argument is well-reasoned and sensible. Your responses look hotheaded and are logically flawed. Now I'm not the sort to hold a grudge. So if you'll just give the material another pass and deepen the treatment of Johnson's works and influence, I'll be glad to change my vote. Other than that, to paraphrase Elizabeth Bennet said in Pride and Prejudice, 'Keep your breath to cool your porridge, unless you exhale to swell the article with (critical) song.' Durova^Charge! 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You already said "per Awadewit". As I have explained above, her point is non-actionable, and any said actions would violate both policy and guidelines. If you are unpersuaded or not, that doesn't matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that you simultaneously accuse me of favoritism, and attempt to sway my opinion by a combative manner. If you really suppose both my ethics and logic are second-rate, wouldn't it be more practical to apply honey instead of vinegar? She raises a legitimate criterion 1c objection and substantiates it far better than most such objections get raised, and I simply am not satisfied by your rebuttal. If I were actually acting upon personal bias then your manner would entrench the opinion. As it is, I'm a bit puzzled and disappointed by your decision to undermine so much of your own hard work by refusing to make a few additional improvements that could earn this effort the recognition it almost deserves. That's your choice, though. Durova^Charge! 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I never attempted to sway. I pointed out that you favored Awadewit's response. It is clear that you did from your first line. I stated clearly above that your objection cannot be met, because Awadewit's objection cannot be met. It would go against policy and guideline, thus, I don't need to convince you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Weak support. Criticism and influence has been expanded. Although still a bit on the low side per WP:UNDUE, and despite main contributor's comments that would justify a WP:NPOV objection due to concerns that existing scholarly criticism may have been underused. The explanations about posthumous diagnosis are satisfactory. And although I would have objected at the consensus that moved nearly all of Boswell to a subordinate article, I won't stand in the way on that basis after the fact. I still don't quite get the rationale for citing a sometimes unreliable source for facts within the article without also providing a summary within that same article about the reasonable limits of trustworthiness for that source. That leaves the quote boxes, and the explanations for quoting Boswell exclusively within those quote boxes are wholly unsatisfactory from a historian's perspective; shifting the rationale to illustration is no improvement. Disappointing as that is, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. FAC's approach to illustrative media is often unsatisfactory to those of us who contribute other types of featured content and it wouldn't be fair to single out this nomination from others on that basis. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

neutral apologies for the flip-flop. Subsequent discussion at this FAC has deepened my concerns about NPOV. Durova^Charge! 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but NPOV requires Weight, and there has been no evidence to suggest that any of Awadewit's claims are even founded in scholarship, let alone be allowed under Weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I strongly suggest you consult with your mentors about this FAC. I am not one of your mentors, so please allow what I intend as a face-saving disengagement, and please refrain from further jabs at the competence and diligence of one of Wikipedia's top three most prolific contributors of featured articles. Durova^Charge! 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not one of Ottava's mentors either, but I would strongly suggest that you moderate your language nevertheless. "Prolific" does not equate to "knowledgeable". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Durova, let me make this clear right now. Over 14 admins have contacted me during this FAC expressing their disatisfaction with you, especially with you coming in and using Awadewit's oppose without any basis. These admins remember that you have been in contact with Awadewit and know that you talk to her off line. This page has also gone through an extensive Peer Review and had the involvement of many people, including many admin who feel that your claims are not supportable. Furthermore, these admin all know that you and Shoemaker have a history together. Furthermore, your claims that Awadewit is "prolific" is frivelous, as you have exposed easily that the FAC system can be gamed. Your comments above, combined with your actions, are not becoming of an admin. I recommend that you strike your comments and step away. I have put up with you long enough, and played your game. At the very least, you owe myself, Malleus, and Sandy an apologize for disrupting this FAC. I am done with you, and this is the last response you will hear from me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means such people are welcome to contact me directly. None have. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd never heard of Samuel Johnson before, and having read the article I'm not sure why I should have. No doubt it's great for Samuel Johnson fans, who are already familiar with his life and work. Specifically it fails criteria 1a) "engaging prose" because reading the endlessly cited minutiae of someones life was very dull and 1b) being comprehensive, because I've no more idea about why this man was important at the end of the article than I had before I started it. Suggest the biography section is heavily edited with more emphasis placed on whatever it is this man actually did that made him notable. --Davémon (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Did you read the second sentence - "Johnson is the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English"? How about the beginning of the third paragraph - "After nine years of work, his A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755 and brought him popularity and success."? If reading someone's life was dull, why not skip out of the clearly marked "biography" section? "on whatever it is this man actually did that made him notable" so, the whole section devoted to his "Dictionary" does not exist? The paragraphs on his edition of Shakespeare I guess don't exist either? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Malleus has beefed up the lead. The current lead includes:

• Beginning as a Grub Street journalist, he made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer. Johnson has been described as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history". He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. ... After nine years of work, his A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755 and brought him popularity and success.

• With a subject like Johnson, it's necessary to avoid WP:PEACOCKery; I hope this satisfies Davemon's concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear that Davemon has revisited; I'll ping. [41] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the shout! I think others have pointed out that the issue is best addressed in the lede, so that's what I'll stick to. It has improved, but I think it could be even better. Surely the "Tourett Syndrome" reading/diagnosis of his biography is post-hoc to his fame/notability, and something of an aside rather than being fundamental to understanding the subject. OK so he wrote a dictionary and some journalism pieces but the article should show how these writings are significant to the world - just a few words ("a highly influential dictionary" or "ground-breaking journalism") which are then fleshed out and cited in the main body would be good. --Davémon (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I will leave it for Ottava to respond to the rest; I'm responsible for the Tourette syndrome text and accuracy. The TS is not an issue of his fame or notability, rather a matter of understanding his life, work, character, personality in context. The "Health" section, where the TS diagnosis is established, is later in the article, as putting it earlier wouldn't result in a logical flow. Mentioning it in the lead provides context for the other aspects of his life and personality as one reads through. It actually is fundamental to an understanding of Johnson, as contemporary knowledge of his TS puts the rest of his quirky and compulsive behaviors in context. If it's not mentioned in the lead, we'd have to somehow move the Health section up in the article, which would make less sense. Hope this helps explain, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Does it satisfy any concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having re-read the whole article, it might be a good start for an essay or a start of an academic paper for eng-lit, but as a general encyclopedia entry it fails. It over-emphasises trivial detail over significant facts, and for that reason, I still oppose this article becoming an FA. --Davémon (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. The article has now nailed it for me, the lede especially summarises the most significant information and explains why it is significant. Brilliant. Well done everyone. --Davémon (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Strong Oppose It doesn't really cover him as an author, beyond the dictionary, which gets trivial coverage as a work of literature, the section concentrating on the contracts and biographical aspects of the dictionary. Nor does it even discuss the importance of Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson at all. Boswell's Life is probably the most famous biography every written, and it is not discussed - quoted, but not discussed - at all. If this was moved to, say, Samuel Johnson's Life with another article started at Samuel Johnson's Works, with an article at Samuel Johnson summarising them and The Life of Samuel Johnson, and if the Legacy section was expanded enough that his importance became clear, then it would be an excellent featured article. But with the current scope, we have an article on an author that does not cover his works, and one that does not discuss the biography that cemented his fame. This cannot be considered comprehensive, and comprehensive is a key facet of a Featured article.

The long and short of this is that the coverage of what is covered is excellent, top rate even workable - but there are problems, for instance, when discussing Johnson's refutation of George Berkeley's ideas, you fail to say what those ideas are. However, an article on Samuel Johnson without discussion of his works or the effect of Boswell's biography on his legacy, and which also fails to discuss his own influence and legacy to any depth simply cannot be a featurable main article on the subject. If the scope was changed by making this a sub-article, then it would be fine, excellent even. But it cannot stand on its own with such glaring ommissions Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Struck oppose per this diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You do know that Boswell's life is included within the text, right? And its a famous biography, but that fact doesn't make it notable to Johnson's page to analyze it. The named pages are for biographies. Your suggestion goes against MoS. Do you have any actionable changes that don't violate MoS or Wikipedia standards? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Boswell's Life is discussed in detail in its own article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quoted, yes. But the Life of Johnson is probably one of the keys to Johnson's enduring legacy. I really don't see how you can get away without at least a paragraph or two discussing how it affected perception of Johnson. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I kept in the original section, I discussed Boswell's life. And no, it wasn't the key to his enduring legacy. The work was mostly fictional, and has been since dismissed. See the works of Donald Greene for this, or better yet, read about it here where it belongs. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

...So, you're saying you don't have to discuss Boswell's life because of problems with it as a source, then use it constantly throughout the article. If there's strong scholarly debate about the accuracy of Boswell's Life, then it is vital to the article that it gets discussed, and the accuracy of our knowledge of Johnson's life is made explicit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment above was to tell you the reality behind the source. Boswell's passages are contained in image boxes because they add "flavor", but do not provide as much truth. The passages that do describe actual events and not questioned have been used in the text itself. However, Boswell's work was just one of many, and has been replaced by other biographies that are included as references. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. Indee,d in one place you've chamnged a quote from Boswell's Life from being referenced to Boswell to being referenced to Lane "This first love was not to last, and Johnson later claimed to Boswell, "She was the first woman with whom I was in love. It dropped out of my head imperceptibly, but she and I shall always have a kindness for each other.") By insisting you don't have to deal with the issues you are making the article far worse. Please stop. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - William Shakespeare's page, FA, limits Richard III to only a couple lines, with no actual description on it. Thus, there is no FA standard that says that works need to be devoted anything more than a few lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. William Shakespeare from section 2 to section 6 inclusive is discussing his works and him as an author. Samuel Johnson has a single short section discussing one of his works, his dictionary. If you're going to insist that everyone but you is wrong, and try to claim that because an article on a prolific author does not discuss every single one of his 40+ works in great detail (while spending about half a dozen pages discussing his works in general) that you have no need to discuss more than one of a different author's works in any detail - and even the section on the Dictionary never describes the Dictionary itself, its importance, or anything but how it was created - then we may as well close this now as not promoted, because there's no way in hell it ever will be. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Works. This biography contains just as much information about his works. The individual works receive little over one or two lines. thus, your point doesn't correspond to the appropriate models. "that you have no need to discuss more" Actually, all of his major works are discussed into the detail appropriate according to the Shakespeare page. And this - "never describes the Dictionary itself," - is absurd, because saying the word "dictionary" is enough to give someone 95% of the knowledge of what it is. Everything else is covered in the dictionary's page. Any more would be redundant and thus violate MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You need, at a minimum, a section on literary criticism from Johnson's age to ours, and a section detailing the themes and style of his works. The legacy section also needs to actually detail HOW he influenced other authors, and detail how the Johnson school of criticism developed.

You clearly are interested primarily in the biography aspects, and are pretty competent at dealing with them. However, you don't seem to understand what literary criticism even means, thinking that a few words about the plot or argument of some of his works is the same thing as discussing his works. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but WEIGHT and size issues say otherwise. Shakespeare is a model and does not do as you say. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

...Okay, you are clearly either delusional or a troll, and there is no point talking to you further. The Article on Shakespeare is about half to two thirds on Shakespeare's work, legacy, and the like. I am not going to feed the trolls any further. Contact me on my talk page if someone actually interested in hearing what reviewers have to say wants to talk. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this personal attack unstruck after almost two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close as not promoted: Nominator obviously has no intent of listening to anything anyone says. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may need to reread how FAC work. Its not done by consensus, nor do you say things like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the people involved with the article are only going to use FAC to belittle reviewers and refuse to deal with any of the problems of the article, then the process is being abused, and this should be closed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support that "any of the problems" were not dealt with as ones that could be dealt with were. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit has given you references to several books and articles on lierary criticism and Johnson's legacy. You attacked her for that, and screamed that your biographies are sufficient. You have also said profoundly stupid things, like claiming Johnson did not influence later authors, in the face of people trying to point you to scholarly articles and books that show otherwise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose (biggest concerns addressed) Article reads like a giant eulogy, which I find annoying, being Scottish. ;) You;ve got a part like "Johnson attacked the claim that James Macpherson's Ossian poems were translations of ancient Scottish literature on the grounds that "in those times nothing had been written in the Earse language".[157] This claim brought swift reaction from Macpherson, who threatened Johnson with physical violence", distorting the correspondence as well as downplaying Johnson's rampant anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic sentiment; meanwhile the article ignores lesser moments for Johnson, like when he was fooled by William Lauder (a Scotchman) into proclaiming John Milton a fraud, before consequently being made to look ridiculous by John Douglas (another Scotchman ;) ). Not FA content, in terms of balance. Before being accused of bias myself (of which I freely admit), I would have opposed the article anyway based on the other concerns here. Article needs a content overhaul before being stamped FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, I would reread the article, because I already added far more detail from the works, which places it well above every other authorial biography and this as after people demanded more about the works and more about his legacy. As you can see, I removed 3k worth of text and then added 9k here, and am currently over the MoS word limit, so not much can be added. Also, the above about Johnson and Macpherson comes from many sources, so its not downplaying or anything. If you have another source with another version, please provide. However, Bate and Wain seem very much agreed that Macpherson threatened him, and that Johnson was correct. And anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic? It doesn't seem to be either from the accounts of his visit from my sources except for a handful of early quotes in which he made fun of Scotland (which are better suited on Wikiquote). If you can provide from sources to what you say, then I can easily add to the section (it is part of WikiProject Scottish Islands, so it does deserve to have more). Ottava Rima (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate with these FAC's you get stuck between rocks and hard places. Your compliance with a demand from one person oft leads to condemnation by another. Anyways ...

The "threat of violence" is attested only in Johnson's "response". You might want to read, Fiona Stafford's "Dr Johnson and the Ruffian: new evidence in the dispute between Samuel Johnson and James Macpherson". As the article has it, 'tis a pretty unbalanced way to represent the whole Johnson MacPherson dispute, which consisted mostly of ad hominem attacks on MacPherson and Gaelic culture on Johnson's part, rather than any literary insight, with some responses from MacPherson and his supporters. Despite being opinionated about the culture, Johnson learned no Gaelic, couldn't read the language, didn't understand the culture, and offered little critical insight into the Ossian matter (that role fell to other men with no obsequoius biographers). And as it happens (since you mentioned it), it has been shown by modern research that MacPherson did use older Gaelic sources, his crime was embellishing them not forging them.

As for being duped, in 1750 a guy called William Lauder published a pamphlet arguing that John Milton plagiarized his great works from older authors. Johnson, who hated Milton, got excited, added his voice of support and even attached himself to it by authoring the preface. For the details, see Chapter 9 of J. A. Farrer, Literary Forges (1907). James Clifford and Bertram Davis, modern writers about Johnson, use this episode to highlight Johnson's frequent literary incompetence.

My impression of sycophancy in this article may be down to my own prejudices. I could take your advice and read it again tomorrow ('tis well written for sure) and see if I was wrong, and if so, moderate or change my vote, but other users above have expressed valid concerns too. You do have my sympathies, as those concerns have very little to do with your efforts, just the relationship between your choices and peer expectation you didn't foresee. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I added indentations so my response will format, so I hope you don't mind. The article right now is trying to cover a very long life and a lot of works. I can add a line here or there, but we are way over the limit. I took out a lot of material to make a page devoted to his "portrait", or analysis of his character. He was known for occasional instances of outbursts that could be discussed further with anecdotes and analysis of the sections you have above. We should discuss working on a line or two even out any bias, and I welcome you on my talk page to discuss it further. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing it as:

Johnson entered the dispute over the authenticy of James Macpherson's Ossian poems, claiming they could not have been translations of ancient Scottish literature on the grounds that "in those times nothing had been written in the Earse [i.e. Gaelic] language".[157] There were heated exchanges between the two, and according to one of Johnson's own letters, MacPherson threatened physical violence".

takes out a bit of the bias here. Noting that he is widely associated with anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic sentiments, while noting some scholars feel this exaggerated, I guess covers this to an acceptable level I guess and without undue weight or bias. The links I sent you are sufficient reference, though you'll find yourself even more well-covered if you search on google books "Samuel Johnson anti-Scottish" "Samuel Johnson anti-Gaelic", etc. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your request on our talk pages for examples of euologizing, well, it permeates, though having read it again it isn't doesn't seem as bad, considering it is his biography. Still, the long (considering its importance) praise of his Pope poem and praise of him in his student life is for instance one of the other pieces I found unnecessarily euologistic. It's not biggie, sure you have reasons. You have de-POVed the MacPherson thing ... so after all that I feel I can withdraw my strong oppose at least. I'll abstain in fact, but won't be changing to support though as, not being a literature expert, the concerns above make me too unsure. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Pope thing was an important moment in Johnson's life, and the two instances of Johnson's involvement with Pope (who was considered the greatest literary figure at the time) contrast against each other. If there is anything other particulars, please mention them and I'll see what I can do. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• A a science nerd who has worked hard to get the facts straight in Francis Crick, I look at Samuel Johnson with envy. I know nothing about Samuel Johnson, but as a non-expert I found the article to be informative and easy to read. Thanks to the editors for all their hard work. Can I "hire" you to spruce up Francis Crick? --JWSurf (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another major problem: Not all of the sources have the details. For instance, Reference 56 is "Warner 1802, p. 105" - the details for Warner's book aren't given. Ditto: Reverence 179 (Whiltshire 1991, p. 51). Also, the references are not all linked to the bibliography - consistency is needed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. All that is left is the occassional reflist error, which is not an issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Those two minor mistakes have been corrected; I'll be working later on the Tourette section, to incorporate new and even stronger sources uncovered in the discussion on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They're easy to fix, but it's a major problem if they aren't: The reference becomes inherently uncheckable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One-two omissions is more than 200 citations do not constitute a "major problem"!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, no need to exaggerate about WP:V, unclickable doesn't mean unverifiable; the information was there, just a dead Harvnb link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• support:This is monumental undertaking to write a comprehensive article on an author. My feeling is that may be some sections are big enough that may be they can be broken into sub articles ?. Taprobanus (talk)

During the last couple weeks, I made a page for each of the literary works, and moved bits of information over and expanded, with the last being the The Plays of William Shakespeare page. There is a page devoted to biographies on him, with their individual pages, also. We just made a split off of the health section. There might be another or two later. Johnson could probably have his own WikiProject by the end. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• oppose support All concerns addressed - consider that the article is now as worthy of FA-status as any article I have read, and am incidentally concerned by the extent to which this talk page is turning into a fight. Lexo (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to oppose this article getting FA-status, because I have worked with its main nominator on other Johnson-related articles, and I have found him to be a generous and learned contributor, way more learned than me on the subject of this article. But I do not consider this a useful general article about Johnson. It is a potted and well-sourced biography, but not much else. It tells me that he is a notable subject, but does not demonstrate why he is so. There is too much trivial biographical detail. I can remember what it was like to know absolutely nothing about Johnson, and this article mostly tells me the story of his life - not why he is anything more than a figure on English literary history. Lexo (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which subjects have not been discussed enough? He also lived to 80, and these are the most important moments of his life, which is very important, so you will have to be very specific here. Also, how does the section on London and his involvement with Pope not make it notable? How about how his Life of Richard Savage "remains one of the innovative works in the history of biography"? Or his Dictionary section? His meeting with the king? Descriptives about his Shakespeare edition from one of the most important Shakespeare scholars that praises Johnson's edition? His involvement with the Club? Works by those like Miss Lennox that defend him? The countless biographies listed written after his death? Some of the most known quotes like "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."? Multiple movies being made on his life? 8 major "societies" devoted to analysing his life? Praise from T. S. Eliot? Even just one of those above establishes him as a notable person, and if you can't see that he is notable, then I don't really know what to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The major problem here is the weighting. For instance, looking at just one of the things you mention:

On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."[142] This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. - I believe this is the only quote discussed in any detail, but the only discussion of it is to criticise unnamed and hitherto unmentioned people for taking it out of context. If you want to cite it as a major source of notability, it is necessary to actually establish it's notable in the article text. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability only has to "be established" on a page devoted to the quote. All of those lines are cited. You say its a weight issue, without actually stating anything that is part of weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone was curious to see if the quote is widely known, just look here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Another issue: Samuel Johnson made Francis Barber, originally a Jamaican slave, his heir, as well as educating him and so on. This is very surprising behaviour for someone from such a racist time. The article riefly mentions the event, but without any vividness, detail, or even treating the event as unusual. Indeed, the article consistently fails to establish the importance of significance of the events it describes. It badly needs a full copyedit and rewrite to turn it from a selection of facts into a vivid portrait. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson didn't think the event was significant. Writers did not think the event was significant. Before you start throwing out lines like the above, actually get some proof. Otherwise, you are demanding original research and asking for things that aren't allowable on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Really. You're telling me not one biographer discusses Francis Barber in any detail. Strange that we have an article on him with extensive quotes from Boswell, and a bit of Hawkins too. Clearly they must be fabrications. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Barber was a servant. He is mentioned on five pages in Bates, many times in passing. He was not a notable part of his life, and there was nothing to do about "racism" when hiring him. There is a page on Francis Barber that contains information that is proper to the weight on his page. You really need to reread what WP:WEIGHT says. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." From WP:WEIGHT. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As determined by the Great Arbitrator (you), of course. However, weight isn't the issue here, it's that the facts are poorly chosen, the explanaitions of why the facts are relevant non-existant, and nothing is put in context. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets see - you lack any references. You lack any substance to prove your point. And then you arbitrarily take pot shots at the article. Not only do you lack an objectionable point, you don't even have basis beyond OR, which would violate Wikipedia standards. Weight is an issue here. Your attitude is an issue here. Your lack of having actual evidence is an issue here. Now either come up with real, reliable proof, or stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This FAC is beginning to remind me very much of the Roman Catholic Church's various attempts. Some want more biographical detail, some want less. Some want more about Johnson as an author, some want more about his legacy, some want less about his medical conditions, but very few seem to recognise the size constraint placed on wikipedia articles. I think that Ottava has bent over backwards to deal with the myriad of conflicting demands placed on this article, which in my view is fully deserving of FA status. This recent trend of holding certain types of articles to far higher standards than others does not bode well for the future of FA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sense of similarity, but it reminds me more of To Kill a Mockingbird, a literary article where everyone knows a bit and everyone has an opinion. One substantial difference between this FAC and the RCC is that sourcing here is solid, there are no ongoing MoS issues and constant cleanup and prose needs, and there are no significant POV allegations, stability and length issues as there were in the RCC FAC (the RCC FAC had concerns spanning 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and 4; the depth and breadth of concerns were substantial, and that is not the situation here). From the point of view of concerns expressed, the two FACs are quite different. I agree with your general concern, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The Roman Catholic Church was probably a poor comparison. I would call on those still opposing this article to be specific about which of the FA criteria they believe it fails. I believe that it fulfills all of them. In spades. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The main argument of those opposing is "comprehensiveness". Therefore, I wouldn't agree with Sandy that these concerns are not "substantial". They are! If they are correct or not is another issue to be judged. I personally believe that the article fulfils FA criteria, and I supported it, but I cannot call the concerns of a user like Awadewit presenting a series of arguments about the article's lack of comprehensiveness (exaggerating IMO but this is another issue) as not substantial.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made myself clear, or I've been misunderstood. We were discussing this FAC in relation to the RCC FAC, where there were substantial (about a dozen) opposes across the full range of WP:WIAFA, including almost all points: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and 4. That FAC had a breadth and depth of opposes. This FAC has several opposes centered around a difference of opinion on basically one issue, comprehensiveness, and differing opinions over how to employ summary style relative to 1b, "neglects no major facts or details". With Johnson, there are many major facts and details; different editors have different and contradictory input about what should be included and how summary style should be employed; some have failed to consider size limitations, but the opposes revolve around basically one concern, while many opposes focused on the full range of WIAFA in the RCC FAC. That was all I meant in the comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

SJ's interaction with Barber was critically important when seen in the context of his politics as a noted early very strong opponent of slavery, and there are excellent quotes for the purpose available "Here's to the next insurrection of the negroes in the West Indies." and, with respct to the American revolutionary leaders, "Why is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of negroes?" and quite a few others, as wll as abundant secondary discussion. I think the article considerably underestimates the importance of Johnson's politics in general. But I don't consider that a question of NPOV, just of further work to be done. If the people trying to remove articles on fiction ever let up, I might even be able to write something. MF is quite correct about standards. For articles on academic subjects, its easier to be very critical, because that's what we are taught to do with such subjects and habitually do when discussing them. My view of SJ is different from that of OR in a number of respects, and the same for that of Durova. This isn't the sort of thing about which there is a real synthesis to be expected. But nonetheless this is a high quality article. DGG (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I :agree that his opinions on slavery, the American uprising, and his general political thoughts deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia, but they cannot be given any respect in the format we have. It would need to have a page devoted to it, which I always intended to write (because there are many pamphlets not discussed). There are over 70 essays, along with 7 pamphlets, and some other items that give minor ideas and thoughts that would be hard to generalize. Greene, in his attempt, only 23 true pages on the topic and another 15 to general "journalism" while devoting half of his 19 page poet section to poetic theory, his biography section of 25 pages to theory, and 31 further pages on general literary criticism in a work used to summarize Johnson's works (or, as Greene says, to describe him in terms of being a man of letters). There would probably need a page devoted to his Anglican beliefs. And for the record - my experience with Johnson has been of him as a critic and him as a personality. He intersected with most of the poets of the 18th century, and these intersections have come up the most. I feel that the best that can be done to describe his politics on the general biography page is what is done currently: discussion of London's politics (2 lines), his view on the Seven Year's war (1 line), views in Rasselas (2 lines), politics with the pension (1 line), his later pamphlets (2 paragraphs), and his generalized views (2 paragraphs). Added together, it forms roughly one section on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two daughter articles added, per summary style: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Main articles: Samuel Johnson's politics and Samuel Johnson's ethical views

Malleus, I agree that this page is horribly unwieldly and it is hard to tell what objections reviewers still hold. I've tried to strike mine out and note improvements as I have reread. Looking at the FAC, however, I'm not really sure that there is a lot of disagreement among the opposers - to me it looks like there are two major threads: 1) not enough discussion of the works; 2) too much biographical detail. If we could get all of the opposers to weigh in on this statement, that might help. If indeed, these are the only major two issues, I believe there is light at the end of the tunnel. Awadewit (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except that I think the core problem is that a lot of the detail that is covered is not covered well. My point about the Francis Barber statementsd, for example, was that discussion about him was begun, but in a somewhat random location, and without taking enough time to make bringing up Barber interesting. This article very regularly reads like a collection of random bibliographic facts, and if it covered half as many facts, but covered them well, it would be much better article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, what really doesn't help is attacking the reviewers. Can this please stop before I'm forced to pull in the Mediation cabal or ANI into a FAC? Because this really is not on. I don't want to cause more drama, but I will not allow FAC to be turned into a farce by having an article promoted by means of attacking everyone who opposes until they give up, then declaring victory.

I did not want to uissue an ultimatum, however, if the featured article team cannot make Ottava rima show even the minimal level of civility towards the reviewers who disagree with him, one of whom, Awadewit, is a graduate student with a speciality in 18th century literature who he is treating as if she knows nothing and is a meddling ignoramus, then I will find someone who can. Because this is discredit to the entire FA process. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither ANI nor a mediation cabal has any place at FAC. Yes, Ottava's responses could have been better (but I have seen much worse from other nominators), and I have left him a message to that effect with suggestions on how to better phrase his responses. However, on this FAC reviewers have also contributed to escalating the conflict. I encourage all parties to this FAC to focus on the issues and stop posting any personal comments - either in support of or objection to any editor who has posted. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well. allow me to state my objections to the article itself plainly, in an itemised list

1. The article reads more like a collection of random facts than a coherent work. Things are mentioned, but not elabourated on, leaving their importance unclear. Organisation is poor - for instance, Francis Barber is said to have visited Johnson as he lay dying long before who Barber is is mentioned.

   Addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. While some definite improvement has been made to the literary criticism, there's still gaps. Particularly, the dictionary's discussion is concerned almost entirely with the contractual history of its writing - discussion of the work itself is minimal. Not even one definition from the dictionary is quoted, nor is the dictionary's impact, nor the dictionary as literature discussed in any depth.

   I'm having a hard time understanding how a definition from a dictionary will add to the article. The dictionary discussion has been expanded, and additional detail will be included at A Dictionary of the English Language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

3. The literary criticism section is also cited almost entirely to one author, Greene. Is this [42] the Donald Greene work used to cite most of the section on Johnson's works? If so, it doesn't look like the references check out. If it isn't, can you clarify which book by Donald Greene it, in fact, is, and perhaps clarify, e.g. giving a subtitle as well as the title. Regardless, the section really could use a second major source.

   John Needham was added as a source to the newly titled "Critical theory" section, and the Donald Greene works are fully cited, including title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Historiography is not covered very well. Particularly, while there's a little discussion of Boswell's Life of Johnson, pulling it all into its own subsection of Legacy would make for better summary style, as it would then be clear that there's an important sub-article on the work. Also, a brief discussion of how modern scholars view the biographies that were published after his death would be useful.

   Detailed discussion of Boswell's biography was removed at the request of others. There is now a complete {{Samuel Johnson}} template of related articles, icluding Boswell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

5. The article lacks clear focus to many of its sections. For instance, this is the first paragraph of "Early career":

   There is little record of Johnson's life between the end of 1729 and 1731; he most likely lived with his parents when experiencing bouts of mental anguish.[38] Although it is not known when Johnson first displayed the signs of Tourette syndrome, we know that following this time he exhibited the various tics and gesticulations associated with the disorder.[39] To further complicate Johnson's life, his father was deeply in debt by 1731 and had lost much of his standing in Lichfield. An usher's position became available at Stourbridge Grammar School, but Johnson's lack of a degree saw him passed over, on 6 September 1731.[38] At about the same time, Johnson's father became ill; he developed an "inflammatory fever", which ended his life in December 1731.[40] Johnson tried to start a career and eventually found employment as undermaster at a school in Market Bosworth, Leicestershire. The school was run by Sir Wolstan Dixie, who allowed Johnson to teach even though he did not have a degree.[41] Although the arrangement may seem congenial, Johnson was treated as "a kind of domestick chaplain".[42] Still, Johnson found pleasure in teaching even though he thought it boring. By June 1732, he had returned home, and, after a fight with Dixie, quit the school.[43]

   This entire section appears to be an attempt to include every single fact known about this period of Johnson's life, however, it is not a particularly notable period of his life, and summary style would call for this to be spun off to a sub-article, and greatly compressed. For such a long article, it's hard to justify the extreme detail given in this section, when much of it has little to do with Johnson's notability.

   More aggressive use of summary style has now been employed, with text moved to daughter articles, making way for new text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

6. There's a lot of random interjections of facts. For instance, near the end of the section "A Dictionary of the English Language" - which is somewhat misnamed, as much of it is actually on other subjects such as The Rambler - we get this:

   ...Although the production's run had a rough start, Johnson received nearly £300 for the manuscript and the performances.[98]

   Johnson's wife died shortly after the final issue appeared. During his work on the dictionary, Johnson made many appeals for financial help in the form of subscriptions: patrons would get a copy of the first edition as soon as it was printed in compensation for their support during its compilation. The appeals ran until 1752.

   It seems simply bizarre to mention the death of Johnson's wife in the middle of an unrelated discussion, then never mention it again. Did his wife's death have no effect on Johnson whatsoever? That's the impression given.

   Rearranged: [43] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support by Moni3: (comments given on article talk page) --Moni3 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• None too excited to enter a fray, if my comments help at all that is the reason I am giving them. I enjoyed the biography. I found it sympathetic, well-written, and engaging. I was mostly unfamiliar with Johnson's work before reading the article and found him to be portrayed quite roundly and humanly.
• He was born at 4.00 on a Wednesday? Any particular reason for such detail? I see articles as being general yet comprehensive overviews of a subject's life, giving the reader the most important and influential portions of the life in question.

• Addressed (removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Johnson first displayed the signs of Tourette syndrome, we know that following this time he exhibited: this royal "we" is not quite encyclopedic. I mean, I don't know what he exhibited, so I cannot be included in that pronoun. Was this structured in such a way to avoid the passive voice? I'm ok with the passive voice in this instance, otherwise it reads more like a familiar tone of authors speaking directly to readers instead of an encyclopedic authority. Similar point in the Legacy section with It was no wonder that immediately following Johnson's death in December 1784...

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I get confused about the switching of times after he met Tetty, then was penniless, then brought her to London.

  Rearranged: [44] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Now I'm totally confused. If his wife is well off, why is he so poor?
• Gosh, he wrote a dictionary that became influential in the English language. Should that be in the lead? I would think so.

• In the third para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest for those in the Deaf community that the title for the school for the deaf be in capital letters, as it includes "dumb" (Edinburgh School for the Deaf and Dumb), or the word be changed to "mute".

  Since it's not the actual name of the school (proper noun), changed to "mute". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• How does Johnson resolve his impoverished past with his comment that if Americans wanted representation they should purchase an estate in England? Surely this logic was as misguided in 1775 as it is today, or am I simply an unfortunate obdurate helpless American?
• It is my limited understanding that Tourettes sufferers cannot control their tics, regardless of place or circumstance. The detail about his movements upon entering a house, therefore, sound more like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Has anyone suggested this or a combination of the two? I see the quote with "obsessive compulsive" but that seems merely a description of the tics, rather than a posthumous diagnosis.

• Replied below, pls let me know if you think I should add more clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• At this time I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough to comment on Johnson's literary works. I'd like to be able to read similar articles within the next day or so. --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  It is my limited understanding that Tourettes sufferers cannot control their tics, regardless of place or circumstance. People with Tourette's don't usually consider themselves as "sufferers", rather individuals or people :-) For a full understanding of the semi-voluntary, temporarily suppressible nature of tics, please see tic or Tourette syndrome; yours is a common misunderstanding. Although the minority of people who have severe TS may have less ability to manage or suppress tics, most people with tics are quite able to "manage" the expression of their tics or control and suppress them to some degree for some amount of time (perfectly consistent with the descriptions of Johnson's TS). Posting from the plane (how cool is that); if you feel this needs more clarification within this article, I can do that when I get home, but I feel that might be going off-topic just to clear up a common misconception about tics and Tourette's that is already covered in their own articles. You can also see in the Tourette syndrome article that a subset of OCD (tic-related OCD, distinct from classic OCD) is thought by most researchers to be etiologically linked to Tourette's, so again, covering the TS/OCD connection in this article would amount to providing basic background detail about Tourette's, when the amount of space devoted to his Tourette's has already been criticized. If you feel we should again add back some info on his TS, I can work on that when I'm home, but that would be contrary to what other reviewers have already requested wrt minimizing the TS info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You like that? You like how I took the issue of Deaf people, and then cockblocked the Tourette's Syndrome folks? I'm awesome that way. Point taken. Imadork. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1) I didn't realize that the 4:00 PM comment was still there. Its quite comical now. Originally, I was going to put the time in which the doctor was rushed form, baptism, etc, since it all happened very quickly. "If his wife is well off, why is he so poor?" Its one of those mysteries of life. Perhaps they lost a lot of money from various things, or Johnson's lack of income caused problems. The same mystery happened to his father. If someone can figure this out, they are welcome to put it in the biography. I could never find the answer. :) 2) "Gosh, he wrote a dictionary that became influential in the English language. Should that be in the lead? I would think so." Isn't it? Paragraph three, I think. 3) "the title for the school for the deaf be in capital letters, as it includes "dumb" (Edinburgh School for the Deaf and Dumb), or the word be changed to "mute"." It wasn't a school's name, and I don't think a school was directly made after his advice. I could be wrong, but if there was one, the proper name should be put in its place, or introduced. 4) "How does Johnson resolve his impoverished past with his comment that if Americans wanted representation they should purchase an estate in England?" He died. Thats how. :P 5)

Support. My initial reaction was “you must be joking – where are all the references to the most important aspects of the man’s life" – such as his kind remarks about Iona Abbey and Flora MacDonald (which I note doesn't yet appear in the former article either...)?

However, I reluctantly accept that this article is not Samuel Johnson and Scotland and that the things that are of interest to me may have to be glossed over here. I can’t find significant fault with the text from a technical point of view and I realise we could spend all day arguing over the relative importance of the sections. Happily, prior to reading the article I knew very little about the man beyond his excursion to the Hebrides and less about literary theory. I am inclined to agree with some of the grumbles about the length of the early life section.

The Early life section has now been shortened, with more aggressive application of Summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments. * I presume "threw more light on his authour" contains an archaic spelling rather than a typo

• Correct, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the use of italics in the William Gerard Hamilton quotation

• Per WP:MOS#Italics, when the quoted text is in italics, we should also italicize. It's italicized in the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable that "Literary philosophy" uses a single authority as a reference.

  John Needham was added as a source to the newly titled "Critical theory" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• "Johnson was willint to discuss Shakespeare's faults" has a typo

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay" and "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" are nonsenses and if MOS supports such usage, it should be changed.

• Yes, those are the correct article names, apparently dictated by Wiki naming conventions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I too found the "dead wife" a little odd.

• Rearranged.[45] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There seem to be unnecessary spaces in refs #20, 23

• I can't find these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, ha; thanks, Ben MacDui.[46] (Although the end result should be the same.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nae problem hen. (English: It was my pleasure ma'am.) Ben MacDui 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 95, 207 aren't linked and 96 lacks a date and a link

• Fixed (silly Harvnbs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 173 and 198 may be missing something

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Murray and Pearce refs - I usually see (pdf) placed outside of the link, but its probably fine the way it is.

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• " Leavis, FR" and " Watkins, W. B. C." - apparently inconsistent use of periods.

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, well done to Awadewit for persisting and attempting to summarise the unresolved issues. I understand that some stupid bot explodes if sub-sections are used in these discussions, but it's my view that they work for us and not the other way round. Anyone wishing to use one like "List of unresolved issues" here will get a round of applause from me (presumably it could be removed again at the end?) Ben MacDui 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out some of the minor citation issues; literary articles on Wiki apparently all use a citation method which is utterly foreign and nonsensical to the standard used on medical articles, so we've ended up with some slipups and text that can't be translated between articles without completely changing citation style. Now, putting on the FAC delegate hat, when reviewers refer to specific ref numbers, it's hard to track them down because often the article and ref numbers change before the next person can check them. I found some of the issues you refer to,[47] but wasn't able to find them all (for example, I can't find any missing spaces). There are two citations that need to be sorted by Ottava, who has the literary sources. It would be helpful if reviewers specified the exact citation rather than the citation number, as they often change in Wiki articles. Also, with respect to summarizing work remaining and speaking as the person who has the pleasure of reading these 100KB+ FACs, usually when a FAC grows too long, it's a good indication that reviewers have placed a lot of line-by-line commentary on the FAC that might be better summarized on the article talk page. Unless someone summarizes remaining issues to the article talk page before I get to it, I will do that on article talk tomorrow. Although I'm not aware of much work remaining; reviewers should be striking issues as they are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more Scottish related information should be present somewhere on Wikipedia. I think that I could put it into his political views page, which I am slowly developing. If you have any bits of interest that you would like seen, place it on my talk page or on this page's talk page so I can work on it. 1) "contains an archaic spelling rather than a typo" Yes. 2) I didn't understand it either. I assume it was shouting or some emotional inflection that is hard to capture in words. 3) "uses a single authority as a reference" That authority, Donald Greene, is one of Johnson's bibliographers, biographers, and someone who has devoted his while life. Yeah, I could mix it up a bit, but a few of those quotes are actually Johnson's words or Johnson's writings that were not in an easy publication to quote, or were just unattributed by Greene. By the way, he was one of the main editors of Johnson's complete works (fifteen volumes). He worked with Bate 14 other scholars to put together a complete edited works, so hes a strong authority. It was hard to put him in anywhere else, and he devoted a book to the topic, so, yeah. Otherwise I would have to cite Bate even more. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. He may have been a Scotophobe, but at least he took the trouble to visit the Gaeltacht and I think of him as a likeable rogue rather than perfidious Albion personified. I am told that "Late but Live" is wonderful. I have a few quotes dotted about the isles and if time permits I'll cut and paste a few. My favourite can be found at Ulva: "When the islanders were reproached with their ignorance or insensibility of the wonders of Staffa, they had not much to reply. They had indeed considered it little, because they had always seen it; and none but philosophers, nor they always, are struck with wonder otherwise than by novelty." Ben MacDui 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I will add in some stuff from John Needham into the section, split it off onto its own page, and contain a little about Johnson's political philosophy and ethical philosophy. I would then rename the section philosophy, so it will have three literary philosophies, general moral philosophy and general politics. I need to go now, but tomorrow morning I will have something put together. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I found this an interesting and compelling article - perhaps more in-depth discussion of his work can be found at the Works of Dr. Johnson but until such time there's enough meat on the bone for me, the lay-reader to enjoy a general discussion of his life and works. Excellent stuff. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks Joopercoopers! There's a lot for Ottava cover (I'm only responsible for accuracy of the Tourette syndrome content, and Malleus is the expert copyeditor). Ottava has now built an entire template of Johnson-related articles at {{Samuel Johnson}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've always hated that word "expert", but thanks from me too Joopercoopers. IMO Ottava has done, and is doing, a great job. I just hope it's going to prove to be enough to satisfy at least the majority of the gainsayers, as I think he deserves it and the article deserves it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support with two of the smallest of gripes. First, the section entitled "Final moments" covers two-and-a-half years! Isn't this extending the definition of "moments" somewhat? I'd suggest something like "Last years" may be more appropriate. Second, should "Health" be a subsection of "Character" - they seem to be independent aspects of the man? Notwithstanding these quibbles, this is a first-class article, fully deserving of its promotion which I trust to see soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Good points, Brian; thanks. Will see what Ottava wants to do with those two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  I split the difference and changed it to "final years". If last years sounds better, replace it with that. I boosted "health" into a primary subheading instead of a secondary. If you think it is not appropriate, then I can change. However, I think the character sketch matches more of the personaly, where health matches more of the physicality, of the man. Does that seem appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Fine by me Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I am happy to support this comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written article. I applaud the teamwork and effort that have gone into improving it over the two weeks, but I particularly want to congratulate Ottava Rima on a job well done. Thank you for writing an excellent article on this important man of letters from a century we are both clearly fascinated by. Awadewit (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that Christopher Smart is pretty important, but I didn't think it was that well written.... Thanks Awadewit. Sorry about the tension. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Editorofthewiki
  • Character sketch
    • First off, is "Character sketch" an acceptable heading title? Why not something like "personality" or the like? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "Hogarth thought Johnson an "ideot, whom his relations had put under the care of Mr. Richardson"." Is this the actual quote, or is "ideot" a misspelling of idiot? If it is a misspelling, then obviously it should be corrected; if not, then you should add {{sic}} to it. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Major works
    • What is your definition of "major"? Can you list all of his works? Since this would possibly be too long, you could split it into something like Bibilography of Samuel Johnson. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Character sketch" title has been there since the beginning. I don't know who created it. I don't know what to call it. It mostly just deals with the type of character he was, or at least how people think of him. If you have a better suggestion for a title, vet it and see what people think. The word "ideot" is Hogarth's spelling. I would feel awkward putting a template about a quote. I don't know what is standard procedure for such. His major works right now have all of his published collections except for a few things that would be hard to add. Mostly, if it is mentioned in the Biography, it made it into the Major Works. There are more per Greene (such as some stray poems), but the section is mostly reserved for pages that would meet Wikipedia Notability. A bibliography page of Johnson would be nice, but unwieldy. There are over 15 volumes of his "complete works" by Yale, and this is with trimming. This does not include the various publications and various altered publications (different editions, different titles, etc). It will have to be something discussed and put on hold. If you have any suggestions, please place them on the talk page so we can remember. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I read the entire article, I made some minor wording changes to improve flow that you should feel free to revert if you prefer the previous wording. I found the article comprehensive and informative, a very nice one page view of Dr. Samuel Johnson. I liked the lead which I felt summarized the article very well. I liked the quotes that used the actual spelling - such as "ideot" and the like - the old English and old American quotes are full of these what we would call misspellings when compared to present day standards and it is refreshing to read them in their original form. Ben Franklin used the word "shew" instead of "show" - when we use actual quotes, we can more readily hear the person actually saying the quote. A bit of research proved that the sources were very good. I think the article is worthy of FA status. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Nancy. Many of your trimmings and rewordings were very insightful. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Potential wikilinks:
• English literature
• Walter Jackson Bate
• John Hawkesworth (book editor)
• Jacob Tonson
• Topham Beauclerk
• William Gerard Hamilton
• Yvor Winters
• F. R. Leavis
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added some - the Tonson is the wrong one. It was his nephew's son of the same name. I will have to create a page when I can wrangle an 18th century printer's book from a rare book's librarian. I don't have 300 dollars to buy one myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support A thorough and valuable reference, well worth FA status. My only disappointment is that there is no quotation from Johnson's splendid letter to Lord Chesterfield: couldn't you add a short excerpt? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added. I think I chose the most powerful lines. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Spot on. Thank you—and good luck. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very impressive and comprehensive article about an important subject, together with the related articles that the nominators have been developing.--Grahame (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support; well written and well referenced. The above opposition does not concern me. Giggy (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. (Disclaimer: I gave input to Samuel Johnson #Health.) The article is a bit too long, but is clearly FA quality. I suggest cutting Samuel Johnson #Legacy first; do we really need those boring lists of Johnson societies and Johnson biographies? Also, one nit: the quote "is the finest gentleman I have ever seen" appears twice; surely once is enough. Eubulides (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the double quote. Also cut the listing of societies. The biographies are important enough to deserve a line or so, as the ones listed are only the notable biographies of Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. I like it. I like it a lot. I have uploaded two of the public domain sources onto Wikisource, and two others that looked like they might be useful sources. SEE s:Author:Samuel_Johnson#Transcription_projects. e.g. s:Page:Johnsonian Miscellanies II.djvu/168 is Hoole describing Johnson's death as "the most awful sight" in print. A tour through the northern counties of England, and the borders of Scotland is mentioned in the articles list of references, but I cant see it being used in the article; has something been lost? The two volumes of that book are now available on Wikisource. Nice work Ottava. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing eye. The Warner ref was used in the page until the beginning sections were cut and Samuel Johnson's early life was created. It comes up under [Early career] - "Richard Warner kept Johnson's account of the scene". Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

171 kbs! Wow! What a FAC! Isn't it time to close it as keep (don't count me again!) as it obviously deserves it?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is fantastic. I'll be eager to see the good Dr grace the main page of the Wiki talk shop. The writing is clinical—I enjoyed the absence of interjection that I have found in some of our older lit FAs. The desolation of 'Final years', for example, is allowed to speak for itself.

In an article so large I suppose it's perverse to suggest more is needed... The Preface to the Dictionary might deserve a bit of extra attention, such as his views on the role of language in shaping national identity. One thing that does need a sentence is the playfulness of some of the Dictionary entries (think "oats"). Marskell (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you leave a message on the talk page of the Dictionary page to remind me? I need to clean that up (in general) and expand it some more, and your comments would be helpful and much appreciated. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested a few on the Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I read a section at random, and the prose was generally excellent. I took a look at the rest of the page, also, and I have no concerns about comprehensiveness. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support I read the entire article and what is there is FA quality, although I can be persuaded that it lacks something. Re the reactions to Awadewit's question to reviewers, and opposition to the FAC, I say Awadewit is entitled to both. In answer to Awadewit's question, I prefer that an article about an author stick to the author and summarize the author's works only to the extent necessary to explain the important points of the author's life. I am left with some questions about Samuel Johnson. Why did he have so many friends? Was it because of his mannerisms? Or despite them? Did he have friends because he was a celebrity, or was he a celebrity because he had friends? I doubt that an examination of his own works would answer those questions; I think his friend Boswell's works had a lot to do with it. I would prefer that the Major works list be in strict chronological order; the subcategories do nothing for me. I would rather see the categorical information in a note after each item as is done for the Messiah entry. --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  To balance this opinion I would like to proffer my own tuppence worth, and say that I like the works being listed within genre. This way we know what eg "London" is. In a single list a description would be required by half the items saying eg "Periodical" or "poem" or "pamphlet" etc etc. IMO that would be tiresome. Also, if any man can shew any just, citable source for the issue of how come Dr Johnson had lots of friends, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace almost-instinct 10:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  PS Support, with admiration[48]

  I would prefer a strict chronology because it shows more clearly the smaller works he was working on while incubating the larger ones, or vice versa. Or, categorize the major works without dates, and add a separate chronology that includes things such as his major trips, his various jobs, when he started working on something, etc. In effect, I have in mind two navigational aids instead of one that tries to do double duty. --Una Smith (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting. Such is the importance of this bio, I felt I needed to come back for another look. There was something that didn't sit right with me about the lead. Thinking it through:

• Johnson's specific works (at a minimum the Dictionary) need to be mentioned in the first three or four sentences. "... viewed as the preeminent British dictionary" tells us it was important, but I almost feel it should be more emphatic. Along with the major sources of vocab (Bible, Shakespeare, Milton), and the codification of orthography by the London printing presses, Johnson's dictionary is the most important influence on Modern English. The lead and body need to make that clear.
• In turn, TS needs to be shuffled to the end of the lead and it should be decoupled from the Boswell mention. Life of is mentioned in one sentence and TS in the next breath, suggesting that scholarship has elevated this aspect. Not so. The 'Health' section itself I find good and well balanced. I'm sure Sandy put all of her TLC into it.

  Actually, Colin and Eubulides get the credit for the final version, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This does (eek) amount to major surgery on the lead. My overall support doesn't change. Marskell (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Dictionary - I know its important. You know its important. However, it is hard to track down a statement like that (or one written by a reliable scholar that can be trusted). If someone wants to put forth a proposal for the lead, feel free. I backed off from editing it (the lead) when a bunch of people starting having various suggestions and I could no longer keep up with who wanted what and where consensus was going. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I found some sources while browsing my local library online the other day, but I passed them over as they all seemed to verge on WP:PEACOCKery and I thought Ottava's sources to be superior. If we need to add some superlatives to the lead (which may also satisfy Davemon), I can search again, but I'd prefer we use Ottava's sources. Marskell: a question. The reason Boswell and TS are "coupled" is that it is precisely the strength of the evidence in the various writings about Johnson, including Boswell's detailed descriptions, that allow for the retrospective diagnosis. We can uncouple them if you think that best, but that is the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think if we try and rank the importance of the Dictionary, as I do above, we need a source. But if we simply write "...had a lasting impact on Modern English" it would clearly qualify as unlikely to be challenged.

We don't necessarily need to decouple. But between the sentence introducing Boswell and the TS sentence, we need a third sentence that describes the Life on its literary merits. Not doing so leaves a due weight issue in the very first paragraph. Marskell (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, yes, I see; will leave the addition of that that clause or sentence to Ottava. I left some (rather useless) comments on talk here; Ottava likely has better sources for addressing these two issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this in Bate (p. 240) - "Johnson pushed aside his hesitations and started on his monumental Dictionary of the English Language. The finished work, nine years later, easily ranks as one of the greatest single achievements of scholarship, and probably the grreatest ever performed by one individual who labored under anything like the disadvantages in a comparable length of time." on Boswell's Life (p. xix) "Johnson's own conception of the 'uses' of biography changed the whole course of biography for the modern world. One by-product was the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature, Boswell's Life of Johnson, and there were many other memoirs and biographies of a similar kind written on Johnson after his death." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marskell's proposed changes to the lead. Re the importance of the dictionary, the article later says it was a best seller for a very long time. I think that information belongs in the lead. --Una Smith (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Already there, ala "The Dictionary brought Johnson popularity and success; until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary, 150 years later, Johnson's was viewed as the preeminent British dictionary.[3]" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for more. On reading again at the section about the dictionary, I don't see that it was a best seller at all. That was my own supposition. Isn't there any information about the size of the print runs? The number of copies sold? --Una Smith (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"At the time of Johnson's death in 1784, and thirty years after its first publication, there were about 6,000 copies of the complete English editions of the Dictionary in circulation, in addition to a few hundred copies of two limited Dublin issues of 177 and 1777. This is not a great number." (Hitchings, p.211) almost-instinct 08:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But I see that information is already in A Dictionary of the English Language page almost-instinct 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New content about the Dictionary and Life of Johnson was added, but Samuel Johnson is currently at 10,000 words and uses Summary style to cover the abundance of information about Johnson. Details about the Dictionary are at A Dictionary of the English Language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it now. I might still prefer the Dictionary mention in the first paragraph, but on the whole I see no due weight issues in the lead anymore. Marskell (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dictionary is far more important than the Tourette syndrome business. In fact, I suggest moving the lead and body text about the latter to Retrospective diagnosis, and leaving here just a sentence about his mannerisms and post hoc diagnoses thereof. The relevant text necessarily goes into a lot of background information about the syndrome, and into the history of discussion of Johnson's mannerisms, and both topics strike me as tangents outside the scope of this article. --Una Smith (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not be in favour of such a reorganisation. This is the biography of a man who happened to be an author, not an author who happened to be a man. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a simple question is this - how best do you understand an individual: is it through their work, or is it through the way in which they acted and reacted towards others? Every biography on Johnson (there are over 200 as of now) discusses his personality and that "persona" was dominated by his TS. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looking again at the lead, I was struck by the unnecessary repetition in the sentence He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, described as "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature". Shouldn't the words one of the most celebrated biographies in English simply be omitted? We know it's in English; and if it's the most celebrated in the whole of literature, it must also be the most celebrated in the subset that is English literature. (This in no way detracts from my support for the article.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See my further comments on the Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• tl;dr but provisional Support ;) – looks good, but tripped over some irritating phrases so have raised that on the talk page and hope to give the whole article detailed appraisal soon. [just kidding about tl;dr, only pressure of time is delaying my settling down to read it carefully] . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, Dave; changes on talk addressed, pls have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are "farreaching" and "preeminent" (in the lead) acceptable? I would expect hyphenation, and so would my in-line (inline?) spell checker. jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Preeminent and far-reaching. So, 50/50. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that an American dictionary? Samuel Johnson was English, so we should use English spellings. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My OECD has far-reaching and pre-eminent, so I suggest that's what we go with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone was wondering, Johnson's dictionary has preeminent and no "far-reaching" or "farreaching" in my edition. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support It appears to be FA standard to me, and meets all criteria. I am glad to see their is a hyphen now in pre-eminent! I think the page should be in conventional and accepted English - preeminent is not, no matter what Johnson's dictionary says. This spage has taken a lot of work and effort and seems to cover all aspects of Johnson's life well. Doubtless scholars will always argue over some aspects of his life and works, but that is no reason for it not to pass FA. Giano (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Has any FAC taken any longer than this to assess? (It's been more than a month...whoo!) Otherwise, support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hello everyone: why is this nomination still here after nearly six week, is it? This is a bad precedent. FACs should be through and out more quickly, IMO, or shunted to a holding pen for improvement. This one, it seems from my reading of the article and of this nomination page, should be promoted. Tony (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Raul can take as long as he wants, as long as this becomes an FA so it can be on the mainpage for Johnson's 300th birthday on 18 September 2009. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose per Awadewit. Are we really considering an apologia which contends that Johnson's relationship with Austen was not influence? Is there a time-machine to permit Austen to influence Johnson? Indeed, are we really considering arguments that FAC should not be based on consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Awadewit is supporting this article. Are there any of the points she raised – which she presumably feels were satisfactorily dealt with – that you do not?--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed one point that wasn't big, but I meant to slide it in and forgot. I remedied it: here. It could be cleaned up a little. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I note the recent expansion. I do not consider it sufficient; and I do consider that the hysterical incivility with which Awadewit was treated should disqualify in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• For myself, the writing is not what I would wish for our front page:
  • Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS),[5] a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians. Informed? No; nor should this be the lead sentence in its paragraph.
  • in the nursing care of Joan Marklew Surely, even for those too mealy-mouthed to use wet-nurse, as Johnson would have done, there are clearer ways to express this, less suggestive of a 21st century hospice administrator?
  • Johnson could not bring himself to regard the poem as granting him any merit as a poet. Granting? Poems do not grant; this is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.
  • However, not all of his work was confined to The Rambler. Why the inversion? Why suggest, as this does, that Johnson was published by other periodicals? Johnson also published outside the Rambler would be an improvement, and is probably not best.
    • If this were a proper introduction to his work for others, it would not be immediately followed by the self-published Vanity of Human Wishes; in either case, it should be clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • By acknowledging that he published a work on his own, then you acknowledged that his works were published in areas beyond the Rambler and you therefore have no point. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Is Ottava Rima really taking the position that a paragraph should have a topic sentence which has nothing to do with its contents? If so, this requires extensive review and rewriting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

These are four samples from a quick read. Doubtless many more lurk.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • He did complete one poem, the first of his tutorial exercises, on which he spent comparable time, and which provoked surprise and applause. Comparable to what? Was his time unusually long, short, or average, and what was it? For that matter, what poem was it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • To quickly dismiss: "I do not consider it sufficient" Read WP:WEIGHT then. "Informed? No;" Incorrect. "Surely, even for those too mealy-mouthed" Mere opinion. "Granting? Poems do not grant;" Incorrect. "Why suggest, as this does, that Johnson was published by other periodicals?" He was. "Was his time unusually long, short, or average, and what was it?" Just as arbitrary. "For that matter, what poem was it?" Its lost. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for confirming the allegations made by others on this page; if Ottava Rima continues to dismiss the reaction of other editors, which this page is intended to elicit, I would suggest that xe be removed. (I will not make fun of the abuse of "its"; I hope that at least is a typo.()[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] PMAnderson 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I would ask for you to stop your hostile manner and to respect that Awadewit has struck her previous oppose. Otherwise, your comment is severely misleading and disrespectful to her. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • If this is a lost work, the article should say so; there is no need to explain to me, but the reader has a right to have things clear. (If the evidence for this is Johnson's memory, half a century later, that should be said too, perhaps in a footnote.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
        • "If this is a lost work, the article should say so" please provide a reliable source confirming this claim. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Let me see. I asked for details on this supposed first poem of Johnson's yesterday; if I read the article, I would want them. Ottava Rima replied that it was lost, implying that we don't know. Fine, I accept that in good faith; and if it is lost, we should explain that to the reader too. Today OR demands citation for the same assertion, for which I am taking xer word. What has changed since yesterday? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Johnson's Anglicanism and conservatism are reflected in his early work. Really? Is Taxation no Tyranny early?
• Boswell held an opinion contradictory to two of these pamphlets. Why? Why not Boswell disagreed with two of them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying something is found in early works does not preclude it from being found in later works. However, it shows how those early works are characterized. And a "contradictory opinion" means no compatibility, whereas a "disagreement" would allow for such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does not preclude; but there is a strong implication it is not found. What evidence do you have of so novel a claim as a change in Johnson's worldview? I shall tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so saying something exists in his early life is to say that it no longer exists in his later life, and that the person isn't that way? Please provide a reliable source to any kind of rhetorician, logician, or philosopher who has posited such a belief. I would expect that since you are so determined on it, that you will have one easily available, so I will give you a 12 hour deadline to produce such text. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The word's gone, the context is gone, both through OR's own edit, which has also materially tightened the text. What is OR complaining about?

Any submission to WP may expect merciless editing; it says so in the edit screen. That goes doubly for FAC; if editors think something is misleading, it has misled at least one reader, and should be reconsidered on that ground alone.

I will, however, make a last suggestion. If Ottava Rima stops defending every bit of xer prose, and goes and does something else for a little while, xe will probably come back to a better article; it may even have a star on it - and it will differ chiefly in recasting a few sentences; without a diff, it will be hard to tell which ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

+Support Sorry to be so late... back in the dark ages of yesteryear, I thought Awadewit had a point, that Johnson's influence needed some work. I am very happy to say that I join Awadewit in Supporting this article. Bearing in mind that no article of this importance can be all things to all people, and cannot ever be truly perfect, I think this represents a high standard of professional writing and an informative/insightful look into Johnson. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm sorry I took so loong to come back here, I decided to disengage for a while and see if it sorted itself out. It did! =) Consider my oppose above struck, and if you can find it in the wall of text, strike it yourself =) There are a few (very minor) points of grammar and style and that kind of thing that I think could probably make this just that tiny bit better: Lead:

• "Johnson was a devout and compassionate man..." - I'm not entirely comfortable with making unattributed value judgements. Can it be attributed in some way, even if rather generally, e.g. "Johnson was considered a devout and compassionate man"?
• "...he respected those of other denominations who demonstrated a commitment to Christ's teachings." - In the context of the time, this is significant - the mutual bad feelings and persecutions by Protestants of Catholics and vice versa pretty much define large parts of English history, after all - but I don't think its relevance is immediately apparent to those not familiar with the history of Christianity. Maybe leave it out of the lead, and just keep the discussion in the body, if that doesn't cause problems?
• "Towards the end of his life, he produced the massive and influential Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets, which includes biographies and evaluations of 17th- and 18th-century poets." - I know this is a manual of style thing, but it seems a little odd to switch between past and present tense in this way. Maybe it would be better to ignore all rules here and make the whole thing past tense.
• "Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS)..." - "have informed" seems a little awkward.

• "Have informed" is so medically precise for that sentence that I don't know how to change it; someone else may have an idea, but we already worked that over with Colin and Eubulides, so I'm not sure who else to ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Early life

• It might be good to say explicitly that kings were believed to be able to cure scrofula at the time, if the reader didn't know that, I would presume they'd be confused by the business with Queen Anne.
• I wouldn't abbreviate Tourette's syndrome to TS. It's slightly distracting. I'd save the abbreviation solely for the section on the disease.

• I didn't find a TS abbreviation in "Early life", but I did find and change one in "Early career". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a TS in the lead.
  • The mention in early life includes Although TS caused problems in his private and public life, it lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy". If this is about Johnson's childhood, it should say so; if (as seems more likely), it's about the whole of Johnson's life, it should be moved to Health. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Ah, thanks; now I see the instance he was referring to. Both seem to be correct applications of definition of acronyms: in the lead, right after the term, and in early life, also right after the term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Early career

• "Although the arrangement may seem congenial, Johnson was treated as "a kind of domestick chaplain"." - This sentence is actually rather confusing. What does "may seem congenial" mean, and is it bad to be treated as a domestic chaplain?
  • The answer is clear enough, but the article should state it; domestic chaplains in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century were treated as a sort of upper servant, not a gentleman. See any social history of the period, starting with Macaulay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• "He managed to finish a section but ran into problems, and to complete the work he dictated directly to Hector, who took the copy to the printer and made any corrections." - It's not really clear what the connection is between the two halves of the sentence. Did he dictate to Hector because he was running out of time? Because he found it easier? Something else?
• "A Proposal was printed, but the project was halted by a lack of funds." - It's not clear what this is a proposal for.
• "Edial Hall was a large house with a pyramid-shaped roof and a unique design in which a back room served as the schoolroom and Johnson's family lived in the rest of the building." - If this is in one of the daughter articles, I'd cut this sentence to be better in line with summary style. It's not that important of information, or not obviously so. Or you could put it into the caption of the image, though I suppose some of the description is obvious from the image. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to stop there for the moment, but I will get back to this later on today or tomorrow. I think it just needs a tiny bit more polish to be great. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I made many of the changes per this. I didn't touch the "informed" part. I would leave the medical wording to Sandy to decide. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• We should not use medical wording; we are written in colloquial English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No. We have to be true to the source. We are not allowed to introduce OR, which would include "colloquial English" when describing something based on medical articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Copying a source's wording is not "being true to" the source; it is plagiarism. Perhaps even more seriously, it is a failure to understand, and communicate, what the source means. There are few things more harmful to the encyclopedia.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a grip here. Nothing has been plagiarized; I introduced the word "informed" to this contested statement back in July.[49]. I am not a medical expert, but use of the word in this context makes perfect sense to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? If I have to go find a medical dictionary to check this obscure sense, I will, and then substitute the definition as plain English; but if you understand it, you should be able to express it for the lay reader - as we are, after all, expected to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, but can you explain how it could be "plagarism" when the sentence is cited? And informed, according to dictionary.com is not "obscure", nor is it used in anything but the modern sense. I used the idea of being "informed" quite often. It means, after all, "To give or provide information.", so it serves as a "colloquial term" quite easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines plagiarism as "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Unauthorized and unacknowledged close imitation is plagiarism, as long as it does not have quotation marks. As a notable instance, Doris Kearns Goodwin did footnote the works whose prose she reproduced; the controversy is precisely that she failed to acknowledge the imitation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Ottava. "Informed" has no particular medical meaning, and was used quite colloquially. However, I've rewritten the offending sentence to avoid use of the word anyway. I'll let the (baseless and offensive) charge of plagiarism that has been laid against me rest for the moment. (Will this FAC never end?) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I will move it to the second sentence, since the subject of the paragraph is Johnson's appearance and manner; the modern diagnosis is secpndary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say plainly that my goal is to add a little final polish to the article in the last stage of FAC, all major problems having already been dealt with. Now that the FAC has become productive and polite, can we avoid a return to hostilities over my comments on two words, particularly one where I simply thought it inelegant, not actually confusing? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to concur. My only advantage here is that I see the article as it now stands, freshly and apart from past controversies. It is not uniformly well-written; this article above all should be, for we are competing with Johnson and Boswell for the reader's attention. If I could identify more serious deficiencies, I would have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I now doubt all major problems have been dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I missed all the fun. I was going to consult others on a revision for the wording, but it seems resolved now. I'm sorry to see such concise, precise and perfect wording lost to satisfy FAC, but such is the Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, it's not something I have strong feelings on. If you honestly feel the original wording is better, I'm not going to oppose over it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about it either, but I did think the previous wording was just right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm afraid that beyond suggesting that the first two sentences of "A Dictionary of the English Language" get combined (They seem to duplicate information), further evaluation will have to be tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've merged those two sentences, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors and omissions

As a result of these discussions of phrasing, I consulted the original sources cited for two of them. In both cases, I was surprised by what the source actually said; this is perhaps the worst thing an article can do.

• Although TS caused problems in his private and public life, it lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy". in the section on early life.
  • The name of the author cited is wrong: Robert DeMaria; and the volume before me is copyright and first published 1993, not 1994.
  • DeMaria says that Johnson's efforts to teach were almost certainly ruined by his physical appearance and his failure as a tutor was almost inevitable (with a reference to the contemporary expectation that a tutor would be above all a model of behaviour and deportment). This happily pressed Johnson towards the invisible occupation of authorship.
  • DeMaria also cites Oliver Sacks to the effect that TS occasionally lends its victims great verbal and vocal energy. Those who can harness this energy sometimes perform with superior strength and speed
  • He then goes on to speak of the "ideot" episode, which ends with Hogarth imagining that the ideot had been at that moment inspired, as a suggestion that Johnson was thus fortunate - but no more.
  • DeMaria's POV is clear: that any diagnosis of the dead is anachronistic and problematic; but that something like TS would explain much, and is certainly preferable to anachronistic Freudianism. We need not adopt his POV; but we certainly should not deny it while citing him.
• He did complete one poem, the first of his tutorial exercises, on which he spent comparable time, and which provoked surprise and applause.
  • Bate tells, loc. cit. of Johnson's first tutorial exercise, a Latin prose oration, which Johnson composed (two drafts and fair copy) on the morning it was to be submitted. (This may be mere carelessness; it immediately follows, in Bate, the story of Johnson's Latin poem, Somnium.)
  • He was expected to repeat it from memory, but failed to memorize it, so he improvised the oration on the spot.
  • Our authority for this is Mrs. Thrale's Life, repeating the story he had told her.
  • Her words are that this added "astonishment to the applause of all who knew how little was owing to study." [Italics added].

Neither of these is what our text said; I fixed one, and propose to fix the other. But I cannot now rely on any of this article to represent its sources correctly or completely; it is not the burden of a reviewer to check all hundred footnotes - I am, however, willing to check any one more that Ottava Rima may specify, if I have access to the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page here, Pma. Demaria is one source only, and we covered the TS in great detail on the talk page here. Demaria cites Oliver Sacks for information you want to include, a dubious source at best for TS info, although perhaps applicable for some info which enjoys broad medical consensus (there are some points upon which he is in line with medical consensus, although he's generally not a recognized TS clinician and not well regarded by TS experts). We went over all of this in detail weeks ago. I realize this FAC has been open extraordinarily and unbearably long, but multiple editors who do know TS and who are up on current research and do know what kind of a source Sacks is discusses this in detail on the talk page of this FAC at least a month ago. You have introduced inaccurate text; please catch up on the talk page discussions. The posthumous diagnosis is based on much broader and more solid sourcing and enjoys widespread (to my knowledge, unanimity among published sources) consensus. Read the talk page, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the discussion. The nature of TS is not the omission that I find most serious, and I'm perfectly willing to compromise.

In order to omit DeMaria's reservations, we need at least a citation that TS sufferers normally have great verbal and vocal energy, rather than occasionally; which one of the many articles cited says that? More importantly, we need to cite it in Samuel Johnson; the reader should have sources before him, not in the talk page of a FAC. And we should mention that DeMaria's POV exists; he is a reliable source, and probably has more knowledge of Johnson's symptoms that the doctors do. (All this is the sort of thing that should go in footnotes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. We don't need to digress in this article into an analysis of the problems with citing Oliver Sacks who is not a highly regarded clinician among his peers in TS research. You have introduced inaccurate text because you don't know the field and you don't know the sources and you want to introduce information that doesn't enjoy any medical consensus because you came across something that you think makes this text inaccurate. The TS info in this article is well discussed here on talk by two of the other three people on Wiki who know TS research almost as well as I do and who had full access to all sources. We don't introduce inaccurate text and then disclaim it in a footnote, particularly when it's a minor part of the overall bio. If it interests you so much, you can go over to the article about Johnson's health and delve into all the problems with using a person known for his bizarre literary medical interests, but Sacks doesn't belong here as a source. Please read the talk page. But I must thank everyone who deteriorated or questioned the TS text in this article for opening my eyes to content issues that occur at FAC when reviewers who are unfamiliar with the topic or the research introduce inaccurate text. This has given me greater faith in the content experts who actually write the articles. You are wrong and you have introduced in accurate text against consensus already developed here on talk, and there is no middle ground or compromise possible when it comes to including text that is simply wrong. And because of my level of the understanding of the TS research, and how wrong you are, that calls all other literary criticism of this article into question as well. By seeing the level of inaccuracies FAC reviewers tried to introduce to the TS portions of this article at FAC, I've gotten a good eye opening to the other second guessing of knowledgeable content experts that has gone on at FAC. Thanks: this experience will make me a better FAC delegate, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You propose to cite DeMaria for wording with which he expressly disagrees. He is not the best authority on the subject, and he is following Sacks, a populariser; therefore we may be entitled to do so. But we really do have to indicate that DeMaria does not say what we do, and what authority we cite to overrule him. That need not be difficult; but unless we do so, we are not being verifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Errors and omissions" This is wrong. There are no "omissions". There is summarization. Many of the details wishing to be add would not qualify for the page even if it had space that could be put in, as these are not notable details. These are also summarized sections of larger pages. There is also a serious weight issue. Your wanting additional information does not mean that the footnotes do not cite the information that actually exists. These footnotes have been checked by many other reviewers, and your comments above, as with your claims of plagarism, are highly misleading and improper. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

These "summaries" discussed the wrong work, in the wrong genre, and omitted both the point and the authority of the story about it. We are all of us careless; no doubt I have been; it is the point of FA to find and clean up these errors before they embarrass all of us. If Ottava Rima is not willing to be mercilessly edited, or is tired of it, xe is free to withdraw the nomination; isn't this why Sandy introduced a two-week limit, now long past? The article has plainly improved; take a rest, come back, and improve it again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see very little evidence that any of the sources have been checked, and none for this one. Diff please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yesterday your accusation was plagiarism. Today's it's that none of the sources have been checked. These are exactly the kinds of deliberately abrasive remarks that put so many off coming to FAC. I've really had more than enough of this particular one, anyway, so I'm unwatching it. It's way past time somebody made a decision to close this one way or another, and I really couldn't care less which way it closes now, just that it closes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Many FACs do not check sources; for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs, in which I was one of the lax ones. There's nothing inherently wrong with this; I would not have checked sources here had I not been curious how to word the passages better. I still see little evidence that reviewers have checked any; which ones have you consulted as co-nom? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• If you dare insinuate that I lied about a source or stole from a source one more time, I will drag you to ANI. Not only are such things a breach of Wikipedia policy, they are an attack on my standards as a scholar. They are uncalled for and outright false. I have already submitted to others scans of Demaria so they can see that you were wrong above. I am prepared to do such with Bate. You already violated Fringe source guidelines that are part of WP:WEIGHT by moving Demaria down and expanding. This is wrong. You changed Pembroke to Oxford, while ignoring that Pembroke is part of Oxford. Bate constantly refers to it as Pembroke, so this is intellectually dishonest, especially when you claim that I lied about the source. Furthermore, an Oration is NOT NOTABLE, especially when there is nothign on it, and no scholar studied it. Furthermore, you claim it is 90-96, when it is simply not on those page numbers. I will not tolerate someone calling me a liar and blatantly misattributing information to Bate like you just did. So stop it now. This is your only warning from me on this issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say lie; I assert that what you said is not what Bate or DeMaria said, but I think this nothing more than carelessness. Bate tells three stories:

• Sliding in Christ-Church meadow
• The poem Somnium
• The oration.

We can include any of these, or none; none of them would be to leave the generalization without an example, which would be a shame; I have substituted the first, because I believe it best known. But the text to which you have repeatedly reverted confounds the last two, and is simply inaccurate.

As for the page numbers: Bate has a long section on Pembroke, which is of course a part of the University of Oxford. Bate does not even begin to discuss Johnson's college friendships until p. 96; now I review the passage, p. 100 would be more accurate as a citation for the assertion that Johnson had many college friends. Therefore, if the entire sentence is to be cited, we require a page range - or two footnotes. Feel free to divide the footnote if you see fit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments show a misunderstanding of WP:WEIGHT and Summary Style. You are inserting in wrong information . You also act as if you don't understand what a "clause" is, nor that the first part of the clause doesn't need to be cited, as the citation only deals with the clause starting with the word "but". If you want to change text, go form a consensus. Otherwise, your edits are showing a disrespect to everyone involved, and your constant filling this page with your POV is getting out of hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know either of those things; they are not true. A footnote can apply to a single clause - indeed, it can apply to a single word; the only footnote on a sentence, at the end, is, however, presumed to apply to the sentence. No semicolon can prevent the assertion that Johnson made friends at Oxford from needing a source; it is surprising for so unclubbable a man. Since Bate sources it, that should be noted. But feel free, again, to split the footnote into two if your scruples require it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you really expect me to cite that Johnson made friends to a source, I'm definitely going to have to take that to Geogre. He would love to see that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't expect you to cite it; it's already cited. However, if it's notable, there's no reason not to cite it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A few points based on a quick review. (As for the above, WP:TLDR. My sincere apologies if this has already been mentioned), as it probably has.

1) The text states: Also, Johnson opposed the poetic language of his contemporary Thomas Gray. His greatest complaint was that obscure allusions found in works like Milton's Lycidas were overused; he preferred poetry that could be easily read and understood. While this is true as editors may recall from Johnson's Life of the Poets, he specifically singles out Gray's Elegy as possibly the finest poem in the English language. I cannot remember his precise words, but it is along those lines. Also, I am unsure that I would agree that his greatest problem with Gray was overuse of classical allusion. This can be quickly resolved by an excursus ad fontes.

2) The conflict over Ossian is too slight. This was part of Johnson's larger fight against what we would term today ethno-nationalism and I think more context ought to be provided in terms of how important the disproving of a Gaelic primitive style was in this context. Is this due to perhaps overreliance on Bates as a major source?

• • It is in part a response to a Scottish reviewer higher on the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

3) While I appreciate that Vanity & Rasselas & the Rambler have their own articles, I feel that the discussion here is a bit too vapid, even in the context of a summarising review. The strongly moral dimension that Johnson promotes in these writings is almost totally absent; this speaks to Johnson as a person and is not of mere literary interest, so I wonder if a slightly more engaged discussion might be warranted.

4) There are some details of his life which might add some colour to the description of his personality, such as: a) Johnson was basically a drunk, or at least he was a heavy drinker and huge bon-vivant (as editors will recall from Boswell.) b) Every year he solemnly abjured further "self-abuse" which he admitted to indulging in frequently, but which he viewed as highly sinful. c) He liked to roll down hills; d) Johnson had a very pronounced Lichfield accent, as Boswell relates (Boswell, I believe, gives as an example, poonch for punch) and David Garrick was famous for imitating Johnson amongst his circle (Reynolds, Boswell, etc).

5) I think it might be nice to provide a box with some of his most famous witticisms: e.g., dog on hind legs; King is not a subject; ship as prison; high road to England, etc etc etc.... They are enduring for a reason and a good treatment of the subject would not go wrong to include a smattering.

• • See {{Wikiquote}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

6) The discussion of Francis Barber comes across as extraordinarily slight, especially given his role as Johnson's quasi-amanuensis, his importance to Johnson's household and his heir!

Generally, a fine article. Eusebeus (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses. 1) This was based on Greene's view of Johnson. The nuances should probably be described on the Johnson's literary criticism page. Johnson also praised Milton for many things, which doesn't come across in the Bio section, because most of the critics focus on what kind of technique Johnson is looking for rather than broad praise or emotive response (dry, instead of emotional, I guess you could say). 2) The nuances are trying to be worked out for the politics page, so, it would probably be best brought up there. 3) There isn't any room, and we are already over limits. Its hard to cram everything in at once, and the sections are balanced per weight/coverage in sources. 4) Johnson also went stone sober, so, some of the descriptives would need to be carefully discussed, especially because Boswell was only one of many and described Johnson quite differently than others. 5) I think Wikiquote has most of them. 6) Barber isn't that important in most of the sources, so weight leaned against him being given more detail than what exists. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I now see that there has been some contention already about some of the issues I raise above. Two quick points. First, defending the rather vapid characterisation of Johnson's output by stating simply there isn't any room seems inadequate. Replacing a shitty sentence with a good one doesn't add weight, it adds intelligence. Second, Peter Fryer provides a good source for Francis Barber (in his important work Staying Power) and this can be rounded out with v. 2 of Lyell Reade's Gleanings, which is devoted in its entirety to Francis Barber. I see this was raised above and I am a bit bemused by the tone struck in objecting to adding further consideration. However, overall the article is adequate and I Support its promotion. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I may have been a little confusing - the weight issue is based on how much is granted to Barber in Johnson's biographies, as opposed to info granted to Barber in Barber based works. I relied on 8 biographies, a few collections with biographical analysis, and many, many articles to try and find a balance about what biographical figures should be mentioned and where. Barber tends to be ignored, and its hard to put in a lot. It would be nice if Barber's life would be expanded on his page (which is desperately needed). Could you place those two notes on the Barber talk page? Also, if you see any "shitty" lines and know how to replace them with a better, please add a suggestion on the talk page. :) Also, I'm a stickler for page size, because a good 50% of the time I am on a very slow dialup connection, and I just can't load pages that are too long. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Why isn't this an FA already? There has oviously been a great deal of umming and ahhh-ing over this - but the article actually knocks spots off a great many of the FAs already in place.--Tufacave (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, that is largely correct - and is FA's major problem; the award is all too often worth the star its paper is printed on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem, Anderson, is that the longer the nom is held open the stonger the likely-hood that a persistant crank and near troll with an individual hatchet to grind against FAC in general will find it and use verbosity and obtuseness to hold it open in an drawnout but transparent attempt to sink the candidacy despite overwhealming consensus (above). I know that sound unlikely; but it happens. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Almost as unlikely as that a FAC reviewer would actually consider the content of an article and check the sources. FA could indeed be a punctuation review, and not care what an article says as long as it looks pretty and has the superficial appearance of plausibility; I would find this perfectly acceptable, if it did not claim more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

o you are the first editor to consider content and sources in this, what, 5 week review? And pretty? Maybe read the above and consider other openions before your own hubris, if you have that ability. I get the impression if you were pretty you wouldn't be here, being the way you are; riddled in ANI, RFC and other things I'm to dainty to mention in polite company. But You sunk your openion when you moved from the specific to the general: "that is largely correct" and revealed your motive. You are searching for holes, as is your habit, but it doesn't fool me for a second. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit considered content, but did not check the sources actually used; her critique had no need to, really, since she was considering relative weight. She was responded to with a ferocious, and plainly unwarranted, personal attack, now in the decent obscurity of a capped section. I do not see any statement that any reviewer has checked them, until I did (which was largely by chance). If I have missed something, please add a diff.

I congratulate you on your telepathy; but your results are backward: I would prefer FA did not so often promote ill-written, ill-researched embarrassments, like this, or Daniel Webster. I would fully support a system that did not flourish on superficial reviews. I am not, usually, so pessismistic as to believe these our best efforts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Backwards? When you say "embarrassment" I know you are not a serious person looking for the best article we can work on together; you are just a bitter and angry crank who only wants to shoot down the efforts of others. Best of luck with that; sure it will keep you warm 10-15 years from now. You support nothing and are utterly pessismistic. Nice. Ceoil ^sláinte

Pmanderson - I think Ceoil's words were too harsh. However, I think it reflects a level of being insulted, as there are many talented editors that have weighed in on this FAC and also participated in the crafting of this page, and your words can be construed as an offense against these. You don't mean to say that these editors are incompetent, embarrassing, unable to research, and their opinions mean nothing, do you? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The reviewers haven't checked sources, as all too often happens. FAC has improved this article, in the aspects it has considered; by and large, the sourcing hasn't been. The first is FA's justification for existence; the second is why this article should not be promoted. Instead, a substantial proportion of the 245 footnotes should be checked; at that point, we will know how bad it is. When the errors have been found and fixed, it can come back here; but it would be unreasonable to keep this FAC open that long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

By "no", do you mean that you are saying that these editors are incompetent, embarrassing, unable to research, and their opinions mean nothing? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please do not use those words so that there wont be any confusion in the future over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said the reviewere were incompetent, embarassing or unable to research; I never said worth nothing; where the confusion may be, I leave as an exercise for the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"we will know how bad it is". Not exactly an open minded statement there, it seems you have not checked the sources, but are decided anyway.. At least we know where you are coming from and that you have already decided where you want to end. Not a very subtle approach for such an experienced editor. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page indicates an openion of 2428/2/2. Really, really, this should be closed. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your math may be off, its 28 now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - after addressing the comments, this article satisfies all featured article criteria. It is sourced to solid, reliable sources, it's well written, the images are good, and it meets the other criteria. I do believe the literary criticism section is adequate, with how the section talks about this now (compared with when the page was originally nominated). Further details might belong in a subarticle. --Aude (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the discussion above. My comments are below. I will not revisit this page. I will not discuss my comments. I will not "!vote". I will not explain my reasons for not voting.

• "later physicians were able to reach a posthumous diagnosis" -> "posthumously diagnosed".

• This was beautifully worded before FAC, but others have changed it. I reinstated the superior wording that the article had pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would prefer Pembroke College to be disambiguated as there are two.

• Malleus? I can't find this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm guessing this is referring to: "Samuel Swynfen, a physician and graduate of Pembroke College ...". There's a Pembroke College in both Oxford and Cambridge Universities. I'll try and find out which Swynfen attended. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It was Oxford. Fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "his posthumous diagnosis" -> "the posthumous diagnosis". He didn't diagnose himself after he died.

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "in his education" -> "at his studies".

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Who is Jorden? He's introduced in the sentence "Jorden left Pembroke", which is unhelpful.

• Good question. Ottava? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jorden is hJohnson's college tutor. More detail is on the early life page under college. This was slowly removed out by various users (including myself). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• In early life it says he developed tics at age 7, then in early career it says between 1729 and 1731. This is a discrepancy, as well as an unnecessary repetition.

• Another example of wording that came in to the FAC medically accurate and correct and has been damaged during FAC. I have restored it to the pre-FAC wording, which should no longer be redundant as the tics of TS are exacerbated by other illnesses. His tics began at the typical age for tic onset (7) and were commented on later in life by many observers, when he also had other medical conditions. I hope I've cleared this up by restoring the wording we came in to FAC with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Who is Robert DeMaria? Text should specify an occupation/profession.

• Added Biographer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I wish to know why John Taylor refused to read the sermon at Tetty's funeral.

• I believe the world would like to know also. There is speculation but lots of disagreement. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Reynolds was not Johnson's only friend, but he was close to two others at the time: Bennet Langton and Arthur Murphy." -> "In addition to Reynolds, Johnson was close to Bennet Langton and Arthur Murphy."

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The plot of Rasselas seems a little too long, unbalanced with the description of the contents of the other works.
• "In 1770 he" and "In 1774 he" (without commas) look odd in close proximity to "In 1771, his" (with a comma).

• I think that's OK as it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps William Dodd deserves a little more explanation? I would prefer not to have to click on the link.
• Why is the prayer for the Thrale family quoted in full?
• "stroke that was caused by poor circulation". Surely strokes are always caused by poor circulation? If this is meant to suggest that poor circulation was a chronic condition, then I recommend: "Johnson's poor circulation resulted in a stroke".

• Done, thanks DrK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Surgery was performed to relieve Johnson's gout," -> "He had surgery for gout"

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should Islington be linked?

• Probably it should. Linked now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "although this depiction is appealing.[206] Although Boswell, a Scotsman"; although, although.

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's too long, specifically in the health section, which can easily be shortened, especially considering that there is a daughter article duplicating the material.

• The health section has been substantially shortened; I'm not in favor of further cuts because of some of the misunderstanding and objections that were ironed out earlier in the FAC. I think we've now cut it to the most essential evidence and sources, that provide context for his life and behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "He had Tourette's syndrome" is insupportable. He was diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome by later writers. The diagnosis seems overplayed, as if the writers are desperate to prove their point by piling on more and more opinion. Compare the definite nature of the article with the more circumspect view of Pat Rogers: "The convulsions that marked his behaviour in adult life may have derived from congenital factors or from ... infant diseases; one theory is that his condition can be diagnosed as Tourette's syndrome." Also, compare with George III of the United Kingdom; yes, OK it is widely assumed that he had porphyria, but it is not certain; it takes six sentences to discuss it.

• Fixed, I hope. Again, came in to FAC cleaner, has deteriorated due to conflicting demands and editing from reviewers. Once again, I restored the wording we came in to FAC with. Contemporary TS researchers are more definitive about Johnson's TS than Rogers, supported by numerous and unanimous sources. Porphyria likely didn't influence George's entire life, work, behavior and bio to the extent TS/OCD did Johnson's; considering the accounts of Boswell, Thrale and others, I think the reduced size of the Health section is about right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The final paragraph appears to descend into trivia, and is a poor way to end the article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just commenting on DrKiernan's comments: "I will not revisit this page. I will not discuss my comments. I will not "!vote". I will not explain my reasons for not voting." Then what is the point of making any comments? If you have problems you want addressed, then surely you should pop back and see if they have been? If you don't want to vote, then why bother making a comment in the first place? Your comments completely bamboozled me - and, if this was my FAC, they would also irritate me. This article is far superior to so many current FAs. I really can't undertanad all this delay in promoting it - or even re-starting the nomination again in a couple of weeks.--Tufacave (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't badger the commentors; there is nothing wrong with adding helpful comments without a declaration. In fact, DrK has identified several patches of text that have deteriorated because of previous FAC demands and now need repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, a previous FAC reviewer went through and WP:OVERLINKed the article; thanks to DrK and Jbmurray for some delinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Is this FAC being held open to allow time for every single one of wikipedia's 7,989,534 editors to express an opinion on it? The article's quality has started to suffer because of this over-lengthy process (in my opinion), and a quality article is more important than a little bronze star. If this FAC is not closed soon then I for one would be in favour of withdrawing it, for fear of further damage. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article has deteriorated because of some FAC input, but DrK's comments are helpful. If the rate of deterioration continues, I'll remove my co-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• DrK's remarks were indeed helpful, and I hope it didn't look as if my comment was directed at his remarks. It was not, although it was prompted by them in the sense that we're now entering a phase of repairing damage caused by earlier changes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave the rest to Ottava and you, but I think another recent deterioration was the change in the Section heading from "Health" to "Posthumous diagnosis"; the Health section heading was introduced after lengthy debate with other reviewers and made sense. Then one FAC reviewer came along and changed it against consensus. The section deals with more than the posthumous diagnosis, and may be leading to comments (such as DrK's above) about the amount of space dedicated to TS; I suggest we go back to the consensus "Health" heading. Will the last one out turn off the lights (remove the sub-section on this page, so as not to muck up the FAC TOC?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima now insists that the posthumous diagnosis is the sole subject of the section. The title should match the subject; I wouldn't mind achieving this agreement the other way, by broadening the section, if that will make anyone happier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't misconstrue my words, please. I was pointing out the difference of placement regarding Tourette Syndrome. The biography was acceptable for placing the ideas within his life's biography. It was not acceptable in a place between multiple medical doctors who were diagnosing Johnson later, especially when many of those had to be cut for size. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • If the section is so narrow that the effect of Johnson's health on his career does not fit in it, it should have a narrower title, to indicate its actual contents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Pmanderson, please give one good reason why a biographer should not have biographical details in the biography section and instead of placed in the middle of medically trained individuals discussing medical related matters? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Because this entire article is a biography; it should cover Johnson's health as part of that biography. There is a separate article on Johnson's medical conditions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you read Awadewit's argument, the entire page is not a biography. Only the "biography" sections are biography. The entire page is an encyclopedia page, which includes biography, critical review, legacy, and medical analysis of aspects of his life. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• But this is a digression; such a section, even if it exists, should have a title which corresponds to its contents. Health does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Health corresponds to everything on Samuel Johnson's health page. Its a summary section and based on consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to Health—a much more obvious choice. Marskell (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I said the copy issues were minor and not terribly important, and I meant it. FA doesn't stop editing, they can easily be worked on after promotion, if any remain, and this is easily a credit to FA as it stands. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:07, 7 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 00:58, 7 October 2008 [50].

---

SMS Von der Tann

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Von der Tann was the first German battlecruiser built before World War I, and the ship took part in most major fleet actions during the war. I've substantially expanded the article over the past few months. It passed GA in early July, was peer-reviewed shortly thereafter, and passed Wikiproject ACR slightly over a week ago. I look forward to any and all comments that will help to further improve the quality of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments I missed this at A-class review, so I've just given it a copyedit. I added nonbreaking spaces and reworked prose in a handful of places; I also changed the date formats in the infobox to agree with the format used throughout the article, and delinked a few dates. Some remaining issues:

• I really dislike the use of {{TOClimit}} here. I understand wanting to make the TOC tidy (especially with such long section headers), but these are useful links. I wanted to go directly to her WWI service, but couldn't.
• There are a lot of cases where you've used a unit of measure as an adjective ("38 cm gun") but not used the adjectival form ("38-cm gun").
• On a related note, the convert templates present the units of measure in an orderly fashion, but there are so very many of them (nearly 100) that it seems to be affecting load time on the page. Can we make them plain text? I'll help.
• The italicized note in the Jutland section (It should be noted that the times mentioned in this section are in CET...) breaks the 'third wall' by speaking directly to the reader. Why not (1) change that note to hidden text and (2) address it directly by adding a timezone to the first actual time?
• I converted the {{WWIGermanShips}} template to use {{Navbox}}, for more consistent formatting with other navigational footers. Does the {{Von der Tann class battlecruiser}} template really add anything here, though?

Overall the article is in great shape. The references look excellent (no work for Ealdgyth here!). Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and copyediting. I removed the {{TOClimit}}, and removed all of the {{convert}} templates in the text (only those in the infobox remain). The page is loading much faster now. As for the note that was in the Jutland section, I was never really happy with it as it was, I'm not sure why I didn't think to turn it into a footnote with a link to CET on the first mention of a specific time, but that's what I did here. Thanks for fixing up the {{WWIGermanShips}}, it looks much nicer now. As for the {{Von der Tann class battlecruiser}}, I'm thinking about deep-sixing it, the main reason I created it was to have consistency with {{Moltke class battlecruiser}}, {{Derfflinger class battlecruiser}}, etc. I won't be heart-broken to delete it.Thanks again for your comments and help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to axe the template; it's been deleted as well, as you can see. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I might suggest using the ref group parameter to separate your explanatory footnotes from the purely sourcing footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the ref group, can you show me an example so I can do it? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. Is it formatted properly? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would probably put the pure sourcing footnotes in a ==Footnotes== and the explanatory notes in a ==Notes== section above the footnotes, but yes, you got them separated correctly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for your help in getting that issue squared away. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support I'm doing some homework right now and do not have the nessicary time to check everything I need/want to before being able to support in full, but what I have seen so far I have liked. I will do a more thorough check a little bit later, schoolwork permitting. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Might I recommend using a different prefix like, say, "Note" rather than "exp" for the discursive notes? Much better — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the name of its article, I don't care for the "Blohm + Voss" styling of the name of the builder. It looks a little too trademark-y for my tastes. "Blohm and Voss" works well and is a common way of referring to the builder in books I've read.
  • The conversion for the torpedo ranges are from km to miles rather than the expected nautical miles.
  • For compound adjectives (related to Maralia's comments above), WP:HYPHEN recommends against the use of a hyphen when a unit is abbreviated. So it should, for example, be either "28 cm (11 in) gun" or "28-centimetre (11 in) gun", but not "28-cm (11-in) gun". It also looks like there are quite a few hyphenated that should not be (but if you continue to use only the abbreviated forms, that will be taken care of when the hyphens are removed).
    • (As an aside, the server load/load time of pages with lots of templates, like {{convert}}, was discussed at that template's talk page (archive link) a while back.)
  • In the "Armour" section the thickness would read a lot more clearly as "80–120 mm (3.1–4.7 in)" rather than as how it is now. {{Convert}} has a range functionality built in to it, so you could use {{convert|80|-|120|mm|in|abbr=on}} to produce 80–120 mm (3.1–4.7 in)
  • In section "Peace-time" —shouldn't that be "Peacetime" or "Peace time", by the way?—the phrase "with the engines at full tilt" sounds a little colloquial for my tastes.
  • In section "Battle of Jutland" there's a sentence beginning "As the ship was no longer firing her main guns…". Since as can have differing meanings, I would suggest either because or while as a replacement, depending on what is meant. Also, the "During the battle" that leads the final sentence of this section seems superfluous given that the entire paragraph is a summary of the ship's actions during the battle.
  • The folks at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop‎ might be able to make an SVG of the map in the article (in English, no less!). You might try posting a request there. (I found the graphists there to be most helpful in the past.)
  • The licensing of Image:SMS Mainz sinking (photo).jpg doesn't seem to match the author information. At the very least, I think the image ought to be PD in the US since published before 1923.
• Overall, though, this article's very close. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the explanatory notes, "Blohm + Voss" -> "Blohm and Voss", "mi" -> "nmi", removed the hyphens, fixed the armor thickness ranges, changed "full tilt" to "maximum output" and "As" to "Because", and opened a request to get the map SVG'd. As for the photo of Mainz sinking, this issue was raised at a deletion discussion slightly over a year ago. The author very likely is a member of the RN (the destroyer to the left is Commodore Keyes' flagship), so it's likely the license template is correct. However, because the author is unknown, {{Anonymous-EU}} may be appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The image licensing doesn't bother me greatly since it seems to clearly be PD, but the description text needs to support the license (and vice versa). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to Anonymous-EU, as that seems to be the best option, given the information we have (i.e., very little ;-) ) Thanks again for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In the lead, the writing is fundamentally very sound (excellent in places). It could do with a polish by someone new to it, but I'm pleased thus far. Here are examples from the lead that suggest the whole text needs a little loving care.

• "speeds in excess of 27 knots." That's the language of a speeding fine. Since they weren't excessive speeds, why not "of more than"?
• "Von der Tann was to be the workhorse of the High Seas Fleet Scouting Squadron"—OK, so already I'm thinking it was intended to be, but wasn't. We're left hanging. "was designed as"? (except I see that you've got that in the very next sentence)
• Parentheses within parentheses: can you avoid by using dashes for the outside ones?
• Lighter guns, but the comparison is of their length. Forgive me, I'm a non-expert.
• "fleet's fate" doesn't sound good; perhaps "the fate of the fleet"? I hope Jbmurray isn't around; he'd disagree with me.
• "the majority"—"most" is so much nicer (plain and short).
• Remove comma after "1919"?
• Remove "subsequently"? Tony (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I removed "to be" from the "Von der Tann was to be the workhorse of the High Seas Fleet Scouting Squadron" line, is that more in the direction you were thinking? The gun comparisons are diameters, perhaps a short explanatory note explaining to what the measurement is referring is in order? I added a short one, let me know if that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article both at PR & ACR several months back. The article has only continued to improve since then. Cam (Chat) 21:57, 4 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 00:58, 7 October 2008 [51].

---

Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)

previous FAC (15:51, 19 July 2008)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the only one of the Jack the Ripper articles which looks as if it could be ready to feature on the Main Page on 9th November, the 120th anniversary of the Ripper's final and most brutal murder.

The article has been edited significantly since the last nomination. Comparison of the two nominated versions.

There are two criteria that reviewers may wish to comment on specifically.

Comprehensiveness The article has two deliberate exclusions.

One is the "Lees" story. This refers to the psychic, Robert Lees, who supposedly identified Sir William Gull as the Ripper. This is excluded on the basis that it is yet more easily dismissed nonsense. If included, it would merely serve to confuse the reader by first attempting to explain Lees's purported involvement, and then saying why it is silly.

The other is the literary analysis applied to the stories (predatory aristocracy abusing the lower class; comparisons with Dracula; popular suspicion of surgery/medicine; penetration and misogyny; and so forth). This is excluded on the basis that it applies more appropriately to Jack the Ripper fiction and belongs in that article (which should be a proper article instead of an incomplete list). This article is about the actual theories themselves: their origin, development, and verifiability.

Neutrality The weight of opinion, and indeed the plain facts, are very strongly against these theories. They are not reasonable or potential solutions. Even the originators (Stowell, Gorman and Fairclough) have disowned them. Stephen Knight admitted in his own book that they sound like "arrant, if entertaining, nonsense", and Colin Wilson (who knew both Knight and Stowell) believes that Knight published his book for commercial reasons only and did not in fact believe its contents to be true. Though the theories' influence on fictional adaptations and subsequent analysis of the murders is undoubted, the article should reflect the prevailing, indeed overwhelming, consensus that as solutions they are insupportable rubbish! DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I wanted to be the first. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, for both supporting now and helping to improve the article before! DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Please note the links that require an academic subscription to access. (the doi'd one and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) This doesn't invalidate the use of the articles, as they are available in print also, but it's a nice courtesy to note the links require a subscription to the readers.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: No image concerns. Эlcobbola _talk 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments, tending to Support. There are numerous prose issues, small in themselves, which need fixing:-

Support: The issues raised below have all been settled satisfactorily and I am happy to support this excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Albert Victor is described as "one of the most notable..." Surely, the most notable?
  • (last line) Suggest "and the poet" rather than "or..." - he isn't an alternative to the first two

• Background
  • "...a series of terrible murders". All murders are terrible; I'd either leave the adjective out altogether, or replace it with something like "gruesome", which in this context would not I think be considered POV
  • "at least five murders ..." Suggest "at least five of these murders..."
  • (same sentence) "showed" fits the tenses better than "show"
  • "...was never conclusively identified..." "Conclusively" means with absolute certainty, a very high bar. Your phrasing suggests that some suspects may have approached this high level of proof, which I don't believe is the case. I'd drop "conclusively"
  • A similar argument applies to your use of the phrase "not likewise entirely persuasive". I'd drop the entirely.
  • "was first suggested" reads better as "had first been suggested". Also, 40 years earlier than when?

• Albert Victor as suspect
  • Comma needs losing after 1.45 am
  • "Over 500 miles (over 800 km)" I think the second "over" may be implied.
  • The sentence beginning "On the morning of..." reads awkwardly and needs some reconstruction. My suggestion s to split it into two, as follows: "On the morning of the 30th he attended a service at Balmoral, the royal retreat in Scotland. With him were his grandmother Queen Victoria, other family members, visiting German royalty, and the estate staff".
  • Stowell claimed his source was Gull. Gull died in 1890, Stowell was writing to the press in 1970. So either Stowell was extremely, extremely old, or there was an intermediary, who should properly be described as Stowell's source.

• Developments
  • (Heading) I'm not sure about development on a theory. "Of", or "from", might be better
  • "...Preferred the company of a woman". Who was she? Or does this mean "of women"?
  • In the final sentence of the first para I would suggest a full stop after "examiners", then a new sentence: "There is..."
  • Lord Salisbury and the Prince of Wales are already linked

• Claims of Gorman
  • (First line) lose comma after 1973
  • "Unfairly certified insane" - in the circumstances, "unfairly" seems a little mild, perhaps?
  • (same sentence) - suggest rephrasing, to avoid the repetition of "by Gull"
  • "He accused..." Suggest "Gorman accused..."
  • (same sentence) suggest "and claimed that after..." rather than "and claimed after..."
  • Comma after River Thames in para 2
  • "Unfair" again, in "unfair fallacies". Can fallacies be fair?

• Developments on Gorman
  • "little to no..." - "little or no..." is the accepted form.

I found this a pretty compelling read, and will certainly be ready to support after these prose questions have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for going through so carefully, and leaving a list of very detailed comments. I have made most of the changes required with the exception of the following, for which I would appreciate more guidance:

• "40 years earlier" than the accusation made against Sir John Williams.
  • I can see it now you point it out, but the reference to 2005 is way back in the paragraph and doesn't connect with the last few words. I would suggest that the last sentence is reconstructed as follows: ""Williams was a physician to the royal family; a royal connection to the Jack the Ripper crimes had first been suggested more than forty years before he was himself directly accused"
    • Yes, I agree. I've added "forty years before Williams was accused".
      • OK now
• "Albert Victor is the most notable": This depends on the definition of "notable". I would say Lewis Carroll is more famous, and other suspects are more likely culprits or more worthy of serious attention.
  • In 1888 Albert Victor was in precisely the position now occupied by Prince William...but he wasn't accused until the 1960s by which time few knew who he was. Whereas most people in the 1990s would have known who Lewis Carroll was...OK, I'm convinced, your wording stands.
    • Another option would be to go for: "Since then, the identity of the killer has been hotly debated. Over a hundred suspects have been proposed,[1][2] including Prince Albert Victor, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and the grandson of Queen Victoria."
      • That would work too.
• "never conclusively identified...not entirely persuasive". Some authors think they've identified the Ripper, and they've persuaded others that their claims and solutions are right, but the wider community has not been. These qualifying words are supposed to indicate that the solutions and suspects proposed are not accepted by the wider community, but may be accepted by a minority.
  • That's OK, too
• "Development on a theory": "Development of" means the origins of the theory to me, rather than how it developed after its formation.
  • I see it slightly differently, but it's not really an issue
• "the company of a woman": Ah, that we do not know or are not told. Possibly, a young lady, or possibly just his mother, or possibly several ladies. Harrison is loose on the point, and allows for all possibilities.
  • Then, your text should allow for a broader range of possibilities. "A woman" sounds finite and specific, and others will ask the question "who was she?" So I'd go back to my suggestion of "women".
    • Yes, it reads awkwardly too. I've changed it to "Albert Victor preferred female company and did not reciprocate Stephen's feelings".
      • OK now
• "Unfairly": Any suggestions? DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unwarrantably, insupportably, indefensibly, scandalously...all carry more punch than a somewhat feeble "unfairly". Not forgetting the unfair fallacies. Here, I would simply lose the unfair altogether.
    • How about "unjustly"? I've removed the unfair from fallacies.
      • OK now

Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Having read the article a few times now; and finding the above commentry a bit depressing: All murders are terrible, (First line) lose comma after 1973, Comma after River Thames in para 2. The article is well written, engaging and comprensive as far as I can see. I think the page skillfully represents source that presents a coherent and lucid narrative on a subject which even today never fails to draw drama. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

• "elderly British physician Dr. T. E. A. Stowell"

Is elderly needed?

• "all of the murders"

Leaving out "of" would be more formal, I believe: "all the"? This could be subjective though.

Background

• "Although Whitechapel was an impoverished area and violence there was common, at least five murders showed a distinctive modus operandi."

I am confused here; what was "common" and contradictory to the impoverished and violent environment of Whitechapel? Never mind, it is a case of my misreading of "violence" as "violent".

• "many can be eliminated from serious investigation."

Is this statement supposed to mean that "through serious investigation, many can be eliminated" or "many do not deserve any serious investigation"? If it is the latter, why not say "many can be readily (or easily) proved to be false."

• "Williams was a physician to the Royal Family, but a royal connection to the Jack the Ripper crimes was first suggested about forty years before Williams was accused."

I am unsure what the meaning behind this sentence is supposed to be. Williams was the royal physician (from 1886). Around 1965, someone suggested a royal connection to the murders. How would this make the 2005 accusation on William any less substantial?

• "author Philippe Jullian published a biography of Prince Albert Victor's father"

Out of curiousity, is it biography "on" or "of"? I know Google hits show 1,570,000 to 16,400,000, but I would say "I am writing a paper on magnetism" instead of "I am writing a paper of magnetism".

• "they were most likely derived from Dr. Thomas Eldon Alexander Stowell."

Why not drop "derived"?

Prince Albert Victor as a suspect

• "Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source, as Stowell shared his theory in 1960 with writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, who is loosely credited as a source of "hitherto unpublished anecdotes" in Jullian's book."

There are two consecutive "who"s. Could we go with "Stowell could have served indirectly as Jullian's source. The doctor had shared his theory in 1960 with writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a writer-politican loosely credited as a source of 'hitherto unpublished anecdotes' in Jullian's book."?

• "By examining [...] it is possible to prove that"

Why possible? "An examination of [...] will reveal that".

• Consider the end of the first paragraph: "Stowell said his information came from the private notes of Sir William Gull, a reputable physician who had treated members of the Royal Family. Stowell knew Gull's son-in-law, Theodore Dyke Acland, and was an executor of Acland's estate." Now for the start of the third paragraph: "Stowell had claimed that his source concerning Albert Victor's death was Gull, but that was impossible since Gull had died on 29 January 1890, two years before Albert Victor." It seems to me that the first paragraph's mention of Gull can be moved to and merged with the third.
• "The first symptoms of madness arising from syphilitic infection"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "The first symptoms of madness that arises from syphilitic infection".

• "Consequently, for Albert Victor to have suffered from syphilitic insanity in 1888, he would have to have been infected in about 1873, aged nine, six years before he visited the West Indies."

The "aged nine" strikes me a bit strange on reading. Perhaps, "Consequently, for Albert Victor to have suffered from syphilitic insanity in 1888, he would have to be infected at the age of nine in about 1873, six years before he visited the West Indies."

• "Rather than name Albert Victor in the article directly, Stowell described his suspect in a roundabout way in a forlorn attempt to either disguise his identity or create a mystery."

"Forlorn" (desperate, hopeless) seems biased unless roundabout writing methods are truly a case of desperateness (if "forlorn" is sourced, we could put that in quotes). It could just be dropped.

Developments on Stowell's theory

• "and that Stephen's hatred"

We could break the constant usage of "Stephen" by substituting his profession in: "and that the tutor's hatred".

• "[...] because Albert Victor [...]", "[...] Albert Victor's death."

In the same light, perhaps we can replace "Albert Victor" in this statements with "the prince"?

Claims of Joseph Gorman

• "it featured fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor respectively, examining real evidence."

Though interrupted by the bit on the actors, a noun plus -ing situation exists. Suggestion: "it featured fictional detectives Barlow and Watt, played by Stratford Johns and Frank Windsor respectively, who try to determine the identity of the Ripper through examination of real-life evidence."

• "Elwyn Jones's and John Lloyd's The Ripper File"

If it is joint-authorship, then it should be "Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd's The Ripper File".

• "Gorman said that his Catholic grandmother had secretly married Albert Victor"

Should his grandmother be named here instead of later?

• "Gorman claimed that his grandmother was Catholic although records prove this to be untrue. Confusing the issue further, if she had been Catholic, more weaknesses in the story arise because according to the Act of Settlement 1701 only Protestants who have not married a Catholic can inherit the English Crown."

I would not think that it confuses the issue, but rather that it proves the fallacy of Gorman's story. In other words, "Furthermore, Gorman's claim that his grandmother was Catholic, which is proven to be untrue by records, further weakened the veracity of his story. The Act of Settlement 1701 states that only Protestants who have not married a Catholic can inherit the English Crown."

• "Albert Victor was in Heidelberg from June to August 1884, and hence was not in London at the time of Alice's conception and could not have been her father."

Replace the ", and" with a semicolon, perhaps? "Albert Victor was in Heidelberg from June to August 1884; hence, he was not in London at the time of Alice's conception and could not have been her father."

• "Even if they had known her or her child, it is unlikely that prostitutes from the East End of London telling a tale of royal illegitimacy would be believed, so any attempt by them to reveal the supposed scandal would merely have been dismissed"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "Even if they had known her or her child, it is unlikely that anyone would readily believe a tale of royal illegitimacy told by prostitutes from the East End of London, so any attempt by the Ripper victims to reveal the supposed scandal would merely have been dismissed."

• "Stowell had mentioned rumours blaming Gull for the murders in his article"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "Stowell had mentioned rumours that blamed Gull for the murders in his article".

• "there is no documentary evidence linking Netley to the other characters."

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "there is no documentary evidence that linked Netley to the other characters."

• "Gorman accused Anderson of being an accomplice, but he was in Switzerland at the time of the double murder, and so was clearly unable to participate in its perpetration."

We can add an "also" and move this to just after the sentence where the claim on Netley is disproved: "Gorman also accused Anderson of being an accomplice, but the policeman was in Switzerland at the time of the double murder, and so was clearly unable to participate in its perpetration."

• "Gorman claimed that Sickert had a studio in Cleveland Street, which was untrue, and that Sickert knew the Princess of Wales, of which there is no proof."

If the above was done, then we can add "Lastly," to this sentence and thus conclude the paragraph: "Lastly, Gorman claimed that Sickert had a studio in Cleveland Street, which was untrue, and that Sickert knew the Princess of Wales, of which there is no proof."

• The end of the "Claims of Joseph Gorman" does patter out with "Gorman claims this [but proven false]. Gorman claims that [again false]." Perhaps some rephrasing are in order?

Developments on Gorman's claims

• "Knight did appreciate that there were problems with Gorman's claims"

Suggestion: "Knight appreciated that there were problems with Gorman's claims".

• "although Fairclough later disowned his own book 'saying he no longer believes the theory'."

I feel the partial quote makes the sentence a bit awkward. I presume it is precisely what the Daily Express had wrote and so we cannot phrase it as "[...], saying '[I] no longer [believe] the theory." In light of that, how does "although Fairclough later disowned his own book on the basis that he no longer believed the theory." sound?

• "The Jack the Ripper royal/masonic conspiracy theories"

MOS discourages slashes unless it is part of a quotation per WP:SLASH. Can "royal/masonic" be rephrased?

• "and novels using the conspiracy theories"

Noun plus -ing correction attempt: "and novels that use the conspiracy theories"

Images

• Can the captions for the images be expanded to some form like the one for Lord Salisbury (i.e. add some pertinence to the image displayed)?

Overall, a solid read. I am tending to support based on the content. Jappalang (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! In answer to specific points:

• Elderly is there in order to explain "sudden and coincidental death".
• Changed to "for the murders".
• Changed to "eliminated from further investigation"
• I'm unclear what you're asking. There is no specific meaning behind the sentence, beyond what is written.
• Perhaps this comes from using "biography" as a replacement word for "life" rather than "book": I am writing the life of Albert Victor, but I am writing a book on Albert Victor?
• "derived" because they do not come direct from Stowell, but from Stowell through two intermediaries (Wilson and Nicolson).
• Changed to "who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a biographer loosely credited"
• Changed to "Newspaper reports, etc. prove"
• Yes, I see where you're coming from but the duplication is deliberate. The third paragraph was originally the second, hence the link. However, I want to structure the sections so that the paragraphs have clear topics. The first is Stowell's theory and evidence in favour of it. The second is Albert Victor's alibis, and the third is the medicine-associated evidence. It's easier to follow the story if structured in this way; the way it was before was confusing for readers new to the topic.
• Changed to "that arise"
• Changed to "infected at the age of nine in about 1873"
• "forlorn" removed
• I've deliberately avoided doing just that. Using "the prince" instead of Albert Victor, or "the tutor" instead of Stephen, is too confusing for readers. It's easier to follow the story if the same person is referred to by the same name throughout. Hence, Edward VII is always "the Prince of Wales", and the Duke of Clarence is always "Albert Victor", and so on.
• I don't really see the problem here. What's the point of using so many words, when fewer will do?
• Changed to "The Ripper File, by Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd in 1975."
• Again, she was originally but I prefer to name her later on. If named here, she breaks the flow of the sentence rendering "his mother" now confusing: who's mother? Albert Victor's or Gorman's? This has a domino effect throughout the paragraph making it necessary to restructure and lengthen it.
• "Confusing the issue further" removed.
• Changed to "1884; hence, he was not"
• "prostitutes from the East End of London telling a tale" changed to "their tale"
• Changed to "that blamed"
• Changed to "that links"
• That sentence used to be there, but it was moved to the end to link with Knight's realisation that Anderson was not one of the culprits in the next paragraph.
• Changed second "claimed" to "said"
• Changed to "Knight appreciated"
• Changed to "and told reporters "he no longer believes the theory""
• Slashes are deprecated where the relationship between the two words is unclear. Here the article has explained how both royalty and masonry have been introduced into a conspiracy theory.
• Changed to "that use"
• I'll see if I can come up with some. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have convinced me. I believe this article qualifies to be a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 13:33, 6 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 00:58, 7 October 2008 [52].

---

Philitas of Cos

Nominator(s): Eubulides (talk)

A Good Article that has since gone through peer review, with one helpful review by Yannismarou and another by Wronkiew (thanks to you both!). It's ready for a shot at Featured Article status. Eubulides (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dr pda: Nice article. The prose is good, everything is cited, all the sources are reputable academic journals or scholarly publications, the lead is an appropriate length for the article, images alternate left and right without squeezing the text, and are not left aligned under level 3 headings, dashes are used correctly, as are  s before units, there is no mixing of citation templates and all external links check out with the link checker. However I have some queries about the images.

• Image:Antikythera philosopher.JPG—The image description page says the photograph was taken by B. Foley in 2004, however it was uploaded by Ishkabibble (talk · contribs) in 2007 under the GFDL, and the wording of the licence tag claims that s/he is the copyright holder. How do we know the photo is in fact GFDL-licenced?
• Image:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg—The file history indicates that the background image is derived from satellite data, but the image description doesn't indicate that where the satellite data comes from, or its copyright status. (I'm guessing its NASA and therefore public domain as a work or the US federal government, but this should be checked and/or explicitly stated.)
• Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg—The image description says "no known restrictions on publication", however the copyright page on the website listed as the source says Unless otherwise stated, all digital images of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri are © the Imaging Papyri Project, University of Oxford. The papyri themselves are owned by the Egypt Exploration Society, London. Images of them may be used for teaching and research purposes, but should not be published without the prior consent of the Imaging Papyri Project and the Egypt Exploration Society. Other digital images are © the Imaging Papyri Project, University of Oxford. If you are aware of any inadvertent misattribution or copyright infringement on our part, please tell us without delay. In addition the image is tagged with {{PD-old}}; while the text is certainly public domain, the image was taken within the last 60 years at least (going by the date of first publication) and is not PD, as the copyright statement from the website shows. You probably need to get the opinion of someone more knowledgeable about images than me as to whether we can use this image.

A couple more comments: Why is the character ϲ used for the letter sigma in the epitaph, but σ for the verses quoted, and the name of his vocabulary? Also WP:ACCESSIBILITY recommends providing a transliteration of any text written in non-Latin characters. I'm not sure how to handle this for the Greek you quote in <poem> tags (which incidentally were a new tag to me :) ); it would look ugly given that you provide the translation immediately afterwards. On the topic of WP:ACCESSIBILITY it also says that that horizontal rules, such as the one before the 1911 Britannica notice, are deprecated. Regarding the first sentence of the article, the claim "was the most important intellectual in the early years of Hellenistic civilization" definitely requires a source. Is it covered by the reference at the end of the next sentence? Also, while I understand that the lead need not be cited since everything it contains is in the article, as it stands the last sentence of the first paragraph appears to be the only part of the lead which isn't cited. For consistency it would be nice to have a cite there too.

The readable prose size of the article is around 7.5 kB, putting it in the shortest 1% of current FAs. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to say whether the article is comprehensive or not. If it is, I wouldn't object on length alone. On the topic of disclaimers I also haven't checked that all the doi's, ISBNs, OCLC identifiers etc point to the works they say they do.

I've added persondata, and I noticed that some ISBNs were hyphenated and others weren't so I hyphenated them all, for consistency. Dr pda (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Some time I'll have to learn how to hyphenate ISBNs. On to the questions:

• Ishkabibble (talk · contribs) uploaded both Image:Antikythera_philosopher.JPG and Image:Antikythera statue front.jpg on the same day (2007-08-05); both image pages say the image pages were taken in September 2004 by Brendan Foley, with the same camera. I see no reason to think that Brendan Foley (whoever he is; there are many Brendan Foleys) is not the user in question. Is that enough, or do further steps need to be taken here?
• I changed the text in Image:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg to make it clear that it's derived from a NASA image.
• I changed the notice in Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg from {{PD-old}} to {{PD-art}}, which is more appropriate since this is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work. PD-art means we need not ask permission to reproduce that image. Of course it wouldn't hurt to ask. Is that enough, or are further steps needed?
• That "ϲ" is a lunate sigma, not the Latin letter "c"; they are quite different letters, though they look similar. I added a footnote about that. Some sources use lunate sigma, some the modern sigma, and I thought it best to follow the source actually used here, as it's the most authoritative I found. For what it's worth, Philitas himself probably preferred lunate sigma.
  • And Philitas certainly preferred majuscule to minuscule, which did not exist in his time; why are we not using that, on the same "logic"? We are here to communicate, not to introduce pedantic obstacles to communication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I did say "for what it's worth" :-). But the main principle here is that quotations in Wikipedia must "preserve the original style, spelling and punctuation" (MOS:QUOTE), which is what's being done here. The cited source uses lunate sigma, so we should too. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see you fixed the horizontal line; thanks.
• I added transliterations of the four lines of Greek poetry into Latin text.
• The lead text "most important intellectual in the early years of Hellenistic civilization" was supported by Bulloch 1985, the source cited at the end of the next sentence. Bulloch has a section "Philetas and others" that leads with "The most important intellectual figure in the early years of the new Hellenistic world was Philetas from the east Greek island of Cos." I made this edit to try to make it clearer that all the claims in the lead are well-sourced.
• As far as I know, the article is comprehensive on Philitas' life. We know so little about him that it's no problem for Philitas of Cos to contain everything we know of his life (there is no "summary style" here: this is everything). A bit more can be said about his works (as we do have about 50 lines, and only 2 are given here) and later opinion of him, so I added some; hope this helps.

Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Antikythera_philosopher.JPG, google reveals a Brendan Foley who is a researcher in maritime archaeology at MIT. User Ishkabibble's contributions match this and some of Foley's other research interests. This, plus the fact that the image has metadata showing it to come from a digital camera inclines me to believe that Foley is the uploader. (Though it would have been nice if there were an explicit statement...).

Regarding Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg {{PD-Art}} will probably work. I notice that policy is that this assertion (faithful reproduction of 2D image) is good for all copyright jurisdictions, which avoids any UK-specific issues. However the "When to use PD-Art" page says it can't be used for anything which "casts a shadow"; not wanting to be super-picky here but I think I can see a shadow! I'd feel more comfortable if someone more experienced in images (e.g. User:Elcobbola or User:Awadewit) could cast an eye over this one.

Regarding the sigma, perhaps my question wasn't as clear as it could have been. I recognised it as a lunate sigma, I was just wondering why you used that form in one piece of Greek text, and the σ/ς forms in other pieces. However your reply above answered this anyway.

Regarding hyphenating ISBNs, just google for isbn converter; these convert from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13, and some of them put in the hyphens at the same time.

So, assuming the Oxyrhynchus image turns out to be OK, Issues resolved. Support. Dr pda (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked about the Oxyrhynchus image at User talk:Elcobbola #Copyright status of photo of ancient papyrus fragment. If the shadows are a real copyright issue I can remove them with the GIMP, but I'd rather not bother if we don't have to do that. Eubulides (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I answered on the talk page to keep the FAC clear of the "detailed" copyright stuff (i.e. so the FAC can stay focused on evaluation against the FA criteria). Эlcobbola _talk 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support for now. Interesting and polished prose, but it seems kind of non-broad in its coverage. Just my first impression from the article. :) —Sunday | Speak 20:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. As described above I added added a bit more detail about his work. More context could be added, though it'd be hard to add much more specifically about Philitas, as so little is known of his life. As someone new to the topic can you suggest areas where further elaboration would be most helpful? Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding (the other) images:
  • Image:Antikythera philosopher.JPG: although it's not optimal to have an author and user name mismatch, the typical copyvio red flags are not here (e.g. the image is higher resolution, the image has metadata, the Nikon E5400 is a consumer camera and was indeed available in 2004, image does not appear professionally done and subject's setting reasonably implies accessibility to the public). I don't hear any quacking.
  • Image:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg: needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP; how can we confirm NASA authorship? Эlcobbola _talk 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for checking that. I added a verifiable source to Image:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg and also added in a copy of the NASA terms. The source was the same as for Image:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg. Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not in its present condition.
  • It begins with an egregious WP:PEACOCK violation; an evaluation as the "most important intellectual of" [vaguely defined period]. That is not a consensus view; more importantly, does it contain any content which "royal tutor" (a badly chosen word; some readers will read in tutor/paedagogus, which would be false), scholar, and poet, do not say between them.
  • The first scholar-poet. I see what is meant here; but the implication that Pindar (or Empedocles) was no scholar is bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • the heir of the royal throne of Ptolemaic Egypt. is not idiomatic.
  • The "transliterations" do not transliterate. There may be other ways to represenr και than kai, but cae is not one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I changed "cae" to "cai"; thanks for catching that.
  • Why not kai? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Philitas of Cos uses the classical-style transliteration of Greek to Roman characters, as described in Romanization of Greek. This transliterates "κ" to "c" ("Cos" being one example of this). Sarton's Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries (ISBN 0486277402), which uses classical-style transliteration, uses "cai" on page 304; I assume that is good-enough precedent. Eubulides (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • That method is appropriate only for turning Greek into English (or other Western} text, not for transliterations, which should, to be of any value, represent Greek text exactly and consistently.
    • But in fact no consistent method is being used; no acceptable method would come up with esperioi, omitting the aspiration but being pedantic on the final diphthong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please feel free to alter the transliterations of the Greek poetry to use any consistent style you prefer. I don't care what the style is. Personally, I would omit the transliterations entirely, as I think they're distracting to almost all readers; they are there only because of WP:ACCESSIBILITY.
• Thanks for pointing out the problem with "esperioi"; I changed it to "hesperie".

Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I changed "tutor to the heir of the royal throne" to "tutor of the heir to the royal throne". Thanks for catching that as well.
• The cited source (written by A.W. Bulloch) wrote "intellectual figure", not "intellectual", so I changed the wording to say "the most important intellectual figure in the early years of Hellenistic civilization" which I hope is enough to remove the peacock tag. Bulloch is a classics professor at Berkeley and this source (the Cambridge History of Classical Literature) is a mainstream source; if this is not the consensus, can you please give an example of a contrary opinion among mainstream sources?
• The phrase "royal tutor" does not appear in Philitas of Cos. Philitas #Life does say that he was appointed "preceptor, or tutor". Does this not supply enough detail so that the expert reader will know we're talking about a preceptor rather than a paedagogus? Non-expert readers won't know either term, and "tutor" is the commonly used word for preceptor. Or are you suggesting that the article also mention "preceptor" in the lead, alongside "tutor"? That would be fine.
• The phrase "the first scholar-poet" does not appear in Philitas of Cos. It says he was "the first major writer who was both a scholar and a poet". Again, this is directly supported by the cited source, Bulloch, who writes "Philetas was the first major writer who was both poet and scholar, and secured an instant reputation in both fields." There is no intent to imply that Pindar or Empedocles were not scholars, but I don't see how the fact that they were scholars affects this issue. As far as I know, no major poet before Philitas was as famous for scholarly publications. Anyway, we do have a reliable source making the claim; is there some controversy among similarly reliable sources on this point?

Thanks for your review; hope this helps to answer the major points. Eubulides (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are misreading Bulloch, through not giving weight to and secured an instant reputation in both fields. Our article makes the assertion that no person combined the characteristics:

• Poet
• Scholar
• Major writer
• Before Philitas.

Pindar lacked none of these; what we say is therefore false. (The sentence from Bulloch is ill-advised, but defensible; Pindar did not obtain an instant reputation as a scholar, although how Bulloch knows Philitas did is beyond me.) Our text is therefore unsupported.

But this is not only dubiously factual: it is unencyclopedic to make any case of this kind. Bulloch is free to be a fanboy if he likes, although it would be traditional to edit the fragments first, which he does not seem to have done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Philitas of Cos does not misread Bulloch. Bulloch clearly states "Philetas was the first major writer who was both poet and scholar,". The next clause in Bulloch's sentence "and secured an instant reputation in both fields" amplifies this claim; it does not restrict it.
• Nor is Bulloch the only expert in the field who makes such a claim. For example, Peter Bing, professor of classics at Emory, writes 'The author of this last poem is none other than Philitas of Cos (10, p.92 Powell), whom Ptolemy I Soter made tutor to his son, the future king Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and who stands upon the threshold of the Age as a model for the new figure of the doctus poeta (the learnéd poet). Philitas is the first person described as "simultaneously a poet and a scholar" (Strabo XIV 657).'[53]
• Other sources along similar lines could be suppled.
• Bulloch is not a "fanboy" of Philitas. He is stating the mainstream opinion in a conservatively-edited reference book on the subject of Greek literature.
• Pindar is not an example of a doctus poeta. His poetry was second to none, but Pindar was not famous for his scholarship, and is not commonly cited as a scholar-poet among reliable sources.
• It sounds like you disagree with mainstream opinion, which of course is your privilege, but Wikipedia is supposed to reflect mainstream opinion, and claims in Wikipedia require support from reliable sources. So far, I see unanimity among reliable sources that Philitas is the first example of a scholar-poet.

Eubulides (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bosh. Since in addition to the above, the current edition of Pauly-Wissowa presents a different view of Philitas's life, laying much more stress on his life at Cos after his experience at court (when he taught Hermesianax), I cannot think this ready for prime time.

• I've now checked the English version of the new Pauly, and it lays equal weight on his court experience and on his life after court. It spends 33 words on the former and 31 words on the latter. So we should be OK here after all. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Pauly also makes clear that "first poet and philologist" (kritikos) is a quote from Strabo (14.2) ; it should be presented as such, and that wording would be much less subject to doubt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It makes sense to mention Strabo; I made this change to add a citation to his comment on Philitas. Of course the claim that Philitas was the first major scholar-poet does not rely entirely or even primarily on Strabo. It comes from a more modern consensus. Here's another example:

"Thus was formed that curious mixture the 'doctus poeta,' the learned poet.... There are four poets in this period, who are important not only in themselves, but for their influence on Rome.... Philetas of Cos (circa B.C. 340–circa 285), the teacher of Theocritus, heads the list, with his elegies on Bittis." Jesse Benedict Carter, Selections from the Roman Elegiac Poets (1900), OCLC 7425136, p. xi.

Other examples could be cited. I haven't found any reliable sources disagreeing on this point.

• We should certainly not use doctus poeta; we should not use Latin without necessity; nor is it reasonable to use it for a Greek writer. We are optimized for lay readers, not for specialists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that there's no reason to use doctus poeta here, and Philitas of Cos currently doesn't use it. My point was that there's consensus among modern sources that Philitas was the first major scholar-poet. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for mentioning Pauly-Wissowa, certainly a reliable source. It'd be helpful to use what it says. I don't happen to have a copy ready to hand, unfortunately, but I can go to a library and get one. Are you referring to the German edition or the English one? Do you have page numbers, or is this an online cite?
  • Both; Brill's New Pauly is a translation of Die Neue Pauly; in both, this is the article "Philitas". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, I got a copy of the English version, which is a bit better than the German one as it's a bit more up-to-date. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• According to Pauly-Wissowa, which events does Philitas of Cos omit, for Philitas' life at Cos after Alexandria?

• I added the events in question: they are that Philitas spent at least 10 years in Cos after Alexandria, and that Hermesianax was part of the group. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Currently, Philitas of Cos #Life gives equal weight to Philitas' life at Alexandria, and to his life at Cos after Alexandria. How does this compare to Pauly-Wissowa's treatment?

• I checked this. The new Pauly also gives equal weight, so we should be OK here. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I understand it from your comment, Pauly-Wissowa does not contradict anything currently in Philitas of Cos; in particular, Pauly-Wissowa is not skeptical of the claims that Philitas was the first major scholar-poet and that Philitas was the most important intellectual figure in the early years of the Hellenistic world.
  • Double bosh. Failing to assert such a claim is to contradict it by silence. Every Greek writer, especially those mostly lost, has some authority who ranks him high, even Nonnus. The position that we must find express contradiction is to make our articles a swamp of salesmanship; we need not say any such thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am unaware of any claim by any authority that any other person would qualify as "the most important intellectual figure in the early years of Hellenistic civilization". I'm quite skeptical that any authority would make a claim like that. I am not asking for someone who explicitly disputes Bulloch's claim for Philitas; I'm merely asking for someone who has made a similar claim for some other major figure.
• I think it quite implausible that someone would make that claim for Theophrastus, Demetrius of Phalerum or Megasthenes, who you've suggested as alternatives: Theophrastus is more of a holdover from the previous era, Demetrius is clearly below Philitas in his influence on Hellenistic (as opposed to transitional) civilization, and Megathenes is not even within shouting distance of these other guys. That being said, it doesn't matter what I think: it matters what reliable sources say.
• With Bulloch, we're not talking about some recent or obscure paper by a minor scholar: we're talking about a longstanding assertion in a standard reference work. Obviously you personally disagree with this assertion, but we can't base our edits on our own opinions: we need the opinions of reliable sources.

Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is scarcely less unreasonable; most writers would not assume that was a single "most important figure" of early Hellenisticism, unless perhaps they extended the period far enough to include Callimachus or Eratosthenes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• A nit: the claim is not "most important figure", it's "most important intellectual figure".
• Bulloch's claim is about the first few years of the Hellenistic world: that period does not extend to Eratosthenes (who was born a decade after Philitas died) or even to Callimachus (a generation or two after Philitas).
• With that in mind, would the following change satisfy your concerns (italics are new text)?: "most important intellectual figure in the early first few years of Hellenistic civilization"
  • The narrower the claim the better. It should be clear to the reader (as it was not to me) that Hellenistic excludes Greece proper. But I'll give it a fresh read; I hope FAC can wait till Monday. (Aristotle is not chiefly famous for his tutoring, so the analogy below limps on both feet, but I'll try to clear my mind.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I am planning to reword the lead in the light of Ottava Rima's more-recent comments below, and that may help with your concerns as well. I'll comment here when I'm done with that. Eubulides (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I reworded the lead to remove the "most important intellectual" claim. The claim is still in the body. Hope this suffices. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Within that fairly narrow period, Philitas stands head and shoulders above everyone else. He served as Aristotle to Ptolemy II Philadelphus' Alexander; admittedly this is not at all as big a deal as Aristotle and Alexander, but it's the closest thing the Hellenistic world has to offer. A major statue was erected of him (or perhaps two statues; it's not clear). He founded the Alexandrian school of poetry, and was the first major example of the scholar-poet. Propertius, a major poet, invoked him centuries after he died. Nobody else in the first few years of the Hellenistic world comes close to this kind of intellectual influence. Again, this is just my opinion, and what matters is what reliable sources say: but again, we don't see anything even hinting at a dispute about this among reliable sources.

Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) By the way, I want to thank you again for mentioning the new Pauly; I wasn't aware that the English "Phi" volume came out last year (which I guess shows how out-of-touch I am...). It has some other material about Philitas' works which I would like to work into the article, but I haven't had the time yet. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Then come back when the article is more complete. I'll help, and phrase the whole more to my liking, when I'm done recasting Iole. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll let you know when I've done that. Including the new material shouldn't take more than a day or two. The new stuff should be localized to Philitas #Works, so it should be independent of the previous discussions. Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, it's done, with these edits. It took longer than expected, as other comments came in during the meantime. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• No follow up three days after request: [54] [55] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am very supportive of this nomination and think it's well written. We are lucky to have Eubulides's expertise in the field. At the same time, I must say that Anderson's deep knowledge and content-based analyses are admirable. My hope is that you two can work it out, and that we get a superb addition to our FAs in this area. Tony (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I won't even try to insert myself into the conversation between Eubulides and PMAnderson. I may find some tidbits that I think are interesting though, and could well be added.. as for example "this which says "According to Hermesianax in his catalogue of poetic lovers, the citizens of Cos erected 'under a plane tree' a statue of Philitas singing of his Battis [or Bittis] (fr. 7.75-8 Powell) and... this creates a presumption that Philitas wrote first-person poetry on erotic subjects...". Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. I added the point about the plane tree here, and added more detail about love poetry and the Battis/Bittis/was-it-just-a-joke? controversy here. Eubulides (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The full poem by Posidoppus is on page 31 ofThe New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book by Posidippus, Kathryn J. Gutzwiller. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pointer. Is this a suggestion to use Nisetich's translation rather than Bing's? Could you please elaborate? Eubulides (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• I added a citation to Nisetich's translation. The text still uses Bing's, but it's nice to cite Nisetich too. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. :) However, I never let people get of that easy so... 1. You should probably say he is a poet and a scholar within the first line, because the "intellectual" comment would make me think philosopher (assuming I didn't know him). 2. Lempriere classifies him as a grammarian. 3. According to Lempriere (a great old source, btw, might be online, as Jayvdb), the lead comment is attributed to Ælian (V. H. 9, c, 14) 4. "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." I'd track down any text and rewrite it so you can remove that. Britannica is the true Wiki Devil. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Scholar, philologist, and grammarian all represent the same Greek word; of the three, I think I would use philologist. Philitas lies between Apollodorus of Athens and Dionysius Thrax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ottava Rima, for the comments. First, the issue about "grammarian":

• I expect that the "grammarian" comes from a translation of the Greek word to French, and thence to English. For example, we have Victor Hugo writing in Chapter 4 of Les Miserables (after being translated into English) "The most prominent man in Greece for fifty years was that grammarian Philetas, who was so small and so thin that he was obliged to load his shoes with lead in order not to be blown away by the wind." However, we should prefer translations directly into English, as opposed to going through a French middleman.
• In English scholarship of Philitas, the word is normallly translated as "scholar" or "critic" in this context. For example: "As far as we know, the first to whom the designation ποιητὴς ἅμα καὶ κριτικός 'poet as well as scholar' was applied was Philitas from the island of Cos in the last third of the fourth century and probably in the first two decades of the third." R. Pfeiffer (1955). "The future of studies in the field of Hellenistic poetry". The Journal of Hellenic Studies. 75: 69–73. Bing (cited in Philitas) translates the same phrase as "simultaneously a poet and a critic", but I think "critic" is in the minority here.

I plan to get to Ottava Rima's other comments soon. Eubulides (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to trouble you too much (as I like the page). John Lemprière is the Lempriere that I mentioned. I meant to say "ask" Jayvdb about it if it is not on Wikisource already. He knows how to track down online editions. The work is a 200 year old dictionary, and I use it a lot because it was a very famous and very popular dictionary of classical names (i.e. appearances of names within all surviving Greek and Latin works at the time). I'm not sure what Lempriere calls him a grammarian, thats just him. :) I can scan the page if you would like to see. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I found an 1825 English edition (improved by Anthon) on Google Books, and it didn't say anything we don't already have. I expect that the 2007 New Pauly entry, which Pmanderson pointed us at, dominates even a more-recent Lemprière edition. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I reworded the lead to mention "scholar and poet" first thing.
• I made these changes to remove the last traces of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
• I searched Google Scholar for "grammarian Philitas" and came up empty. I found one 1953 mention of "grammarian Philetas" (in Morris & Macgillivray 1953, PMID 13070000), but this is in a psychiatry research article and isn't authoritative for Philitas. It seems pretty clear that Philitas is not commonly called a "grammarian" in English now, though he was called a grammarian during the Victorian era. I guess terminology has changed?

Thanks again, Ottava Rima, for your helpful comments; hope this covers them. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by karanacs.

• This is not really encyclopedic: "Here are two of the fifty verses of Philitas that survive"

• I reworded the article to use what I hope is the more-encyclopedic phrasing "Fifty verses of Philitas survive. Here is an example fragment of two verses." Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Philitas was the first writer whose works represent the combination of qualities now regarded as Hellenistic" - it might be wise to expand on what those qualities are for those of us who are unfamiliar with Hellenistic poetry.

• Thanks, I added "variety, scholarship, and use of Homeric sources in non-epic works" to explain that. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; hope the changes have helped. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I'll give a full review later, but from what I can see at first glance, a copyedit of the comma usage is needed in my opinion. An example from the lead: He was caricatured as a frail old academic so consumed by his studies that he forgot to eat and drink. A comma is needed after "academic". Juliancolton (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I fixed that one, along with some similar problems. Another pair of eyes would be helpful. Eubulides (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. I did a bit of copyediting myself, so you might want to look over my changes to make sure I didn't mess up anything. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Question The statement in the opening para Philitas was later caricatured as a frail old academic, so consumed by his studies that he forgot to eat and drink.[4] is a fragment and out of context, not attributed to any person or period and seems so mean spirited it has to origonate from a politically motivated source. Can ye either contextualise or remove. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That caricature was about 500 years later, so I doubt whether it was political. It was a "thin-joke" (nowadays we prefer "fat-jokes" since obesity is now more of a health threat than wasting disease). Anyway, I made this change to attribute it to Athenaeus in the text. Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 5 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 00:06, 6 October 2008 [56].

---

Fanno Creek

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)

I'm nominating Fanno Creek for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Peer reviewers commenting on it in July were User:Wackymacs and User:Ealdgyth. In August, User:Ruhrfisch made many additional helpful suggestions on the article's talk page. I have addressed all of the issues raised during these reviews. More recently, User:Blathnaid reviewed the article and promoted it to GA. I took most of the photos myself, and I made the watershed map using a public-domain U.S. Census map for the base. This is the third Portland-area creek article I've brought to FAC. One of my long-term goals is to complete a set of five high-quality articles about the most important minor bodies of water in Portland. This set would complement the two big-river articles (Columbia and Willamette) largely researched and written by other editors. Finetooth (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. I will come back for a more detailed read, but I've been watching this article through its remarkable evolution, and consider it one of the better creek/watershed articles I've seen. Well done Finetooth! -Pete (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your kind words and support. I also thank User:Northwesterner1 for creating the photo map for the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for checking these here and earlier during PR. Your consistent efforts are a great help. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support (from Ruhrfisch) As noted, I reviewed this article and agree it is FA worthy. I have made a few edits to this article and have a few minor quibbles / suggestions:

• I think metric precipitation is given in millimeters (not cm), so change About 50 inches (130 cm) of precipitation ...
• Would it make sense to give the percentage of total watershed area for the two stream gages (and perhaps split the area into a separate sentence). So The average flow of the creek at the Durham station from a drainage area of 31.5 square miles (81.6 km2) is 46 cubic feet per second (1.3 m³/s). could be something like The average flow of the creek at the Durham station is 46 cubic feet per second (1.3 m³/s). This is from a drainage area of 31.5 square miles (81.6 km2), or X percent of the total Fanno Creek watershed.
• Similarly would it make sense to say what percent of the area of Portland the 7 square miles drained by this creek represents?
• This is repeated twice Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) (once in vegetation and once in parks)

Hope my comments help and congrats on a job well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply:Thank you for your kind words and support. After a bit of checking, I have changed cm to mm. Indeed mm is standard for rainfall; with snowfall, interestingly, it would be cm. I fixed the duplicate THPRD and gave the city fraction of the watershed as a percentage. The drainage sub-basin calculation was a really good idea. The city of Portland gives the total watershed as 20,259 acres (31.655 sq mi), which I rounded to 31.7 and used for the total area and the sub-basin calculations. I plan to use this kind of sub-basin calculation for assorted other creek and river articles. Ditto for mm. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Nice work and a very interesting read. Dincher (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 01:03, 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.

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 October 2008 [57].

---

Flocke

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo)

In memory of the late Thomas Dörflein, the tireless zookeeper who cared for Knut, here is another German polar bear cub for consideration. It was a DYK back in May and received GA-status in July. Flocke is sadly less noteworthy than Knut, since she is cuteness personified 2.0, but I believe the article is fairly comprehensive and fulfills the FA criteria. I will endeavor to respond to comments as quickly as possible. Thank you! María (habla conmigo) 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sources look good; links check out with the link checker tool. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Images; All the free images are fine, and with so many of them, is Image:FlockeLogo.gif really necessary? The article stating "An official logo was subsequently released by the zoo" is fine, I think; the important element is that they made a logo, not the exact design of the logo (which is all the image shows). I don't think it significantly assists reader understanding. Giggy (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Aw, I was afraid of this. I'll be sad to see it go, but I've removed it as you make a good case. María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed Knut (polar bear) contains audio, which shows how to pronounce the polar bear's name. Could the same be done for this article?

• I'd love to include something similar, but I have no idea how to create such a thing. Would someone be willing to lend their expertise? María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I poked MacGyverMagic, who made the original one. The first German speaker that comes to mind apart from him is David Fuchs, if MGM is no longer around. Giggy (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I know how to pronounce her name, so that's not the problem. I'm just slightly technologically disinclined, meaning that creating sound files goes right over my head. Would an IPA pronunciation note help in case someone cannot create an audio? María (habla conmigo) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that'd be good in the meantime. Giggy (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, added. I think it's correctly written out. María (habla conmigo) 03:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I formatted the dates to dmy since the first one I saw was formatted like that. Let me know if you'd prefer them as mdy.

• Thanks! I wanted to keep it in the European style since this is a German-related article, but I missed the caption. Nice catch.

• I can't really put my finger on it exactly, but I found the lead's first paragraph awkward, and it didn't really feel like it was talking about the most pertinent aspects of the topic. If I can think of something more specific to say I'll come back here and do so.

• Please do; I'll try to clean it up a little and we'll see if we can meet in the middle.

• "At approximately the same time, another Nuremberg female polar bear, Vilma, gave birth to what was thought to be two cubs; because zookeepers decided not to disturb the animals, enforcing a strict non-interference policy, it is not known exactly how many cubs were born to Vilma" - you could definitely trim off the last two words, as it's clear what you're referring to.

• Done.

• Ref 3 needs a publisher.

• Added.

Giggy (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If there's anything else, let me know. María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (ec) After a read-through of this article, I found very little to fault. The article is very well-written, and is comprehensive as far as I can tell. Just one comment: in the sentence, At approximately the same time, another Nuremberg female polar bear, Vilma, gave birth to what was thought to be two cubs; because zookeepers decided not to disturb the animals, enforcing a strict non-interference policy, it is not known exactly how many cubs were born to Vilma., the "to Vilma" bit is redundant. Good work overall. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Giggy made the same suggestion above, so great minds think alike? Already fixed. :) Thanks for commenting! María (habla conmigo) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note I've removed the forced thumb sizes which override user preferences (WP:IUP) jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since MOS:IMAGE says that image sizes can be forced if they "need more than the default size", I think that two images (Image:Polar bear Flocke Aquapark Tiergarten Nuremberg DE.jpg in the lead and Image:Media circus in the beginning Polar bear Flocke Aquapark Tiergarten Nuremberg DE.jpg) should remain resized. Lead images are "often resized to about 300px" (it was 250px before your edit) in order to better recognize the subject matter, and at 180px the lead image looks like a throwaway. In the case of the second image, Flocke is completely indistinguishable; there's an enclosure with a small white speck that might be a polar bear cub, which is not satisfactory. Per the guideline, image sizes may be forced if "a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image". I've resized these two images based on my understanding of this guideline, but let me know if I'm incorrect. María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable explanation, and I'm happy with the current image sizes. I shan't vote simply because I'll be away for much of October. jimfbleak (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, with request

• Do you think you can expand this statement: The zoo quickly faced harsh criticism throughout Germany and from the worldwide media for seemingly allowing the death of the cubs. to give examples of how pervasive and severe this criticism was? It may be the English translation, but "Why Won't Anyone Save the Cute Baby Knuts in Nuremberg Zoo?" doesn't seem scathing or worthy to be placed in a high caliber newspaper.
• Otherwise, support. Interesting read. Grisly about the cub-eating. Points taken off for adorability, but added for comprehensiveness ;) --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Points taken off for adorability? I would have thought that would receive bonus points, or at least a few floating pink hearts and happy sighs. I added a quote and a little more detail about the criticism that was thrown at the zoo. As for the "Baby Knuts" quote, I moved it up a bit to hopefully give it some needed context. I don't believe it was meant to be scathing, since it happened before the announcement that the cubs were goners, and Bild isn't exactly a "high caliber" paper anyway. It's cheap and trashy, but quite popular; that makes it noteworthy enough to mention, I think. Thanks for the comments, as always, Moni. María (habla conmigo) 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it thought that I supported from wanting to cuddle the article, and speak to it in high-pitched tones often heard and understood only by dolphins. We're all hard-nosed FAC reviewers here, ahem. Like that otters holding hands and swimming picture should be featured, like, every single day. --Moni3 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I shall create Kawaii-pedia, where cuteness reigns 24/7. Screenings on the mainpage will consist of repeated viewings of She and Her Cat and YouTube videos of little hamsters eating Cheerios and sneezing baby pandas. Oh, and lolcats will be mandatory in every FAC discussion. Lulz. María (habla conmigo) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God. Image:Sea_otters_holding_hands.jpg is so cute I threw up on myself a little bit. Damn all you faceless powers! Feature it! --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 'Oppose Tony (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)'—not well-written enough. Here are random examples of why:
• Please remove "also" from the lead.

• Removed.

• "Evidently" is POV, believe it or not. If there's evidence, just make the bold statement in the lead and cite it when given in a more detailed context below.

• At the time there was no concrete proof that the cubs were eaten: one day they were there, the next they weren't. There was no news released if their bodies had been found, since keepers couldn't get into the bear's cave at the time and the media (like usual) quickly moved on and didn't follow up. So, news reports at the time stated that she "apparently" or "evidently" ate the cubs. It's commonly accepted that she did, but again, I didn't want to be bold without proof of evidence. Changed to "reportedly", is that better?

• Possibly "various" is not needed. What does it add?

• Removed.

• Why is "German" linked? Who on earth is going to interrupt their reading in ignorance of what it means? Why is a large article on the German language relevant to this article?

• I thought it was fairly common practice, but it's been removed.

• I see "United Nations" linked a lot. Do we really need it?

• It was linked only twice; once in the lead and once in the corresponding section. I removed the second link.

• "in order to encourage"—spot the two redundant words. Tony (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed "in order". Will work on the rest. María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I made additional changes to the prose, and have notified Tony. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm going to have a look at this article tomorrow or Saturday and see if I can help with the prose (if it still needs work). Scartol • Tok 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay; I've done a copyedit, although it appears that Tony already removed his objection. Hope it helped anyway. Scartol • Tok 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work! Prose is polished, and article is to the point. Of course, this can't replace Knut in our hearts... ;) —Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm afraid this article fails criteria 1.b, comprehensiveness. While the text goes into detail to explain the cub's fame, it entirely neglects the fact that Flocke actually turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment for the Nuernberg Zoo. I don't know to what extent this was reported in English language media, so I can only make my point by providing examples with German news stories: The zoo expected up to 20,000 visitors per day, even built a 500-person viewing platform [58], but on the morning the zoo first displayed Flocke, only two dozen people showed up, overall about 2,000 came to see the cub on each of its first two days of display, way below the zoo's expectations [59]. The zoo blamed bad weather and the first weekend saw a considerable increase with 13,000 visitors, but even that remained below expectations [60]. In September, a spokeswoman for the zoo said Flocke helped the zoo to reach its one million's visitor two months earlier than the previous year, but the onrush to see the cub was not as big as they hoped for [61]. Jaqu (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely agree that more can be added about expectations vs. deliverance. It's hard for me to judge what the sources say because I don't speak German and Google Translate can only get me so far; I also don't think the English sources have addressed these issues. Nonetheless, I've tried to address your concerns in these edits, using a couple of your provided sources (thanks!). What do you think? María (habla conmigo) 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's definitely an improvement, though I'm not sure it's factually accurate to claim they expected 20,000 visitors the very first day - I think that's more like the peak number they expected/hoped for. One more thing that might be worth including is the fact that Flocke was only displayed in short intervals during the first week (9 to 11 am, and 1 to 4 pm), and has had a siesta until very recently [62]. Only starting on 16 Sep, Flocke spent the whole day in her outdoor enclosure, as stated here in this press release by the city of Nuremberg [63]. In that, they also give Flocke's current weight (60 kg) and her current size (130 cm standing up) and state that they expect her to still triple her weight, which possible could also be mentioned in the text. Jaqu (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the suggestions! I've added some new info, which can be seen here. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Although I'm generally wary of short articles, I feel that the comprehensive research done here has made the quality as high as it will be in the near future. Two comments: The sentence During the first week, Flocke was displayed for short intervals, but attendance by zoo patrons was initially lower than expected. feels unfinished. Is there a cause/effect relationship between the length of the display intervals and attendance? If so, maybe we need another clause at the end: "...as a result, officials increased her visibility to..." or some such.

Gah, I smooshed the wrong two sentences together. It now reads: "During the first week, Flocke was displayed for short intervals with breaks at midday. Expecting a peak of 20,000 visitors, the zoo built a viewing platform, capable of holding 500 people at a time, in front of the enclosure, but attendance by zoo patrons was initially lower than expected."

Also, in the section called Current life and future (which maybe should be slightly renamed, since it doesn't seem to have much about the bear's future?), do we still need the following sentence? Although ticket sales increased due to Flocke's popularity, the numbers did not match high expectations. Seems like it's been addressed earlier. (Perhaps this is residue from the additions mentioned earlier here in the FAC?) Scartol • Tok 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I added it because of the suggestions above, yes, but I'm not sure if it's completely redundant; the bit I quoted above addresses the initial attendance let down, but the second bit should address attendance expectations for the entire year. I've tried to reword it to reflect this. Thanks so much for the copy-edits and support! You're a gem as usual. María (habla conmigo) 00:09, 6 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 00:32, 5 October 2008 [64].

---

Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk)

Peer review: [1]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to your attention an article on the one and only railway suspension bridge, the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge! Thousands of trains trundled across it safely from 1855 to 1897. Although it no longer stands over the Niagara River, the bridge has embedded itself into North America's history!

• Unlike other suspension bridges, its first line was laid across the river by a kite!
• Engineers dissed the bridge; those who supported a railway suspension bridge even fought among themselves to build it!
• It was part of the Underground Railroad, helping slaves in United States flee to freedom in Canada.
• It was a symbol of triumph, hope, and inspiration to the United States after the Civil War.
• It launched John A. Roebling's career, which culminated with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Please look through this comprehensive illustrated article on the history of one of Canada and United States's historic structure, and evaluate if it is eligible to be featured. Thank you all! Jappalang (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Giggy

• I must say I love the nomination :-)
• The infobox image caption doesn't need to include the image credit
• Other images check out fine.
• Linkchecker gave some results that I'm not sure what to make of. Ealdgyth will probably know, if you are in the same boat as me.
• "(the bridge was built slightly away from the towns, which later expanded to the bridge)" - the towns expanded onto the bridge? Or is rewording needed?
• "it was also known as the International Suspension Bridge for its American company." - um... might be easier if you name the company
• "in the histories of the Niagara region and the two countries" - the Niagra region is part of both countries. I'd change to "in the history of the Niagara region." and leave it at that
• "and they were integrated into the Niagara Falls cities" - cut the "they", it's clear what you're referring to
• "and they were replaced" - same again

Giggy (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the credit from the infobox image. I chose not to name the American company as it would be pretty much stating "International Suspension Bridge" twice in the same sentence (repetition); instead, I rewrote the sentence. The bracketed phrase was also reworded. The bridge's role was not restricted to the Niagara region. It was a national symbol for the United States (and part of Merritt's transportation vision for Canada). Hence, it is not exact to simply state its significance for the Niagara region alone. I believe that cutting out the "they"s would result in violations of the parallel structure. Nonetheless, the sentences do seem a bit awkward as they are, and I have reworded them. I hope the concerns are addressed. Jappalang (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Note that the Buck ref is not self-published, according to the Google Books link, it appears to have been published by the Niagra Falls Suspension Bridge Company. Title Page

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have corrected Buck's publisher. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I read through this article during it's peer review and I think it meets the criteria. I cannot see any problems with the images and, apart from Ealdgyth's comment above, the sources. It is a fascinating account that is well-written and well researched. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• • Merritt's dream would lead to the creation of a man-made structure, a railway suspension bridge, that spanned the Niagara River alongside the river's acclaimed natural feature, the Niagara Falls. - unsourced
  • Roebling would, however, achieve other honors in building his Niagara Railway Suspension Bridge. - unsourced
  • As a result many slaves crossed the Suspension Bridge to freedom before the United States was engulfed in civil war. - unsourced
  • Add the name of the Suspensiob Bridge to the infobox.

Otherwise, a very well done article.Mitch32^(UP) 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The first two (Merritt's dream, Roebling's honors) are chronicled in the text that follows. In other words, Merritt dreamt of a bridge, the bridge is built. Roebling, though missed out building the first permanent bridge across the Niagara, built the first working railroad suspension bridge that was acclaimed in both engineering and social circles. The statements are summations of the information in the sources. The same goes for the slaves, though their story was told earlier before the statement. As for the infobox, it is titled "Suspension Bridge" by its common name. Jappalang (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it should still be re-sourced, in my opinion - because others may bring it up.Mitch32^(UP) 00:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have resourced for Roebling. For Merritt, I shifted the preceding source to the end of the paragraph as the same source explains his dream and the parts that comprise it (including the bridge). For the slaves, Switala served the role. Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Thanks. Problems solved.Mitch32^(UP) 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Impressive article. Other than wishing there was a map, I have one quibble; under "Engineering", the third paragraph begins:

From the United States, side, the New York and Erie Rail Road's Canandaigua and Niagara Falls Railroad and New York Central Railroad's Buffalo and Niagara Falls Railroad crossed over the bridge and reached into Ontario and Quebec.

Quebec really? It's a he** of a long way to Quebec from Niagara Falls, and there has to have been more direct crossings. There's also an extraneous comma in the first 5 words of this quote. PKT 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence pointed out, I have corrected the commas ("side" was redundant and left in on oversight). I have also removed Quebec as it would likely be indirect connections as you have pointed out. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

response to Jappalang's question on my talk page regarding a map: ideally, a map could indicate where the bridge was located over the river/gorge, and vis-a-vis the towns at the time or alternatively compared to the locations of the current towns. PKT 13:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a map—took me several hours and several uploads (darn SVG!!!), but I got one up. Jappalang (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support That's just about what I had in mind. PKT 00:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I do have a minor question about the names by which the bridge is known. I get the impression from the article Niagra Falls that the footbridge was know by the name "Niagra Suspension Bridge" and the Roebling bridge was known by the name "Niagra Falls Suspension Bridge". I've seen many references to the Roebling bridge as the "Niagara Railway Suspension Bridge". Clearly, the earlier bridge was never called that. Do you know what the most common name was for the earlier bridge? If that could be made clear in the article, it would help. What ever that name was, it should redirect to the section of this article about the earlier bridge. Overall, this is an excellent addition to the articles about bridges. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. The bridge was known by several names. The most common was simply the Suspension Bridge (a proper noun and stated in the Infobox and the first paragraph of the lead). Note though that regardless of whatever name it took, there are sources that mix up "Suspension Bridge", "Niagara Suspension Bridge" or "Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge" between this railway bridge and the Falls View Suspension Bridge (by Keefer); however, when most sources (and the accounts they quote) mention "Suspension Bridge", it is about Ellet's and Robeling's bridge. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your response has helped me understand my issue with the article and the redirects. You have equated Ellet's and Robeling's bridges. They are two separate structures, albeit closely related. I'd suggest making the differences between the bridges clearer. There have been many articles about bridges that mention the ancestor bridge(s) in the same location. Sometimes (like with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge) they eventually get divided into separate articles. That is not an inconceivable possibility with this article. It wouldn't take many changes to make it clearer that this was an earlier structure. As it is now, the 1848 bridge is mentioned in the section on Ellet. Perhaps all that is needed is to divide that section and make a heading for the 1848 bridge. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I reworded Ellet's and Roebling's section headers to include the structure. Does that help? Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 4 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 00:32, 5 October 2008 [65].

---

The Greencards

Nominator: Rootology (talk)

previous FAC (00:12, 18 July 2008)

Hi, I would like to try to renominating this. It has been up in July 2008 at the above link, and before that in June 2008. In the interim it became a Good Article. I want to try again, almost 100 edits later. Cla68 and Andreasegde have helped out on copyediting, and I think it's much better now. As far as I can tell, every criticism has been addressed. It's been physically restructured as well to have similar structures and layouts as other FAs for various bands. I was thinking of trimming back the historical information on the band members seen under The Greencards#Formation as I've replicated the material (and cut some already!) to the various subarticles for the band members and also a bit for the album articles. The history of the formation of the Greencards is a core part of the majority of the sources on the band, and a major aspect of the subject itself--three highly trained foreigners basically forming a niche supergroup that has redefined an extremely American musical style. What else does it need, from where it stands now? Thanks!! rootology (C)(T) 05:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to post this on the talk page, but saw it's at FAC so came here instead. A note on the images; if you have an image taken in (say) 2004, don't use it in the section on 2000 (the first year I saw in the Formation section). And if this means you have more images than you can fit into one section, it's OK, you still have your Commons gallery. Also, the infobox image needs a caption. Giggy (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I rotated the images around to fix this, and pulled the extraneous images. I captioned the image, too. Thanks Giggy. rootology (C)(T) 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a stack of edits to the article (copyediting, MOSing, other stuff), so please check over them! I'm popping out now but I'll take another look tomorrow. Giggy (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'll be mostly offline except spurts till Friday evening US time, myself, but will pick this up with any changes or suggestions then. Thanks again! rootology (C)(T) 06:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The reference [66] is dead. The wayback machine found [67]. Is that the right source? LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 07:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, that is the source, thank you--I updated it on the article with the archival url. rootology (C)(T) 04:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources addressed last FAC. I too note the dead link showing up with the link checker tool, otherwise looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Like I mentioned above, I fixed the issue of the dead link. rootology (C)(T) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Great to see some good music at FAC for a change! :)
• Often labeled as part of, and said to be representative of the "newgrass" movement, they draw from Irish traditional, European gypsy, rock 'n' roll, folk balladry, and Latin American musical sources. Links please. What is "European gypsy"?
• Raised in South London, McLoughlin began to perform country music shows with his family on weekends, influenced by George Jones, George Strait and Ricky Skaggs. Link Ricky Skaggs, and the others if they have articles.
• Young and Warner knew each other previously and, according to Warner, had been drawn to bluegrass and American roots music through an appreciation of George Jones and Merle Haggard. Would read more smoothly if the comma was before the "and".
• The third paragraph of the first section needs a copyedit. Seems as if every sentence starts or contains a "Before..." or an "After...".
• They named themselves The Greencards, for the fact that all three band members carried United States green cards. I don't quite like "for the fact" in this context.
• Given a noon to 3 pm time slot, they surprisingly began to fill the pub with patrons week after week, with fans there calling them the "Bluegrass Bunch". Which time zone? Also, "with" is a poor connecting word.
• Some more information in the "Movin' On (2003–2004)" section would be nice. Right now, it's the same block of text that's in the album's article.
• During the summer segment of the 2005 tour with Nelson and Dylan, Kym Warner wanted to have the opportunity to pick Dylan's brain, but never had the chance. What?
• Eamon McLoughlin is a regular blogger for Country Music Television.[2] After the Grammy Awards, he wrote about the band's experience at the event. Somewhat of a cliffhanger. What did he write?
• In the See also section, Bill Monroe, despite being the "inventor" of bluegrass, doesn't seem very relevant.

Well done article overall. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Julian, take a look now? I've fixed everything you mentioned, except expanding further (yet) the Movin' On section. That material actually was in the The Greencards first, and I'll start digging up more sources on that first album (it got the least press of all of them). And yep, their music was a wonderful find--my wife and I completely accidentally stumbled upon them attending a Paperboys show. We were very early, paid admission, and thought The Greencards were opening. Turns out, it was a totally separate show with their own openers on earlier! Pure dumb luck find. :) rootology (C)(T) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd like to see a little bit of more information for that one section, and then I'll happily support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got that section expanded out about as far as I might be able to get it for now without starting to dip into random blogs and sources that would be borderline RS for a featured article. They unfortunately didn't get a ton of widespread press until the second release of Movin' On, which came right before Weather and Water, when they sort of exploded all over. rootology (C)(T) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Maybe next time I'll see this at FAC? :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That is really tempting, since them and Bill Monroe should be FAs... after this and this... :) rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Greencards are a progressive bluegrass band that formed in Austin, Texas, and is currently based in Nashville, Tennessee." - need a consistent "is" or "are" throughout the article. Giggy (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC) A full review and a support soon, I promise.

• I got that (and I think) there aren't any others. Thanks for the help... rootology (C)(T) 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've left comments on the musical style section here. Giggy (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to expand that section by hopefully a good 1-2 paragraphs the next couple of days. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I replied on my talk to Giggy about the copyediting points he left there (I fixed them all) and have been expanding out the section further as requested. rootology (C)(T) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I helped copyedit the article and put the external links section in the web citation format. I think the article meets the FA criteria. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for all your help, Cla. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I originally read this: "...were invited to tour with Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson in the same year"" to mean that the band was invited by BD and WN separately in the same year; later saw otherwise... can move "in the same year" to an earlier position in the sentence?
• I also know what you mean by "is not as unlikely as it may seem", but I just can't find it in my heart to let that go.. it appears too WP:POV-ish, even if its idea is kinda self-evident. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's a direct take from the wording of Mario Tarradell, the author of the source I quoted McLoughlin's "it's ironic" bit from, here. Tarradell calls the idea outrageous, I used the wording unlikely. The idea of them being "foreigners" playing such an American form of music is such a major bit of all the stories about them, I didn't want to leave that off--it's like the perfect exclamation point to it all. Is that still too ORy since Tarradel basically says the same thing I did? How about this wording? It's built entirely from the literal quoting, wording, and attribution in the WFAA source, so I think that would nuke even any shade of OR. rootology (C)(T) 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support but - 1. "Movin' On (2003–2004)" section, put the sample music under the main box per MoS. 2. "Weather and Water (2005–2006)" The left music sample may seem a little odd (this is aesthetic, and not an actual problem). 3. "Viridian (from 2007)" Image should be under the main template. 4. "See also" should be integrated into the text so people can see why they should look over at the other pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done 1 and 3. Left 2 and the other 3 (should that be 4?) for Rootology to decide. Giggy (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Haha, yes, it should be a 4. :) 2 isn't important (I just wanted to mention it), but 4 might be. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Looks very good, leaning support. Some things:
  • "The band was founded in 2003 by Kym Warner and Carol Young from Australia, and Eamon McLoughlin from England, who met in Texas." - it's very awkward with all the commas, but I understand what you're trying to say. Maybe break up the nationalities into another following sentence with some extra info so it doesn't feel so tacked on?
  • "early- to mid-2009" - check WP:DASH to see if that space should be there or not.
  • "with a worldly feel" - that tells me nothing. Do you mean with a style reminiscent of world music? 'Cause I could get behind that.
  • There are places where there are little introductions and flair language which doesn't enchance the prose, ex. "Early on..." - go through and remove these redundant elements
  • "is not as outrageous as it may seem" POV language - if this is what the talking head actually said, quote it. Otherwise rephrase.
  • fix instances of passive voice, ex. "Their first performance together as a band" to "The band's first performance"
• My overall suggestion is just get another editor not acquainted with the subject to give it a rundown. It's only some minor prose issues keeping it from being brilliant, IMO.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to try to fix some of these up real quick. For the worldly bit/comment, it's from this source. The world music would be accurate, I'd think, but I'm wondering if that would be OR to say if the source didn't? Dash there sorted by just eliminating it, and take a look at the "outrageous" passage now. I reworded it again. Going back for more... rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• All thats really left is the passive voice concerns you had, and the question of OR in linking worldly to world music, from that cited quote. Let me know what you think. I got some of the frilly language you mentioned, but I can't see anymore. I'll try to clean up the passive voice tomorrow if I can, but that sort of fine tuning isn't my strong suit... rootology (C)(T) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - What makes americanahomeplace.com a reliable source? Otherwise, the sourcing for the article looks okay. --Aude (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Aude, that came up on the first FAC (but it's buried, so super easy to miss--I had to look again myself). So... "Its one of the larger radio shows for that niche genre of music (Bluegrass, and specifically the forms that this band plays, aren't big market--the fact this band got a Grammy and the press it is has is monstrous). It looks like a smaller site, but thats like comparing a smaller-town newspaper to CNN, if you're comparing this scale of the music industry to MTV News." Sorry for the copypasta from there. :) rootology (C)(T) 05:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - It makes sense that a radio show for this genre might not have as much high-traffic/audience. I'm satisfied that the sourcing is okay, with a variety of news media and other such sources. It's also good that you were able to find several good quality images for the article, with proper licensing. I also believe the article is well-written. Nice work with this article. --Aude (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 4 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 [68].

---

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 [69].

---

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 [70].

---

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. [71]

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 [72].

---

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 [73].

---

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 [74]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.[75]

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

• • Germanium is being used in the search for dark matter.[76][77]

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.[78] 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 [79].

---

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.