Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2008: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 2 |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== December 2008 == |
== December 2008 == |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maggie Gyllenhaal}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christmas 1994 nor'easter}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Niobium}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ayumi Hamasaki}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phan Dinh Phung}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phan Dinh Phung}} |
Revision as of 22:58, 6 December 2008
December 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 22:58, 6 December 2008 [1].
- Nominator(s): ThinkBlue
I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I have expanded the article and have brought it to GA status and one peer review process. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Dweller
- Maybe I'm being grizzly here, but I'm puzzled by the partial use of sourcing in the Lead. Either source all the information there, or none of it, on the basis that it's sourced in the main body. This way, it makes the information presented seem less reliable. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Her mother is from a Jewish family in New York City and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University." Unsourced. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "she worked a summer job as a waitress" To an Englishman, this comes across as less than formal language. Unsure about American English, so left it. I fixed another more definite informality. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to agree, but I'm pretty sure it's standard American usage. There's no question that it sounds sloppy (to us), but I'm hesitant to critique it, lest pride is wounded and an AE vs. BE conflict erupts.--Adasta 10:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the sentence, does it make sense? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to agree, but I'm pretty sure it's standard American usage. There's no question that it sounds sloppy (to us), but I'm hesitant to critique it, lest pride is wounded and an AE vs. BE conflict erupts.--Adasta 10:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- lacuna re her high school. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are being asked to put the name of her high school into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added school's name. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are being asked to put the name of her high school into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "break-out role" Do you mean break-through role?
Even so, it seems POV unless someone said so in RS.they did --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, "break-out" is OK - my English dictionary includes "a great success" among its meanings. We would say "breakthrough" in the UK, but perhaps break-out is a more usual Am-Eng form? Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead looks a reasonable length - could add fiancé to it. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't put the sentence you suggest into the lead. It has one "and" too many. I have restructured in the Personal life section, where I think it belongs. In the lead, I advise you limit yourself to a minimal "Since 2006 she has been engaged to actor Peter Sasgaard". Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got everything. The reason I left the references in the lead was to support the information stated there, so it wouldn't become a problem, but seeing how it was brought up, I removed them. I got your concerns,
except for the high school thing; Hardvard-Westlake was the high school Gyllenhaal graduated from. Also, would this, for the lead, ---> "In her personal life, Gyllenhaal has been in relationship with actor Peter Sasgaard and announced their engagement in 2006 and together they have a daughter", work?-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I helped peer-review this. During and after the review, a great deal of work was done to bring the article up from what was a fairly raw state to its present form. This is now, I believe, a comprehensive and well-written biography of an interesting up-and-coming star. I have just one quibble, and one caveat:
Quibble: Could a more easily-understood term than "poverty non-profit advocacies" be found, to describe what she is supporting here? This is a post-peer review addition to the text, and although I can roughly guess its meaning, I'm not sure, and other readers might be likewise confused.I removed "non-profit", don't know if it helps. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]No! - "poverty advocacies" makes no sense at all - sounds as if she is advocating poverty. The best wording I can suggest is "anti-poverty campaigns", if that describes what she was doing. But don't leave it as it is! Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Has been added and yes that's exactly the cause she helps out in. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat: My support has to be dependent on the sources being checked out as "reliable" by FA standards. I'm afraid that identifying reliable sources isn't my strong point, especially in the movie world where I know next to nothing. So I will require assurance on this point, after a sources check by Ealdgyth or another sources specialist.
I have done a little more copyediting, and have also commented on some of the points raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My support is now unqualified, as the soucees have been checked out. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks generally good. A couple of things:
- It's a bit repetitive at times. At the end of the last paragraph of the lead, three sentences start with "She..." There are similar issues with the end of the first paragraph of "2006–present" and the end of the second paragraph of "Personal life".
- The quote "Gyllenhaal humanizes her so deeply and richly, though, that" seem to set up a false contrast, because what goes before is omitted. I would use ellipsis: "richly...that".
Couldn't really find anything else. Lampman (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check and I hope I cleared the consistency issues. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, support. Lampman (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes, please fix the dab idenitifed in the dabfinder in the tool box, please review logical punctuation throughout, and there are hyphens instead of endashes in the table in Filmography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
What makes http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800360995/bio a good source for a BLP?What makes http://www.tribute.ca/newsletter/53/starchat_02.html a reliable source?What makes http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a88858/four-more-stars-join-pippa-lee.html a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the references and replaced "Digital Spy" with an Orlando Sentinel source. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Second source is to a wikipedia mirror [2] and has been for some time. Haven't looked at anything passed that. 86.44.30.20 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference has been replaced. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This oppose from an IP should be struck, as the issue raised is resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "Hardvard-Westlake" Is this correct with a hyphen or should it be a dash?
I think its with a hyphen.Sorry about that, its with a dash and has been added. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Donnie Darko is mentioned in the lead, but no mention in the main body of text.
- I added the film to the supporting roles she had. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not exactly contentious, but reference 8 seems to be a blog.
- There was no other reliable source but that one. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The second image, while it helps to break up the text, doesn't seem to add much that the infobox image already does.
- True, but removing the image might make the section a little dull. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peanut4 (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Overall, the article looks good, but I have some concerns:
- Per Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language she should probably be introduced as an actor, not an actress (though there is some debate about this)
- I disagree, why is it that articles like Reese Witherspoon and Katie Holmes have "actress". -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least in the case of Reese Witherspoon I know that the article passed FAC with the word 'actor' in it, it was changed back since then apparently. I personally don't care really, but I know that some people do.
- I know where your coming from, seeing that Angelina Jolie has "actor", unless its necessary, I'll make the switch. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least in the case of Reese Witherspoon I know that the article passed FAC with the word 'actor' in it, it was changed back since then apparently. I personally don't care really, but I know that some people do.
- I disagree, why is it that articles like Reese Witherspoon and Katie Holmes have "actress". -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the first section called "Biography"? Isn't the whole text a biography? Having just a single sub-section doesn't make much sense either, why not simply calling the first section "Early life"?- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Secretary a romance (lead) or a black comedy (career section)?- Black comedy. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised there is no information at all about her childhood, how she got interested in acting, etc. Is this really all unknown?- Yeah, the only thing that is mentioned is that she starred in her father's films and that after graduating from Columbia, she took off to London to study drama, and came back and starred in films. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of roles did she have in the three films she did with her father? Were these all brief cameo appearances? If so, it should be noted.- Yes, cameo appearances and check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her role in Donnie Darko must be discussed in more detail. There is more information about her role in the lead section than in the career section.- Question: Should the details come after the film is mentioned or say that in Donnie Darko....? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but you will probably have to break up that sentence to add something about Donnie Darko (what character she played etc.). You can't give more information in the lead than in the main body of the text. That breaks the inner logic of the article. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean: The three films that she had supporting roles, Cecil B. Demented, Donnie Darko, and 40 Days and 40 Nights, alright should I add the info. after the mention of Donnie Darko or start a new sentence in her role in the film? Hope that made sense.-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Never mind, I fixed the info. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid this creates more problems, because 40 Days and 40 Nights was not only released after Donnie Darko, but also after Secretary; it breaks chronology. I would instead keep only Cecil B. Demented and Riding in Cars with Boys in that sentence and write a short paragraph after Secretary, in which you could mention 40 Days and 40 Nights, as well as Adaptation and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, two pretty well known film that aren't in the text at all at the moment. EnemyOfTheState|talk 09:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I think that's better. But Confessions of a Dangerous Mind did not make $15m worldwide, but $33m [3], and it wasn't a critical failure, it was actually quite well received. EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I was looking at another movie and accidentally added that movie gross. So, check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I think that's better. But Confessions of a Dangerous Mind did not make $15m worldwide, but $33m [3], and it wasn't a critical failure, it was actually quite well received. EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid this creates more problems, because 40 Days and 40 Nights was not only released after Donnie Darko, but also after Secretary; it breaks chronology. I would instead keep only Cecil B. Demented and Riding in Cars with Boys in that sentence and write a short paragraph after Secretary, in which you could mention 40 Days and 40 Nights, as well as Adaptation and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, two pretty well known film that aren't in the text at all at the moment. EnemyOfTheState|talk 09:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I fixed the info. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but you will probably have to break up that sentence to add something about Donnie Darko (what character she played etc.). You can't give more information in the lead than in the main body of the text. That breaks the inner logic of the article. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Should the details come after the film is mentioned or say that in Donnie Darko....? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Her next roles were in smaller independent films such as ...". "Such as" implies there are others the text does not mention. Also, why is Criminal explained further, but not Casa de los Babys?- Will expand. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have expanded, does it read well? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will expand. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of the quoted review by Mike Straka ("I loved Gyllenhaal in this movie") should be removed. This offers no useful information for the reader and has the sole function of praising her.- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her role in World Trade Center most be explained further, especially since some of her characters in indie and tv films are mentioned a lot more prominently. Also, considering her 9/11 controversy, the film's critical and commercial success could be mentioned briefly.- Do you have a suggestion? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What character she played, that the film was generally well received and made $163m worldwide which is her second highest grossing film (I think). Maybe also what she thought about the film since she was involved in a controversy about the subject. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Info. has been added. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What character she played, that the film was generally well received and made $163m worldwide which is her second highest grossing film (I think). Maybe also what she thought about the film since she was involved in a controversy about the subject. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a suggestion? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a specific reason why she replaced Katie Holmes in Batman?- Katie Holmes turned down the role to appear in the Batman Begins sequel and Gyllenhaal was cast. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's probably nothing that needs to be mentioned.
- Yeah. Also, I read in an article that before she accepted the role, she wanted Holmes' blessing and she got the green light. Would that be important to include? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's probably nothing that needs to be mentioned.
- Katie Holmes turned down the role to appear in the Batman Begins sequel and Gyllenhaal was cast. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"setting a record worldwide, opening-weekend gross of $158,411,483 on its opening day." This makes no sense. The film made $158m on its opening weekend in North America. Not on its opening day and not worldwide.- Do you have a suggestion on how to re-write it? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like "The Dark Knight was an big financial success, setting a new opening weekend record at the North America box office. With revenue of $996m worldwide, it became the fourth highest grossing film of all time."
- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like "The Dark Knight was an big financial success, setting a new opening weekend record at the North America box office. With revenue of $996m worldwide, it became the fourth highest grossing film of all time."
- Do you have a suggestion on how to re-write it? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The career section is pretty generous towards her in general. There is not a single negative or in some way critical review quoted, and the text also fails to mention that Trust the Man was critically and financially unsuccessful and Mona Lisa Smile certainly wasn't a critical darling either.- Will add the detail regarding Trust the Man. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been added for both Mona Lisa Smile and Trust the Man. Also, every review I've read, they don't give her a bad review on her performances. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will add the detail regarding Trust the Man. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what way exactly did she "protest" against the Iraq war at the Oscars? If all she did was giving interviews, I'm not sure this sounds right.- She was asked on how she felt about the US invading Iraq. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the NY Times story, and she apparently said this at the Independent Spirit Awards, not the Oscars. Also, "spoke out against" might be more accurate?
- Fixed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the NY Times story, and she apparently said this at the Independent Spirit Awards, not the Oscars. Also, "spoke out against" might be more accurate?
- She was asked on how she felt about the US invading Iraq. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US$ is linked in Personal life, but not when it's first mentioned in the career section. I'm not sure it needs to be linked at all in an article about an American though.- Has been removed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should also remove the "US" (or add it in the career section). EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been removed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do so many (apparently) uncontroversial statements have two footnotes? How for example is her relationship with Sarsgaard proven further, if you don't use one, but two links to People.com?
- I add two references so that the information can be backed-up by two references. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is, if you already have one reliable source, you don't really need a second one. All it does is hurt readability, at least imho. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I add two references so that the information can be backed-up by two references. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversy" sections should be avoided where possible. If there is a descriptive term for the 9/11 incident without the word "controversy" it would certainly be preferable.- What do you suggest? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know, I guess you could go with a pretty obvious headline like "Comments on 9/11 attacks" or something like that.
- Replaced header. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know, I guess you could go with a pretty obvious headline like "Comments on 9/11 attacks" or something like that.
- What do you suggest? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Further reading section lists quite a few articles that hardly offer any new information about her. I think only longer, in-depth articles should be linked there. The three articles about the election (A party any prez..., The Hofstra Debate..., Celebrities encourage voter registration...) merely list her name once, and the last two links seem like random stories to me that could be found by the dozen using Google News.- Have been removed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: The infobx lists three critics awards that aren't even mentioned in the filmography. If these awards aren't significant enough to be be mentioned in the filmography, they definitly shouldn't be in the infobox.- The awards are notable and have been added to the table. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments I was asked to review this and have read it carefully. While I think it is close to FA standards, here are my pretty nitpicky concerns so far:
I would mention her daughter in the lead in connection with her realtionship with Peter Sarsgard - having a child is pretty important in someone's life.- Has been added. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know refs in the lead was mentioned above, but there is a direct quote in the lead Gyllenhaal drew criticism in 2005 for her opinion that America was "responsible in some way" for the 9/11 attacks. , and as such it needs a ref per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE- Has been re-added. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Her parents' marriage is mentioned, but not their 2008 divorce - I would think having her parents divorce after 32 years would be traumatic for all involved and would mention it either in the Early life or Personal life section.
- I think I would say something at the end of the first paragraph of Early life after Her mother is from a Jewish family in New York City and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University.[4][5] like "Gyllenhaal's parents, who married in 1977, filed for divorce in October 2008." or perhaps "Her parents filed for divorce in Octobner 2008 after 32 years of marriage."[4]
- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I would say something at the end of the first paragraph of Early life after Her mother is from a Jewish family in New York City and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University.[4][5] like "Gyllenhaal's parents, who married in 1977, filed for divorce in October 2008." or perhaps "Her parents filed for divorce in Octobner 2008 after 32 years of marriage."[4]
- There are several internal consistency issues with the article - something is done one way in one place and a different way elsewhere in the article, or the lead (summary) has more detail than the body of the article. The detail should be in the text with the lead as more of a summary.
Her mother is linked and "Naomi Foner Gyllenhaal (née Achs)" in the lead, but is unlinked and "screenwriter Naomi Achs" in the Early life section.- Linked. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the lead has her as the "older sister", Early life just has "brother" - perhaps add "younger"- Done, -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the lead says she was 15 when she made her film debut, the text just gives the year the film Waterland was made.
- Would this ---> "Gyllenhaal's first films – her feature film debut at the age of 15, Waterland (1992)", work? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems fine to me Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems fine to me Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this ---> "Gyllenhaal's first films – her feature film debut at the age of 15, Waterland (1992)", work? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least two films that are linked in the text are not linked in the Filmography section: Waterland and Homegrown. Given all of the film links elsewhere in the Filmography, they should be linked there too.- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text calls Trust the Man a 2006 film Following Happy Endings, she starred in the 2006 films Trust the Man..., but the Filmography lists it as a 2005 film.- This has been changed in the Filmography to 2006, so I struck it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could the date be given for After studying at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London,[6] she had a summer job, working as a waitress in a Massachusetts restaurant.[7] to provide context for the reader?Same thing for She made her theatrical debut in the Berkeley Repertory Theatre production of Patrick Marber's Closer,[10][11] for which she received favorable reviews.[12][13] please- There is no date available, all the sources I've read say that after she graduated from Columbia she went to London to study at the Royal Academy. Same goes with the waitress job. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, if no date is available, then that is OK Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer does have a year date. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I missed that, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no date available, all the sources I've read say that after she graduated from Columbia she went to London to study at the Royal Academy. Same goes with the waitress job. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward sentence Secretary marked the first time Gyllenhaal performed full frontal nudity on film.[22] - do you really perform nudity? Perhaps something like Secretary was Gyllenhaal's first film role which featured full frontal nudity.[22] would be better?- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be tightened up? In 2003, she co-starred with Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile.[24] In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, she revealed the reason for accepting the role of Giselle in Mona Lisa Smile was ... to something like In 2003, she co-starred with Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile in the role of Giselle.[24] In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, she revealed the reason for accepting the role was ...?- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also need a date in Gyllenhaal returned to theater in a Los Angeles production of Tony Kushner's Homebody/ Kabul as Priscilla, ... please- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some short sentences could be combined to flow better perhaps (less choppy):The film generated mostly critical reviews.[26] Manohla Dargis of the Los Angeles Times described the film as "smug and reductive".[27] could perhaps be The film generated mostly critical reviews,[26] with Manohla Dargis of the Los Angeles Times describing it as "smug and reductive".[27]- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She also recorded songs for the movie's soundtrack.[24][36] She called the role the "roughest, scariest acting ever" and said she is more natural singing on screen than acting.[36] could perhaps be She recorded songs for the movie's soundtrack,[24][36] calling the role the "roughest, scariest acting ever" and adding she is more natural singing on screen than acting.[36]- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this sentence doing in a section called "2002–2005", especially when the next section is "2006-present": Gyllenhaal was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 2006.[38]- Has been removed to the 2006 section. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should at least be "attacks on" in Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks of the same-title towers of New York City.[48][49] I also think the "same-title towers" is a bit odd - I would prefer just linking to World Trade Center (the buildings). This last is my opinion - not actionable if you prefer.
- Question: What do you mean by "attacks on"? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant either Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks on the same-title towers of New York City.[48][49] (bolded for emphasis), or perhaps Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers of New York City.[48][49] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I thought you meant something else. Sorry about that and got it. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant either Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks on the same-title towers of New York City.[48][49] (bolded for emphasis), or perhaps Gyllenhaal depicted Alison Jimeno, the wife of Port Authority officer Will Jimeno, in Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, based on the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers of New York City.[48][49] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What do you mean by "attacks on"? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid "recently", time rolls on and it won't be that recent - so She recently finished filming the comedy Farlanders, to be released in 2009,[62]... would be better as something like In late 2008 she finished filming the comedy Farlanders, to be released in 2009,[62]... perhaps.- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Controversy section, there should be areference right after the direct quotations per WP:MOSQUOTE
- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is awkward "expressed" does not seem to the right verb here She said she would have left the project if the Jimenos wanted, but Allison Jimeno expressed that she and her husband were comfortable with her and "had no problem with her in [the] movie".[101][102] maybe "expressed the opinion" or just change it to "said" or some similar verb?- Done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all done. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck all the resolved issues
- Support All of my concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [5].
- Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
Well, according to WT:FAC, some people have gotten bored with the usual nomination statements, so I'll try something new. Did you know ... that that nor'easter may have been a tropical cyclone? Considering that most reviewers won't even know the difference, let alone find it interesting, I guess I'll continue on as usual...
Since its last FAC, the article has been copyedited by a couple editors, has received helpful comments on the talk page by User:Brianboulton, and got an equally helpful check for MOS and ACCESS issues by User:SandyGeorgia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you make the Infobox damage total a little neater? Right now, it says "Damages: Several million 1994 USD", which is a tad weird. Why not just put the total you know (based on what you have already), and put the > sign ? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All references are good. I'm just a bit confused with the two sentences between the section Effects and the sub-section Southeast United States. Are they there as general effects or because there is nowhere else to put them? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, yeah. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All references are good. I'm just a bit confused with the two sentences between the section Effects and the sub-section Southeast United States. Are they there as general effects or because there is nowhere else to put them? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:19941224surfacemap.gif - Is there a way to link to the website and the downloadable file? Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that what this is? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the downloadable file. I was wondering if there was a way to link to the website and the file. (Apparently I would have to install a program to read this file.) Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok. Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I copyedited this article before FAC, and am leaning towards supporting , but I'd like a couple of issues settled first.
- The two stray sentences after the Effects heading: I'm not convinced that they are doing anything where they are. In the main text the causes of flooding appear to be rainfall rather than snow melts, and there are no other references to ice jams, so the first sentence looks redundant. The second sentence makes a general point about above-average temperatures, but this could be made in the lead. I'd consider ditching the first and transferring the second.
- Good point, fixed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead you say that damage amounted to "several million dollars". According the main text, the damage in New England alone amounted to about $18 million - that's hardly "several". And what about the damage in the other areas - why is quantification given only for New England? I would guess that total damage was probably more like $50 million, which is seriously contrary to the lead statement. Could we have a clearer summary statement estimating the total cost of the damage? Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I clarified the damage total in the lead. As for the damages in other areas, information for specific totals is only available for New England, where the storm was the worst. Thank you for your copyedits and helpful comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Those were my only concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets all criteria, since it was copy edited. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs, check the toolbox, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets the FA criteria after the reviews. iMatthew 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [6].
- Nominator(s): Stone, Nergaal (talk) & WikiProject Elements
I'm nominating this article for featured article... as a tribute to the goddess of tears? Stone and Nergaal (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: In other uses you say:"Because niobium and some niobium alloys are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic), they are used in jewelry[52] and in medical devices such as pacemakers.[53]". The next section states:"However niobium metal, without compounds, is physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic) and harmless. It is frequently used in jewelry and was tested for medical implants.[64][65]".
- Why mention in twice?
- One says it's tested for medical applications, the other says it's used. Which one is it? - Mgm|(talk) 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First: I think the first place shows reasoning of use, while the second needs to be there as the section is dedicated to health hazards. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Reduce the number of blue links. You can remove common words such as tin, country names etc.
- Mention that Connecticut is a US state. You can expect everyone to know that.
- I now a lot of people for which a full list of US states would be Florida, Texas and California.
- discovered by Charles Hatchett --> Context: --> discovered by English chemist Charles...
- do mention the nationalities of the other chemists below
- a hydrogen atmosphere --> atmosphere & hydrogen, check if it not contradicting
- most leading American commercial producers --> give an example
- the sources do not specify names. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check prose: Even after its discovery, and even after --> for the word "even"; reads colloquial
- Niobium metal crystals pushes the section heading right. Looks bad. Try right aligning it instead
- least stable ones is... --> least stable isotopes is...
- Why is niobium used in semiconductor elements?
- I am not sure what you mean (nergaal)
- The whole text does not include the word semiconductor, but it is used similar to tantalum in capacitors, because it is similar to tantalum and much cheaper. Done (Stone)
- I am not sure what you mean (nergaal)
- Since it's a scientific article, how about adding the Kelvin values?
- Celsius is scientific for reaction temperatures. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check: are used used industrially --> repetition, "industrial" as an adverb?
- Not sure what you mean (nergaal)
- Deleted industrially, because it is also in the applications section and there it is described in a better way Done (Stone)
- Not sure what you mean (nergaal)
- The element is never found as a free element but does occur in minerals. --> rewrite as positive tone
- haaa? what's wrong with it? (nergaal)
- Why is Niobium used in the steel industry? The reasons/uniqueness why Niobium is favoured over other metals should be mentioned. If it imparts strength, then move the last sentence earlier.
- Changed sentence and added why they are good and how it is done by niobium Done (Stone)
- Same as above for superalloys
- added sentence about hardening gamma" phase.--Stone (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- to cryogenic temperatures. --> add the value (−150 °C)
- Is it necessary? The next sentence sates it is at 9.2 K? But to add a temperature is no problem.
- General comment: It is frequently used in jewelry and was tested for medical implants. -- the article fails to mention "WHY?"
- are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic) was added (stone)
- 7 days --> spell 7
- Overall: Light copyedit needed to remove instances of colloquial tone
- Bring out the reasons "Why" Niobium is used in various applications
=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried a to get a few of the points.--Stone (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- all the issues without replies should be solved now. the others need some clarifications. thanks, Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Needs copyediting. I spotted a few errors while I was reading; I'll give it a second reading at some point to see if I find them again and fix them. :) The placement of the Rose photo and the crystals photo is severely wrong, at least with my browser / screen resolution / etc. A question: what were the "comments of disbelief" after the discovery? I looked up the reference and couldn't find anything I would call a comment of disbelief. I think it is better to give an exact quote rather than assessing ourselves whether the reaction was "disbelief" or not. --Itub (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be using Internet Exploder, right? I've noticed that those two images do really strange things in IE (on Windows) that I don't see on Safari (for Mac) or Firefox (for both). I'll take a look at fixing the issue later; in the meantime at least we know that this is a browser-specific problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was Firefox 2, with a window at least 1024 px wide. --Itub (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firefox 3 displays them ok. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I find Firefox 3 is fine with window 1024px wide. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I still haven't heard any reply about the "comments of disbelief". --Itub (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right! The sentence should go. Tried to find a good ref for it but failed.--Stone (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone! --Stone (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right! The sentence should go. Tried to find a good ref for it but failed.--Stone (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I still haven't heard any reply about the "comments of disbelief". --Itub (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I find Firefox 3 is fine with window 1024px wide. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firefox 3 displays them ok. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was Firefox 2, with a window at least 1024 px wide. --Itub (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Image licensing issues resolved, but I still think that the layout could be improved. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rose photo and crystals photo is causing huge amounts of white space on my display (Firefox/Linux). Let me know if you want a screenshot.
- I am using the syntax <div style="float: right; margin: 5px;">. It looks ok on firefox 3.0.4. I tweaked it a bit. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to add that code around images (I think something like that is already built into the "image" stuff). Also, I added a subst:clear at the end of the first section, so that there aren't problems with the infobox. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am using the syntax <div style="float: right; margin: 5px;">. It looks ok on firefox 3.0.4. I tweaked it a bit. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the images are on the right-hand side of the article - for the best aesthetic layout, they should be staggered per WP:MOS#Images.
- It is because there are short sections which are shorter than the height of the images. If you can make it work, go ahead and play with the arrangement of the images. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I played a bit. I also desized the images per WP:MOS#Images. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think there are too many images on the right-hand side at the end of the article, but we can't move any of them because of WP:ACCESS. I would suggest deleting one. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I played a bit. I also desized the images per WP:MOS#Images. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is because there are short sections which are shorter than the height of the images. If you can make it work, go ahead and play with the arrangement of the images. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nb-TableImage.png - This image needs a description, source, date,and author.- All info added. --mav (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be best if we could say what the "other data" is. Image descriptions should be as precise as possible. We also need a source for this information, like a chemistry textbook or something. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A reference for the position of niobium in the periodic table? Nergaal (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is we don't know who made this chart. Let's give people a reference they can check it against. Wikipedia gains its legitimacy from verification, not authorship. (Shockingly, not everyone has a handy shower curtain against which to check this image!) Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the ref and info what you can see.--Stone (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is we don't know who made this chart. Let's give people a reference they can check it against. Wikipedia gains its legitimacy from verification, not authorship. (Shockingly, not everyone has a handy shower curtain against which to check this image!) Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A reference for the position of niobium in the periodic table? Nergaal (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be best if we could say what the "other data" is. Image descriptions should be as precise as possible. We also need a source for this information, like a chemistry textbook or something. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All info added. --mav (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Charles Hatchett.jpg - This image needs a source, a date, and the original artist. There is no way to verify the PD license as of now.- Source and other info added. Date is unknown but author died in 1928, so I think that means that copyright expired in 1999. --mav (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be best if we could include a complete bibliographic citation for the source, including publication location and publisher. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- added the bibliographic citation of the journal in which this image was first reproduced. --Stone (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent - thank you.
- added the bibliographic citation of the journal in which this image was first reproduced. --Stone (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be best if we could include a complete bibliographic citation for the source, including publication location and publisher. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source and other info added. Date is unknown but author died in 1928, so I think that means that copyright expired in 1999. --mav (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Heinrich Rose.jpg - We need the artist's name in order to verify the PD license. It looks like the engraver's name is in tiny script in the bottom right-hand corner of the image. Can you read it?
- done. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like there are two William Sharps who are engravers (previously I had only known of one). I've included both of their dates, as I am not sure who did the engraving. Either way it is PD. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:2007niobium (mined).PNG - This image needs an author.
- It is probably personal work by a user who seems to have retired long ago. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We should at least try to leave a message on their talk page asking them to verify this. Then we should add such information to the page, including that it is an assumption on our part. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would Image:World Niobium Production 2006.svg be a better chart? Imade it from the BlankMap-World6,_compact.svg.--Stone (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearer provenance, yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced!--Stone (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearer provenance, yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would Image:World Niobium Production 2006.svg be a better chart? Imade it from the BlankMap-World6,_compact.svg.--Stone (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We should at least try to leave a message on their talk page asking them to verify this. Then we should add such information to the page, including that it is an assumption on our part. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:2004 Austria 25 Euro 150 Years Semmering Alpine Railway front.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the Niobium article. (See WP:NFCC for the requirements for non-free content.)
- Does it look right now? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NFCC to help you understand how to fill out this form and the concerns surrounding non-free images - do not just copy the error-ridden forms from before:
- You need a detailed description of the image.
- The source link needs to take us to the image - I'm not going to wander around the website looking for it.
- We are supposed to use low-resolution images whenever possible. You have marked this image as not being low resolution. Is it indeed high resolution? Why do we need a high resolution of this coin?
- The "purpose of use" needs to be much more specific - what is special about this element being used in coin-making? I had to go to the article to find this out. Why does the reader need to see an image of this? Why are words insufficient? Note that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
- Why is the image not replaceable?
- Who owns the copyright on this coin?
- I hope this helps you fill out the form. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've tried to do fill it in. How is it now?
- This is much better - I would add something to the "purpose of use" about the refraction creating the cool color (that is why we need to see the coin). Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've tried to do fill it in. How is it now?
- Please read WP:NFCC to help you understand how to fill out this form and the concerns surrounding non-free images - do not just copy the error-ridden forms from before:
- ←now? Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For help with images, see this dispatch on non-free images and this dispatch on free images. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Current ref 10 (the science editor... ) is lacking a last access date- added(stone)
shouldn't current ref 11 (Gupta ..) have page numbers?- pages 1-12! (stone)
- Current ref 12 ( van der Krogt...) is lacking a publisher, also what makes this a reliable source?
- Will search for another!(stone) deleted sentence and van der Krogt ref. --Stone (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE The whole sentence was deleted so the ref is no longer necessary
- Will search for another!(stone) deleted sentence and van der Krogt ref. --Stone (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't current ref 22 (Holleman...) have page numbers?
- Yes, but I have only the page numbers for the 1985 version.(stone)
- Verifiabilty really requires page numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Holleman, Arnold F. (1985). "Niob". Lehrbuch der Anorganischen Chemie (in German) (91–100 ed.). Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1075–1079. ISBN 3110075113.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) is what I have and if necessary I will substitute it for the ref which is in the article. --Stone (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- DONE now German version with page numbers, but should contain identical informations in all available languages, but will have different page numbers.
- Holleman, Arnold F. (1985). "Niob". Lehrbuch der Anorganischen Chemie (in German) (91–100 ed.). Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1075–1079. ISBN 3110075113.
- What makes http://www.jxmetals.com/sdp/316680/4/cp-1271725.html a reliable source?
- It is ONLY used to say that the metal has a bluish tint. Nergaal (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ref replaced by rubber bible ref.--Stone (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE Was replaced with a far better source the CRC Handbook
- ref replaced by rubber bible ref.--Stone (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ONLY used to say that the metal has a bluish tint. Nergaal (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't current ref 23 (Greenwood..) have page numbers?Sholdn't current ref 24 (Cardarelli...) have page numbers?Same for current ref 25 (Agulyansky..)- done (stone)
What makes http://www.superconductors.org/index.htm#top a reliable source?- Exchanged it for a better one(stone)
- DONE The source was changed to a reliable one.
- Exchanged it for a better one(stone)
- Current ref 35 (Tither..) and 36 (Dufresne..) are lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
- Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001 (stone)
- done!
- I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
- regarding reliability, see google books' entry about the book where the proceedings have been published in. Nergaal (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable!
- regarding reliability, see google books' entry about the book where the proceedings have been published in. Nergaal (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
- done!
- Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001 (stone)
- Current ref 39 (Heisterkamp...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
- Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001(stone)
- done!
- I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
- DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable! The book can be looked at in a library.
- I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
- done!
- Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001(stone)
- What makes http://www.europipe.com/files/ep_tp_43_01en.pdf a reliable source?
- They produce pipline steel, so they should know what they sell(stone)
- It is actually part of the same 2001 Proceedings, and according to google scholar is cited at least 5 times. nergaal
- I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
- DONE Is a publication in a conference (same as above) proceding and reliable!
- I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
- It is actually part of the same 2001 Proceedings, and according to google scholar is cited at least 5 times. nergaal
- They produce pipline steel, so they should know what they sell(stone)
- What makes http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/sierraleone.html a reliable source?
- DONE deleted sentence
- This the only source where you can see the coin, but reliable only in that way that the coin is real.(stone)
- Current ref 58 (Michaluk...) is lacking a publisher... also see above about this source and reliablity.
- Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001(stone);
- I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
- DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable!
- I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
- Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001(stone);
- What makes http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5254836.html a reliable source?
- I tried to solve this issue. how's now? Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE exchanged for a better one.
- I tried to solve this issue. how's now? Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to get a few but with the page numbers somebody else has to give the numbers, I have no access to the english versions.--Stone (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not questioning the conference, I'm questioning the publishing site. It appears to be self-published on the europipe site, rather than through a conference proceedings which would be a non-selfpublished source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first page of the europipe is an advertising page and the rest is the paper from the conference. It is also cited in a journal doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.06.003--Stone (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unclear on what has been done and what has been taken care of. Leaving these rest out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope every concerne was taken care of and the eplanaitions ar sufficient to understand what has been done.--
- I'm not questioning the conference, I'm questioning the publishing site. It appears to be self-published on the europipe site, rather than through a conference proceedings which would be a non-selfpublished source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to get a few but with the page numbers somebody else has to give the numbers, I have no access to the english versions.--Stone (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Weak oppose. Generally well written article, but it has some problems:1) 'History' section should mention discovery in 1940-1950s of superconductivity in niobium and its compounds. Please, write who discovered them and when. They were one of the most important discoveries of 20-th century! (see this paper)- Added info, but might need a bit of polishing. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But how about NbN, NbTi and Nb itself? Ruslik (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NbTi was discovered after Nb3Sn and its success is mentioned in the applications section. And the other two discoveries are not importent enough that they have a place in history.--Stone (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But how about NbN, NbTi and Nb itself? Ruslik (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added info, but might need a bit of polishing. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) Infobox says that there is no data on magnetic ordering. Why? As I know niobium is a paramagnetic (above critical temperature).- thanks for spotting that. Nergaal (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) It should be mentioned that lithium niobate is one of the best ferrorelectric crystals.- Lithium niobate is used extensively in mobile telephones and optical modulators, and for the manufacture of surface acoustic wave devices. mentioned in the compounds section, should it be moved to applications? --Stone (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can stay there. I meant that ferroelectricity should mentioned explicitly. Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ferroelectricity is now mentioned explicitly.(stone)
- It can stay there. I meant that ferroelectricity should mentioned explicitly. Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lithium niobate is used extensively in mobile telephones and optical modulators, and for the manufacture of surface acoustic wave devices. mentioned in the compounds section, should it be moved to applications? --Stone (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4) According to estimates, niobium is 33rd on the list of the most common elements in the Earth’s crust. But how much in ppm?- 20ppm added --Stone (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5) Article says Extensive ore reserves are located in Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, and in Russia. The two largest deposits of pyrochlore were found in the 1950s in Brazil and Canada, and both countries are still the major producers of niobium mineral concentrates. It is a bit contradictory. The first sentence says that extensive deposites occur in three countries (and probably do not occur in Brazil and Canada). However the next sentence says that the large deposits were discovered in Brazil and Canada ? Can some quantative infrormation be provided? What are reserves? How much niobium is produced every year?- The Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, and in Russia deposits are not mined yet. Numbers for the deposits are only given for Canada and Brazil. Extensive is the most specific the source gives. Production is between 39,000 and 60,000 metric tonnes in 2005 and 2006.--Stone (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does any estimate of the world reserves exist? Ruslik (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- USGS gives 2006 4,400,000 Reserves.--Stone (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can this be added to the article? Ruslik (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- numbers were added. --Stone (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- USGS gives 2006 4,400,000 Reserves.--Stone (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does any estimate of the world reserves exist? Ruslik (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, and in Russia deposits are not mined yet. Numbers for the deposits are only given for Canada and Brazil. Extensive is the most specific the source gives. Production is between 39,000 and 60,000 metric tonnes in 2005 and 2006.--Stone (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6) Article misses several important applications of niobium and its compounds. One of them is superconducting RF cavities of free electron lasers, which are made of a high purity metallic niobium. Another is superconducting bolometers that are often made of NbN (thin films).- the RF Cavity is more of laboratory curiosity than an application, but I will get the ref doi:10.1140/epjd/e2005-00308-1 and read it. The doi:10.1063/1.2769575 will take a some time for me to understand, I am only rocket scientist.--Stone (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can read this too. Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- added Superconducting Radio Frequency but could not find an application of niob bolometer except laboratory use.--Stone (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See this and this. Ruslik (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will use the Herschel one. Thank. (But still a lab application).--Stone (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Herschel bolometer use.--Stone (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will use the Herschel one. Thank. (But still a lab application).--Stone (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See this and this. Ruslik (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- added Superconducting Radio Frequency but could not find an application of niob bolometer except laboratory use.--Stone (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can read this too. Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the RF Cavity is more of laboratory curiosity than an application, but I will get the ref doi:10.1140/epjd/e2005-00308-1 and read it. The doi:10.1063/1.2769575 will take a some time for me to understand, I am only rocket scientist.--Stone (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7) HSLA steels Please, explain abbreviation at the first use.- changed to High strength low alloy steels (stone)
- I hope my review will be helpful. Ruslik (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Helpful, but a lot of work! Thanks for your time and we will try to solve all issues!--Stone (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In the following paragraph, I wonder if there is a way to combine the two mentions of "jewelry" into one?
- Because niobium and some niobium alloys are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic), they are used in jewelry[53] and in medical devices such as pacemakers.[54] Niobium treated with sodium hydroxide forms a porous layer that aids osseointegration.[55] Along with titanium, tantalum, and aluminium, niobium can also be electrically heated and anodized, resulting in a wide array of colours using a process known as reactive metal anodizing which is useful in making jewelry.[56][57]
- Also, under "Precautions" you mention again that "t is frequently used in jewelry". This seems repetitious.
- Because niobium and some niobium alloys are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic), they are used in jewelry[53] and in medical devices such as pacemakers.[54] Niobium treated with sodium hydroxide forms a porous layer that aids osseointegration.[55] Along with titanium, tantalum, and aluminium, niobium can also be electrically heated and anodized, resulting in a wide array of colours using a process known as reactive metal anodizing which is useful in making jewelry.[56][57]
—Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest simplification: unless the references are specific about the particular uses mentioned, they're (the mentions) unnecessary. Anodization can serve many purposes, and jewelry is only one use. The "reactive metal anodizing" process is a redlink, and I suspect a simple link to the general article on anodizing would be sufficient, as metals can be anodized in different ways. Without that which I suggest removing, the sentence could probably also be rephrased for greater clarity. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a well written, well referenced article that I find quite interesting. I would be happy to support it if the above problems, including the prose issues, are remedied. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also liked the stuff I learned during the upgrading of the article! We will do our best.--Stone (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- I wish you would fix the repetition of "jewelry" mentioned by me above. There was a suggestion under my comment as to how you could fix it. "jewelry" is repeated twice in the same para under "Other uses" and then again under "Precautions". If you just fixed that first para under "Other uses".
- deleted the first jewlery and mentioned the hypoalergic stuff at second apperance. (stone)
- Also this repetition is confusing: In 1864, the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac was the first to prepare the pure metal, reducing niobium chloride by heating it in an atmosphere of hydrogen.[8] In 1864, Blomstrand,[7] and in 1866, the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac,[9] proved that there were only two elements.
- deleted Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard and the pure because it was importabnt that he prepared the metal. (stone)
- Is there a reason why no date is give for this: The differences between tantalum and niobium were unequivocally demonstrated by the French chemist Henri Etienne Sainte-Claire Deville and Louis J. Troost, who determined the formulas of some of the compounds.?
- added the date 1865 (stone)
- Confusion. In the para with Confusion arose from the minimal observed differences between tantalum and niobium, is this the same confusion that the para above it is talking about? There was considerable confusion[3] over the difference between the closely-related niobium and tantalum. In 1809... or a different episode of confusion?
- right! has to be changed: will try today to fix it. --Stone (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rearranged the section and tried to make it clear that it is one Confusion .--Stone (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- right! has to be changed: will try today to fix it. --Stone (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - You have fixed my complaints and I find the article fascinating. Oh, and the links check out. Good job! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm new to FAC. At a first glance everything looks fine. I may have something more to say if I manage a more careful read. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, caps removed, please read the Wp:FAC instructions regarding template limits, and do not cap other editors' comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Review 2
(I'm very busy these days, so will probably be unable to respond to these posts in a hurry. I'm still not happy with the prose:
- however it is believed -- weasel/peacock term
- gone (stone)
- At least 32 radioisotopes -- are there more than 32?
- "Up to 2003 at least 32" (stone)
- 30 ms -- spell out first instance. Not a commonly used unit
- now 30 milliseconds (stone)# This equation does not seem balanced: 3Nb2O5 + Fe2O3 + 12Al → 6Nb + 2Fe + 3Al2O3. Shouldn't it be 3Nb2O5 + Fe2O3 + 12Al → 6Nb + 2Fe + 6Al2O3?
- right! (stone)
- The world wide production according to the United States Geological Survey increased --> wordy. Start with The United States... estimates...
- reworded (stone)
- astimated - spelling
- now "estimated" (stone)
- The images in the =applications= section are all bunched up. They should correspond to the section that they are placed in. Also, left aligned images that interfere with the sectional heading are a strict style no no
- Niobium is occasionally used --> occasionally is a redundant word.
- gone (stone)
- Niobium is being evaluated -- is being evaluated by who? When will this be completed? The words convey a sense of time
- "was evaluated.... but ta capacitors are stillpredominat" (stoen)
- Because niobium --> Replace by "As niobium". better still shift the "because of" sentence so that it appears after the information on pacemakers.
- "Niobium .. used in pacemakers, because they are" .. (stone)
- $1 billion. Mention that it is USD
- "1 billion US dollars" (stone)
- Without addition of iron oxide the same process is used for the production of niobium. --? Confusing wording. What is the "same process"?
- now insted of same process "alumothermic process" (stone)
- "To reach the grade"; "In the longer term", – copyedit required
- reworded sentence (stone)
- "the reaction small" --> comma needed after reaction
- "the reaction, small" (stone)
- "US chemical industry still refer to the metal by the original "columbium"." This statement can be also augmented by including the USGS as one of the parties. Else it would be too vague
- "USGS refer to the metal by" (stone)
- "According to estimates" -- whose estimates?
- That of the reference. (stone)
- What is a "biological role"?
- These kind of statement is present in a lot of articles like #:: " Yttrium has no known biological role, though it is found in most, if not all, organisms and tends to concentrate in the liver, kidney, spleen, lungs, and bones of humans" If necessary a sentence like is not used for biochemical processes in biological systems could be added. --Stone (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible that the columbium discovered by Hatchett was a mixture of these two elements. -- You have a source for this statement?
- will have a look --Stone (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the issues I have found. There might be more. I would be unable to give another look at the article for a while. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done a bit of c/editing. Please see my comments in Talk. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support COI - I de-stubbed this article back in 2002. I haven't said anything until now b/c I thought this article wasn't ready. But the article now minimally qualifies given all the edits and improvements since FAC started. Some areas for improvement:
- More info on the element's physical properties (we normally have a full subsection on that in element articles),
- Another para or two about the isotopes/nucleosynthesis. Right now, the only info is the basic boilerplate filler from WP:ELEMENTS
- Better lead section; more info on history (we normally name the discover in the lead)
- Mattisse put it in (stone)
- Applications section is a bit image heavy and images should never be left aligned directly below a heading.
- I am not good with images, but to delete one is no problem.(stone)
- But the bottom line is that this article is now FA quality - it just can be a bit better. --mav (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I attempted to address you comments about naming the discoverer in the lead, using referenced material from the section below. However, I reverted my additions, per complaints of SandyGeorgia below. Perhaps someone else can do this to her satisfaction, as this is not difficult, using the existing referenced information. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: the article is much better than several recent mainpagers; on the other hand, it can still be improved.
- Why was this element called columbium in the first place? It's a well-known story, and it ain't got nothing to do with doves.
- Now it states named after Columbia (stone)
- The fact that the USGS calls the element "columbium" is irrelevant given that this is a general U.S. term. Where did the "col" in coltan come from?
- The occurence section states columbite-tantalite (coltan ..' (stone)
- I'd like to see it made much more clear that niobium is used almost exclusively in high-grade structural steels, then in other structural alloys (eg, jet engines), then in superconducting alloys (very minor use, in weight terms), then the rest (the most interesting uses for a random reader).
- Should we add 90% ended up in the production of high-grade structural steel, followed by its use in superalloys --Stone (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- added 90% ended up in the production of high-grade structural steel, (stone)
- Should we add 90% ended up in the production of high-grade structural steel, followed by its use in superalloys --Stone (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't understand the presence of separate "Notes" here. They seem to be an excuse for unreferenced speculation, but even at that I wouldn't object to them being mixed with the references (following academic style in learned journals in the field). However, note 1 seems to be irrelevant given the discussion in the article text, while note 2 is incomprehensible for the lay-reader and unreferenced for the illumint@.
- Good point will look for it on the weekend.--Stone (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to get rid of that section. Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point will look for it on the weekend.--Stone (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this element called columbium in the first place? It's a well-known story, and it ain't got nothing to do with doves.
- The bottom line is that this is one of our better articles, IMHO, and that it should be allowed to develop in the normal WikiWay: if that leads it to the Main Page, so be it! Physchim62 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes, it is unclear to me if the numerous sourcing and image concerns are resolved. Also, because there are multiple and glaring prose errors in the first paragraph of the lead, I am surprised at the Supports and haven't yet read further. Please arrange a copyedit.
Niobium is similar to tantalum, and the two are difficult to distinguish. This similarity has lead to confusion over the years during process of its recognition and naming. Niobium was first discovered in columbite in 1801, by the English chemist Charles Hatchett who initially named it columbium; that mineral has since been renamed niobite. In 1846, the German chemist Heinrich Rose distinguished that niobium and tantalum were separate elements.
The citations also need to be cleaned up, sample:
Double punctuation after the author? And mixed date formats (most are ISO, but there is an occasional linked full date). Please carefully scan the citations for consistency and formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Note to SandyGeorgia - I added to the first para of the lead a few hours ago to take care of some comments above regarding the discoverers needing to be given in the lead of articles on elements. I left edit summaries asking to have more knowledgeable persons reword and correct. Everything in the lead is immediately sourced in the text below. I do not believe there are current comments regarding the adequacy of the sourcing, except for yours. However, because of your comments, I will revert my edits immediately. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- HELP!!
- {{cite web | url = http://a.a.ö | title = a | publisher = a | accessdate = 2008-09-05}} gives
- "a". a. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help) - {{cite journal | title = a | first = a | last = a | url = http://a.a.ö | accessdate = 2008-09-03| journal = a | isbn = |publisher = a | editor=a }} gives
- a, a. a (ed.). "a". A. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|url=
value (help)- Is there somethings wrong with the date format?--Stone (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe there is, as I had to remove the period at the end of some initials, so they would not show up twice as complained about above: Papp, John F.. "Niobium (Columbium)". USGS 2007 Commodity Summary. Retrieved on 2008-11-20.
- From your example above, I do not see what you are doing wrong to get different date formats! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The journal and the web is the problem. But journals should not get a accessdate and I will delete all accessdates from them if necessary.--Stone (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are right, as journals do not usually have accessdate, having the doi, pmid, or whatever instead. It is on the web that has the accessdate. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The journal and the web is the problem. But journals should not get a accessdate and I will delete all accessdates from them if necessary.--Stone (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to the Comments
About the numerous sourcing and image concerns and what is unresolved.
What I can find as unresolved:
- The not very good www.taxfreegold.co.uk reference.
- [8] ? n
- The crowded images in the applications section
- to cryogenic temperatures. --> add the value (−150 °C)
- not jet added
- current ref 22 (Holleman...) have page numbers?
- yes but I have only access to the German edition from 1985 and will substitute it by it if necessary.
- "According to estimates" -- whose estimates?
- What is a "biological role"?
- Coments of mav to improve: properties, isotopes/nucleosynthesis, lead.
- lead was expanded. n
- properties expanded but might require a bit of cleanup. n
- lead was expanded. n
- Coments of Physchim62 mention: called columbium, general U.S. term, high-grade structural steels, Notes are unreferenced speculation
- notes edited/removed. columbium solved. n
- Coments on date in references and lead by SandyGeorgia
- lead should be ok. n
--Stone (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have moved my suggested lead para to talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second request: when the lead has grammatical errors, the rest of the article is in doubt:
Niobium is similar to tantalum, and the two are difficult to distinguish. In 1801 the English chemist Charles Hatchett discovered a element similar to tantalum and named it columbium, but in 1809 the English chemist William Hyde Wollaston, wrongly concluded that columbium and tantalum were identical.
Perhaps you all can put a printable version of the text into a word processor and do a spell check, and get someone to carefully read through the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did the word processor check and the content seems to be ok. I believe that paragraph was inserted/modified/expanded fairly recently so few people got a chance to pick the a/an error. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone must have a word processor with spell check, fundamental grammatical errors should be sorted by now:
Niobium was evaluated as an cheaper alternative to tantalum in capacitors.[1], but tantalum capacitor are still predominant.
- Please secure a fresh set of eyes to go through the text (it would also be helpful, although not required, to remove all of the empty parameters from the cite templates, they chunk up the text in edit mode without adding anything). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone must have a word processor with spell check, fundamental grammatical errors should be sorted by now:
- I did the word processor check and the content seems to be ok. I believe that paragraph was inserted/modified/expanded fairly recently so few people got a chance to pick the a/an error. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one:
Along with titanium, tantalum, and aluminium, niobium can also be electrically heated and anodized, resulting in a wide array of colours using a process known as reactive metal anodizing which is useful in making jewelry,[2][3] The fact that niobium is hypoallergenic also benefits the use in jewelry.[4]
I can't promote this until you all seriously go through it, perhaps with a spell checker. Cleaning up the citations may make it easier for you all to spot these issues. For example, on medical articles, we avoid the lengthy author, coauthor, last, first parameters and all the extra punctuation by using one field: author = Biason Gomes MA, Onofre S, Juanto S, Bulhões, LO de . Much cleaner, easier to read, easier to edit around, and agrees with the citation template fromat returned by Diberri for PubMed articles, yielding consistent citations across bio/med articles; food for thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- plural ?? One of the least stable is 113Nb, with an estimated half-life of 30 millisecond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. now its 30 milliseconds --Stone (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I strongly favour the term columbiumhahaha, I always hated how they picked "niobium" when I was a kid. I am just massaging the prose. We are doing british spelling right? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, we're using British/Commonwealth English. I standardized it early on after finding "color" and "colour" close together (and then had to fix all the "color"s again a while ago). I think I've fixed most of the American English words, but I might have missed some—it's something to watch for. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've just changed gray to the British standard grey in the first para. BTW is "rare" in that para used as a technical term (as in "rare earth"), or just as a vague qualifier? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I not used as technical term only you see it not very often. --Stone (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—there are some areas where the article clearly needs improvement (for all that we've polished it quite a bit :/ ), so I'm making a list. I'll help fix these too, but to start I'll list some sentences and what is wrong with them. Some of my comments also focus on comprehensibility by people with lesser understandings of the science in the article: I phrase some of my questions as though asked by someone clueless.
- "Both tantalum and niobium react with chlorine and traces of oxygen, including atmospheric concentrations, forming two compounds: the white volatile niobium pentachloride (NbCl5) and the non-volatile niobium oxychloride (NbOCl3)." …so tantalum can form niobium pentachloride?
- right we should get rid of tantalum in this sentence.(stone)
- Better:"This confusion arose from the minimal observed differences between tantalum and niobium, additionally niobium react with chlorine and traces of oxygen, including atmospheric concentrations, forming two compounds: the white volatile niobium pentachloride (NbCl5) and the non-volatile niobium oxychloride (NbOCl3)."?(stone)
- right we should get rid of tantalum in this sentence.(stone)
- "Scientists claimed to have discovered new elements: pelopium, ilmenium and dianium, which were in fact identical to niobium or mixtures of niobium and tantalum. Other elements reported to be present included innibite." …so the scientists were claiming that imaginary elements were identical to actual elements and/or compounds? What is innibite?
- Better: "Scientists claimed to have discovered new elements: pelopium, ilmenium and dianium, later to be found identical to niobium or mixtures of niobium and tantalum."?
- innibite not the slightest clue!(stone)
- remoced half sentence Other elements reported to be present included innibite. which is a left over from copy past in the aricle.--Stone (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- innibite not the slightest clue!(stone)
- Better: "Scientists claimed to have discovered new elements: pelopium, ilmenium and dianium, later to be found identical to niobium or mixtures of niobium and tantalum."?
- "The differences between tantalum and niobium were unequivocally demonstrated in 1864 by Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand, and Henri Etienne Sainte-Claire Deville, as well as Louis J. Troost, who determined the formulas of some of the compounds in 1865 and finally by the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac, in 1866, who all proved that there were only two elements." Needs clarification: who did what to demonstrate these differences? Did any work together? At very least, the comma after "Blomstrand" is unnecessary.
- I have the publications and will extract the acchievments of the scientists.(stone)
- The experiments where published in several journals, but for the history section it would be a little to much to give all the people and all the claimed elements and why they are only mixtures of several elements. But a short overview might be:
- I have the publications and will extract the acchievments of the scientists.(stone)
- Marignac profed that there is only on oxide of niobium rendering the experiments of Rose and Hermann yielding two oxides wrong.
- All above mentioned scientists except Rose state that pelopium oxide is a mixture of tantalum oxide and niobium oxide
- Marignac finds in Kobells Dianium oxide amounts of titanium oxide big enough to render the the experiments uselss.
- Marignac and Blomstrand identify the niobium oxychloride which is neither a chloride of a new element nor a subchloride of niobium
- Deville and Troost meassured the molecular weight of niobium chloride and therefore the mw of niobium making the niobium chlorides of different scientists comparable
- "In 1961 the American physicist Eugene Kunzler and coworkers at Bell Labs discovered that niobium-tin continues to exhibit superconductivity in the presence of strong electric currents and magnetic fields, thus becoming the first known material to support the high currents and fields necessary for making useful high-power magnets and electrically powered machinery." Poor Eugene Kunzler, doomed to forever be a material for high-power magnets…
- "The abundance on Earth should be much greater, but the “missing” niobium may be located in the Earth’s core due to the metal's high density." Why should the abundance be greater? (the article doesn't mention stellar production or anything, though I think it might once have. Can we explain this more clearly please?)
- "The use of niobium alloys for superconductors and in electronic components account only for a small share of the production." Aren't we supposed to avoid vague adjectives like "small"?
- The numbers change a lot due to big projects like the LHC, but less than x% might be extractable from one of the sources.(stone)
- "Niobium is an effective microalloying element for steel. The increase in toughness and strength and the good formability and weldability of the microalloyed steel is due to improved grain refining, the retardation of recrystallization, and precipitation hardening. These effects are caused by the formation of niobium carbide and niobium nitride within the structure of the steel." From the first sentence to the second: "What increase in toughness and strength?" From the second sentence to the third: "Wait, you mean the strength increase, or the grain refining etc., or both?" This bit clearly needs to be rephrased to say that niobium allows the formation of the last-mentioned compounds, which in turn improve the characteristics mentioned, which in turn improve strength and toughness of the microalloyed steel—rather than the "backwards" form used here.
- "One example of a nickel-based niobium-containing superalloy is inconel 718, which consists of 18.6% chromium, 18.5% iron, 5% niobium, 3.1% molybdenum, 0.9% titanium, and 0.4% aluminium." Wait, it's nickel-based, but it doesn't contain nickel? What's up here?
- Nickel based means the rest: 18+18+5+3+x=100%, but it must be added.(stone)
- Better by adding "balanced by 53.5% nickel"?
- Nickel based means the rest: 18+18+5+3+x=100%, but it must be added.(stone)
- "For example, Austria produced a series of silver niobium coins starting in 2003; the colour in these coins is created by diffraction of light by a thin oxide layer produced by anodizing." What colour? I thought you just said they were silver? Or do they contain silver? Should it be "silver-niobium coins" or "silver coins with niobium 'pills'" or what? (They're silver coins with anodized niobium on the "pill" to create a colour for the "pill", as I understand it)
- right I think I had to remove the pill, because sombody complaint about it during GAN or peer reviewing.(stone)
- Better:"For example, Austria produced a series of silver coins with niobium 'pills' starting in 2003; the colour of the niobium 'pill' is created by diffraction of light by a thin oxide layer produced by anodizing."?
- right I think I had to remove the pill, because sombody complaint about it during GAN or peer reviewing.(stone)
This is a good start: let's get on it. I'll help fix these too, though listing them here should help a bit with the speed. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points, but it is late and will start tomorrow, with what is left, by the others.--Stone (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to improve some of the points here, but need a native speaker to confirme it, had some bad reaction on my last edits to the lead due to grammar problems and typos.--Stone (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article appeared at FAC with significant prose, sourcing, image and comprehensive issues. Please try to use peer review pre-FAC in the future. I remain concerned about the number of prose issues I found each time I read the article, but the article appears to be within criteria now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [9].
- Nominator(s): Ink Runner (talk)
- previous FAC (03:54, 24 September 2008)
Prose issues and a few MoS-related errors tripped up the last two candidacies, so I had someone streamline the prose. Other issues included the reliability of some sources and the number of fair-use music samples, but I believe these have been cleared up. Ink Runner (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images and sounds - Free images are appropriately marked for commons. Sound samples are appropriately marked non-free (3 might be one too many for taste, but I'd trust the judgement of the editors that all three are needed). The only image that concerns me is the cover of "I Am" - since it is non-free and duplicating the free pictures of Ayumi, I'm not sure if this is really needed on this page. I'm not convinced outright if it is or not, however. On one hand, presuming she was the primary person composing that cover as the text suggests, that would be an example of her visual art style and would be appropriate. On the other hand, I would think that the discussion of the reason the artstyle changed that way in response to 9/11 is better suited on the album's page (where the cover already is). I don't know whether there is a way to have a stronger connection to the album cover in the text (the caption throws me, the "(Note the dove)" addition feels weird), a better rationale for its use on this page, or what. --MASEM 15:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I debated adding the picture, too, and decided that the record covers are an important aspect of her artistry (as stated in the Time source), so for the article to be comprehensive, it would need at least one example. (And I am... seemed to be the best choice.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that (others may not, but...) I would explain this more in the rationale for this image on this page, to support it more, but it otherwise seems fine. --MASEM 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check. The rationale now reads "Illustrates an aspect of the artist's artistry (her artistic covers), as discussed in the article. According to a Time article, Hamasaki's covers are "an element [she] considers crucial to conveying her message" and are therefore a notable and important part of her artistry. Because covers are visual media, a picture would be the best way to illustrate this aspect of the artist's artistry." Ink Runner (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Again, I think the image is fine, but you may want to be ready if other reviews feel it is not appropriate (NFC on BLP is a very tricky subject and generally discouraged, but I think this is an appropriate exception per your reasoning and article). --MASEM 00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check. The rationale now reads "Illustrates an aspect of the artist's artistry (her artistic covers), as discussed in the article. According to a Time article, Hamasaki's covers are "an element [she] considers crucial to conveying her message" and are therefore a notable and important part of her artistry. Because covers are visual media, a picture would be the best way to illustrate this aspect of the artist's artistry." Ink Runner (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that (others may not, but...) I would explain this more in the rationale for this image on this page, to support it more, but it otherwise seems fine. --MASEM 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I debated adding the picture, too, and decided that the record covers are an important aspect of her artistry (as stated in the Time source), so for the article to be comprehensive, it would need at least one example. (And I am... seemed to be the best choice.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment on the prose. I wrote very uncomplimentary things about this article in its second FAC but decided to help it on its way. I'd like to think that the work I did on its prose in August improved it. (I didn't participate in its third FAC because I was unaware of this.) I'm not the only person to have worked on the prose, however, and Ink Runner has recently done a lot of good work on this article. As I look at the prose now I think that there are rather too many semicolons for my taste, but I also think that it's absurd to insist on the degree of polish that's required for, let's say, the corporate advertising or annual report of a criminally polluting or otherwise loathsome corporation. This is an encyclopedia, not some compilation of PR lubrication or belles lettres. While there may be occasional oddities (which reviewers shouldn't hesitate to point out or fix, the prose as a whole is easily good enough for the purpose. I'm no expert on Hamasaki -- actually I've hardly heard anything by her and have to say that what little I've heard doesn't appeal to me at all -- but the article appears to be very scrupulously done, and seems very informative while not going off the rails into trivia. I see no reason why this should not be featured, and so I'd recommend promotion. Morenoodles (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article appears to cover all the important aspects of Hamasaki's life and career. It's definitely improved from when I last looked it over in the previous FAC. --Polaron | Talk 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support This article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It has an appropriate lead, structure, and citations. The citations have been formatted and used very well since Ink Runner began working on this article a year ago. It definitely stays on topic without going into other things. Now you might think, well... this is pretty typical, considering it is Wikipedia. But many articles do need help, particularly ones on Asian stars. This article used to be NPOV, unreferenced, full of red links, and just inconsistent and confusing with the prose and references. Ink Runner has been working really hard on this article for the past year. Check the edit history; he's been slaving away at this piece of artwork everyday with at least several edits! Thus, the references and prose just kept getting better! They've improved even more than from the last time this article was nominated for FAC. I'll have to continue this as a response to my own comment, because I can't for the life of me figure out how to create a new paragraph and keep it in line. Lady★Galaxy 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, some bits seem to be missing something. It just looks like it's not linked enough, but that can't be helped because you'd have to create new pages for the links (mainly clothing lines, clubs, and companies) and that probably wouldn't meet the Wikipedian notability standards. (As well as the fact that you'd have to dig up references for those as well.) My only other concern is that this article may use too many dashes, but it doesn't make the text hard to understand. On a last note, I went ahead and linked a few things in the lead that weren't already. I really hope this article passes FAC. If not, we'll keep working on it and fix what is needed to reach that status. Hopefully. Lady★Galaxy 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments—
- Prose issues: I think this article still requires copyediting.
There are several long snakes in it—"In 1998, under the tutelage of Avex CEO Max Matsuura, she released a string of modestly selling singles that concluded with her 1999 debut album A Song for XX, which debuted atop the Oricon charts and stayed there for four weeks, establishing her popularity in Japan." and "Though she originally supported the exploitation of her popularity for commercial purposes, a 2001 event in which Avex forced her to put her greatest hits album in direct competition with Hikaru Utada's Distance made Hamasaki reconsider and eventually oppose her status as an Avex "product"." for example.
- I went through the article and fixed such snakes. Some sentences, however, were left intact so as not to sound choppy. Ink Runner (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most snakes have been eliminated, so this can be considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of" is not a good way to start a sentence (classic disapproval of starting sentences with conjunctions); this is found several times in the article.
- In those cases, "because" is a subordinating conjunction and introduces subordinating clauses. It's perfectly fine grammatically. (Starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions, such as "and", probably isn't, though.) Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, I was following an archaic myth. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, using ", as" as an explanation is not encouraged due to possible confusion when it comes to chronology.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several badly connected sentences. For example,
"When her agency representation ended, she needed somewhere to live. Hamasaki began acting and appeared in B-movies such as [...]: see the disconnection that results in a presented idea left to dangle."He persisted until the following year, when she finally signed on to the Avex label and began vocal training.": "persisted until the following year" implies failure, and yet she signs—could have been "He persisted and succeeded in the following year; she signed on to the Avex label and started vocal training." instead.
- The first example was a result of a copy-edit by karanacs, whom I believe is quite experienced at this prose thing. I streamlined it, though, so it flows more easily. As for the second example, "persisted until the following year" doesn't necessarily imply failure (at least in American English). Ink Runner (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue with the first example was not grammatical, but about the essence of it. Basically, the presented idea was "Hamasaki needed a place to live, so she started acting in B-movies." How does needing a place to live relate to acting in movies? Did she need money to rent a place? Was free accomodation given to actresses? Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence now reads "Needing somewhere to live (she had previously lived in dormitories provided by her talent agency)...". Ink Runner (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It still does not address how acting in movies give her a place to live. Instead of explaining the dependent clause (why she needed a place to live), it should be the main clause that should be explained (why acting gave her a place to live). Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a copyedit in which I removed the whole talk about her search for a "place to live". It was a bugbear in the context of the section. It was hard to form sentences around it that did not disrupt the flow. Furthermore, that sort of reason felt like a casual info (trivia). It had no impact on her career or thinking. More significantly, neither source provided talked about her housing problem in her temporary transition from singer to actress. With its removal, that sentence as an example is no longer valid. Jappalang (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of "noun plus -ing"s: e.g. "her first tour extending" and "concert celebrating"
- Fixed these. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several cases where imprecision or confusion arise. For example, "she moved to Tokyo at fourteen to pursue"—at fourteen hundred hours or years of age?
"Hamasaki's popularity and influence in music and fashion extends all over Asia;"—I sincerely doubt that includes Russia, India, Kazakstan, and Nepal, which are Asian nations.
- Two FACs ago, Tony suggested I just use "fourteen" instead of "at age fourteen" etc. for conciseness. Changed to "age fourteen", though, for clarity. As to the second sentence: according to BusinessWeek, Hamasaki has "a sizable following across Asia"; the article doesn't specify a region, like the Orient or Central Asia. The sentence now reads "Because of her constantly changing image and tight control over her artistry, Hamasaki's popularity extends across Asia; music and fashion trends she has started have spread to countries like China, Singapore, and Taiwan." Ink Runner (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source issues:
- Frankly, there seems to be a lot of primary sourcing to establish trivia (such as CM's use of Ayumi in their soft-drink commercials, Sanrio's Hello Kitty-Ayu tie up, etc), or background information (Avex-published magazines or sites for Ayumi's thoughts behind her albums). Wikipedia as a tertiary source is to primarily rely on secondary sources. Primary sources are fine if sparingly used, but that does not seem to be the case here.
- I see nothing wrong with using primary sources in the above mentioned instances. For example, it wouldn't really make a difference if Hamasaki's own thoughts were published in a primary or a secondary source. (For things like sales figures, though, Avex might "beef up" the numbers, so I don't use primary sources for sales figures, charting positions, etc.) I have replaced some of the primary sources with secondary sources, though. Ink Runner (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, there are some projects I would like to take on given the primary sources I have on them (interviews, behind-the-scenes episodes, etc) but "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Let us hear the thoughts of others. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I replaced most of the primary sources. Only nine of the sources are primary now. Ink Runner (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I would consider Drizzly Records
and Japan Airlinesto be clear primary sources since they are sourcing for events that are close to their goals (increased sales), so that makeseleventen primary sources. Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced the JAL source. I couldn't find any (reliable) non-primary sources about Hamasaki's German releases, though. (Besides, it's not being used as a source for sales figures, charting positions, or anything like that.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I would consider Drizzly Records
I am fine with the use of foreign sources, but when they are sourced for quotes, the original sentences should be given in the reference for us (the ones who can read Chinese and Japanese) to check, especially since there is no provided online source. ("independence, rebellion, and conflict juxtaposed with [...] innocence" and for being "like the contents of [...] a diary" and "reflecting [their own] changing emotions" is really controversial. A Japanese example, "cheered on girls" and "began brimming with things to say" are sourced to Vivi.) Furthermore, The breakup ("[...]") between words leads one to wonder if the article had cherry picked words to translate. If foreign sources are going to be used for quotes, please put the original sentences or online copies in the references (via the quote field or otherwise).
- Okay, the original foreign-language sources of quoted material have been put in footnotes, since that seems to work best with the kind of citations used. Ink Runner (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all the foreign-language sources have been put in footnotes. Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed out "honesty and freedom". However, on reading through, I have to raise one question. Are they all necessary? The quoting, could not some of them be rephrased or left without quotation marks? After all, one is already translating them from one language that conveys multiple meanings per word and situation to another. One usually quotes when a specific unique phrase and context cannot be rephrased without losing the feel of the original sentence. "Expressing determination", "something good", "relay the atmosphere", etc. Should such phrases be unique? Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I use the quotation marks to distinguish that they're Hamasaki's own words, not my own or those of the magazine etc. Hamasaki's lyrics and explanations of her albums' themes and such are very vague, so I thought that rather than try to "interpret" them, for the sake of being objective I should put her own words (and mark them as such). I de-quoted (is that a word?) the phrases not open to a lot of interpretation, though. Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sweetboxみたいな曲" is more "Sweetbox-like tune/music" than "song". Generally, a song comprise of music and words. It seems Ayumi was looking to modify an old tune to accompany new lyrics. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken; fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"世界共通語" is a global common language, but on its own, there is no connection to English, which is what the sentence is making a claim to. What does the source say about English in relation to this (the original Japanese sentences supplied also seem to be lacking a relationship to English)? Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be several mix-ups between the normal tsu ("つ") and the small tsu (っ) in the quotes provided... Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, my word processor doesn't output sokuons. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that there are curly and straight quotation marks used in the article. "“Free & Easy”, “Voyage”, and “H”" are curlies for example. WP:MOS states to be consistent in usage and recommends straight quotes.Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am going through the article and checking the quotes, this can be stricken. Jappalang (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, her album A Best 2 -White- became the best-selling Japanese or Korean album of the year in Taiwan."—this is sourced to a music online shop. It is not clear whether the shop is referring to its best selling album or for the country. If it is a national seller, surely a publication would have listed it. I hope that this is an isolated incident and not the norm for other primary sources and sales ranking.
- Removed the sentence. All other charting positions use Oricon as the source, so there shouldn't be any other such problems. Ink Runner (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references are inconsistently formatted and missing several pieces of information. Authors for newspaper pieces are absent. Such articles definitely have authors or are sourced to noted news agencies, and their reference should state them. Magazine articles, especially those that belong to established magazines, would list their authors and again, their reference should state them. Published references also seem to be missing page numbers or ISSN numbers. Publisher information also seems to be missing from some references.
- Most of the inconsistent formatting/missing publisher information is in the Oricon references; fixed these instances. Also, here in America (or at least in Sacramento, CA), the ISSN numbers are blanked out from the copies I have. Added page nos. and authors; however, some sources (like Oricon Style) don't list authors. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are references that use "p. " for page prefix, while others use "pg." and "pgs.". What about authors for the newspaper articles? For quoting, several cite templates allow the use of the "quote =" parameter. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are consistent now; they use "p." for a single page, "pp." for multiple pages. I'll add the authors to the newspaper articles, and put the original text from magazines in footnotes. Also, Sin Chew doesn't list a person as an author, just "Sin Chew Interactive" (星洲互動); and The Straits Times just lists the news agency. Ink Runner (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sin Chew's reference is written in "raw" (i.e. without using a template), which I think would not be a big issue, but would be nicer to standardize with the others. The Straits Times's "J-pop Divas Fight It Out", however, is also written out in raw and lacks an author or news agency. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Tokyograph[10][11] used in the article again after it was deemed unreliable per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ayumi Hamasaki/archive2? Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah, totally overlooked them. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Electric New Paper (Miharu Chang's "Ayumi Spells Big Bucks") is not a newspaper. It is an online version of The New Paper. As such, the source indicates that there should be a site that hosts the article for verification. Where is it? Jappalang (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Another thing I missed. XP Ink Runner (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible conflict of interest—Lady Galaxy is the second most prolific current contributor to this article.
- I don't think there is a conflict of interest, since she isn't really a "regular" contributor, nor does she do much more than minor spelling- or punctuation-related stuff. Ink Runner (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed—after looking through her recent 50 edits, it seems that way. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {
- Well, the Japan Times (one of the sources cited) says that she is compared to Madonna so often that "she's probably converted to Kabala [sic]." Ink Runner (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments — not wishing to keep splicing in new things above, I start this section for additional issues as I go through the text.
- Lead
- "Because of her constantly changing image and tight control over her artistry, Hamasaki's popularity extends across Asia;"
- This does not seem to be related... i.e. would a constantly changing image lead to her popularity's spread across a continent? It would be best to relate how her frequent makeovers made her popular with fans and how it extends across several countries. Now, what does "tight control over her artistry" mean, and how does it lead to popularity or extent of her influence? There seems to be an attempt to combine two ideas, two separate complete sentences—one that talks of her popularity, and one of the extent of her geographical sphere of influence (popularity)—into one sentence that proves to be puzzling to me.
- Well, first, CNN makes the relation. Second, I can see how her constantly changing image would lead to her popularity in Asia: she stayed popular in Japan by constantly reinventing her image, like Madonna, and Japan influences many other countries in fashion etc... (especially here in the U.S., we have a lot of people who take fashion cues etc. from Japan.) But this is only speculation: the source says that the two are related, but not how, and I don't want to violate WP:NOR. Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamasaki is one of Japan's best-selling singers. She is the Japanese female artist [...] She is also the only Japanese female artist ..."
- This seems repetitive, and it could have been avoided by establishing an encompassing context at the start such that following statements would be in respect to her achievements in Japan. See the sales achievements in the leads of Whitney Houston and Madonna for comparison.
- Removed redundant "Japanese" in paragraph. Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave a copyedit to remove the repetitive sentence structure. Hopefully, it is good (improvements are welcome), so the issue can be considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed redundant "Japanese" in paragraph. Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Childhood and early endeavors
"Hamasaki was born in Fukuoka Prefecture and raised by her mother and grandmother, because her father had left the family when she was three and never again came into contact with her."
- I pointed only two snakes above as an example. This is another.
- It could be rendered as, "Born in Fukuoka Prefecture, Hamasaki was raised by her mother and grandmother. Her father had left the family when she was three, never again coming into contact with her."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"to earn money for the family"
- Suggestion: "to supplement the family's income."
- You're right, some might construe the sentence to mean that Hamasaki was the sole wage-earner. Changed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Although she originally earned good grades, she eventually decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically."
- This sentence, as it is, interrupts the two adjoining sentences that dealt with Ayu's modeling career. It seems to have no relation to either. It could be developed on its own. In the Japanese education system, it is compulsory for children to attend schooling until they finished lower secondary school, at which point they would be 14 or 15 years old... (see the idea I am getting at here?) So this sentence could be part of potential information that deals with Ayu's schooling history. Did she stop schooling after lower secondary (later text states she briefly entered a vocational school for arts)? What are her thoughts on education now (especially in regards to tertiary)? If no sources for these are available, it is advisable to reshape this sentence to some form that fits better into the section. I think the problem is that the subsection is taking on a strict proseline structure that limits the flexibility and structure of the ideas to be presented.
- How about something like this:
- "At age seven, Hamasaki began modeling for local institutions, such as banks, to supplement the family's income. At age fourteen, she moved from Fukuoka to Tokyo to take modeling jobs under SOS, a talent agency. Her modeling career did not last long; SOS deemed her too short and transferred her to Sun Music, a musicians' agency. As "Ayumi", Hamasaki released a rap album, Nothing from Nothing, on the Nippon Columbia label. When this failed to chart on the Oricon, the label dropped her. Hamasaki then took up acting and starred in B-movies such as Ladys Ladys!! Soucho Saigo no Hi and television dorama like Miseinen, which were poorly received by the public. Dissatisfied with her job, Hamasaki soon quit acting and moved in with her mother, who had recently moved to Tokyo.
- Hamasaki had earned good grades through junior high school; however, after taking up modeling, she decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically. After moving to Tokyo, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts. After quitting her job and school, Hamasaki spent much of her time shopping at Shibuya boutiques and dancing at Velfarre, an Avex-owned disco club." Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is good, but there are a few prose issues in the new second paragraph. With "after"s at the start of three consecutive sentences (discounting the "however"), the structure has become repetitive (underlined). Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like this, then?
- "Although Hamasaki had earned good grades through junior high school, she eventually decided that the subjects she was studying were of no use to her and her grades dropped drastically. While living in Tokyo, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts. After quitting her job and school, Hamasaki spent much of her time shopping at Shibuya boutiques and dancing at Velfarre, an Avex-owned disco club." Ink Runner (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I copyedited the section, so I have to consider this resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is good, but there are a few prose issues in the new second paragraph. With "after"s at the start of three consecutive sentences (discounting the "however"), the structure has become repetitive (underlined). Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"At this time, she briefly entered Horikoshi Gakuen, a high school for the arts."
- This presents the same issue as above.
"The writing in her messages to him from New York impressed him, and he suggested she try writing her own lyrics."
- Suggestion: "The producer was impressed by Hamasaki's style of her writing in their correspondences, prompting him to suggest that she try her hand at writing her own lyrics."
- Changed to "He was impressed by Hamasaki's style of writing in their correspondences, prompting him to suggest that she try writing her own lyrics." Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1998–1999: Rising popularity
"was "unassuming": its singles [...] were not major hits"
- Well... instead of dwelling on the negatives all the time, how about a few proactive sentences!
- Suggestion: "was "unassuming": its singles [...] failed to break into the Top 10." Heh...
- Well, some of the singles did break into the Top 10; however they weren't considered "major" hits because their sales weren't that great (in Japan, it's considerably easier to score a high chart position than in the U.S., and high sales don't always mean high charting positions and vice-versa.) Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry. I misread the Time source. As it is, her first two did not hit the Top 10, and her subsequent four only squeaked in... Can we say that they "failed to break into the Top 5." The Times did not talk about the sales of the singles, so "hits" should be considered on the chart position. Let me mull over this a bit... Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, "major hits" covers probably is good enough... Jappalang (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some of the singles did break into the Top 10; however they weren't considered "major" hits because their sales weren't that great (in Japan, it's considerably easier to score a high chart position than in the U.S., and high sales don't always mean high charting positions and vice-versa.) Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"were "cautious" and "unassuming" pop-rock songs."
- Repetitive use of "unassuming"?
- Removed the redundant "unassuming". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, Hamasaki's lyrics, introspective observations about her feelings and experiences that focused on loneliness and individualism, resonated with the Japanese public."
- Suggestion: "However, Hamasaki's lyrics, filled with introspective observations about her feelings and experiences that focused on loneliness and individualism, resonated with the Japanese public."
- All of her lyrics (according to the source) were "introspective observations" etc., so I don't see the need for "filled". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on re-reading. Jappalang (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of her lyrics (according to the source) were "introspective observations" etc., so I don't see the need for "filled". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, the album made her a success:"
- Strange part here... the singles were failures, but the album a success?
- Suggestion: "The songs had gained Hamasaki a following that was growing, and the release of the songs as an album was a success:" This would necessitate the change of "she" in the following sentence to "Hamasaki".
- All right. Changed to "The songs gained Hamasaki a growing following, and the release of the album was a success". Ink Runner (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the singles released later that year were dance tunes and earned Hamasaki her first number-one single and first million-selling single."
- The referred source (RIAJ) listed only Loveappears and "A" (mistakenly) in the million-seller album list. According to her singles articles on Wikipedia, "A" is not her first number-one nor million-selling single. It is supposedly "Boys & Girls". Which is it? Jappalang (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Boys & Girls" is her first million-seller, but I don't state that because WP is about verifiability, not truth, and the RIAJ doesn't list B&G. Oricon, does, however, list B&G as a million-seller (in a list of Hamasaki's singles by sales, B&G is listed higher than "H", which sold a million), but Oricon's list of Hamasaki's albums lists Guilty as having sold more than (Miss)understood, so the source might be seen as inaccurate. ("Love ~Destiny~" is her first number-one; I included the source.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand our policy on verification. My concern is that the RIAJ source does not state Loveappears or "A" as her first number-one or million-seller (when the sentence is talking about that). The added Time reference only states "Love Destiny" as her first number one song and no mention of her first million-seller. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I include the list of RIAJ million-sellers of 1998 then, to verify that she had no million-sellers before 1999? Ink Runner (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first million-seller, I think it will be clearer to cite it to a footnote where the the two sources (RIAJ charts) are linked and explained. Jappalang (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ink Runner (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a nice footnote referencing scheme. Jappalang (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ink Runner (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first million-seller, I think it will be clearer to cite it to a footnote where the the two sources (RIAJ charts) are linked and explained. Jappalang (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I include the list of RIAJ million-sellers of 1998 then, to verify that she had no million-sellers before 1999? Ink Runner (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand our policy on verification. My concern is that the RIAJ source does not state Loveappears or "A" as her first number-one or million-seller (when the sentence is talking about that). The added Time reference only states "Love Destiny" as her first number one song and no mention of her first million-seller. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Boys & Girls" is her first million-seller, but I don't state that because WP is about verifiability, not truth, and the RIAJ doesn't list B&G. Oricon, does, however, list B&G as a million-seller (in a list of Hamasaki's singles by sales, B&G is listed higher than "H", which sold a million), but Oricon's list of Hamasaki's albums lists Guilty as having sold more than (Miss)understood, so the source might be seen as inaccurate. ("Love ~Destiny~" is her first number-one; I included the source.) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2000–2002: Commercial peak
- "and a sense of shame of her public image."
- This sentence leaves the reader dangling. Why should she feel ashamed of her public image? Saying that the song focused on hopelessness is one thing (especially when such themes were mentioned earlier), and adding on that it was reflecting her disappointment that she failed to express herself is pretty fine. However, suddenly we are told she was ashamed over her image? This was not hinted at earlier, and not explained in this paragraph either.
- "the burden of her responsibilities."
- Less sudden than the previous examples, but still sudden on what responsibilites weigh on her? One could expect that she is expected to support her family, but recalling that the earlier example was about public image, was there some social pressure for her to be a role model? Again, it is not very clear here, and could be duplicative with the previous issue. Take care when addressing these issues.
- Hamasaki never really explained that. Like I said, Hamasaki is often vague in her lyrics/discussions about themes of her albums, and I just write down whatever she said so the reader can interpret for him/herself. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "in contrast with Loveppears, Duty was a rock-influenced album with "Audience" the only dance song."
Something niggled at me here.... I would say it is the sentence structure placing the song title up front... That could imply "Audience" was a common song between both albums.- Suggestion: "in contrast with Loveppears, Duty was a rock-influenced album that had only one dance song, "Audience"."
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller); the album itself became Hamasaki's best-selling studio album."
- The semi-colon is unneeded, redundant "itself", and a slight repetition of album
- Suggestion: "the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller), and the album became Hamasaki's best-selling collection of original songs."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still heavily proseline here, and the nature of the article here is strained with mentions of her personal relationships. Could these not be moved in the "Image" or "Other activities" section?
- Okay, I've moved the personal life stuff to "Other activities". Ink Runner (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In an effort to have increased control over her music,"
- Suggestion: "In an effort to have greater control over her music,"
On a related note... "The lead single, "M", was the first of the many tracks from the album that she composed herself, under the pseudonym "Crea". In an effort to have increased control over her music, Hamasaki composed all of the songs on I am... except for "Connected"(April 2003) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001)."
- Paraphrasing... "Hamasaki, as "Crea", composed many tracks on I am.... Hamasaki composed all the songs on I am... except two songs to have greater control over her music." See the redundant idea here?
- Suggestion: "She exerted greater control over her music by composing all the songs on I am..., under the pseudonum "Crea"; "Connected"(April 2003) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001) were the exceptions."
- Changed to "Hamasaki increased her control over her music by composing all of the songs on the album under the pseudonym "Crea"; "Connected" (November 2002) and "A Song Is Born" (December 2001) were the exceptions." Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I am... also showed evolution in Hamasaki's lyrical style: it was a retreat from the themes of "loneliness and confusion" of some of her earlier songs."
- Suggestion: "Her lyrical style had evolved in this album: she retreated the themes of "loneliness and confusion" to explore concerns that do not focus on oneself."
- Well, even though her lyrics took on more "worldly" themes, they didn't necessarily stop focusing on herself (for example, "Dearest" focused on herself.) And in Loveppears, the themes were more "loneliness and confusion"-ish , but she focused on other people in songs like "Appears". Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It was clear that Hamasaki's status as a trendsetter extended outside Japan as well: at the ceremony, she received the award for "Most Influential Japanese Singer in Asia"."
- Let us calm down and be less celebratory of her status.
- Suggestion: "At the ceremony, she was acknowledged for influencing fashion trends outside of Japan, receiving the award for "Most Influential Japanese Singer in Asia"."
- Well, I'm not sure the award was only for influencing fashion trends. I mean, though it was very likely she received the award for doing so, the article doesn't explicitly state that, and the award was for Most Influential Singer. Yes, it should probably be "toned down", though. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the latter was her first tour held in outdoor venues."
- Is this a very significant achievement?
- Not really, I guess. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In November 2002, as "Ayu", she released her first European single, "Connected", a trance song from I am... composed by DJ Ferry Corsten."
- Thus, I am confused (interestingly I missed this in the earlier part)..., how is a 2003 song part of a 2002 album? It deserves an explanation.
- Gah, I accidentally put April 2003 as the release date for "Connected". It should be November 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still puzzled over how a song released in November can be part of an album released in January... Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not all that common in Japan, but here in the U.S., recut singles are quite common. Usually, a lead single is released prior to the album, then recut singles are released after the album, like how Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body" was the lead single from E=MC2, then "I'll Be Lovin U Long Time" was released afterward. (A recut single is a single released after an album but whose A-side is a song from the album.) So "Connected" was a recut single. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still puzzled over how a song released in November can be part of an album released in January... Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah, I accidentally put April 2003 as the release date for "Connected". It should be November 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A short movie starring Hamasaki, Tsuki ni Shizumu, was created to be the video for "Voyage"."
- Get rid of the "noun plus -ing" construct and tweaked to start with an active voice.
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki starred in a short movie, Tsuki ni Shizumu, which was created to be the video for "Voyage"."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As part of the promotion for Rainbow, those who bought the album online could access a password-protected website that had a part of the instrumental version of the title track, which did not appear on the album. It later appeared on Hamasaki's 2003 ballad compilation/remix album A Ballads."
- How much of this is related to Hamasaki herself instead of the album? In other words, did Ayumi had any part to do with this or did it have a significant impact on her image or person? If not, why should it be here?
- Well, I guess it doesn't really have much to do with her image or person. I guess it reflects more on the state of the Japanese music market at the time: sales were starting to decrease (Hamasaki's single "H" was the only million-seller in 2002, and Rainbow was her first album since ASFXX not to break the 2 million mark) and I guess Avex felt it necessary to launch the promotional campaign. Removed since it does look kind of incongruous. Ink Runner (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2003–2006: Decline in sales
"Her mini-album Memorial Address (December 2003) was her first album to be released in CD+DVD format in addition to the regular CD-only format, a decision that came from her increased interest in the direction of her music videos and wish to "relay the atmosphere" of the A Museum concert."
- The quoted phrase "relay the atmosphere" is not really in the original sentence... Basically, the sentence states: "she started to get interested in audio-visuals (videos) and actively watched the works of various supervisors. In that year, Ayumi and her supervisors produced those 3 videos, which they showed to the producer. The producer then suggested to release the album in the CD+DVD format. In accepting his comment, Ayumi thought the feelings she had over the charm and potential held by that year's videos can be reflected in the form of the 7 PVs and a digested form of Amuseum recorded on DVD."
- Removed the quote. Ink Runner (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Memorial Address topped the Oricon chart and became a million-seller."
- Reduce the "become"s. Suggestion: "Memorial Address topped the Oricon chart, selling more than a million copies."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "rather, she simply wrote freely and honestly."
- Suggestion: "instead, she wrote her songs according to her desires, uninfluenced by worldly concerns."
- Again, I don't want to put words in her mouth; she didn't say anything about "worldly concerns" so I think it best not to assume anything. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She approached the composition of the music with the same freedom that she kept in mind while writing the lyrics. Because she liked rock music, the album had notable rock overtones."
- These two sentences can be moved in front of "She was so pleased with the result that she declared My Story the first album she felt satisfied with."; the first sentence can then be copyedited to reduce the redundancy ("same freedom per the lyrics").
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"her first tour based on an album."
- Suggestion: "her first album-based tour."
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wanting to sing a tune like those of Sweetbox"
- Better to strap a descriptive to Sweetbox, e.g. group, singer, whatever.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Though (Miss)understood also reached the top of the Oricon, it became Hamasaki's first studio album not to sell a million copies."
- Reduce the "become"s. Suggestion (taking into account the issue below): "Although (Miss)understood reached the top of the Oricon, the music chart company stated that it sold less than a million copies—the first of Hamasaki's studio albums to do so."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and "cheered on girls""
- I believe the original phrase was more of a noun than a verb; thus, quoting should remain a noun, unless it is rephrased...
- Suggestion: "and were composed to encourage female listeners."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Secret was her first original studio album not to become an RIAJ-certified million-seller"
- It is sudden to introduce a RIAJ qualifier here to the "million-seller" term. It calls into question all the previous million-seller terms. Although there was a footnote at (Miss)understood to explain there were two ranking bodies, the situation is unanimous here between the two bodies. Hence, it should have been clarified at the earlier sentence that only one body considered (Miss)understood to be a million-seller.
- In addition to the change for (Miss)understood above, change this to, "Secret failed to sell a million copies, according to both Oricon and RIAJ."
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007–present: Foray into Asia
I failed to spot this earlier, but why are the titles of tours in italics?
- The MoS doesn't specifically say to put them in italics, but it does say to put things like orchestral works and plays in italics; it also doesn't say not to italicize them, so... Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think a tour should not be in italics. It is the same performance (entitled to italics) that takes place in different locations. It is not a whole artistic workpiece, but a repetition of one. (Note: a media that covers a tour would be in italics.) FA Celine Dion's also has tour titles not in italics. However, as the MOS has nothing to cover this, it is not an issue. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She performed not only in Japan but also in Taipei, Shanghai, and Hong Kong, making Tour of Secret her first tour with stops outside Japan."
- Suggestion: "It was her first international tour, and aside from Japan, she performed in Taipei, Shanghai, and Hong Kong."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, the concerts became highly anticipated, and tickets for the one in Taipei sold out in two hours; tickets for her Hong Kong concert sold out in three hours."
- Suggestion: "Her foreign fanbase highly anticipated the concerts, and tickets for the Taipei and Hong Kong performances sold out in less than three hours."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unlike its predecessors, the writing of Hamasaki's ninth studio album, Guilty (January 2008), was not an emotional experience for her, nor did it have a set theme."
- Suggestion: "Unlike her previous works, Hamasaki had less of an emotional experience in writing Guilty (January 2008), her ninth studio album. Neither did she set a theme for the album."
"With first-week sales of around 432,000 copies, Guilty peaked at the number-two position on the weekly Oricon charts, making it Hamasaki's first studio album not to reach the top."
- Suggestion: "Selling 432,000 copies in its first week of release, Guilty peaked at the number-two spot on the weekly Oricon charts; it was Hamasaki's first studio album that failed to reach the top."
- Since other sections don't mention the first-week sales of albums, and the number isn't all that important, I just removed the "Selling 432,000..." part. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The portion of the tour held in Japan spanned seventeen concerts and lasted from April until June;[15] the stops outside Japan were again held in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai."
- Suggestion: "From April till June, she toured Japan, holding seventeen concerts. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai were again the foreign stops after the domestic performances."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamasaki's forty-third single, "Mirrorcle World", was released on April 8, 2008."
- Suggestion: "On April 8, 2008, Hamasaki released her forty-third single, "Mirrorcle World"."
- Because "Mirrorcle World" ("the single") is the subject/theme of the next sentence, for parallelity, I made it the subject/theme of that sentence. If that's just an American quirk, I'll change it to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your changes are good as well, so I will strike this suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "Mirrorcle World" ("the single") is the subject/theme of the next sentence, for parallelity, I made it the subject/theme of that sentence. If that's just an American quirk, I'll change it to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"To commemorate her tenth anniversary in the music industry, the single was released in two versions, the second B-side containing a remix of either "You" or "Depend on You"."
- This sentence is not gramatically appealing to me (possible dangling modifier and declaration of two versions but detailing only one). Furthermore, I question the significance of its role in the tenth anniversary commemoration. Would it hurt the article if this sentence was taken out?
- Probably not. 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Image and artistry
"Though her first tour with stops outside Japan did not take place until 2007, Hamasaki has been moving towards an Asian market since 2002"
- Suggestion: "Although Hamasaki did not hold concerts outside of Japan until 2007, she had set her sights on the Asian market since 2002"
- Well, her performances at the MTV Asia awards etc. are considered concerts. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh, she has performed at concerts outside Japan then, but she did not hold concerts outside Japan at that time. (Semantics!) Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fie on semantics. ...Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh, she has performed at concerts outside Japan then, but she did not hold concerts outside Japan at that time. (Semantics!) Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, her performances at the MTV Asia awards etc. are considered concerts. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"in addition to performing at the MTV Asia awards, she performed at South Korea's first joint performance among Asian singers and at a concert to celebrate Sino-Japanese relations."
- Overuse of "perform" in various forms.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Style and influence
"She also admires Michelle Branch, Kid Rock, Joan Osborne, Seiko Matsuda, Rie Miyazawa, and Keiko Yamada;"
- I fail to see Michelle Branch, Kid Rock, and Joan Osborne in the reference given (her profile at Avex).
- Whoops. Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "these diverse influences have led to the variety of her own music."
- Suggestion: "the diversity of her taste in music has lent itself to her own compositions."
"She has employed Western as well as Japanese musicians; among those she has worked with are DJs Armin van Buuren, Jonathan Peters, Junior Vasquez, Above & Beyond, and Ferry Corsten; the Lamoureux Orchestra of France; and traditional Chinese music ensemble Princess China Music Orchestra."
- Bad usage of semi-colons. On another note, are we to name every DJ who has ever worked with her? I can understand the French and Chinese orchestras (to show a diversity of cultural music), but what do the DJs give as told here? Just prop up the DJs who had significant influences on her music.
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, I do not see any changes to this effect... Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, that's funny. Fixed now. Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, I do not see any changes to this effect... Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Having released over 100 songs (not including remixes), Hamasaki's musical style has changed over time; her music spans styles including dance, metal, R&B, progressive rock, pop, and classical."
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki has released more than a hundred original songs; through them, she has covered a wide range of musical styles, such as dance, metal, R&B, progressive rock, pop, and classical."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, when writing "M", none of the melodies composed by her staff appealed to her, and she decided to compose."
- Suggestion: "However, she started to compose her own melodies after her staff had failed to compose a tune for "M" that appealed to her."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Thinking that this let her get closer to what she had in mind, Hamasaki continued, most notably in her album I am..., mostly her own work; furthermore, she took control of nearly every aspect of her artistry for the same reasons."
- Suggestion: "Wanting to produce works faithful to her visions, Hamasaki took control of most aspects of her artistry. I am... is representative of this stage in Ayumi's career; its songs and videos were mostly produced under Hamasaki's direction."
- Changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Later on in her career, however, she began delegating many of the tasks she had come to handle, including composition, to her staff."
- Suggestion: "Later in her career, however, she started to delegate many tasks, including composition, back to her staff."
- Huh, that wasn't my original sentence...must be a result of a ce. Changed. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamasaki is often involved in the artistic direction of her live performances; as a result, they are often lavish productions that use a variety of props, extravagant costumes, and choreographed dances."
- Great involvement from an artist does not result in lavish productions unless his or her personality are such (which is not mentioned here). The phrase "as a result" should be dropped.
- Done. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"As with her live performances, she is involved in the artistic direction of her promotional videos ..."
- Why not drop "as with her live performances" and insert "also" between "is" and "involved"?
- Done. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"... tries to convey the videos the meanings or feelings of their respective songs."
- A word is missing, the clause is inappropriately phrased, or "convey" is incorrectly used.
- Again, probably a mistake made during a ce. Added the missing preposition. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"anglophone"
- It would be wiser to link this word to either an article or Wiktionary, or render it in simpler terms.
- Linked to Wiktionary. Ink Runner (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lyrics and themes
- "Hamasaki's lyrics, all her own, have resonated among her fans, who praise them as being honest and "expressing determination"."
- The sentence can be rephrased to exclude the clumsy "all her own"... "Expressing determination" is a bit too plain for a quote. Furthermore, "honest" seems to be used quite often later on...
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki has been praised by her fans for writing unpretentious lyrics that "incite listeners to dance" and "express the determination equal to one who is injured but insistent on overcoming his condition."" (the literal translation of "one who is injured but insists on starting to walk on his own two legs" is a bit clumsy).
- Public image
"Hamasaki's influence extends to other aspects of pop culture, including fashion, and she is often considered an icon and trend-setter in fashion, a status attributed to her tight control over her image."
- Redundancy in the ideas for "fashion".
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki's influence goes beyond music; she is often considered a fashion icon and trend-setter, a status attributed to her tight control over her image.'
- Changed to your suggestion. 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"As well as appearing in fashion magazines such as ViVi, Popteen, and Cawaii, Hamasaki repeatedly wins awards such as "Best Jeanist", "Nail Queen" and Oricon's "Most Fashionable Female Artist"."
- Honestly... the awards sound corny for an encyclopaedia...
- Suggestion: "Besides her frequent appearances in fashion magazines, such as Vivi, Popteen, and Cawaii, Hamasaki has often been lauded for her trendy choices in apparels and accessories; Oricon has repeatedly named her the "Most Fashionable Female Artist"."
- Well, they're actually pretty prestigious awards...but OK, changed to your suggestion. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This status has led to Hamasaki's shaping of Japan's fashion scene; many aspects of Japan's fashions—including clothing, hair, nails, and accessories—have in some way been influenced by her."
- Her status as a "fashion icon and trend-setter" does not lead to influencing the fashion trend in Japan, it already influences it; thus the first sentence is incorrect and can be dropped.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of her status as a trend-setter, Hamasaki has been sought by numerous brands to endorse their products."
- Much in the way that companies have asked big-name Hollywood stars to endorse their products, her trend-setting achievement would likely not be the only factor that urges companies to seek her signature. The subordinating clause could be dropped.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other activities
This first paragaph comes across as a clumsy collection of "XXX featured song YYY." Why must it be in these details? The listings can simply be reduced and appended to the first sentence in this form: "such as Onimusha: Dawn of Dreams, InuYasha, and Shinobi: Heart Under Blade."
- Changed to your suggestion and moved the section to the "Image and artistry" section. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph is heavy in proseline. Reorganize and group the concepts (I see clothing, television show, accessories, and what-nots), varying the sentence structure.
- Changed. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal life
"Rumors of a future marriage for Hamasaki and Tomoya Nagase (her boyfriend since her acting days) began to be circulated by the Japanese media by July 2007, nearly six years after the couple had made their relationship public. On July 13, 2007, however, Hamasaki announced that they had broken up."
- Not a good way to introduce the section.
- Suggestion: "Hamasaki dated singer-actor Tomoya Nagase since her brief acting career, and they publicly announced their relationship in 2001. Six years later, the media circulated rumors that the couple were about to get married; however, on July 13, Hamasaki announced that they had broken up."
- There are now four references clumped at the end of this. Source them properly to their statements. The Mainichi "Egos, abortion or mutts" is unreliable and should be removed because Mainichi disavows any responsibility for it (freely translate from WaiWai). Its "The Ayu-Nagase Catastrophe" could be removed since it was for investigating the ex-couple's "love mansion", which is no longer mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly thereafter, Hamasaki revealed that she and Nagase were no longer living together."
- Uh, Hamasaki did not reveal this; it was Mainichi's investigations and speculation (although evidently true). Regardless, is this notable? It would be if she and Nagase kept living together after they had broken up, but it is normal (and therefore insignificant) that broken-up couples do not live together.
- You're right; removed sentence. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She disclosed that she had been diagnosed with deafness in 2006 ..."
- Change "deafness" here to "the condition" to avoid repetition with the preceding sentence.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Supposedly as a result of her hearing loss, Avex shares went down by thirteen yen."
- This is really wholesale speculation and sensationalist journalism. It should be qualified by appending "according to United News Daily" to it if it is to be included.
- Removed. It doesn't have much to do with her personal life, anyways. Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Despite the setbacks"
- She is deaf in only one ear (she can still clearly hear with the other). How is that a setback (something which obstructs or throws off a plan/course)? Furthermore, the plural form would indicate there are other such problems. What are they?
- Hmm, I don't know why it was plural. Changed to singular. As to the condition being a "setback": the American Heritage Dictionary defines setback as "an unanticipated or sudden check in progress; a change from better to worse." Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, a "setback" requires a context unless obvious (if we follow the AHD's definition, then what is the progress that was disrupted?). Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, her singing suffered... ([12]) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good source to include and possibly to expand on. Note that the newspaper piece has professional opinions that state two sides of the story. One side (singer and producer) states that the condition could affect live performance; the other (songwriter with deaf students), however, argues that it is a correctible condition. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, her singing suffered... ([12]) Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, a "setback" requires a context unless obvious (if we follow the AHD's definition, then what is the progress that was disrupted?). Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I don't know why it was plural. Changed to singular. As to the condition being a "setback": the American Heritage Dictionary defines setback as "an unanticipated or sudden check in progress; a change from better to worse." Ink Runner (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above are the issues found. Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion. Karanacs has already given the article a CE, and I have contacted a Peer Review volunteer to give the article a look. Ink Runner (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes, many of the sources are Japanese, making it hard to evaluate accuracy and reliability. Do any of the reviewers read Japanese? I wrote to a friend who speaks Japanese and received the following feedback:
- The Japanese and Chinese sources (including those of the quotes) have been reviewed by Jappalang, who reads both of the mentioned languages. Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks (good to know)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have not paid full attention to the sources yet, because I was concentrating on the prose (I looked further when something about the sentences bugged me). I will start looking in detail at the available online Japanese and Chinese sources now. Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks (good to know)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oricon and RIAJ are solid; Avexnet is from her label and hosts her website; Sponichi Annex is part of a major Japanese newspaper; Cawaii is a teen fashion magazine, Vivi is another one. Beatfreak is the Japanese version of an American teen magazine. rockin'on japan is a J-Rock magazine, likely simlar for J-Point, Casa Brutus, Girlpop, and Sweet. barks.jp website uncertain.
- Girlpop and Sweet are magazines aimed at teenage girls, J-point is a music magazine, and Casa Brutus is an architecture magazine, similar to Architectural Digest. (The article cited talked about Hamasaki's concert at the Yoyogi National Gymnasium and its setup etc.) Barks.jp is similar to MSN Music and it's owned by IT Media (アイティメディア株式会社). Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checking one for accuracy. "Oricon has repeatedly named her the 'Most Fashionable Female Artist'." The source says that she is the ベストジーニスト賞 or Best Jeanist; could be some hyperbole.
- The Oricon source does say in the text that she was awarded "Best Jeanist", but the poll was for "オシャレアーティスト" or "Most Fashionable Artist". Ink Runner (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further source comments — per the comments above, I went through the Japanese and Chinese sources. Those that have issues are listed below:
Source: "A Great Achievement — Hamasaki Ayumi Ties with Akina Nakamori for the Achievement of Five Crowns"[13] (2007-07-24)
- This reference cites the achievements listed in the lead. However, as the subject is living (and her competitors), I question if the text should focus on her "most"-est achievements. Being the first is understandable, as no one can likely be the first for that record again. However, selling the most and getting the most #1s can be eventually broken. Considering the nature of an encyclopaedia, it is in the best interest to rewrite the achievements to avoid rewrites later. As of 2007 according to this source, Hamasaki has 28 #1 singles, 9 years running to have a #1 single per year, 39 top 10 singles, 20.218 million copies of singles sold, and 5 million-singles sellers. This source also states "Love Destiny" as Hamasaki's first #1 single.
- For the 10 years running, you would want to use ref #73 http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/confidence/53725/full/, which also states "Love Destiny" as the first #1 singles, and 30 #1 singles as of 2008-04-15.
- I sourced the 10 years #1 singles achievement with the appropriate source. As for the concern over the presentation of her achievements, I will leave it to others to evaluate. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote-3: "According to Oricon, "Boys & Girls" is Hamasaki's first million-selling single (its sales are listed as higher than those of "H", a million-seller); however, the RIAJ does not list the single as a million-seller."
- This footnote is sourced to http://www.oricon.co.jp/artists/s/246497/ for the first part. The source is a cumulative sales chart that seems to be updated as frequently as possible. Hence, this cannot support the assumption that the reference for the second part (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/1999.html, a list of million sellers for 1999, which only shows Loveppears and "A"). Boys & Girls might have sold less than a million in 1999, but reached a million sales in early 2000 or later. Furthermore, http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061206_03.html states that "Boys & Girls" was immediately #1 on its release; it was not Hamasaki's first #1 single. That #1 was "Love Destiny", as presented above by two Oricon sources.
- Thank you; I had overlooked the fact that Oricon's listing was according to current sales. Listed "Love: Destiny" as the first #1. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Duty resonated with fans: the "Trilogy" were "hit singles" ("Seasons" was a million-seller), and the album became Hamasaki's best-selling studio album."
- Allmusicguide does not seem to have any information pertinent to this sentence (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/2000.html only showed "Seasons" as a million-seller). Do you mean http://www.oricon.co.jp/artists/a/246497/ ?
- Darn, they must have updated Hamasaki's page. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The single, a duet with Keiko Yamada, was released as part of Avex's non-profit Song+Nation project, which raised money for victims of the attacks."
- Umm... according to the source (http://www.avexnet.or.jp/songnation/index.htm), the proceeds from the album and 3 singles mentioned (one of which was Ayumi's) was donated to the United Nations for world peace and for the children (note the small letters...), not US's 9/11 victims. No specific charities were mentioned (I would presume UNICEF, but would not put that down).
- Changed the sentence to "raised money for charity" and replaced the primary source with a secondary source. (Since it requires paid access, I put the original text in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The secondary source does not state where the proceeds would go to, it only notes that the song was resulting from the attack and that Hamasaki and Yamada were singing the duet (note: I read the full text of the source). It seems the primary source would be a better choice (unless another secondary source that speaks of where the money would go can be added). I would suggest adding back the primary source; the secondary source can then be used to reinforce the primary. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I re-added the primary source. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The secondary source does not state where the proceeds would go to, it only notes that the song was resulting from the attack and that Hamasaki and Yamada were singing the duet (note: I read the full text of the source). It seems the primary source would be a better choice (unless another secondary source that speaks of where the money would go can be added). I would suggest adding back the primary source; the secondary source can then be used to reinforce the primary. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the sentence to "raised money for charity" and replaced the primary source with a secondary source. (Since it requires paid access, I put the original text in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In support of I am..., Hamasaki held two tours, Ayumi Hamasaki Arena Tour 2002 A and Ayumi Hamasaki Stadium Tour 2002 A."
- This article (http://epochtimes.com/b5/2/6/19/n197226.htm) talks about Ayumi Hamasaki Arena Tour, whose last stop was in Yokohama. It only stated when the tour started (April), how many Japanese cities it had been in (11) and how many performances were given (21). Other than that, it only stated Ayumi's first outdoor performance will be given in Tokyo at the end of the month, and July would see her first new single. Oh yes, she also said that "[David] Beckham is so handsome!" (urgh). There is no mention of supporting I am... (though this can be inferred by year) or that there were two tours to support the album (no mention of a Stadium Tour).
- Sourced. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The album had three singles—"Free & Easy", "Voyage", and "H"; the last became the best-selling single of 2002."
- Actually, according to the source (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/2002.html), it was the only million seller single in 2002 (heh), but if there are no other million seller singles, then it cannot be the best then (you need competition to be the best).
- As the only million-seller single, "H" technically was the best-selling single; the competition was every other single released in 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... my bad, I had mentally inserted a "million-seller" between "best-selling" and "single". Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the only million-seller single, "H" technically was the best-selling single; the competition was every other single released in 2002. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Though (Miss)understood also reached the top of the charts, Oricon stated that it sold fewer than a million copies—Hamasaki's first studio album to do so."
- The source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061221_03.html) only gave the numbers. Nothing about it as her first studio album not to sell a million copies.
- I included the Oricon sales of the other albums in their respective paragraphs. (Except for those of I am... and Rainbow, which are in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I understanding correctly that you are asking readers to go through each week from "from the fifth week of December 2002 to the fourth week of February 2003" on the Oricon site, adding up the album sales to verify the fact? Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but I have to say this is a very clunky way to source a statement... Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I understanding correctly that you are asking readers to go through each week from "from the fifth week of December 2002 to the fourth week of February 2003" on the Oricon site, adding up the album sales to verify the fact? Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I included the Oricon sales of the other albums in their respective paragraphs. (Except for those of I am... and Rainbow, which are in a footnote.) Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Both of the album's singles, "Startin'" and "Blue Bird", continued her streak of number-one singles: "Startin'" became her twenty-sixth, setting a new record for most number-one singles held by a solo female artist."
- Should be sourced to http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/15343/ instead of http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/15339/ .
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Her sales, however, continued to decline: according to both Oricon and the RIAJ, Secret failed to sell a million copies."
- It (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/200611.html) did not explicitly state it, but having the million single/album stating (miss)understood, while Secret is left as a Gold record should be fairly safe. Raising this up for discussion.
- I included the sales of Secret, so it should be clear. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, there is no sales figure for Secret in http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/22658/ . Is this the correct source? Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, how do I do these things? XP Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, there is no sales figure for Secret in http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/ranking/22658/ . Is this the correct source? Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I included the sales of Secret, so it should be clear. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: "However, Oricon's year only has fifty-one "weeks"—the first two of the year are combined. Kobukuro's sales for the combined two weeks were slightly higher than Hamasaki's, giving them the number-one position. "
- Umm... this source (http://web.archive.org/web/20080116220440/http://www.sponichi.co.jp/entertainment/news/2008/01/07/02.html) is talking about her ear problem, not the differences in accounting practices between Oricon and Kobukuro...
- Added a ref. Ink Runner (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The album's singles—"Glitter / Fated", "Talkin' 2 Myself", and Hamasaki's first digital-only single, "Together When..."—however, reached the top of their respective charts."
- This source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/rankmusic/48305/) talks about how Hamasaki's 29th number 1 single that is also her 40th Top 10 hit, made her the second among the industry in each area. How is this related to the sentence?
- The other source, a chart (http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w080120_1.html), shows Hamasaki's "Together when" as the first, "(Don't) Leave me alone" as the 46th, and "My All" (67th) on the chart for online distribution for the year. It does not state "Together when" is her first digital-only single...
- Well, her discography lists "Together When..." as a digital-only single, but to be sure, I sourced it. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no mentions of "Glitter / Fated", and "Talkin' 2 Myself" in either source.
- Ref #71 says that "Talkin' 2 Myself" is her 17th consecutive #1 single. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I missed that. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #71 says that "Talkin' 2 Myself" is her 17th consecutive #1 single. Ink Runner (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamasaki is also the first female singer to have eight studio albums that topped the Oricon."
- This source (http://www.oricon.co.jp/music/special/061206_03.html) was used as far back as April this year (or earlier) to source this sentence (and its earlier forms). However, I do not see any such acknowledgement in the source.
- Fixed. Ink Runner (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Final comments: after going through the article for the several times noted above, I believe opposable issues with regards to sources, and comprehensiveness are resolved. Although the language is clear, I am not too enamored with the style and flow at certain parts (hence, my recommendation of another copyeditor). Still, this article is a good, neutral, and comprehensive read. I would not stand against its promotion to be an FA, but I think it could do with a bit more polish to its prose. Jappalang (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is not facilitated by the mess of punctuation. Here's one example with ellipses, dashes, parentheses, quotations, colon and semi-colon, all competing with footnotes:
Hamasaki's debut album under Avex, A Song for XX (1999), was "unassuming":[5] its singles—"Poker Face", "You", "Trust", "Depend on You", and "For My Dear..." (all 1998)—were not major hits;[6] the tracks, composed by Yasuhiko Hoshino, Akio Togashi (of Da Pump), and Mitsuru Igarashi (of Every Little Thing), were "cautious" pop-rock songs.[6][5]
Some rewording might help avoid all the punctuation. This is only a sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have edited some sentences and moved the refs around to avoid their competing with the punctuation. The dates of releases were left in parentheses since other FAs also follow that practice, and it seems like the best way to streamline. Ink Runner (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [14].
This can be considered a group nomination, although where to draw the line can be hazy. For some months, three editors (me, Cosmic Latte and Paul Gene) have been in a concerted effort to get this here, along with EverSince and others along the way. delldot gave a very thorough review, and orangemarlin, Tony and many others have chipped in with advice, including negotiating a way through alternative therapies and so forth. Do I think it is perfect? No, but I do honestly feel it is one of Wikipedia's best articles and stands up well with others I have been involved with. We didn't send it to GAN mainly as delldot did such a thorough workthrough and the size was such I sorta felt it was a big ask for one editor to read and judge. One final thing, the article stands at 51 kb readable prose, 1 kb more than the upper limit for FAC. However, I have been unable to figure out what the last little bit to lose, or whether folks felt ignoring the rules WRT article size was okay. I figured this may be the best venue for consensus on this, in the coal-face as it were. Anyway, lemme know how we can make it betterer. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart: old nom with Restart notes. Images have changed and need a new review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone drop a note on my talk page when the image choices are stabilized and I'll rereview then? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity than anything else: can you tell me where this 50kb prose limit comes from? That would make both this article, and say, The Wire (both at 60kb prose now) ineligible for FAC. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIZE. Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, no, it doesn't make them ineligible: WP:SIZE is a guideline, 10,000 words is a suggested max, and MDD is at 8,500 words (compared to RCC for example at 12,000). See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Incidentally, I myself would never oppose an article for simply being too long (although I would had it too many references), but I would suggest splitting the article into subarticles. In this article's case, a split I would suggest would be something like history and social impact; causes and symptoms; and diagnosis and treatment; and I would not oppose it for having nearly 300 references; medical articles I often exempt. That said, I won't support the article either. It'd be too daunting for me to read, and I don't like reviewing articles where I don't know much about the topic (in this case, apart from everyone's "knowing somebody who knows somebody", I know little about the subject). HTH HAND. Sceptre (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, no, it doesn't make them ineligible: WP:SIZE is a guideline, 10,000 words is a suggested max, and MDD is at 8,500 words (compared to RCC for example at 12,000). See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIZE. Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I freely admit size has been a problem, and has resulted in the birth of some subarticles already, thus we have a treatment (the treatment section was significantly trimmed) and biology article, and I have taken out some material that would be better placed in a future causes article. Furthermore there is a major depressive episode article, and various links to antidepressant and electro-convulsive therapy. History of mental disorders is also linked and this section was trimmed down alot. Question is, what to take out without compromising the comprehensiveness here? Prioritising this has been tricky and wieghing up clinical vs historical vs encyclopedic (whatever that means). I did try to rank snippets and see what was more important before relegating some to subpages. I will see if we can relegate a bit more, as we have various subpages already. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support as contributor, following previous FAC. Well-written, thoroughly sourced article. I find that, following prior trimming, the article passes WP:SS, so I would not worry about trimming more. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tending to agreeing with Cosmic Latte; flicking through, I did notice a lot of offshoot articles already. I think this is a perfect balance between short and long, just looking briefly at it. Sceptre (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as the article is well-organized, throughly well-referenced, and presented well (the images and location of the images look good). Well done Casliber and Comic Latte! :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much (although Casliber deserves more credit than me)! Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- < Note regarding restart notifications moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder#Moved 1.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - [[
:Image:Amitriptyline-2D-skeletal.png]] - Please add a description, author, source, and date for this image. All other images check out fine. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (sourced on commons page now) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as minor contributor per previous FAC. I believe this is an example of Wikipedia's best writing, and a very valuable article. looie496 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support:It was a great article 3 months ago and now a much better one: I believe it fullfills all FA criteria.--Garrondo (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There are several issues but, to be brief, let me give one: that the language of the article contains too much jargon and so contravenes our policy WP:NOT PAPER. For example, consider the first sentence of the section on causes: "The etiology of mental disorders is best appreciated through a multidimensional integrative approach that disfavors reductionism and encourages models that consider a wide array of biological, psychological, and social forces." This seems quite horrid and compares poorly with another online encylopedic treatment which has "There are many different factors that can trigger depression.". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Agree, I reread it and realised it was very general and no meaning was lost by its removal, and so removed. We did make a concerted effort to remove jargon but some has crept back in with a rejigging. We are trying to address it and you are welcome to list more on the MDD talk page)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Status? How is this going? (I've checked in several times and found typographical errors introduced.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got the ones you noted, and found some more to convert US spelling. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I supported the FAC before the restart, and have now reread it thoroughly. I think the article has improved in many aspects since my last read, so technically it would be silly of me not to support now. Anyway, I have a number of comments written at Talk:Major depressive disorder#Skagedal's comments, and just for the fun of it I'm going to wait with my support !vote until a few things have been addressed. These are the things I find most important:
- Agree with Colonel Warden about jargony language at some places; there are some specific examples in my notes.
- Religion as a protective factor stands out; explained better in my talk page notes.
"Psychological treatments" is not that well balanced; purely behavioral treatments are missed, and a specific treatment that hasn't received that much research (MBCT) is given undue room, occupying one out of five paragraphs.– strike as balance is now much better; still have minor issues but will take on talk pageThere's a lot of talk about the role of rumination in modern psychological conceptualizations and treatments, this should be discussed. Forgot this one in my notes. Sorry for not being more specific, I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment.– strike as not specific/actionable, will return to this later on talk page. /skagedal... 10:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make sure to strike these as addressed or adequately discussed on talk page. /skagedal... 11:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great article, neutral and reliable info, well referenced.. would be good also to meet Skagedal's suggestions --The.Filsouf (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets FAC criteria and is among the site's best work. Good job Casliber et al. Articles on substantial topics will always have areas of contention. On an open and anonymous project, no one will ever unilaterally agree on the exact presentation of any topic of importance, and someone will always have one more thing to "improve". None of this affects the greater notion that this article is among wikipedia's best work. If FAC takes the endless-laundry-list approach to even broad-topic articles, we will never be able to feature the site's real best work. Feature it and keep working on it, if you like. –Outriggr § 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I agree with what Outriggr says. My "endless-laundry-list" at talk page was meant as a possibly helpful list of things I thought about when reading through, not as a "fix this or I won't support". I apologize to the nominators if I was sending mixed signals on this, so let's be clear: This is a great, well balanced, comprehensive, WP:WIAFA-meeting article. /skagedal... 10:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It read like a good encyclopedic page that would be a valuable addition to the Medical FAs. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I still think this is a solid article. I played devil's advocate to pick through the sources. I found:
- Nearly all of the "out of date" materials cited are used to document historical views, as complementary sources, to relate information unlikely to suffer from dating (or known to retain relevance), or to report the views of prominent figures in the field.
- "Learned helplessness[43] and depression may be related to what American psychologist Julian Rotter, a social learning theorist, called an external locus of control, a tendency to attribute outcomes to events outside of personal control.[44]" (Is this an editorial observation or what the source reports? It is unclear whether this is a good citation or original research as presented. The use of a citation at the beginning of the sentence further gives the impression of original research.
- I'm the one who inserted the cite at the beginning there -- it's what the source says. I'm not sure I really understand what worries you about this, though. looie496 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrasing and chunky citation are general OR red flags. To clear this up, does the first citation explicity state that learned helplessness may be associated with Rotter's theory? Does the second citation explicitly state that depression may be associated with the model? Vassyana (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, ref 2 (at end) has ext. locus control linked to depression. The crux is does ref 1 link learned helplessness with ext. locus of control. I should have read this more closely as the two terms are not synonymous and I will remove it (see talk). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, linking learned helplessness with ext. locus of control (and depression) is precisely what ref 1 does. That's why I put the cite there instead of after Rotter, where I thought it would be misleading. Anyway, I see that Cas has removed this sentence entirely, which is the simplest way of solving the problem. looie496 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, ref 2 (at end) has ext. locus control linked to depression. The crux is does ref 1 link learned helplessness with ext. locus of control. I should have read this more closely as the two terms are not synonymous and I will remove it (see talk). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrasing and chunky citation are general OR red flags. To clear this up, does the first citation explicity state that learned helplessness may be associated with Rotter's theory? Does the second citation explicitly state that depression may be associated with the model? Vassyana (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the one who inserted the cite at the beginning there -- it's what the source says. I'm not sure I really understand what worries you about this, though. looie496 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Milder depression has been associated with what has been called depressive realism, or the "sadder-but-wiser" effect, a view of the world that is relatively undistorted by positive biases.[48]" (The depressive realism model has been heavily criticized. This seems only tangentially related to the article subject, so why not just add a see also link to depressive realism instead of raising the issue in-text?)
- "Vulnerability factors—such as early maternal loss, lack of a confiding relationship, responsibility for the care of several young children at home, and unemployment—can interact with life stressors to increase the risk of depression in women.[49] However, the validity of risk factors has been widely debated.[50]" (This gives an inaccurate impression to the reader. The validity of risk factors is not widely debated, as such. The principal point of dispute is whether or not those factors increase vulnerability to stressors or stand alone as a risk factors.)
- "The National Comorbidity Survey (US) reports that 51% of those with major depression also suffer from lifetime anxiety.[208]" While this is certainly a highly notable study, it is over a decade old and the year should be explicitly included in-text.
- It's quite the large list of refs, so it's possible that I may have missed something. However, I reviewed the article a few times in an attempt to be completely thorough and did not not any other issues of concern. Vassyana (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (included years of NCS as per last point) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (removed depressive realism - see MDD talk apge) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (removed second sentence on querying vulnerabilities as stand alone factors; it is not a Review article and although interesting, not substantive enough to add a huge deal) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent effort. Eusebeus (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My few concerns have been resolved. This is a great article that fulfills the criteria. Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets the FAC criteria. Shyamal (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm of the opinion that the article meets the FA criteria. AGK 15:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [15].
- Nominator(s): User:YellowMonkey
- previous FAC (03:05, 13 July 2008)
Renominating. The previous time, Tony1 said the prose was fine, although another reviewer did not, although I did make his fixes, and nobody else ever turned up. Also, a picture of his statue is now present. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Minor prose points:
- "Phan was born in the village of Dong Thai, reputed for producing a number high-ranking mandarins, in" - it would be 'reputed to produce', but you mean known or famous etc.
- "Phan himself gave early indications of distaste towards the classical curriculum required" - distaste for, I think
- "Phan also compiled a historical geography of Vietnam, which was penned in 1883" -"written", "completed" or "published".
- "whom he caught with Tuong" - what, like at it? Needs clarifying
- Still needs to be clearer - what act? Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thuyet took Ham Nghi on a northbound escape to the Tan So mountain base..." rephrase, maybe: "Thuyet escaped with Ham Nghi to the Tan So base in the northern mountains"
- No Links: Ha Tinh, scholar-gentry
- "targeted two nearby Catholic villages that ^had^ collaborated with French force^s^.
- done some others myself. Otherwise very interesting & well-written. There must be more sources on the parallels with the Vietcong, no? Worth adding something I think. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked these, and mentioned some bits about how the VC like to portray themselves as modern PHan Dinh Phungs and Truong Dinhs. I was unable to find any material by historians that actually compared them, however, although a few have noted the communist desire to see themselves as a modern PDP or TD. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All points cleared. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hue linh luoc su Hoang Cao Khai.jpg - We need a date for this photograph to verify the PD license. The description is also missing an author. If the name is unknown, please fill in the field with "unknown". Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, unknown and pre-1933 since that's when he died. The French stuff at the bottom indicates it was published during the French colonial era, so pre-1955 and so PD-Vietnam. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I can't keep up with all the different naming conventions, I need a defaultsort or persondata hint about how to list alphabetically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, list by PHAN, Dinh Phung I think. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I came to this article ignorant and went away informed - well-done! I can't speak to the article's comprehensiveness as I don't know anything about this period of Vietnamese history, but the sources are reliable, the writing is good (the entire article flows quite well), and the illustrations are well chosen. The quoted discussion between Phan and Khai was a particularly nice touch to the article. Awadewit (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Two minor issues, that may or may not need to be addressed:
- I usually dislike citations in the lead, but I wonder if this sentence might need one? He was renowned for his uncompromising will and principles
- Any information on why he wasn't given the death penalty for refusing to support Duc Duc
- I guess that's in Ton That Thuyet's head. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [16].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it now fully satisfies FA criteria, in my opinion. I also want to say that it is the most complicated article I have ever written. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - 40KB on a ball of game millions of miles away? Argh.
- Dude, you write FAs about video games. Serendipodous 19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sell millions of dollars in merchandise and are the largest entertainment industry on Earth, thank you very much :P besides, I don't write 40KB on them, they are all more manageable sizes :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Video games don't last 20 years. The planets are for all time. The way things are going, we'll be telling our grandchildren how great it was when we had electricity, and when that happens, looking up at the planets will be the only entertainment left, like it used to be for thousands of years. Serendipodous 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sell millions of dollars in merchandise and are the largest entertainment industry on Earth, thank you very much :P besides, I don't write 40KB on them, they are all more manageable sizes :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, you write FAs about video games. Serendipodous 19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images: are believed to meet criteria as of this revision --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jupiter Belt System.JPG - get rid of all the migration to commons bot crap in the information fields and replace it with the original info- I do not agree that this information is crap, it is necessary to document the move. I am not sure I can remove it without violating some commons' policy. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that bot frustrating as well. I wouldn't remove the information, which is sometimes necessary, but simply supplement it with the necessary source, date, and author information. Awadewit (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Structure of Jovian atmosphere.png - I'm not seeing a license, just a declaration.- I now can see the full license tag. If you still do not see it, you can visit commons page directly. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Map of Jupiter.jpg - duplicate Featured picture templates, should have information template, and a separate heading for licensing.- They are different templates. The upper template is situated on the commons' page. The lower template is from English Wikipedia. Both are necessary and should stay. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added template and headings (see commons page). Ruslik (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif - same issues as above.- The same as with the image above. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added template and headings (see commons page). Ruslik (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NH Jupiter IR.jpg - source (URL)? Wouldn't the pd-nasa template be better for licensing?- Done. Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pioneer 10 jup.jpg - original author?- I removed this image. Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jupiter-Earth-Spot comparison.jpg - same as above- This is derivative work created by user:Brian0918 and user:Herbee from two NASA images (it is written in the infor template). Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jupiter Great Red Spot Animation.gif - fill out information template- Done. Ruslik (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jovian--OvalBA.jpg - missing info- Replaced with image:Oval_BA_(Hubble).jpg (from commons). Ruslik (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jupiter little red spot NH.png - source?- I changed this image to Commons' equivalent (Image:Jupiter_little_red_spot_(New_Horizons).jpg). Ruslik (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Great Red Spot From Voyager 1.jpg - headers?- Done. Ruslik (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Red spot jr in color.jpg - be nice if there was a information template?I changed this image to Commons' equivalent (Image:Jupiter_Weaver02_NASA.jpg). Ruslik (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to everything in a block below my comments so I can keep track of things. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to point your attention that
allmajority those images are from commons. Commons have different policies and they are not part of the English Wikipedia. Ruslik (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry, some of them are actually on en.wiki. Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to point your attention that
- Even if they are on Commons, they still need proper licensing. Gary King (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jupiter Belt System.JPG, Image:NH Jupiter IR.jpg, Image:Jupiter-Earth-Spot comparison.jpg, are still missing offsite URLs for the original source image; all other concerns taken care of.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- first and last should be ok now. For the second one I cannot find a better link than a bbc one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
- I subbed the original New Horizons gallery as a source. Serendipodous 13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think now all images are OK. Ruslik (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- first and last should be ok now. For the second one I cannot find a better link than a bbc one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
- Even if they are on Commons, they still need proper licensing. Gary King (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Juplit.jpg needs author/date/source/link, et al.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Subbed. Also did the same for the white ovals image. Serendipodous 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I didn't contribute this time... ;). Anyway, the prose could use a bit of a touch-up. I'll get around to a copyedit ASAP. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 21:22, 26 November 2008
- The density gradually decreases until one typical for the interplanetary space is reached about 5,000 km above 1 bar pressure level. I added a hidden comment, remove it when you're done, but what comes after typical? —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote the sentence (avoided mentioning typical for interplanetary space). Ruslik (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Links:
- Retrograde and Prograde link respectively to a dab page and a redirect to Retrograde and direct motion, an astronomical topic unrelated to the sense here.
- Isotopic links to a dab page. I was tempted to make a pipe from 'isotopic ratio' to isotopic signature, or could it just be a plain link?
- I fixed some other more straightforward problems. William Avery (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked retrograde to Retrograde and direct motion, and isotopic to Isotope_geochemistry. The latter is the best target that I can find. I also see no problem with the redirect. The definitions of prograde (in the direction of motion), and retrograde (against the direction of motion) are the same everywhere, so Retrograde and direct motion article, which of course says nothing about atmospheres, is a good link. Ruslik (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — after re-examining Retrograde and direct motion article.William Avery (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked retrograde to Retrograde and direct motion, and isotopic to Isotope_geochemistry. The latter is the best target that I can find. I also see no problem with the redirect. The definitions of prograde (in the direction of motion), and retrograde (against the direction of motion) are the same everywhere, so Retrograde and direct motion article, which of course says nothing about atmospheres, is a good link. Ruslik (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—I performed a review during PR and I thought it was in fine shape then. After another go through, it appears to more than meet FA criteria. I have no significant issues to report.—RJH (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copyediting now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "molecular envelope" isn't in Webster's 3rd Unabridged or in Wikipedia, and I don't know what it means. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It refers to the outer layer of Jupiter, where hydrogen is in molecular state. Deeper inside the planet, where pressure is higher, hydrogen is in metallic state. Ruslik (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense. Please define the term in the article at the first occurrence. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It refers to the outer layer of Jupiter, where hydrogen is in molecular state. Deeper inside the planet, where pressure is higher, hydrogen is in metallic state. Ruslik (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't support at Webster's for "air" meaning "Jovian atmosphere", but it's okay with me if it's a common term among astronomers, since the meaning is clear enough. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is frequently used in literature. Ruslik (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:Image use policy, "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size." Your animation is 7.5M. Display just one frame, so that either the reader gets the animation if they choose to click on the thumbnail, or if they click on a link in the caption. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Oval BA should not be confused with another major storm on Jupiter, the Little Red Spot (or Baby Red Spot) which turned red before the GRS and Oval BA shredded it in late June/early July of 2008." HubbleSite does not support the suggestion that Oval BA was involved in the shredding. Also, there are several cases of the digit 1 being used in prose. Should this be changed to "one"? The double adjective "1 bar" needs a hyphen. Wronkiew (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Little Red Spot passed in between two other red spots. It appears to left of GRS on the image 2, and its remnants appear to right of the latter in image 3. I think such numbers as 1 bar should written in the scientific style, where digitas are usually used. 1-bar ? I actually have never wirtten it in this style. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like single digit measurements are fine, so you should leave them. Digits and spelled out units should be hyphenated in cases where they are double adjectives, see WP:HYPHEN. It is not apparent to me from looking at the image that Oval BA was involved with LRS, I think it needs to be clarified or a better source found. Wronkiew (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Little Red Spot passed in between two other red spots. It appears to left of GRS on the image 2, and its remnants appear to right of the latter in image 3. I think such numbers as 1 bar should written in the scientific style, where digitas are usually used. 1-bar ? I actually have never wirtten it in this style. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Ruslik may be confusing that image with this one. That one is of the mergance of the three white ovals to form Oval BA. Serendipodous 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've subbed the New Horizons image (which is a duplicate of one below) with the image of the three red spots in conflict. Serendipodous 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the image from ref 87 (you actually added it), which shows that Baby Spot was shredded. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image doesn't show the shredding, just the aftereffects. The caption for the image on HubbleSite says only that LRS was "caught up in the anticyclonic spin of the GRS". It does not say that Oval BA was involved. Wronkiew (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede this point. Little Baby (Spot) was eaten by GRS alone. Oval BA only stood by as a silent witness. I added new reference and clarified that sentence. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And here we see the cub eyeing the mother intently as she stalks and kills her prey, learning vital skills for later life... Serendipodous 23:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede this point. Little Baby (Spot) was eaten by GRS alone. Oval BA only stood by as a silent witness. I added new reference and clarified that sentence. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image doesn't show the shredding, just the aftereffects. The caption for the image on HubbleSite says only that LRS was "caught up in the anticyclonic spin of the GRS". It does not say that Oval BA was involved. Wronkiew (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the image from ref 87 (you actually added it), which shows that Baby Spot was shredded. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've subbed the New Horizons image (which is a duplicate of one below) with the image of the three red spots in conflict. Serendipodous 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Ruslik may be confusing that image with this one. That one is of the mergance of the three white ovals to form Oval BA. Serendipodous 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments I will feel comfortable supporting if these are resolved or suitably explained. Wronkiew (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to see less speculation about the processes and properties of Jupiter in the article. There is an over-reliance on the phrase "is thought to" or its variants where the facts are uncertain. This is especially apparent in the lead.
- I removed some "is thought to". However these 'facts' are just conclusions form rather complicated models, which are often equivocal. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead says that hydrogen sulfide has not been directly observed, but "Observational history" says that HST detected it through spectroscopy.
- You are right here. Only water was not directly observed in sufficient amounts. I changed this. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The latter is caused by the higher condensation heat of the water and the higher water abundance as compared to the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide (as oxygen is a more abundant chemical element than either nitrogen or sulfur)." It's not clear what "the latter" is referring to.
- Done. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "This ion produces strong emissions in the mid-infrared part of the spectrum, at the wavelengths between 3–5 μm, and is the main cooler of the thermosphere." I was not able to find any support for H3+ being the "main cooler of the thermosphere" in Yelle 2004.
- On page 27 Interestingly, they find that thermal conduction plays a small role in this region and heating is balanced primarily by H+3 cooling. I can add more a specific ref if necessary. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the present rate of reduction it would become circular by 2040, although this is unlikely because of the distortion effect of the neighboring jet streams." There is no reference to support this.
- Added a reference. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to see less speculation about the processes and properties of Jupiter in the article. There is an over-reliance on the phrase "is thought to" or its variants where the facts are uncertain. This is especially apparent in the lead.
- Support, the article is accurate, verifiable, and well written. Wronkiew (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs, pls review the dab links in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Mrs Dabs. :-) Ruslik (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [17].
In our slow and steady efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Jane Austen, we bring you a history of how Austen's works have been received and how the fan culture surrounding Austen has developed. Simmaren and Awadewit have been working on this article for over a year and believe that it now meets the FA criteria. They would like to thank everyone who has helped shape this article, but most especially Maria, who researched and wrote the "Adaptations" section. This article has undergone a rigorous peer review by Markus Poessel, Scartol, Moni3, and Brianboulton; it has been copyedited several different times, lastly by Jbmurray; it has been checked against the MOS by Epbr123; and it has been BE-ified by Roger Davies. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Simmaren (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Does Image:Greer Garson in Pride and Prejudice.JPG need a Fair use rationale as a screenshot? Otherwise, images check out ok. I haven't read it since I peer reviewed it. I think it has changed some since I saw it last. --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe it does need a FUR - see the licensing information links and the license tag. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That brings up an interesting question that may either require further research on that image, or taking this discussion completely off this page. I had to remove screenshots from To Kill a Mockingbird because I could not prove that copyright had not been renewed, and even if it had not been renewed, could not prove that it was in the public domain. I called the US Copyright Office for verification. Do you need to prove in the license information tag that this film in particular is in the public domain? Or, by the links, are all trailers from 1923 to 1977 available to use? --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to me that these trailers (and only the trailers) are available. We could solicit a certain Commons editor's advice, however. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For my own edification perhaps we should ask him. Striking concern unless Elcobbola indicates otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The trailers are derivative works, not purely original works. Thus they would be affected by the copyright status of the film itself. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this and let me know what you think. It is my understanding that this trailer is indeed in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, my note to Elcobbola. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I didn't think about the fact that the trailers are typically published before the movie is. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, my note to Elcobbola. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this and let me know what you think. It is my understanding that this trailer is indeed in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The trailers are derivative works, not purely original works. Thus they would be affected by the copyright status of the film itself. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For my own edification perhaps we should ask him. Striking concern unless Elcobbola indicates otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to me that these trailers (and only the trailers) are available. We could solicit a certain Commons editor's advice, however. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead Review... Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"With the growing professionalisation of university English departments in the first half of the twentieth century, criticism of Austen became progressively more esoteric and, as a result, appreciation of Austen branched in several directions. In the late twentieth century, for example, fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works;" In the first sentence "appreciation of Austen" is presented in the context of academic criticism. The phrase is then parlayed into discussion of Jane Austen fan clubs. This switching of contexts was unexpected (for me at least), as I was expecting the "example" to be from an academic context as well. This could be remedied by removing the clause "for example" which strongly ties the two sentences together (perhaps too strongly), or by adding more transitional wording between the two sentences to broaden the context.
- Transitional wording added: criticism of Austen became progressively more esoteric and, as a result, appreciation of Austen splintered into distinctive high culture and popular culture trends; "for example" removed. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works; consequently, "Janeite" increasingly became a term of opprobrium." Why would celebrating Austen, her time, and her works lead to "Janeite" becoming a term of opprobrium? The connection here isn't clear.
- New version: In the late twentieth century, fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works; consequently, scholars often disparagingly referred to fans as "Janeites". Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"opprobrium" and "ensconced" are a bit academic. Can these be rephrased?
- How about a change from (a) "firmly ensconced" to "widely accepted" and (b) "opprobrium" to "contempt" or "disparagement" ? Simmaren (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've incorporated "disparage" above. See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - although there was some phrasing that made me smirk or laugh, I don't see any problems. I wonder if there were any reviews in America or Europe of any of her work early on, but that doesn't seem too necessary. I think Lewes's picture is a negative (he needs to shave better), but I've never liked him much, so I am biased. By the way, did Fanny Burney ever say anything about the works? Elizabeth Gaskell? Mary Elizabeth Braddon? Juliet Barker's The Brontes provides a detailed account of Charlotte's view of Jane. I didn't know if the source you used really went into it. Barker says (p. 548) "While Charlotte realized, as Lewes did not, that Jane Austen's style and tone were the absolute antithesis of her own, she nevertheless also recognized his criticism of her tendency to melodrama and her 'untrue' pictures of high society. It was, after all, what many of the reviewers had found fault with and Smith Williams himself advised her to avoid. Thanking him for his literary advice, Charlotte told Smith Williams that she kept his letters and referred 'not unfrequently' to them." In 1850, she purchased Sense and Sensibility and (pp. 634-635) "Writing a few weeks later when she had read Jane Austen's Emma, she anatomized the vast gulf that lay between their different styles of writing. (quote - She does her business of delineating the surface of the lives of genteel English people curiously well; there is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy in the painting: she ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound: the Passions are perfectly unknown to her... Her business is not half so much with the human heart as with the human eyes <eyes>, mouth, hands and feet; what sees keenly, speaks aptly, moves flexibly, it suits her to study, but what throbs fast and full, though hidden, what the blood rushes through, <what> what is the unseen seat of Life and the sentient target of death - this Miss Austen ignores... Jane Austen was a complete and most sensible lady, but a very incomplete, and rather insensible (not senseless) woman, ]if/ this is heresy - I cannot help it)" (quoting from her letter CB to WSW, 12 April 1850). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are lots of interesting comments from nineteenth-century writers in particular on Austen. What we decided to include were the ones repeated most often in the articles and books we read. Scott's "Big wow-wow" quote, for example, is repeated everywhere. If you are interested in every scrap ever said about Austen, you should read the Southam collection of reviews. Two volumes of material, which includes everything CB said about Austen and much more. Quite the read. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as semi-collaborator, although the credit is all Awadewit and Simmaren's. This is quite a fine article, but my opinion of Miss Jane still coincides with that of Twain: "I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone." :) María (habla conmigo) 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will it become obligatory for every reviewer to include the quote they wished we had cited? :) Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, as long as they support the page. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, mine was the best: succinct, earnest, violent. I consider this meme concluded. Back to critiquing, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This FAC can become the source for the "Quotations of and about Jane Austen" page we have occasionally considered as a sub-page. ;) Simmaren (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for an article that I have been watching for a long time. Here we see the paradigm of how FAs should be built, and I advise all editors who aspire to bringing an article to FA status to analyse this article's history. Graham Colm Talk 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – with a quibble! "The 1972 adaptation of Emma was the first to be produced by BBC Television". It wasn't. This gives details of BBC P&P adaptations in 1952, 1958 and 1967, Persuasionin 1960-61 and Sense and Sensibility in 1971. And this gives details of an ancient BBC adaptation of P&P, in 1938! Sorry to be a bore with these details, which I think I hinted at in the peer review, but can the above reference to the 1972 Emma please be revised? Otherwise, a joy and a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is the first adaptation of Emma. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the paragraph is about TV adaptations of Jane Austen novels, not about TV adaptations of Emma. The impression is given that the BBC started doing these adaptations in the 1970s, which is not the case. I'm not suggesting that these earlier productions be listed individually, but surely it is worth a brief mention, as part of the reception history, that the BBC made its first Austen attempt in 1938, when TV had scarcely been invented, and continued to produce versions at regular intervals during the 1960s and 1970s, even if they weren't very good ones? Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to check with Maria to see if the sources mention these earlier TV adaptations to any great degree. I know that she reworded this part of the article in response to your concern at the peer review, but perhaps it is still not clear enough. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that I used only vaguely refer to early adaptations in comparison to the newer, post-1970 ones; basically they are dismissed as being not very faithful to their sources, historically inaccurate, and dull -- completely opposite of what came about with the heritage drama movement. Rather than give the impression that these early adaptations by the BBC are as notable (or as important to Austen scholarship) as the newer ones, I've just reworded the Emma sentence to read: "The 1972 BBC adaptation of Emma, for example, took great care to be historically accurate, but..." Is this better? María (habla conmigo) 00:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is better, because the implication that the 1972 Emma was the first BBC Austen adaptation is no longer there (incidentally, BBC did Emma in 1948 and 1960). I'm not pressing beyond this, but I'm just wondering, in a general way, whether there is a point to be made that the Austen phenomenon might have occurred sooner if the earlier TV productions had aspired to the standards and fidelity of the later ones. Do the sources say or imply anything along these lines? In this respect, Jane Austen on Film and Television: A Critical Study of the Adaptations (MacFarland, 2002) might be useful. Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't recall reading exactly that sentiment, but several critics (including Troost) made the point that the BBC productions became more successful when combining textual/historical accuracy with the appeal of a visually appealing, flashy Hollywood film. The 70s ended up being a clear starting point in this regard. I don't have access to the MacFarland book from my library (and ILL would take too long for this FAC, I fear, especially with a holiday coming up), but perhaps someone else does? María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book (by Sue Parrill, McFarland is the publisher) is on the shelf(at the moment) at the University of Chicago library, to which I have access. I can undertake to retrieve it this weekend and take a look if that would be helpful. Simmaren (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of this book is available online at Google Books as well. I read this book a few years ago and I remember being unimpressed by it. How about we at least mention in the article that there were TV adaptations before the 1970s, but that they didn't have near the popular nor the critical acclaim that the later ones did? Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine - could be done very briefly, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as it doesn't make "between 1900 and 1975, more than sixty radio, television, film, and stage productions of Austen's various works were produced" at the end of the first paragraph in the section repetitive, sure thing. María (habla conmigo) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maria, what would be the best source for this? I'm scanning mine and they all focus on the annus mirabilis of 1995. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian, the more I look into this, the more difficult it becomes. I have several books here on Austen and film (both television and movies) and none of them discuss the pre-1970 television adaptations at all. They all give about once or two sentences to those adaptations. The essays in these books focus on the 1940 P&P, the post-1970s TV adaptations, or the sudden explosion of Austen adaptations of the 1990s. The most I can do is add a phrase explicitly stating that these were not the first TV adaptations. I can't source much more than that at this point. It would take a lot of digging and these pre-1970 TV adaptations are clearly not at the center of Austen adaptation studies. (Note: I can't even source the general statement I suggested above, which is more of a synthesis of a bunch of material. I can't point to a single page on which that statement appears.) Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The impression that the 1972 Emma was the first BBC Austen adaptation has been removed from the text, and that was my prime concern. If there is no worthwhile source saying anything about the earlier adaptations, perhaps we should leave it at that? I've looked at the text, and it might be hard to fit in your phrase saying that earlier adaptations existed, without disturbing the flow. Please consider the point resolved, without further expenditure of time. Brianboulton (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no quote, just a support. Yomanganitalk 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It's a thorough and interesting article and I learned a boatload, but I feel it needs some auditing for us pop culture-bred morons :)(Further comments moved to talk, [18] 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) ) -- Changed to Neutral. Awa and co. have addressed most of my concerns, but I am still unsure about statements presented as straightforward facts which may be misunderstood and accessibility. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- 4)
In the lead, I feel the referencing is spotty; either ref it all or don't. I don't see how "become one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language.[1]" is any less controversial or wanting of a citation than the quote "but it was not until the 1940s that Austen was firmly ensconced in academia as a "great English novelist"" for example. - 5)
"scholars often disparagingly referred to fans as "Janeites"." There are instances where it seems like a little too much effort has been put into "historicizing" the content; do scholars no longer refer to fans as "Janeites"? - 8)
"the way women depend on" is this meant to be present? As it's talking about the time of her writing I think it would be better as past (even though, of course, many of the same constraints women face have changed little). - 9)
I feel some of the quotes could be audited; for example, I have no clue what "They were full of it at Althrop" means, so wikilinks, editing, or parentheticals or brackets or whatnot would aid me.I'll point others out as I seem them. - 13)
"sixpenny series" is that the equivalent of a pulp edition or something nicer? I don't have a clue one way or another. - 15)
"Several important early works, glimmers of brilliant Austen scholarship, paved the way. " ok that sounds downright peacockian.To your deference - 16)
It's a bit offputting that the 1930's section begins by talking about the 1940's and then jumps back to the 1910's. - 20)
I'll admit it might not be that important of a mention, but the most recent Austen bit I can think of was PBS broadcasting "the complete Jane Austen" as part of Masterpiece Theatre-as far as I know new productions of most of the works and then the 1995 P&P. (according to the site it was a first for US television, so it might merit a mention.)[19]editor deference - There are a few other minor grammar issues, such as overuse of commas, but I'm not going to make you hunt for them and will do a light copyedit when the more important (to me, anyway) issues are taken care of. They are but nitpicks.
- 4)
Like I said, it's a well-written bit, I just think it could use some edits to make it more friendly to readers who aren't grad students specializing in english period literature :) If you could reply below in a block rather than in between my comments, it would help me understand what is being done and makes discussion easier to follow. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you number your comments so that they are easier to refer back to, since you don't want us to break up your comments? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to David:
- 4) I have removed all refs in the lead except the ref to "one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language". This statement is much more controversial than anything else in the article and is not cited anywhere else in the article. Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 5) I think historicizing the context is important, as the entire point of this article is that the reception of Austen and her works has changed over time. With regards to your point about scholars and Janeites, actually, there is much less of snobbishness among scholars now than there used to be. Two of the leading modern Austen scholars, for example, actively study Janeites and popular culture (Claudia Johnson and Deidre Lynch). The question for me in this article is always: have we explained the historical well? Perhaps you could point to areas where you were confused? Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 8) This is written in the literary present. Since it is discussing her plots, we used the present tense. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 9) I removed the Altrop reference. Let me know what other quotations were confusing. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 13) I've linked sixpenny to wiktionary and described the edition as "cheap". Does that help? Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 15) It may sound peacockian, but the sources really do sound this praiseworthy. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 16) Reworded: Several important early works—glimmers of brilliant Austen scholarship—paved the way for Austen to become solidly entrenched within the academy. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 20) We have included adaptations that Austen scholars have written about and that are demonstrably important. Since there are so many, we cannot mention every one. I'm sure you understand. See the burgeoning list at Jane Austen in popular culture that we hope to organize some day. Perhaps you could add this one there? Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to convey my issues with the article more clearly-maybe inline comments would help. As regards 1), the thing is anyone outside of literature or media analysis has no idea what "reception studies" are, and so "reception history" isn't exactly the most helpful description for us uninitiated. I don't really have an issue with it being the title as much because I hate verbose titles more than anything, but I think the lead could still be structured to be more newb-friendly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think comments on the talk page would be better, since there are so many people involved here. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think sandy said "no" to talk page comments last I checked, but I could be misconstruing her inscrutable ways again :) In regards to 5), my issue wasn't with having context (I like history, I like context too, looking back my choice of words was bad) but more with what I see as sort of making recent and current comments and analyses sound like they were written awhile ago- the whole "latter 20th/early 21st" bit. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we were supposed to move long discussion to the talk page? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, I'll go ask Aunt Sandy :P Also in re: to 17), if it's that general, than just paraphrase rather than quoting. It's just bothersome to read a quote with no attribution (whether it's contestable or not), because then I have to hunt for who made the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note: Can I just say that I much prefer threading? I have to have two tabs open in order to follow all of these comments now, otherwise I would be scrolling like crazy.) Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (I understand, but with a long list it turns into a wall of text which I have to sift through to find out what's been done and what needs to be addressed. Sandy said it's up to you if you want to put this on talk, so I leave formatting up to you.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are not going to thread, can you find some sort of orderly way to arrange your responses, then? Right now, I have to hunt for them. Perhaps you could create a list in response to our list ("Responses to Awadewit and Simmaren", maybe)? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to lose internet on the train, but if we use the talk I'll have more leeway in formatting so we can do it inline if you want. I'll try to start on it tonight (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If by inline comments, you mean hidden comments in the article, I would much rather not. It is easier to have a discussion on a talk page. If by inline you mean, threading, I am all for that. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copied responses to the FAC talk page - I thought you were going to transfer new concerns to the article talk page. Oh well. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If by inline comments, you mean hidden comments in the article, I would much rather not. It is easier to have a discussion on a talk page. If by inline you mean, threading, I am all for that. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to lose internet on the train, but if we use the talk I'll have more leeway in formatting so we can do it inline if you want. I'll try to start on it tonight (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are not going to thread, can you find some sort of orderly way to arrange your responses, then? Right now, I have to hunt for them. Perhaps you could create a list in response to our list ("Responses to Awadewit and Simmaren", maybe)? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (I understand, but with a long list it turns into a wall of text which I have to sift through to find out what's been done and what needs to be addressed. Sandy said it's up to you if you want to put this on talk, so I leave formatting up to you.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note: Can I just say that I much prefer threading? I have to have two tabs open in order to follow all of these comments now, otherwise I would be scrolling like crazy.) Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, I'll go ask Aunt Sandy :P Also in re: to 17), if it's that general, than just paraphrase rather than quoting. It's just bothersome to read a quote with no attribution (whether it's contestable or not), because then I have to hunt for who made the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we were supposed to move long discussion to the talk page? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think sandy said "no" to talk page comments last I checked, but I could be misconstruing her inscrutable ways again :) In regards to 5), my issue wasn't with having context (I like history, I like context too, looking back my choice of words was bad) but more with what I see as sort of making recent and current comments and analyses sound like they were written awhile ago- the whole "latter 20th/early 21st" bit. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think comments on the talk page would be better, since there are so many people involved here. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it seems to me that Twain's comments on Austen are not really explained... it gives a pithy quote but not his criticism of Austen. Is more ommitted becuase it would unbalance the article? gren グレン 07:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Twain quote is intended to illustrate and perhaps sharpen the preceding sentences in the paragraph, which summarize Austen's reception in the United States and which provide the context for it. In the sources, the debate between Howells and Twain is frequently mentioned, and Twain's dislike of Austen is almost always described. We thought about including a good quote from Howells, and there are a couple of pungent quotes from Twain that would have served the purpose, but this is the one that best fit within our constraints of size and scope. Unfortunately, quite a bit of "good stuff" had to be left on the cutting room floor. Simmaren (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of Twain's quotes, actually, are pithy rather than explanatory. That's his style. Thus we explained in the article that "Twain used Austen to argue against the Anglophile tradition in America". Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I did a peer review for this piece, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I suppose I'm one of the English major people described above, so perhaps it's best for others to parse its readability for layfolk. However, I've never been a Janeite, and nevertheless I found it very engaging and accessible. Another quality article from Awadewit and Simmaren and Maria, meeting – in many cases surpassing – the FA criteria. Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [20].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has gone through a peer review, GA Review and A-Class Review, and I think it's ready to become an FA-Class article. It's part of an Airborne Warfare project I'm undertaking, already having got Operation Varsity to FA and 11th Airborne Division to A-Class. Skinny87 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - I fixed up the images, so they all have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments & support—
- I think compound dates have spaces between them and the en dash.
- I don't see any other problems, really. A nice article, and happy to support.
JonCatalán(Talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Dead link Operation Varsity: The Last Airborne Deployment of World War II
- This link is used in footnote 25 and is also listed as an External link.
Otherwise links check out and sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link fixed and deleted respectively! Skinny87 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs, pls review the dab issues identified by the dab finder in the tool box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Sandy. I managed to fix one, but I can't find the other links that the disambig box is telling me are in the article. I fixed one Fort Bragg but the box says there's one more, and I don't know how to fix the 14th Division one as it's part of a template. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got the other Fort Bragg dab; an easy way to find it is use the "find" tool (ctrl+f on a PC, probably "apple+f" on a Mac). The other problem with the 14th Division dab is that the division never actually existed; it was a phantom division, and likely won't ever have an article of its own. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Sandy. I managed to fix one, but I can't find the other links that the disambig box is telling me are in the article. I fixed one Fort Bragg but the box says there's one more, and I don't know how to fix the 14th Division one as it's part of a template. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The article is not correct about the division's intended deployment. It was scheduled to be shipped to the Philippines in January 1945. The Battle of the Bulge caused it to be rushed to Europe instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Hawkeye. What source are you getting this from? None of my soirces state it was destined for the Phillipines. But if you tell me what source it is I'll have a look at it. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary documents of course! Try Ruppenthal, Vol. 2, p. 286
- "It was officially activated in August 1943" Meaning that the division received a training cadre from the 11th Airborne Division and 78th Infantry Division and a trainload of inductees direct from some reception centre with no military experience whatsoever. Other trainloads arrived over the next few weeks and months, until the division was largely filled, while officers attended various specialised training courses. Equipment trickled in. Training started in earnest when about two thirds of division equipment had been delivered. Most divisions were not fully equipped until alerted to move overseas. BUT
- "Between April 1943 and February 1945, the division remained in the United States" I think you mean August, not April!
- "but was not immediately shipped out to a combat theater, remaining in the United States as a reserve formation." NOT SO. The training cycle usually took about a year. It started with basic training for the inductees and then worked up to small unit and ultimately division manouvres. The 13th Airborne Division was not ready to be shipped overseas until September 1944.
- "Consequently the division did not take part in the first two large-scale airborne operations conducted by the Allies, Operation Husky and Operation Neptune,"
- It could not have possibly participated in Sicily, since it was not formed at this time, nor Normandy because it was not ready. In September 1944, the 13th Airborne Division was stripped of 1,652 enlisted men to provide reinforcements for the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. (See AGF Study No. 7) Since its total strength was only about 8,300, this represented about a third of its infantry strength, and required restarting the whole training process anew. As a result, it was not fully trained until January 1945.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's a lot to take in Hawkeye, but I'll try and get it added into the article within a few days. Skinny87 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, everything but the Philippines bit is added in, Hawkeye. If you can add that I hope I've solved all the issues you have with the article. Skinny87 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I don't know when Hawkeye will be back online, as I do know he had to go to the US recently and his time on wiki was sporadic, which is understandable; I'm hoping that any further reviwers won't take that the above fact hasn't been added in yet as a mark against the article. Hopefully it'll be added in as soon as possible; I'd do it myself but I don't have the book or any references in my own sources supporting that the division was destined for the Phillipines. Skinny87 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, sorry Sandy, it's all done, dusted and solved. Knew I'd forgotten something! Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Good article considering that the 13th Airborne Division never saw combat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support —another well-written article from Skinny87, everything seems to be in order. Disclosure: I've done some minor work on the article, including minor copyediting, links, merging references, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Okay, this is going to sound picky, but this is a US army article, so why is the spelling British? I see "U S Army Centre of Military History" in the refs, when it's properly "U S Army Center of Military History". Probably needs a double check for other spelling concerns.Another nitpick, why is it "Maj. Gen George W Griner.." Shouldn't it be "Major General George W. Griner"? (US habit is to put in the period after middle initials, plus why is the rank abbreviated?)Bit of overlinking also, no need to link New York City and Pacific.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ealdgyth - I take your point on the British spellings and the period in Griner, and hopefully all British spellings should be gone now, but please highlight any more that need to be fixed. However, I've been told time and again in articles on American military formations that using 'Maj. Gen.' or 'Lieut. Gen.' is the way to go; I used to spell it out fully but got shouted down a few times. I hope it won't be a problem for it to remain that way. I've also dealt with the overlinking
- I'd say that not everyone is going to know the abbreviations for military ranks, so it's probably wiser to spell out in full the first usage and give the abbreviation in ()'s for later usage, just like any other abbreviation in an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just about to change the first use of Major General in 'Formation' when I noticed it's spelt out in full and wikilinked in the lead. Is that okay, or should I expand its first use in 'Formation' as well? Skinny87 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huzzah! Thanks very much! Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just about to change the first use of Major General in 'Formation' when I noticed it's spelt out in full and wikilinked in the lead. Is that okay, or should I expand its first use in 'Formation' as well? Skinny87 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that not everyone is going to know the abbreviations for military ranks, so it's probably wiser to spell out in full the first usage and give the abbreviation in ()'s for later usage, just like any other abbreviation in an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ealdgyth - I take your point on the British spellings and the period in Griner, and hopefully all British spellings should be gone now, but please highlight any more that need to be fixed. However, I've been told time and again in articles on American military formations that using 'Maj. Gen.' or 'Lieut. Gen.' is the way to go; I used to spell it out fully but got shouted down a few times. I hope it won't be a problem for it to remain that way. I've also dealt with the overlinking
- Oh wow, that's great! Thanks Sandy! Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [21].
- Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)
This article covers the history of tanks in the Spanish Army from 1919 to the present time. It passed a Good Article review and an A-class review (through the Military History WikiProject), and was copyedited to an extent during both processes. Just to avoid tiring people who have a right to be tired, I will double check on the footnotes and make sure none are repeated. Thank you for your time! JonCatalán(Talk) 05:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:T-26 tank.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, a date, and an author.
Image:Trubia.jpg - Just to be clear, there are no Trubia tanks left anywhere in the world which someone could take a photo of?
Lovely tank photos, btw! Awadewit (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I changed the first image to another image I took of the T-26, and to clarify; no Trubia prototypes currently exist. JonCatalán(Talk) 12:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- New image checks out and I've clarified the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The lead is way, way to long - it's getting on for 1,000 words and needs to be cut by at least 50%. Please see WP:LEAD. The problem arises because you have included discursive details in the lead, instead of providing a broad summary of the article's content. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is a summary of the article. It was almost impossible to cut more information from the lead, and avoid leaving some parts of the article not summarized. According to WP:LEAD (which I have read before), an article with over 30,000 characters may have a lead three to four paragraphs long. This article's prose size is 48kB long, and the article itself is 83kB long. I don't see anything that says that the lead can only be about 500 words long, although if you check on Word Processor, the current lead is 800 words long, not 1,000 words long; the only thing on that page which mentions "500" is that the lead should be expanded when the stub is about 400 to 500 words long (not the lead). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out, taking a second look, that each section really has around two sentences on it, in the lead. Most have one sentence. I honestly can't see which details are "discursive". JonCatalán(Talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I suggested you looked at WP:LEAD, I wasn't drawing your attention to any specific numbers, I was meaning you should look at its general guidelines, what it says about overview, about summary style, its emphasis on the lead as a brief summary, about readers not being dropped into the middle of the subject from the word go, etc. I don't accept your statement that it is "impossible to cut more information from the lead". It is supposed to summarise the topic in a general way, leaving the detail to the body of the article. There is simply far too much detail in your lead, which properly belongs elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't read what I said. The current lead summarizes the article, and barely goes into any detail whatsoever. Read the lead, then read the article. Each section is covered by one or two sentences (which is standard). It's a long lead, because it's a long article. According to WP:LEAD an article of that length can have four paragraphs (which it does). Cutting from the lead will mean that entire sections aren't covered, which is certainly against MoS guidelines. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I read exactly what you said, and disagreed with it, as I do with your later statement that this huge lead "barely goes into any detail whatever". But I'm not getting into any further argument about it - let others judge. Also, please accept that this is not a personal attack. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make sure, I'm not taking this as a personal attack. I just find your argument to have a lack of foundation, given that you haven't even provided examples of what you think goes into detail (and how you think that the detail in the lead even compares to the detail in the article). You have just repeated the same thing three times, without actually supporting your argument with any evidence. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To but in, I've looked at the lead, and it doesn't seem that long, and I can't find any details that could be taken out that weren't strictly necessary; it's a large article covering a broad topic, so I think it's okay. Skinny87 (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make sure, I'm not taking this as a personal attack. I just find your argument to have a lack of foundation, given that you haven't even provided examples of what you think goes into detail (and how you think that the detail in the lead even compares to the detail in the article). You have just repeated the same thing three times, without actually supporting your argument with any evidence. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I read exactly what you said, and disagreed with it, as I do with your later statement that this huge lead "barely goes into any detail whatever". But I'm not getting into any further argument about it - let others judge. Also, please accept that this is not a personal attack. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't read what I said. The current lead summarizes the article, and barely goes into any detail whatsoever. Read the lead, then read the article. Each section is covered by one or two sentences (which is standard). It's a long lead, because it's a long article. According to WP:LEAD an article of that length can have four paragraphs (which it does). Cutting from the lead will mean that entire sections aren't covered, which is certainly against MoS guidelines. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I suggested you looked at WP:LEAD, I wasn't drawing your attention to any specific numbers, I was meaning you should look at its general guidelines, what it says about overview, about summary style, its emphasis on the lead as a brief summary, about readers not being dropped into the middle of the subject from the word go, etc. I don't accept your statement that it is "impossible to cut more information from the lead". It is supposed to summarise the topic in a general way, leaving the detail to the body of the article. There is simply far too much detail in your lead, which properly belongs elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out, taking a second look, that each section really has around two sentences on it, in the lead. Most have one sentence. I honestly can't see which details are "discursive". JonCatalán(Talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- '8 millimeters (0.31 in) Hotchkiss machine gun, and was later re-armed with a Spanish 7 millimeters (0.28 in) machine gun' - Millimeters to Millimeter, please
- 'Upon inspection by the Spanish government, including King Alfonso XIII, it was decided to procure another ten—including eight armed with machine guns and two armed with cannons' - Do we need to know the King inspected the tanks - seems kinda superfluous.
- 'The French government declared that there were no vehicles available for sale, and later added that under no circumstances would they allow Spain to rearm these vehicles - why did they suddenly refuse?
- 'the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, which had equipped the Spanish Army's military trucks since 1915' - which the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915
- 'Designed to avoid having problems with the tracks coming off the vehicle, the new track system substituted the traditional tracks with a track system which was held together by a lateral metal wall, with the roadwheels suspended from the chassis' - I think 'tracks' are repeated too many times in this sentence.
- 'The new tank proved satisfactory—and even bettered the French FT-17 in some aspects—and the Spanish Army ordered the construction of four prototypes' - how did it better the FT-17?
- In the T-26 Shipment Table, the Additional Information comments aren't all aligned correctly.
- 'During the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalist Army only developed a single tank, taking advantage of the capture of the Trubia Factory in the north, in 1937. Based on the Republican Trubia-Naval, the German Panzer I, the T-26 and the Italian CV-33, it was designed to unite the best of all three major light tanks used by the Nationalist Army during the war.[90] The tank was named the Carro de Infanteria modelo 1937 (Infantry Tank model 1937).[91] However, it did not perform as well as expected, and it was not put into mass production.' - The name of the tank needs to come sooner than it does now, I kept expecting it but didn't find it.
- 'The Nationalist's tank disparity with Republican forces caused Nationalist commanders to offer up to 500 pesetas for each captured T-26, to Spanish soldiers' - offered spanish soldiers upto 500 pesetas for each captured T-26
- 'At the end of World War II, the Spanish Army counted on a tank force composed of ...' - 'had' instead of 'counted on'
Okay, those are all the comments. I think if they're satisfied and I don't find anything else problematic, I'll Support the article. Skinny87 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, those templates were missing adj=on; they are fixed now. I'll remove King Alfonso XIII, and in regards to why the French decided to stop the sale, I don't think my reference really gives a specific reason, other than the one already provided by the text (...and later added that under no circumstances would they allow Spain to rearm these vehicles with the Spanish 7 millimeters (0.28 in) machine gun, and consequently denied the sale.).
- I changed the sentence about tracks to: Designed to avoid having problems with the tracks coming off the vehicle, the new design substituted the traditional tracks with a system which was held together by a lateral metal wall, with the roadwheels suspended from the chassis.
- In regards to the comparison between the Trubia and the FT-17, it's explained in the paragraph. For example, The track system was the most innovative and unique part of the new Trubia light tank. Apart from the new tracks, the Trubia was to have a greater velocity (at least 30 kilometers per hour (19 mph)) and greater road range than the FT-17. While a new machine gun was installed on the glacis plate, the tank's crew was increased from two to three, which caused the hull to be enlarged; this also allowed the engine to be maintained from inside the vehicle, allowing the crew to fix small breakdowns in the field.
- Everything in the table is aligned center, it's just that the comments are long enough so that it takes up the entire cell (except for the third "additional comment"). The table was edited by another user to make the unreadable prose shorter.
- Everything else should be fixed! Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick query (I didn't spot this before) - in the US aid section it refers to "...the XII Armored Brigade, which was formed by the 61st Alcázar de Toledo Armored Infantry Regiment, the 61st Asturias Mechanized Infantry Regiment..." - should these regiments both have the same number? Shimgray | talk | 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching that! The Asturias was the 31st Mechanized Infantry Regiment. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Named refs again: Jon, this comes up on every one of your facs, I shouldn't still be playing this broken record :-) Sample:
- ^ de Mazarrasa (1990), p. 77
- ^ Manrique, La Brunete, p. 73
- ^ Candil, Carros de Combate, p. 166
- ^ de Mazarrasa (1990), p. 77
If you can't catch them visually, you can put them in a spreadsheet and sort the spreadsheet to locate the repeats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. As mentioned, it's an ongoing effort of mine to hunt them down and fix them. I caught another instance; I will continue to look. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can teach you how to check them using an Excel spreadsheet if you remind me sometime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. As mentioned, it's an ongoing effort of mine to hunt them down and fix them. I caught another instance; I will continue to look. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Why is this article in the catergories Weapon templates and Military navigational boxes? The article isn't a template so this doesn't seem correct. Rmhermen (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes from the inclusion of the "History of the tank" template. I forgot to add tags on its page. The issue should be fixed now. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: But please shorten the Lead. KensplanetTalkContributions 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposere lead (see also my earlier comments). It's not just the length, it breaches other MOS requirements, too. It does not start with a short declarative statement that pinpoints the article and says why the subject is notable. It drops the reader right into the middle of the subject with no introduction or lead-in. Its length is out of proportion, even for a longish aRticle on a broad subject, and that length comes from too much detail in the lead text. For example, while it is appropriate to say that both sides in the Civil War were supplied with tanks from other European powers, it isn't necessary here to give all the model numbers. That is one example. I tried to raise this point with you earlier but you were unwilling even to consider it. If you are now prepared to discuss the issue, I am happy to make other suggestions. I have no other problems with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not I who was unwilling to discuss the issue. It was you. I asked you for specific examples of what I could remove, and thankfully you have at least provided on right now. I'm not sure how you want me to introduce the lead; perhaps you could give me an example or help. "Tanks in the Spanish Army" is an introduction within itself (we know we're talking about tanks in the Spanish Army), and the first sentence denotes that the article is about the history of tanks in the Spanish army (the short declarative statement is: Tanks in the Spanish Army have over 80 years of history, from 1919 to the present.). Finally, according to WP:LEAD an article with over 30kB may properly have a lead which is four paragraphs long, and this article is 80kB long and has a lead which is four paragraphs long (I don't see the breach in MoS, like you claim there is). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I shortened the lead as much as I really could; I removed facts that could be removed, whereas the lead would still make sense. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have taken out about 150 words; you could possibly lose a few more by the removal of redundancies, (e.g. in the first line it isn't necessary to say both "have 80 years of history" and "from 1919 to the present" since they mean the same thing), and the odd peacock words (extremely capable). I leave such things for you to consider. You have to put a bit back to explain what the T-26B was, that was surpassed (3rd para). Overall, the changes certainly improve the lead, though I still don't like the way one is rushed into the subject rather than "led", but I appreciate that you have attempted to address my concerns, and I have struck the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed mention of the T-26, outright. Any idea on how to start the introduction, though? JonCatalán(Talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed mention of the T-26, outright. Any idea on how to start the introduction, though? JonCatalán(Talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have taken out about 150 words; you could possibly lose a few more by the removal of redundancies, (e.g. in the first line it isn't necessary to say both "have 80 years of history" and "from 1919 to the present" since they mean the same thing), and the odd peacock words (extremely capable). I leave such things for you to consider. You have to put a bit back to explain what the T-26B was, that was surpassed (3rd para). Overall, the changes certainly improve the lead, though I still don't like the way one is rushed into the subject rather than "led", but I appreciate that you have attempted to address my concerns, and I have struck the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my suggestion is that you replace the first two sentences with the following single sentence: "Tanks in the Spanish Army have over 80 years of history, from the French FT-17s first delivered in 1919 to the Leopard and B1 Centauro models of the early 21st century." Then follow on with "The FT-17 took part in..." etc. This, I think, provides a good lead-in to the topic, and gives a clearer idea of the article's range. It replaces reference to the inspecific "current state" with the time-specific "early 21st century", and is also slightly shorter. What do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I instated that sentence. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My concerns were almost entirely with the lead, as discussed above, but these concerns have been adequately addressed. I could probably suggest ways of reducing the lead further, but enough is enough, and I am happy to support the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
I'm going to assume that "Carros de Combate Modernos...) is in Spanish?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, yes it is. For some reason it didn't show up, even though it was included in the citation template. I'll put the "es" icon outside of it. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Birth of the Spanish tank force: 1919–1926
- On the fourth line of the first paragraph, there is a typo. "Canon" should be spelt "Cannon".
- In the second paragraph of that section you say that the French government "agreed to the sale of ten machine gun armed FT-17s and a single command tank." Could you please explain how this command tank was different from the other tanks?
- In the next sentence you say that these tanks were presented to the "Escuela Cetral de Tiro, or theCentral Firing School". There should be a space there.
- In the third paragraph you say "the tanks were forced to withdraw back to Anvar". It's "withdraw to Anvar" or "fall back to Anvar", you can't say "withdraw back".
Early indigenous tank development programs: 1925–1935
- In the Trubia tank section, "the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, which the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915" would be better phrased as "the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, the same engine the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915"
- "While touring Europe for a second time, in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" would be better phrased "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo"
Tanks during the Spanish Civil War: 1936–1939
- Shouldn't "Organization of Popular Front armored forces" be a subsection of "Armor of the Popular Front"? Not saying you should do this but it's what I would have done,
- "The loss of many of the Republic's BT-5s during the Battle of the Ebro caused them to retire the tank to its reserves." — should be their reserves.
- "Officially, the Italians lost an estimated 2,700 casualties during the campaigning around Guadalajara; the Republican Army lost an estimated 4,000."
You can say that they "lost 2,700 men" or else "sustained 2,700 casualties". One can't "lose casualties" lol.
Post-war era: 1939–1953
- "Beginning in 1945, now-Major Verdeja" would be better phrased as "Beginning in 1945, the now-Major Verdeja"
Late Cold War: 1970–1991
- "Ultimately, the Germans were not able to sell the Leopard tank" would be better phrassed "Ultimately, the Germans were unable to sell the Leopard tank"
- "With a fuel tank of 970 liters (210 imp gal), the tank had a road range of 600 kilometers (370 mi) and the fuel was, on average, sufficient for 18 hours." Sufficient for 18 hours of what? I assume this should be either combat or travelling.
The rest of the article is fine. If these very minor problems are cleaned up the article will make a brilliant FA, wholeheartedly support recognition.--Patton123 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I took care of most of it, except for two things. First, the FT-17 command tank issue. I'll have to look up my source and see if it mentions the differences. Unfortunately, I don't have a book dedicated to the FT-17 in general (although maybe I can find something). The second was the suggestion on the sentence that deals with traveling to Europe. The suggested replacement was: "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" -> I believe that adding "and" into the sentence makes it seem as if his tour of Europe was for another purpose, while the specific intention was to look at foreign design trends. Otherwise, however, it should all be fixed! Thank you again. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes on second thoughts I agree, it would sound like his trip to Europe was for some other reason. I'll search the net for some sources about the FT-17 myself in the mean time, and post any good ones I find here.--Patton123 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, information about the command tank added! JonCatalán(Talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes on second thoughts I agree, it would sound like his trip to Europe was for some other reason. I'll search the net for some sources about the FT-17 myself in the mean time, and post any good ones I find here.--Patton123 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I took care of most of it, except for two things. First, the FT-17 command tank issue. I'll have to look up my source and see if it mentions the differences. Unfortunately, I don't have a book dedicated to the FT-17 in general (although maybe I can find something). The second was the suggestion on the sentence that deals with traveling to Europe. The suggested replacement was: "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" -> I believe that adding "and" into the sentence makes it seem as if his tour of Europe was for another purpose, while the specific intention was to look at foreign design trends. Otherwise, however, it should all be fixed! Thank you again. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Patton123 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [22].
Recently listed as a good article, primates are an importance subject for any encyclopaedia. The article has seen significant improvement since July and is now stable. Jack (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. Per WP:FAC instructions, "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." There have been substantial rewrites and changes, long delays, new images, and it is not clear to me if new images or sources have been vetted. Please make an effort to respond promptly to concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image concerns have been addressed. I was keeping track of what was left to do on the talk page, will attend to Dank55's comments shortly. Jack (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the images need to be rereviewed or not? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image status was unclear before images were added, then some deleted, so I'm unsure where this stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only additional image since the images were reviewed, is Image:Shanghai-monkey.jpg (licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License). Jack (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only additional image since the images were reviewed, is Image:Shanghai-monkey.jpg (licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License). Jack (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image status was unclear before images were added, then some deleted, so I'm unsure where this stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the images need to be rereviewed or not? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image concerns have been addressed. I was keeping track of what was left to do on the talk page, will attend to Dank55's comments shortly. Jack (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. Per WP:FAC instructions, "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." There have been substantial rewrites and changes, long delays, new images, and it is not clear to me if new images or sources have been vetted. Please make an effort to respond promptly to concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I will support as soon as: I find out if my copyediting dealt sufficiently with SV's concerns, any new images and sources are vetted (per Sandy), and my previous comments are addressed. Nice job. I can't speak for Ruslik, but you've certainly been diligent dealing with his concerns; you answered my one remaining question; and neither SV nor anyone else has raised the concerns we saw before the restart, which I hope means that this round has fixed the problems to everyone's satisfaction. Well done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Progress report: I'm doing a little more copyediting now. Jack, check my recent edits to make sure they're okay. Everything I wanted is taken care of now except for this:
- All the following are done: "Comparative analyses have substantiated the sexual selection hypotheses": which hypotheses? You don't seem to be talking about one of Darwin's hypotheses. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely sure what I meant here, but I was reading from this reference. Does anyone else understand it? Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed unclear wording, it now reads: Comparative analyses have generated a more complete understanding of the relationship between sexual selection, natural selection, and mating systems in primates. Jack (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely sure what I meant here, but I was reading from this reference. Does anyone else understand it? Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend either defining exactly what you mean by "primitive ... body plan", or removing it; the following material defines what you mean in detail, and is easier to understand, too. Readers could quickly figure out what "body plan" means from the wikilink, but they still wouldn't get what "primitive" body plan means here, I think. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I've done this one properly, the sentence won't really work if I elaborate too much on "primitive body plan". Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've removed it for now. Btw, there are only 242 ghits for "primitive body plan", and some of those were not using the phrase in the specialized sense, so readers may have difficulty with the phrase. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I've done this one properly, the sentence won't really work if I elaborate too much on "primitive body plan". Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "all species possess some adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle", I think I agree that it's a little unclear, but maybe I'm just not getting it because I'm not a biologist. We primates have backbones, one form of which first arose among our fish ancestors ... does that mean we have "adaptations for a submarine lifestyle", even though we don't live underwater? Would it work to say this? "Not all primates are adapted for living primarily in trees, but all primates are adapted for climbing for many purposes, such as escaping predators." No need to list baboons, geladas, humans etc. here in the lead; that can stay in the relevant section. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, "Some primates (including humans and baboons) do not live primarily in trees, but all primates [continuing as above]". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the second suggestion (but replaced the second "primate" with "species"). Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was getting more at "arboreal lifestyle"; for one thing, the word "lifestyle" has been so overused and misused that it's almost a word to avoid now, at least in a general encyclopedia. I'll replace this with "climbing trees", but feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the second suggestion (but replaced the second "primate" with "species"). Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the article with SlimVirgin's objection about readability in mind, I've decided I don't have a general objection on these grounds. All of Monkey (start-class) and much of Ape (C-class) are more readable for non-biologists; as long as we have something for everyone, we've more than done our job. That's why people like Wikipedia; we're easily the top content site in the world (we're 5th by hits, and most people headed to google.com or msn.com are on their way to somewhere else). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: I don't have a "general objection", but I made changes along these lines in my copyediting and asked for more changes here (such as my first two points). I just don't think the problem is unfixable, and I hate inefficiency more than anything; I'd rather get this stuff fixed now than have the article fail and have to do this all over again in a month. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "30 grams (1.1 oz), to the Gorilla, which is 200 kilograms (440 lb)", these units weren't spelled out or linked at the first occurrence. Per WP:MOSNUM, they don't need to be linked (since they're not obscure units) although they can be at first occurrence; but "In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses (e.g a pipe 5 centimetres (2 in) in diameter and 37 kilometres (23 mi) long). [*] When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. The first occurrence was in the lead section, "Primates range in size from the 30 g (1 ounce) Pygmy Mouse Lemur to the 200 kg (440 pound) Mountain Gorilla." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also from WP:MOSNUM: "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. They are harder to read on small displays, and are not aligned with superscript characters (see x1x²x³x4 vs. x1x2x3x4). Instead, use superscript markup, created with <sup></sup>." Please replace "cm³". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More readers will understand "social grooming" and "skin parasites"; is there a subtle and important difference in the terms "allogrooming" and "ectoparasites"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, they are the same thing. The terms were changed during GA review or FAC to allow easier comprehension for the layperson, along with a lot of other words. Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per M-W Unabridged, the eye is a "sensory organ" but vision is not. I'd prefer we avoid "color vision evolved to become the main sensory organ." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I've changed it to "trichromatic eyes evolved to...". Hope that isn't too technical, the phrase is used and defined further up the page in the colour vision paragraph. Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how you reviewers feel about inline citations at FAC ... I saw someone complaining about citations for every sentence at WT:FAC ... but surely the 16 cites to Ref 27 at Primate#Life history and Primate#Diet and feeding is going too far. What's the right number of citations in these sections? Anyone? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tarsiers are the most carnivorous primates, exclusively eating insects, reptiles, amphibians and other live animals." The most, or the only? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference used to source that statement said both "most carnivorous" and "only totally carnivorous" primate. I've changed it to say only carnivorous, and corrected the diet according to the reference. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "frugivore biomass": why not "fruit-eating animals (by weight)"? Again, is there some subtle, important distinction if you switch to terms everyone will understand? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No difference, just more concise. I've changed it to: Making up between 25% and 40% of the fruit-eating animals (by weight) within tropical rainforests. Do you think it's okay to pipe weight to biomass? Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that's a good judgment call, even though I tend to be stricter than some on Easter eggs. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No difference, just more concise. I've changed it to: Making up between 25% and 40% of the fruit-eating animals (by weight) within tropical rainforests. Do you think it's okay to pipe weight to biomass? Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in meter vs. metre. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Changed metre to meter. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MOSNUM, "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification or currency article link (just $88), unless this would be unclear." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "... manual dexterity allows them to perform tasks that a quadriplegic is physically unable to do": a little awkward. You don't need a lot of manual dexterity to surpass a quadriplegic. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to ... manual dexterity makes them ideal helpers.' Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Behind the scenes, many zoos, particularly those with Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) accreditation, participate in the Species Survival Plan (SSP)": I doubt that this is "behind the scenes"; zoos that spend a lot of money on conservation probably trumpet their accomplishments. (The North Carolina Zoo, of which I'm a member, certainly does.) And there are two "many zoos" in a row; could these two sentences be combined? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Zoos and other Animal Welfare supporters generally oppose Animal Rights and the GAPs insistence ...": I can't see how we can make "Animal Rights" a proper noun, so maybe "animal rights initiatives" would be better, and "GAPs" needs an apostrophe. Since this is a contentious topic, I'm going to leave this sentence alone. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither animal welfare nor animal rights are proper nouns, corrected GAP's as suggested. Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Primate#Animal testing has an average of 1.5 sentences per paragraph; too short and stubby. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "estimates suggest" is redundant, but the main point is that you're probably running afoul of WP:WORDS here. Either your sources give enough weight for you to say that something is true (or at the least, that someone with at least a little credibility and solidity believes it to be true), or they don't. Words like "claim", "estimate" and "suggest", when used to undercut a source at the same time that you're presenting the source, are WP:Words to avoid. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to: Data for some African cities show that half... Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the things you mention in Conservation are important factors, but here's another factor you may or may not want to mention: common chimpanzees are incredibly strong (my local zookeepers say, 10 times as strong as humans in their long muscles) and very aggressive at times (and you never know which times). The real danger posed by chimps in the wild in turn triggers our own baser instincts. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I hope it goes without saying, but don't throw this in there because it sounds good, add some version of this if it goes along with your thinking and it's already sourced or easily sourced. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "inbreeding, which can cause deleterious effects leading to a population bottleneck, whereby 50% of the population is lost": I don't get what you're trying to say here. Inbreeding might lead to a 10% or 100% loss, not always 50%. Are you saying that something special happens at the halfway point? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a poor attempt to define population bottleneck, sadly I used the definition of population bottleneck from Wikipedia; after doing a good search I can't find an reliable reference to source the statement so I've reworded the sentence to: leading to a population bottleneck, whereby a significant percentage of the population is lost. Jack (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's it for me. I did most of the copyediting myself, but I didn't fix the things I listed above. See my standard disclaimer. Not too much left to do. Overall, it seemed like good, well-researched, persuasive writing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your time, hopefully we'll get this through soon in great shape! Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments (lead and Evolutionary history section)
1) In the lead Prosimians most closely resemble early proto-primates,. However proto-primates are not mentioned in the main text. I suggest removing this passage about proto-primates from the lead.- Changed to: Prosimians have characteristics most like those of the earliest primates, and included... Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) In evolution subsection I read The suborder Strepsirrhini, ... is generally thought to have split off from the primitive primate line about 63 mya (million years ago),. However in the next paragraph I read According to genetic studies, the lemurs of Madagascar diverged from the lorisiforms approximately 75 my. There is a contradiction here. Could lemurs and lorisiforms diverge from each other 75 mya ago, taking into account that Strepsirrhini diverged from primitive primates only 63 mya ago?
- Because of differences in genetic and fossil studies, there is no real consensus as to divergence points. The paper indicating that lorisiforms split 75 Mya (with a 95% credibility interval of 66.9–84.4 Mya) makes no mention of the strep/hap split. I recommend we follow the recent genetic study by Horvarth for lemurs, it has a much wider range than previous lemur studies (over 200 lemur species) though that leaves the question of where the strep/hap split was. I've seen the last common ancestor of the primates being: 77 Mya (Steiper, 2006), 64–80 Mya (Pace, 2007), 63–90 Mya (Martin, 1993), 81.5 Mya (Tavaré, 2002 - also thinks no more than 7% of primate species are represented by fossils), euprimates at 80–90 Mya (Martin, 2007) then I've seen the strep/hap divergence at: 50 Mya (Porter, 1997), 61 Mya (Yoder, 1997) and 80 (Martin, 2003) & (Tavaré, 2002). Though I do agree this needs to be clarified, I'll attempt to clear it up. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you will clarify this. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do, think I might need to get some outsider opinion first though. Jack (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you will clarify this. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of differences in genetic and fossil studies, there is no real consensus as to divergence points. The paper indicating that lorisiforms split 75 Mya (with a 95% credibility interval of 66.9–84.4 Mya) makes no mention of the strep/hap split. I recommend we follow the recent genetic study by Horvarth for lemurs, it has a much wider range than previous lemur studies (over 200 lemur species) though that leaves the question of where the strep/hap split was. I've seen the last common ancestor of the primates being: 77 Mya (Steiper, 2006), 64–80 Mya (Pace, 2007), 63–90 Mya (Martin, 1993), 81.5 Mya (Tavaré, 2002 - also thinks no more than 7% of primate species are represented by fossils), euprimates at 80–90 Mya (Martin, 2007) then I've seen the strep/hap divergence at: 50 Mya (Porter, 1997), 61 Mya (Yoder, 1997) and 80 (Martin, 2003) & (Tavaré, 2002). Though I do agree this needs to be clarified, I'll attempt to clear it up. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) I also read in the second paragraph the three remaining families that include the lorises, the Aye-aye, the galagos, and the pottos.. So three families or four (lorises, the Aye-aye, the galagos, and the pottos)?- There are many species within those three families. The more recognisable subfamilies from Lorisidae are mentioned (lorises and pottos), I've changed it now to "lorids"; the family name. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4) I see another inaccurate statement (fourth paragraph) In 2008, the Aye-aye family, Daubentoniidae, was confirmed to be a lemuriform.... However in the previous paragraph Aye-aye was listed together with lorises, not lemurs, and in the scheme in the next subsection Aye-aye has its own infraorder (Chiromyiformes). Please, clarify this.- Now reads: In 2008, the Aye-aye family (Daubentoniidae) was confirmed to be a lemuriform and descended from the same ancestral lemur population that rafted to the island, it is contained within the Chiromyiformes infraorder, forming a sister clade to the lemurs. Lemurs/lorids split then lemurs/aye-ayes split, so aye-aye is lemuriform (as opposed to lorisiform) but is not contained within Lemuriformes. Jack (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5) In the fifth paragraph of the evolution subsection I read and contains the two clades: the parvorder Platyrrhini that developed in South America and contains New World monkeys is one, and the parvorder Catarrhini that developed in Africa and contains the Old World monkeys, humans and the other apes in the other. "is one" "in the other" are redundant here, in my opinion.- You're right, removed offending words. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6) Although anthropoid primates could have made it to North America and island-hopped to South America during the Eocene,[20] and Antarctica supported large, dense forests for a southern migration, The language here is not encyclopedic, especially "made it to". Please, clarify this sentence (split it in two sentences).- Okay, changed wording. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7) The young Atlantic Ocean was not nearly as wide as it is today ... Please, specify what was the width of Atlantic in Oligocene/Miocene.- Added reference to this statement, the reference has a picture of the width but no specific width value. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8) Close behind came lorises and tarsiers, also African castaways. Again unencyclopedic language.- Changed to: Soon after, the lorises and tarsiers made the same journey. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9) In the Classification subsection In older classifications, the Primates were divided into two superfamilies: Prosimii and Anthropoidea. How old are those classifications?- I've mentioned that McKenna & Bell disregarded Prosimii and Anthropoidea. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at this again, McKenna & Bell weren't the first to follow this classification. Added information to reflect this. Jack (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've mentioned that McKenna & Bell disregarded Prosimii and Anthropoidea. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10) I would appreciate more information about hybrids. It is interesting topic. How long do hybrids live? Can they breed, or they infertile?- This section was cut down purposefully due to length constraints on the article. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope my comments are helpful. I will continue tomorrow with other sections. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They look really helpful, I'll get on to them as soon as I can. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments 2 (Distinguishing features. Anatomy, physiology and morphology)
11) Please, explain arboreal habitats at the first use.- Added (trees and bushes) immediately afterwards. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12) Please clarify that posterior lobe is in Cerebellum (I initially thought that it is part of the cerebral hemispheres).- Changed to more concise wikilink: Posterior lobe of cerebellum. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13) In the list of features not all items have inline citations.- Am I out of practice on inline citations? The times I've seen it come up at WT:V, there was agreement that "five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes" was exactly the kind of thing people didn't want to see line-by-line citations for, they wanted a cite to a general textbook, which is in the sentence that introduces the list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it is better to remove citations from items altogether, because they create false impression that some information is cited and some is not. Ruslik (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally cited every distinguishing characteristic (to the same source, which was a list of distinguishing characteristics), the someone recommended that I just reference the whole paragraph. The paragraph was then turned into a list, and then people added extra distinguishing characteristics (which I don't believe are distinguished from other orders) and cited them to other sources. So the unreferenced points are all from the original source at the beginning of the paragraph. I'll have a look at what the best method of action is. Jack (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I understand, Jack. I'm going to fix this in the way that I think Ruslik wants ... which is to copy the citation that's currently meant for just the whole list to the end of each line that isn't cited by another source. If there were only one major editor on this article, as often happens at WP:GAN, I think there might be an additional argument that citing some but not others may bring up a question in some reviewers' minds of where exactly the material is coming from and how the article was constructed. In an article that's a community effort, we can't, of course, restrict anyone's right to ask for sourcing for just one fact, or the right of any editor to exercise independent judgment that there's a better source out there for a particular fact than the general textbook. I think Ruslik is just asking for the reason he states: use consistent formatting ... if you put cites at the end of some elements of a list, then cite every element ... otherwise readers may misunderstand. I'll do that now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally cited every distinguishing characteristic (to the same source, which was a list of distinguishing characteristics), the someone recommended that I just reference the whole paragraph. The paragraph was then turned into a list, and then people added extra distinguishing characteristics (which I don't believe are distinguished from other orders) and cited them to other sources. So the unreferenced points are all from the original source at the beginning of the paragraph. I'll have a look at what the best method of action is. Jack (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it is better to remove citations from items altogether, because they create false impression that some information is cited and some is not. Ruslik (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I out of practice on inline citations? The times I've seen it come up at WT:V, there was agreement that "five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes" was exactly the kind of thing people didn't want to see line-by-line citations for, they wanted a cite to a general textbook, which is in the sentence that introduces the list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14) In the Anatomy section there is a sentence The primate collar bone is retained as prominent element of the pectoral girdle; this allows the shoulder joint broad mobility.. It is strange, in my opinion. It implies that primate's pectoral girdle is more mobile, because it has an additional bone (clavicle)?- From the clavicle page: It serves as a rigid support from which the scapula and free limb are suspended. This arrangement keeps the upper limb (arm) away from the thorax so that the arm has maximum range of movement. This is an important characteristic of primates; without extremely mobile forelimbs brachiation would not be possible. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15) The main hominid molar cusp (hypocone) evolved in early primate history, while the cusp of the corresponding primitive lower molar (paraconid) was lost. So I do not understand how many cusps humans have, five or four?- They can have either 4 or 5. I've added it to the paragraph. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16) at the time of dinosaurs is not very scientific. Please, specify time (or period).- Done. Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17) In Sexual dimorphism subsection Studies are helping to find the relative contribution of the various selective and non-selective mechanisms in sexual dimorphism evolution and expression. Redundant sentence.- Removed. Jack (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruslik (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ruslik more very helpful comments, I'm trying my best to keep up with you. Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Final comments
18) In the 'Social system' subsection the first sentence says Richard Wrangham proposed that social systems are best classified by the amount of movement by females occurring between groups Please, clarify if this theory is applicable to all animals (and humans) or only to non-human primates?- Only non-human primates. Made change. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19) In the 'Interactions with humans' section there is sentence Some of these are zoonotic diseases that can also be transmitted to humans, most notably the potentially fatal Herpes B Virus. Please, explain what 'there' refers to in it. This sentence partially duplicates previous two sentences.- Changed to: Viruses such as Herpesviridae (most notably Herpes B Virus), Poxviridae, measles, ebola, rabies, the Marburg virus and viral hepatitis can be transmitted to humans; in some cases the viruses produce potentially fatal diseases in both humans and non-human primates. Think I managed to remove an 'also' as well! Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20) Within the order Primates, humans are recognized as persons and protected in law by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This sentence conveys an impression, that UN Declaration somehow mentions primates (includes humans and excludes other primates). However the declaration just states that everybody (meaning humans) has some rights. Primates are not mentioned in it at all.- Added only before humans. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I happy to support this article if my last concerns are addressed. Some copy-edit may be necessary as some weasel words are too overabundant (also, for instance). However I am an expert in criterion 1a. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My concerns have been addressed so I support now. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again Ruslik. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: footnotes and references ideally should be seperate. Sceptre (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The footnotes thing is mentioned at WP:Layout, but maybe that's not a persuasive argument (I couldn't tell your view on these things from your userpage). Would you do me a favor and read my blatherings at User:Dank55/Essays#What style guidelines are supposed to be on the value of style guidelines, and tell me if that's in any way persuasive about the value of arguing this on the style page rather than in the middle of someone's FAC? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's just me who does it, but I sometimes put footnotes explaining a point seperate from citations, and use a, b, c, etc to denote them, qv The Trial of a Time Lord. It helps a bit with reading, e.g. I was a bit perplexed about the "every continent on Earth" statement, clicked the ref to see a citation, and it was an explanatory footnote lost in the sea of citations. :) Sceptre (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I separate them myself (unless I'm being lazy, which is ... a lot :). But a lot of contributors don't like to separate them. My gut feeling is that we won't be able to get an agreement at WP:Layout to say they have to be separated, but it wouldn't bother me at all if people want that change. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would bother me; the distinction is artificial. Expository footnotes should also cite sources, at least for the assertions in the footnote, and many citations could use a word or two on the nature of the source. If your notes do fall neatly into two classes, it's harmless busywork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right, Sept, they don't generally fall into two neat piles. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would bother me; the distinction is artificial. Expository footnotes should also cite sources, at least for the assertions in the footnote, and many citations could use a word or two on the nature of the source. If your notes do fall neatly into two classes, it's harmless busywork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the separation, per the comment. I only found two instances (humans inhabiting Antarctica and Article 6) but maybe I missed something. And, now that you reminded me, I need to get down to basement to finally start watching my DVD of Trial. :) Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I separate them myself (unless I'm being lazy, which is ... a lot :). But a lot of contributors don't like to separate them. My gut feeling is that we won't be able to get an agreement at WP:Layout to say they have to be separated, but it wouldn't bother me at all if people want that change. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's just me who does it, but I sometimes put footnotes explaining a point seperate from citations, and use a, b, c, etc to denote them, qv The Trial of a Time Lord. It helps a bit with reading, e.g. I was a bit perplexed about the "every continent on Earth" statement, clicked the ref to see a citation, and it was an explanatory footnote lost in the sea of citations. :) Sceptre (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The footnotes thing is mentioned at WP:Layout, but maybe that's not a persuasive argument (I couldn't tell your view on these things from your userpage). Would you do me a favor and read my blatherings at User:Dank55/Essays#What style guidelines are supposed to be on the value of style guidelines, and tell me if that's in any way persuasive about the value of arguing this on the style page rather than in the middle of someone's FAC? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by jimfbleak Primates ... as well as an increased reliance on stereoscopic vision at the expense of smell this sounds as if a good sense of smell and stereoscopic vision are mutually exclusive, and you can't have both. Is that correct? I can't see any obvious reason why a dog, for example, couldn't be good with sight and smell, jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As they increasingly relied on their stereoscopic colour vision, their sense of smell was less important and therefore was no longer selected for. See this graphic from here. Primates are far more reliant on vision, dogs are far more reliant on smell. Hope this answers your question, do you still think a change should be made? Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The prose looks much better than when I reviewed this article nearly two months ago, a few more suggestions:
"Richard Wrangham proposed that social systems of non-human primates are best classified by the amount of movement by females occurring between groups." Sounds more like a suggestion than a proposition to me. Changing proposed will also eliminate the repetition of "proposed" occurs in the next sentence.- Changed proposed to stated. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-human primates (NHPs) are rarely granted the same legal rights as humans, despite the close evolutionary relationship."-->Despite the close evolutionary relationship, non-human primates (NHPs) are rarely granted the same legal rights as humans.- Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In South America, but not in Central America, squirrel monkeys associate with capuchin monkeys."- Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A few hunters have found and killed individuals since then, and its prospects remain bleak." "its"-->the species'.- Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Primate species each move variously by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing or knuckle-walking." What does "each" mean here?- Changed to Primate species move by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing, knuckle-walking or by a combination of these methods. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The mean endocranial volume is 1201 cubic centimeters in humans, 469 cm3 in gorillas, 400 cm3 in chimpanzees and 397 cm3 in orangutans." Is there a reason for the absence of conversions?- Brains are measured in cubic centimetres, I wouldn't have thought conversions would be very helpful. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"There are 21 critically endangered primates, eight of which have remained on the IUCN's "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" list" Per MOSNUM, comparitive quantities should be written out the same; i.e. There are 21 critically endangered primates, 8 of which have remained on the IUCN's "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" list.- Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Accounting for 25% to 40% of the fruit-eating animals (by weight) within tropical rainforests, primates play an important role by dispersing seeds of many tree species." Important role in what?Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to: important ecological role. Thanks for the comments again. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - the prose is much better now. Shyamal (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the lemurs, the New World monkeys had unclear origins. - is the past tense intended ?
- Changed to have. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...the evaluation of current populations as distinct species is in flux - statement can be improved but I am not sure how ? The same goes with the start of the sentence A few new species are discovered each year....
- Changed to: Although primates are well studied in comparison to other animal groups, a number of new species are still being discovered; genetic tests on some populations have also revealed previously unrecognised species. Not sure if this is too clumsy, or if I'm allowed to link 'being discovered' to Primates discovered in the 2000s? Jack (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In modern, cladistic reckonings, the Primates order is a true clade. - What is a true clade - I suspect you really want to say it is monophyletic - if so it should just be that the Primates form a monophyletic clade or such like...
- Changed to mention monophyly. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Biological anthropologist Colin Groves - could do without the prefixes, in fact even the mention of the author is not really needed - just the number of species in the year with the reference should do.
- Changed to: Primate Taxonomy listed about 350 species of primates in 2001,:ref: the author, Colin Groves, increased that number to 376 for his contribution to the third edition of Mammal Species of the World (MSW3). Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Primates have two forward-facing eyes - no objection, but is the two really needed !
- Removed two. Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- During the Eocene, most of the northern continents were dominated by two groups, the adapids and the omomyids - dominated or just occupied ?
- From Sellers' Primate Evolution: "Each of the major geological epochs are characterised by major primate adaptive radiation such that a relatively few taxa dominate the primate fauna." I've added the reference. Jack (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adapids survived until about 10 mya. Omomyids, on the other hand, perished about 20 million years earlier. - more comfortable if the extinction order is put in sequence without the need for arithmetic and backward glances.
- Changed to: Omomyids perished about 30 mya,:ref: while Adapids survived until about 10 mya. Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to genetic studies, the lemurs of Madagascar diverged from the lorisiforms approximately 75 mya. These studies, as well as chromosomal and molecular evidence - Genetic studies presumably includes those "chromosomal studies".
- Catarrhines are routinely trichromatic due - the special phrase "routinely trichromatic" needs to be marked by italics - and should ideally be explained in a section within Evolution of color vision in primates.
- Variously, both Euarchonta and Euarchontoglires are ranked as superorders. - redundant and removable statement - clades are rank free and it is completely normal to "variously" indicate positions relative to Linnean ranks.
- comment I still don't understand why there is such a disproportion between the mentions of Chimpanzees (meant as the Pan troglodytes) and Bonobos.--Sum (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see much info specific to either chimps or bonobos, although I wouldn't say that there's a WP:WEIGHT issue with the slightly greater emphasis on chimps (despite being a bonobo fan, myself), given that comparitively little research has been done on bonobos, given their rarity and geographic isolation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad you're a fan, articles should be written by scientists.--Sum (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions of the Common Chimpanzee = 3, mentions of the Bonobo = 2. Not undue weight, when refering to chimpanzees both Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus are included. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The term Chimpanzee is sometimes used in the article to just refer to the Common Chimpanzee. So the difference is higher and there is a problem with the consistency of the terminology.--Sum (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as before. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Pozdeev, Y. (1991). "Reliability comparison of tantalum and niobium solid electrolytic capacitors". Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 14 (2): 79–82. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1638(199803/04)14:2<79::AID-QRE163>3.0.CO;2-Y.
- ^ Biason Gomes, M. A. (1991). "Anodization of niobium in sulphuric acid media". Journal of Applied Electrochemistry. 21 (11): 1023–1026. doi:10.1007/BF01077589.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Chiou, Y. L. (1971). "A note on the thicknesses of anodized niobium oxide films". Thin Solid Films. 8 (4): R37–R39. Bibcode:1971TSF.....8R..37C. doi:10.1016/0040-6090(71)90027-7.
- ^ Azevedo, C. R. F. (2002). "Characterization of metallic piercings that caused adverse reactions during use". Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention. 2 (4): 47–53. doi:10.1007/BF02715453.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
VillageVoice
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Time
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).