Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2009: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 2 |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== January 2009 == |
== January 2009 == |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New South Greenland}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toa Payoh ritual murders}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons Hit & Run}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coenred of Mercia}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Goble}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Goble}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Iowa turret explosion}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Iowa turret explosion}} |
Revision as of 00:30, 10 January 2009
January 2009
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:30, 10 January 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)
As a change from the serious expedition stuff, here's a lighter tale of the earliest days of Antarctic exploration. It tells of the discovery of land by a New Yorker, Benjamin Morrell. Other people tried to find his land, but couldn't, and it was eventually proved nonexistent - a fact that made headline news in the New York Times. Captain Morrell was by all accounts a bit of a chancer, a plausible rogue, perhaps, but an engaging character all the same, whose story is worth telling. Thanks to Ruhrfisch for mapping the nonexistent land, and to peer reviewers generally for some excellent suggestions.
Re sources, a couple of points: South-pole.com is a huge site that covers just about every Antarctic venture since before Captain Cook and until after World War II. Its reliability largely comes from its being approved by the Scott Polar Research Institute. This is SPRI's Index to Antarctic Expeditions which provides links to what it calls "the best summaries" of expeditions, and every link is to a South.pole.com sub-page. Also, I can't find out who is behind Geonames.com, but it is a brilliant resource for finding and confirming placenames anywhere in the world. Enough from me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - another excellent Antarctica-related article. I read the page and did some copyediting a few days ago, and the writing is brilliant. Well done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
File:1894 map of Antactica.jpg - Do you have the issue and volume number for this magazine? According to WP:IUP, we should give a complete bibliographic entry for sources.All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It's Vol X No. 2, as confirmed by this. I have added these details to the image source details. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Vol X No. 2, as confirmed by this. I have added these details to the image source details. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- You mentioned above two questionable sources, I'm a bit concerned about geonames, and would like to see some more about it. But I'll leave these out there for other reviewers to decide for themselves.
- I don't think South-pole.com can be termed "questionable" when it has endorsement from SPRI. As to Geonames, it is one of the few sources not connected to Wikipedis (e.g. wikimapia, etc) that actually gives Morrell Island as an alternative name to Thule Island in the South Sandwich Group. Geonames doesn't give much information as to who is behind the site, but the organisation is clearly world-wide, with 8 million names on the database. The site gives good information, too, including the coordinates for every name. It looks a thorough and professional job. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your books from Googlebooks. They should be treated just like usual books, with the original publisher. Google is just hosting them, they did none of the fact checking etc.- The sources list showed no mentions of Google books. I had forgotten to remove them from some of the in-line citations, but have now done so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the inline's I was referring to, but are now fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources list showed no mentions of Google books. I had forgotten to remove them from some of the in-line citations, but have now done so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/buache.php a reliable source?
- Looking for a source that gives Morrell's date of death, I chose this as likely the most reliable: a site run by archaeologists with the aim of exposing archaeological blunders. To cover myself, I have said in the text that Morrell "reportedly" died in 1839 rather than being too definite about it. None of the books are any help, and other websites that mention his death look less reliable than this one, though they all say 1839. It would not be the end of the world if the date was removed, but I'd like to keep it if I can. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one, like geonames, I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment. I reviewed this at peer review and was impressed; the article has improved since then. Just a couple of comments before I support.
- "searched for, but found no traces of land,": I think the first comma should go. The alternative would be to make it the first of a parenthetical pair: "searched for, but found no traces of, land," but that looks too fussy to me.
- Comma deleted.
- The account you give of d'Urville is followed by a sentence that says Morrell's claims were ignored after d'Urville's failure to find land. Since these come from different sources, I thought I should check; is there any causal connection here, in that d'Urville's report caused general doubt about Morrell's claims? Or does Mills make no reference to d'Urville? If the latter is the case, then I think it would be better to avoid implying a connection.
- I understand the point, and have reworded in a way which I hope clarifies no direct causal connection. Two separate reasons are given for doubting Morrell's claims: D'Urville finds no evidence of land, quite apart from which the error-ridden nature of Morrell's account caused geographers to doubt him. I hope that is clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Mike Christie (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything now looks good. Switching to support. Mike Christie (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Ruhrfisch. In the interest of full disclosure (and as noted above), I made the New South Greenland map in the article. I have a few minor quibbles (that do not detract from my support):
- "Wasp sailed south from New York on 22 June 1822." Should the link here be to New York City, which is the main seaport in New York state? Many Americans will refer to New York City as just "New York".
- Kilometers (for nine miles) should also be given here per the MOS At 2 pm next day, 15 March, as Wasp cruised north-east in the sea that would later bear Weddell's name, Morrell records: "land was seen from the masthead, bearing west, distance 3 leagues" (about nine miles).[14]
- Probably also want English and metric units for the fathoms in On 25 August a further sounding of 1,900 fathoms gave Shackleton additional evidence of the non-existence of New South Greenland.[26]
Overall another fine article and well deserving of FA, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the New York City link, and added the requested conversions. With regard to Shackleton's fathoms, I had left this because of the conversion of a similar distance in the same paragraph, not wanting to clutter the prose, but strictly speaking I agree it ought to be there. Thanks for all your help. Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Was very impressed by this at peer review and its has only improved since. Happy to offer my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I too am very impressed, particularly with prose, this is beautifully written. It was frustrating for me, a nit-picker, to find just one typo. Good grief Brian, just how many FAs have you written this year? Oh, it's 2009, I forgot; looks like one so far :-) Graham Colm Talk 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None so far this year, perhaps this will be the first. Please continue to look for typos and other nitpicks, Graham, your persistence in this area is very much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2009 (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 00:30, 10 January 2009 [2].
I am nominating for Featured Article, one article that tells of sex, drugs, and rock and rollviolence. Paganistic elements were also involved as two children were killed, and their blood drained and offered to the IndianHindu goddess, Kali. All because the mastermind, one Adrian Lim, wanted revenge on the police for investigating him on a rape charge. A case that he felt could never have happened, because one could never rape a "(holy) wife", women whom he tricked (or in this case, drugged) to give him sex and money. Read about this 1981 murder case that stunned, horrified, and intrigued the entire island nation for years. The United States might have Charles Manson, but Singapore had its Adrian Lim. Jappalang (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review File:Sub Court crowd.jpg - I am on the fence about the "purpose" of this fair use rationale. It states "Although the scene can be described in words, the degree of activity cannot be fully conveyed in words to those unfamiliar with the surroundings. In this case, an extraordinary claim is made in regards to the case in question (the Toa Payoh Ritual Murders) that Singaporeans would crowd the courts just for a look of the accused." - To some degree I agree with this statement - crowds are not easy to describe and this picture helps convey the nature of this particular crowd. However, the article states that "Throngs of people constantly packed the grounds of the courts, hoping to catch a glimpse of Adrian Lim and to hear the revelations first-hand", which is a very good description of what is happening in the photo and I wonder how necessary the photo really is. Do we really need to use a fair use image in this case? Fair use images are supposed to "significantly increase the reader's understanding" of the topic under discussion (WP:NFCC #8). I am hoping other reviewers will weigh in on this point. (All other images have adequate fair use rationales, verifiable licenses, and sufficient descriptions.) Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I peer-reviewed this, and copyedited at an earlier stage. It does not make for pleasant reading, but the full ghastly story should be known: "Man's inhumanity to man..." etc. I have a small number of suggestions:
- The phrase "a far cry from..." in the Singaporean society section sounds like editorializing, and should be replaced by the more neutral "in contrast to..."
- I believe Lim's conversion to Catholoicism should be more specifically cited
- It would help if the Singapore $ values were shown with equivalent US$. I regret to say it, but I don't know what a Singapre dollar is worth.
- There is a repeated tendency to use the verb "stay" when I think you mean "live". In the "arrests" section, Lim informs Pereira that he is "staying" in the flat. In the Hoe section, she is sent to "stay" with her grandmother; later in the same paragraph she goes to "stay" with Lim, and at the end of the section she continues to "stay" with him. In all of the instances I think "stay" should be replaced by "live".
- In general the prose is of a high and compelling standard. On Awadewit's fair use image point I have to agree that, under the strict interpretation of the fair use justification, the image in question does not significantly increase my understanding of the article. The vivid prose is plenty enough. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much. I have replaced "a far cry from ..." and "live" with your suggestions. US$ equivalents of the Singapore dollar values have also been included. I am not certain by "more specifically cited" for the Catholic conversion, do you mean to cite it to a source or to expand in greater detail the statement? As for the picture, I am still of two minds whether to leave it in or to take it out (two nays so far... any body else?). I will be looking to see if I can find an image that is more appropriate to that section in the meantime. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement that Lim converted to Catholicism should have an in-line citation. No expansion of the statement necessary, just the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the same source at the end of the paragraph, but it is no fuss to cite it again if it was particularly contentious. Done. Jappalang (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement that Lim converted to Catholicism should have an in-line citation. No expansion of the statement necessary, just the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much. I have replaced "a far cry from ..." and "live" with your suggestions. US$ equivalents of the Singapore dollar values have also been included. I am not certain by "more specifically cited" for the Catholic conversion, do you mean to cite it to a source or to expand in greater detail the statement? As for the picture, I am still of two minds whether to leave it in or to take it out (two nays so far... any body else?). I will be looking to see if I can find an image that is more appropriate to that section in the meantime. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awful story, but very well told. One query "Early in the nineteenth century, immigrants flooded into the South East Asian region, colonising the Straits Settlements including the island city of Singapore." I understand the South East Asian region as including Thailand and other areas not known for nineteenth century migrations. Would this be better as "Early in the nineteenth century, immigrants flooded into the Straits Settlements area including the island city of Singapore." Thanks for fixing that .ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. I have narrowed the region to Peninsula Malaysia, which was basically West Malaysia and Singapore. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments Interesting in the worst way possible. I don't have time to go through the whole article tonight, but rest assured I will be back tomorrow.
"Indian goddess, Kali" I think it would be more accurate to refer her as a Hindu goddess.
- Agreed and changed. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The 41-day trial was then the second longest to have been held in the courts of Singapore." For me, "then" interrupts the natural flow of the article, it doesn't serve any real purpose, chronological or otherwise.
- Well, it was the second longest trial at the point of 1983 (the longest was a trial that involved an offshore prison riot). However, in 1990, Justice Chua would later preside over what would become the longest trial in Singapore (a 168-day drug-trafficking case), so the Toa Payoh ritual murders was the second longest up to that point. Is there a suggestion to write an accurate statement on this? Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "At the time?" Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Jappalang (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "At the time?" Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Toa Payoh ritual murders shocked the populace of Singapore who did not expect such an act to take place in the heartland of their society." More of a personal style preference more than anything, but could you perhaps sneak a comma after "Singapore"?
- Done. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition, the rulings set by the courts became local case studies for diminished responsibility." In addition to what? One of those additive terms that doesn't really help here.
- Connected this sentence with the previous, using the "and" conjunction. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1981, Singapore experienced a crime that shocked the nation." I hate to mess with a riveting story, but can we not be so bombastic?
- Oh boy... I am running out of ideas to overcome this. The peer reviews have mentioned about the sensationalism of the various attempts to construct a connecting statement between this section and the next; each time, I have tried to tone it down. I sincerely (and gladly) welcome any suggestions. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely, I am too close to my writing to know its "atmosphere", but I tried to change the subject from "Singapore experienced ..." to "three Singaporeans committed ...". Would that be less sensationalistic, or is the problem with the "shocked a nation" part? Jappalang (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the "shocked the nation" part. Hmm... I will come back to this. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you reconsider? The phrase "shocked the <noun>" has been used in several encyclopaedias, such as World History, Louisville, and Britannica. Jappalang (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. If I come up with something better, I will post here, but it is a minor issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you reconsider? The phrase "shocked the <noun>" has been used in several encyclopaedias, such as World History, Louisville, and Britannica. Jappalang (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the "shocked the nation" part. Hmm... I will come back to this. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely, I am too close to my writing to know its "atmosphere", but I tried to change the subject from "Singapore experienced ..." to "three Singaporeans committed ...". Would that be less sensationalistic, or is the problem with the "shocked a nation" part? Jappalang (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He also converted to Catholicism for his marriage." Did he do something else for his marriage?
- Removed. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"were among the spiritual entities he would call on"-->were among the spiritual entities he called on
- Changed. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no more technical comments for that section, but I must say it is quite disturbing. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jappalang, I haven't forgotten you, but I want to read this article in detail with no distractions, and I don't quite have the time for that now. Give me a couple hours and I will be back. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In late 1980 he suffered a setback: he was arrested and charged with rape." I understand the intent of "suffered a setback" to naturalize the flow, but when is being arrested and charged with a crime not a setback?"He also told them that Pragngan demanded that he have sex with their female victims." Second "that" can go."who would 12 years later deliver judgment on serial murderer John Martin Scripps" A bit clunky, try "who would deliver judgment on serial murderer John Martin Scripps 12 years later""Hoe, had to accept the court's offer of counsel," Delete the first comma."Only an unsound mind would dump the bodies close to his home when his plan was to distract the police, said the doctor." In this form, this almost sounds like a quote. If it isn't, rephrase it like this: "He (also?) said that only an unsound mind would dump the bodies close to his home when his plan was to distract the police.""The defence also criticised Dr Chee for failing to recognise their clients' symptoms." "also" seems idle here, did they criticize him for something else?- "
On 25 May 1983 eager crowds massed outside the building, waiting for the outcome of the trial." I would do away with "eager"; not because of POV but because "massed outside the building" and "waiting" seem to imply the same thing. "Tan hired Francis Seow to appeal for her, while the court again assigned Isaac to Hoe." I think "while" should be and here, as the "the court again assigned Isaac to Hoe" is additive info."Journalists deemed it as the most sensational trial""Its 16-day run brought in only $130,000 (US$224,791)," Personal preference here, but "only" bothers me.Use a two-column reflist, as those with more columns will break on some browsers.
On the whole, an excellent article. I cannot access my account at the moment, which explains why I posted these comments as an anon editor Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the article according to your suggestions. I had difficulty in trying to substitute "he suffered a setback". Deleting it, however, did not seem to affect the flow greatly, so that is what I did. Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I peer reviewed this and found it close to FAC criteria and it has only been improved since. I looked carefully at the crowd photo and think it adds to the picture in ways that justify its fair use. It is hard to convey in just words the sheer size of the crowd, how they are packed into places where people would not normally stand or be, and the body language / expectation of the members of the crowd - how many of the people are straining and craning their heads to see - nothing yet. I really do think this is a picture that is worth a thousand words. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:38, 6 January 2009 (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 00:30, 10 January 2009 [3].
"Knock, knock. Who's there? This article!" Gary King (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) While Gary tried (and failed :D) to write a catchy nomination statement, I found some things in the prose that I missed in the GA review:
"The game's five playable characters are Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, Lisa Simpson, Marge Simpson, and Apu Nahasapeemapetilon." I am pretty sure that readers can count."that litter the road," I don't like this wording, sounds like the cars were just indiscrimately dropped from the sky."phone booth to select one of the available cars." So are there unavailable cars?"several acts of violence and destruction" Call me picky, but is destruction not a result of violence?"hit and run" I think that this instance should be hyphenated."There are also collectibles that the player can locate"-->Players can locate (find?) collectibles..."with a scene showing" That annoying noun + -ing..."After a tractor beam abducts Bart from outside a stadium""Instead, Radical wanted to take the franchise's video game series in a different direction" "take the"-->steer."During the development of Hit & Run"-->During Hit & Run's development..."along with the writers, who Ramage called "the best there is"" This just might be a grammatical error by Ramage, but how can he say "best there is" when there are multiple writers?Despite positive reactions, the game also had some serious issues"
I see that while I was commenting, you were copy-editing. Feel free to disregard the comments that no longer apply. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. The cars did essentially drop from the sky; they are all over the place because the game made it so. Which particular instance of "hit and run" needs to be hyphenated? Yeah, a grammatical error by Ramage. Gary King (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider inserting [sic] after Ramage's grammar trip-up. I was talking about: "When completely full, several police cars chase the character for the duration of the hit and run." Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added sic. With and without hyphen are interchangeable. Gary King (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, looks good. Will come back tomorrow for final assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added sic. With and without hyphen are interchangeable. Gary King (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider inserting [sic] after Ramage's grammar trip-up. I was talking about: "When completely full, several police cars chase the character for the duration of the hit and run." Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead
- When the Simpsons take matters into their own hands, they discover that aliens Kang and Kodos are filming a reality television series about the populace. - commas in between Kang and Kodos
- As of June 2004, over one million copies of the game were sold, and over three million as of June 2007. - why is it necessary to list how much it sold in 2004, if the most recent report was in 2007?--SRX 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- No comma necessary; where would it go, anyways? Also, I removed the number of sales for June 2004, but only in the lead; I'm leaving it in the Reception section because it's a useful tool to gauge how well the game is selling after a certain period of time. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They would go here (in bold) "When the Simpsons take matters into their own hands, they discover that aliens, Kang and Kodos, are filming a reality television series about the populace."--SRX 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah; I'm using the word "aliens" differently from what you think, then; it's like saying "They discover that John Smith", and then changed to "They discover that American John Smith". It's just describing them. Gary King (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They would go here (in bold) "When the Simpsons take matters into their own hands, they discover that aliens, Kang and Kodos, are filming a reality television series about the populace."--SRX 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- No comma necessary; where would it go, anyways? Also, I removed the number of sales for June 2004, but only in the lead; I'm leaving it in the Reception section because it's a useful tool to gauge how well the game is selling after a certain period of time. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Body
- As she investigates a crop circle that recently appeared in Cletus' crop field, Grampa tells Marge that the crop circle is an exact replica of the Buzz Cola logo. - the reader does not know who Cletus is, why not link and spell out his entire name? In addition, is there a link to Grampa?
- Official Xbox Magazine said that the game did the show justice,[12] and Play Magazine felt that it was "essentially the show in real time", summing up its review by calling the game a "a truly great cross-over product". - I don't think the first a (outside the quotation marks) is needed
- GameSpot had a lot of fun with the game, and found the gameplay to be very engaging. - this sounds like POV, is there a way to reword this so that it doesn't read like this is the writers opinion?
- Is there any other information available for the game, as seen in the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare FA?--SRX 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, all done. Most of the available information out there is about Gameplay, Plot, and Reception, which this article doesn't need. Gary King (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So there isn't anything about the game engine, soundtrack, etc.?--SRX 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing we could find on those particular aspects so far; it's always nice to have more development information when possible, but it's not always available unfortunately. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So there isn't anything about the game engine, soundtrack, etc.?--SRX 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, all done. Most of the available information out there is about Gameplay, Plot, and Reception, which this article doesn't need. Gary King (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -
- Even though I'm too lazy (xD) to go check, I believe that all full dates (i.e. with Day, Month, Year) must be internal links.
I just gave the article a quick read, I will properly edit the article when I have free time. So far looks good.
Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, dates should be unlinked per the MOS. Gary King (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two other noms and starting a third? Leave some reviewers for everyone else, please! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, that's nothing compared to what he used to do at FLC ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got seven more articles ready for FAC. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Always ready to help get worthy FACs passed. Tezkag72 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:The Simpsons Hit and Run - screenshot.png - The layout of this game is very simple and the prose does an excellent job of describing it. I'm unconvinced by the need for the fair use image of the game itself. I'm not sure that the reader's understanding is signficantly increased by seeing the actual bubble (WP:NFCC #8). (Note: Can someone please obtain a new image of Matt Groening? I'm tired of seeing this one!) Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the image from the article. —TheLeftorium 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the removal of the image. It illustrates the similarities between GTAIII, and quite frankly, the similarities are a notable aspect of the game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that was not the argument made in the fair use rationale. If you want to write a new fair use rationale, I will gladly look at it. Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here are some points that would be included in such a rationale:
- Demonstrates its similarity to GTA
- Demonstrates the similarity to The Simpsons' visual style
- Gives people an idea of how the game looks.
- Though, a better image may be warranted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarity to the Simpsons can be stated in words. We have enough fair use images of the Simpsons around to illustrate that style. The similarity to Grand Theft Auto is a good one. I see that the article says that Hit and Run satirizes Grand Theft Auto. Could we find a specific shot that would correspond to some commentary about the satire? That would be worth a fair use image, I think. Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I've added information comparing Hit & Run to GTA3 in the article, added an image showing both games side-by-side, and tweaked the fair use rationale. Gary King (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is much better than the initial rationale - it now meets WP:NFCC. Excellent work. Awadewit (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I've added information comparing Hit & Run to GTA3 in the article, added an image showing both games side-by-side, and tweaked the fair use rationale. Gary King (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarity to the Simpsons can be stated in words. We have enough fair use images of the Simpsons around to illustrate that style. The similarity to Grand Theft Auto is a good one. I see that the article says that Hit and Run satirizes Grand Theft Auto. Could we find a specific shot that would correspond to some commentary about the satire? That would be worth a fair use image, I think. Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here are some points that would be included in such a rationale:
- But that was not the argument made in the fair use rationale. If you want to write a new fair use rationale, I will gladly look at it. Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the removal of the image. It illustrates the similarities between GTAIII, and quite frankly, the similarities are a notable aspect of the game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2009 (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 00:30, 10 January 2009 [4].
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)
I thought I'd try to get another Anglo-Saxon king in before the end of the year. I have another active nomination but there are no opposes and one support, so I hope it's OK to start another nomination. Coenred is not one of the better known kings, but there are a few things to say about him. A good comparison article might be Æthelred of Mercia, his uncle, and predecessor as king of Mercia. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Just a couple of small things, both from the final Abdication and succession section.
- "According to Bede, Coenred abdicated in favor of his cousin, Æthelred's son Ceolred after four years, went with the East Saxon king Offa to Rome, and was made a monk by Pope Constantine." I'm not sure I really understand that sentence. Could it be written more clearly? It's the "after four years" bit I'm struggling with.
- Aargh. It was editing debris from an earlier version; I can't believe I didn't see that (or the other problem) on final read-through. Removed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to Bede, Coenred abdicated in favor of his cousin, Æthelred's son Ceolred after four years, went with the East Saxon king Offa to Rome, and was made a monk by Pope Constantine." I'm not sure I really understand that sentence. Could it be written more clearly? It's the "after four years" bit I'm struggling with.
- It's mentioned twice, in consecutive paragraphs, that Bede gives no date for Coenred's death in Rome. Is that really necessary?
- No; I cut the first mention, as the second para needs the bulk more; plus the direct cite to Bede is probably worth keeping. Thanks for the copyedit too, by the way. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mentioned twice, in consecutive paragraphs, that Bede gives no date for Coenred's death in Rome. Is that really necessary?
--Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems fine to me now, I'm supporting. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, hoping to be able to convert this to neutral or support.
Support All of my concerns adumbrated below have now been addressed, and I would be happy to see this fine little article promoted without further delay. Provided: 1) That the adjustment I have made a moment ago be respected (in which the exact deployment of commas and the order of words are crucial to keeping the sense clear; and 2) Cœnred (with the ligature œ) be replaced by Coenred, even though it appears in a quote. This ligature is, I believe, merely typographical and conventional; unlike the Æ and æ ligatures, which have phonological significance for Anglo-Saxon. I think that's the principle laid out in Hart's Rules, though I have not got my copy to hand; and see WP:MOS for the need to make harmless, merely typographical changes in quoted matter, without "sic" or any such annotation. Since the typographical form Coenred is a stylistic choice for this article, it should be used consistently (for purposes of searching, if nothing else).–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced "œ" with "oe" in the one location it occurs. Thanks for the comments, and for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead:
- Do we know Coenred's dates of birth and death? They should be given at least approximately – at the start, or at least somewhere.
- Wulfhere's brother, Æthelred, became king instead, but abdicated in favour of Coenred in 704 in order to become a monk. [Remove the first two commas, which suggest that Wulfhere had only one brother; end with in 704 to become a monk, or and became a monk. Fix spelling: favor is used later in the article; check all spelling for consistency of style.]
- The reigns of Coenred and his successor, Ceolred, marked... [The commas are unnecessary and best omitted.]
- ...the fortunes of Mercia, which had been dominant... [The referent of which is momentarily uncertain, and dominant is not apt. Try a different adjective, perhaps powerful: ...the fortunes of Mercia, which had been powerful.... Only Mercia could be powerful, not its fortunes.]
- ...in the late seventh century... [A MOS issue: Wikipedia:Mos#Numbers_as_figures_or_words requires that centuries use figures, not words; fix this throughout].
- Coenred's reign is poorly documented but it is known he faced attacks from the Welsh,... [Best to have that in such a construction: it is known that he.
- ...by Æthelred's son, Ceolred. [Since it is not known that Ceolred was Æthelred's only son, the comma is improper.]
- Mercia in the seventh century
- By the seventh-century,... [Make it By the 7th century,... (note the absence of a hyphen).]
- The earliest Mercian king about whom definite historical information has survived is Penda of Mercia, Coenred's grandfather. [Better: Penda of Mercia, Coenred's paternal grandfather, is the earliest Mercian king for whom there is definite historical information.]
- For Wessex and Kent, Bede had informants who supplied him with details of the church's history in each province,... [Province is not apt here. They are kingdoms. Better: Bede had informants who supplied him with details of the church's history in Wessex and Kent,....]
- ..., about which he is less well-informed. [Redundant. Omit it.]
- ...compiled at the end of the ninth century in Wessex. [For a reason that would be tedious to give, this is preferable: ...compiled in Wessex at the end of the 9th century.]
Overall, an efficient little article. Is it big and noteworthy enough for a featured article? I don't know. I may have more to say later, once the points I have already made are addressed.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 00:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "noteworthy" one of the featured article criteria? Or "big"? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, these are not formal criteria. I had thought that noteworthiness once was a formal criterion, but I may be mistaken. This is why I made the point as a question. I don't know! Could Cleko or Bulldog clip be made into featured articles? If you look at Bulldog clip and are inclined to answer No, the reasons might be that such clips are not noteworthy enough, and not enough could be said to make a substantial article. If you answer Yes, then a fortiori the present article can make the grade.
- One more point of wording: He was the son of Wulfhere, but did not.... Once more, this strongly suggests that he was the only son, but this is not known. Prefer He was a son of Wulfhere, but did not..., or Wulfhere was his father, but he did not.... Such needless and heedless imprecision – or perhaps in the present case spurious precision – is insidious, but easy enough to root out. If this sort of imprecision proliferates in articles (especially historical articles), the cumulative result is that inferences based on premises drawn from our articles will be generally suspect.
- –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All points now addressed; some by Angusmclellan and the rest by me. The questions of noteworthiness and size have come up in FAC discussions before and there is not universal agreement about what the best answer is, but I think it is accurate to say that at the moment the FA criteria make no mention of either, and noteworthiness and size per se are not valid oppose reasons at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done; no dabs found. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Yorke, Barbara or Barbara Yorke? Current ref 1 is Yorke, Barbara and the second is Barbara Yorke, pick one. Or stick with "Yorke" to match the rest, and list it in the secondary sources.Current ref 19 (Womald) is to an article "The Age of Bede and Aethelbald"... but there isn't such an article listed in the secondary sources... do you mean the "Age of Offa and Alcuin" that is listed in the sources? Or do you mean for that Offa/Alcuin to be Bede/Aethelbald?- I'd caution other reviewers to make sure that the primary source material (the charters stuff) isn't being interpreted when it's used as a source. It's not necessarily wrong, they just need to be used with caution.
- What makes http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/ a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As regards the third and fourth points, Keynes, here, says that the charter database at anglo-saxons.net was designed by Dr Sean [M.] Miller, formerly of the Fitzwilliam, also responsible for the Fitzwilliam's EMC site, and a contributor to the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Keynes links to it, ASChart links to it, and the PASE links to it. The reason to prefer it over the PASE, Electronic Sawyer, Kemble, et al, is that anglo-saxons.net reproduces the text of the charters, and is the only resource which routinely does so, as well as the commonly available critical commentary. The primary sources, charters and all, seem to be being reported and not interpreted, so no problem there. If there's any concern over these aspects, I'd suggest rounding up a subject expert. I think that here would be the best place to find one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Angus that anglo-saxons.net is reliable and I think he gives sufficient information to establish that. I've fixed the Yorke refs to be consistent; likewise with Wormald (he wrote two chapters for Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons, and I must have copied this ref in from a ref list in another article where I used the other one). Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave the anglosaxons.net ref out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (I lean reliable but it's a very short lean. I'd rather see a print source too, as one thing about transcriptions of charters, there are times when they can be transcribed incorrectly, or that there is enough damage that the interpretation is subject to discussion.) I'd love to find the time to review this... but... family is coming, the cookies must be baked! (sung to the tune of "Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to keep you from important things - mmm cookies! - but we should never be in the position where it matters whether the text of a charter - genuine, fake or somewhere in between - is transcribed correctly. If we're relying on Kirby's say-so, or Yorke's, or the compilers of the PASE, then that's what we're relying on. The link to one of the charter sites, whichever we choose and we could include multiple links easily enough, is solely there as a convenience for readers, just like those links to Google books we see on some articles. Drawing one's own conclusions from primary sources would be OR and simply not acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave the anglosaxons.net ref out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (I lean reliable but it's a very short lean. I'd rather see a print source too, as one thing about transcriptions of charters, there are times when they can be transcribed incorrectly, or that there is enough damage that the interpretation is subject to discussion.) I'd love to find the time to review this... but... family is coming, the cookies must be baked! (sung to the tune of "Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Angus that anglo-saxons.net is reliable and I think he gives sufficient information to establish that. I've fixed the Yorke refs to be consistent; likewise with Wormald (he wrote two chapters for Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons, and I must have copied this ref in from a ref list in another article where I used the other one). Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeGiven that FA status is being suggested, I'd prefer the article to be larger and more exhaustive. There's certainly scope for this. E.g. instead of just saying it is known that he faced attacks by the Welsh between 705 and 709, say why it is known [from what source] and input comments on this. If the Life of St Guthlac claims this, then maybe quote the text or show that it has been used. I haven't learned from the wiki article why Coenred was thought to be fighting Britons in this period. Coverage certainly not exhaustive. Only mention of Wilfrid is that that Coenred appears in Wilfrid's vita. You might wanna read the ODNB article, which gives overview comments on his reign regarding religion. Again, something like that is possible (as ODNB makes it so), instead of just listing information. These aren't biggies, but if such a badly documented ruler's article is to become FA I would expect more exhaustive coverage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that Wilfrid is on my radar to improve, and he's probably going to be heading to GA/FAC soon, as soon as I find the time to tackle him, so don't worry about that supporting article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Ealdgyth. Deacon, I've incorporated what I think I need to from the ODNB article; would you take another look? I have a slight problem with the use of the Vita Guthlaci; the main citation I have for this is Stenton, who says, on p. 214 of Anglo-Saxon England, "serious raids such as those which occurred between 705 and 709" and adds in a footnote that the source is "Felix's Life of Saint Guthlac, ed. B. Colgrave, p. 109. See p. 212, n. 2 above, and F.M. Stenton, C.P., pp. 357–363." The footnote on p. 212 is not relevant; "C.P." refers to Stenton's collected papers, which I don't have access to. I don't have Colgrave's edition of Guthlac. I just ordered it online but that'll take a week or two to get here. I found another edition online and have cited it to what I assume is the right chapter; it's quoted in full in the article now. It is followed by an account of British demons annoying St Guthlac, but I think it has to be this section that Stenton is referring to; there's no other relevant reference to Coenred that I can find. When I get the Colgrave edition I'll check that the page number does refer to this chapter. There's a version of Colgrave partly visible online at Google Books, but page 109 is not visible and from what I can tell has different pagination anyway. So all I can say is that I am pretty sure that I have that reference right but will confirm when I get Colgrave in my hands. Mike Christie (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Scored the oppose. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Thanks to Cavila, the reference to Colgrave has been made to reflect the footnote from Stenton, so I think everything is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 File:Aethelred family tree.gif - This image needs to list the source from which the information was taken (I'm afraid Aethelred's family tree is not common knowledge). Awadewit (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Mike Christie (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled with the prose. Tony (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Here are examples of problems at the top.[reply]
- Opening: but ... instead ... but ... Is there a way of making this sequence a slightly straighter line?
- I see why you want this changed, but the sequence is straight chronologically. The difficulty is that two unexpected things happen; first Coenred does not succeed when he might have done so, and then he does succeed when Æthelred unexpectedly abdicates. I think this warrants at least two of the three words. I cut "instead" as somewhat redundant with the first "but"; is that better? Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can "relatively" be removed?
- I don't think it should be -- Mercia was still a powerful kingdom in these years; this period marked only a temporary and minor decline between two periods of great influence. In the middle of the ninth century Mercia began a much more serious decline that ended with the dissolution of the kingdom. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "relatively" add?Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was intended to indicate that there were other low points that were worse. However, it does say "a low point", not "the low point", so I think it's OK without it. I've removed it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "relatively" add?Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it should be -- Mercia was still a powerful kingdom in these years; this period marked only a temporary and minor decline between two periods of great influence. In the middle of the ninth century Mercia began a much more serious decline that ended with the dissolution of the kingdom. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- known known.
- Do texts remember?
- I've changed this, but see below for a similar comment of yours. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 709 Coenred abdicated, and went with Offa, the king of the East Saxons, on pilgrimage to Rome, where he died"—I was expecting sex between Coenred and Offa. Try: "In 709 Coenred abdicated and went on pilgrimage to Rome with Offa, the king of the East Saxons, where he died the same year."
- My fault: now the last "he" is ambiguous.Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Since this was in the lead, I cut mention of Offa, as he's not critical to the information being transmitted here. That simplified the sentence and removed the ambiguity. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to tell from the map, but were all of those "neighbouring kingdoms" larger than Merica?
- No, they were of varying sizes. Only Northumbria was clearly larger than Mercia. The map shows no borders between the kingdoms because it's hard to be sure just where the borders were, and it's known they fluctuated over time. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a general-interest question: you've stated that they're all "larger neighbouring kingdoms".Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops; misunderstood you. (I thought you were so fascinated by the article that you were asking for more information.) It was intended to mean "Among the neighbouring kingdoms, the largest were" but I agree it could be read incorrectly. I've cut it to "Neighbouring kingdoms", which I think loses no information, given that I now list all the Anglo-Saxon neighbours. (I don't list the British to the west.) Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a general-interest question: you've stated that they're all "larger neighbouring kingdoms".Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they were of varying sizes. Only Northumbria was clearly larger than Mercia. The map shows no borders between the kingdoms because it's hard to be sure just where the borders were, and it's known they fluctuated over time. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "this work also provides"—expunge "also", and audit the whole text for this word, which is usually redundant and weakens the flow. (The last "also" in the first section is, however, good.)
- "Another charter of Æthelred's, dated between 693 and 704, shows him granting land to Waldhere, the bishop of London." Is he depicted in a drawing doing this? I'd have thought "provides evidence that he granted ...". Tony (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to leave this in; the document is a grant of land, so saying that it merely provides evidence seems too weak -- it is the evidence. I went through one of the standard references, Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, and he refers to charters mentioning and suggesting things. If you really feel it needs to be changed, I can rephrase, but I think it's unobjectionable. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's odd as is. Why not as you suggest: "is evidence that he granted land to ...". Much more comfortable. Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I'd like to try to explain the intent of the idiom, in case that isn't clear. The interesting thing to a historian is the grant itself. The grant was recorded in a charter and, to the extent that legal phraseology can be applied to the eighth century, the charter is the grant, to the point that such charters were frequently forged later to provide evidence for ownership of land. Since the charter is the only possible surviving evidence of the charter, and is supposed to be a record of the grant, it is natural for historians to slip from "the charter is evidence of a grant of land to Waldhere" to "the charter is a grant of land to Waldhere" to "the charter shows a grant of land to Waldhere". You have a comment about jargon below; I suspect this falls under the same heading, and so should be cleaned up as you suggest, but it would not hurt the reader if they could be gently introduced to a form of expression they will meet with many times if they start to read the secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's odd as is. Why not as you suggest: "is evidence that he granted land to ...". Much more comfortable. Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to leave this in; the document is a grant of land, so saying that it merely provides evidence seems too weak -- it is the evidence. I went through one of the standard references, Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, and he refers to charters mentioning and suggesting things. If you really feel it needs to be changed, I can rephrase, but I think it's unobjectionable. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not reading further yet. Tony (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to get a good copy-editor onto the rest of it. Let's look at the next few cm:
- "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records Coenred acceding to the throne twice"—this is the noun+ing urchin. Why not "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Coenred acceded to the throne twice"?
- Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be fussy, but: "As "Southumbrians" refers to those who lived south of the Humber, Mercia's northern boundary, it is difficult to interpret the two annals" is a problem in the probable misinterpretion by readers of the first comma, and their enforced disambiguation. This is what happened to me. Why not bring out what in your writing is the underused dash: "As "Southumbrians" refers to those who lived south of the Humber – Mercia's northern boundary – it is difficult to interpret the two annals"? PS Interesting conundrum – I wonder where the answer lies to the double enthronement.
- Done. Yes, it's an interesting question. My own idea, which of course I can't mention in the article, is that Coenred was made king of northern Mercia, which would have had the same northern boundary. There is a precedent for this division -- about fifty years earlier, the Northumbrian conquerors of Mercia had divided Mercia into a northern and southern half and given the southern half to a subking. This sort of thing is what's fun about Anglo-Saxon history -- there are so few clues you can ponder the few you have endlessly, rather than having vast amounts of source material to wade through. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "have some influence"—"some" makes me grind my teeth; can't it be removed? What does it really mean?
- You're right; removed. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remove comma from dates in the notes. pp. 108-9 should be pp. 108–09, or the full three digits closing if you must.
- Done. Interestingly, it appears that in the {{cite web}} template, the accessmonthday parameter does not supply a comma in the date, but the accessdaymonth parameter does. Anyway, I fixed the issues. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's the lingo in this field, but "A grant of land in Herefordshire to a nun named Feleburg has survived, as have forged charters of Coenred's" is strange; the forged charters are fine, but is a grant a document? I first took it as the concept, then wondered whether the survival of the plot of land itself was at issue. Oh well.
- It is indeed the lingo; see my notes above, and also see an extra sentence added in the first section to explain what grants are. Does that help? Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "influence on London ... influence in Kent"
- The "Influence on London" part was scene-setting which I think served no purpose, so I have cut it, sidestepping the question of on vs. in. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records Coenred acceding to the throne twice"—this is the noun+ing urchin. Why not "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Coenred acceded to the throne twice"?
- "which was evidently of some importance though no other reference to it has survived"—again, this troublesome "some". Why not "evidently important, although no other ..."?
Not happy yet. Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
- The type on both images is illegible, except at full resolution, which is two links away. Can you rework the family tree to make it legible on the article page? For the kingdoms of Britain you may want to ask User:Kmusser, who does great work on maps. Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The family tree text is already about as large as it can be relative to the size of the image. I had it at 300px; I've changed that to 450px -- does that help? Technically I shouldn't have any px sizing, which means that both images would be at whatever thumbnail size each user has set -- the default is 100px, I believe. I've always taken this to mean that there is no expectation that images are comprehensible without clicking on them, since few images are useful at 100px. In practice a lot of FAC regulars put in pixel sizes to try to make the image useful. In this case I don't think it's really possible to get the images large enough to read, and perhaps it would be better to just take away the px sizes completely. I think the same is true of the map, though if you feel Kmusser can make a map that would be readable at a small size I'd be happy to ask him. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe bold type would help, or at least make the image page legible and obviate the need to go another step to full resolution. It would not hurt to ask Kmusser-- he did good work for me on the image at Duluth Complex, and the maps shown on his page shows the quality of his work. Kablammo (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've left him a request. Thanks for the pointer -- I admit it would be nice to be able to read it without a click-through. Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. In response to your comment above (Technically I shouldn't have any px sizing), these two images are the types for which larger sizes may be specified, which include "Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts". Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images Kablammo (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've left him a request. Thanks for the pointer -- I admit it would be nice to be able to read it without a click-through. Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe bold type would help, or at least make the image page legible and obviate the need to go another step to full resolution. It would not hurt to ask Kmusser-- he did good work for me on the image at Duluth Complex, and the maps shown on his page shows the quality of his work. Kablammo (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MC, can you clarify this:
In 709 Coenred abdicated in favour of his cousin Ceolred, son of Æthelred, in order to become a monk in Rome; Bede's story is cited by the medieval chronicler William of Malmesbury as the reason for his decision . . .
- both the pronoun, and whether it was Bede's story or the underlying event which motivated Coenrad. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The source asserts that William cites the underlying event as having motivated Coenred. I made it "Coenred's decision"; does that solve the problem? Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article may be brief, but I have checked it carefully and believe it to be comprehensive. All the issues connected with the reign are addressed, using good-quality references. A very intriguing read. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One oddity for me is the notion that the reigns of Coenred and Ceolred marked a low point for Mercia. Although you have a secondary source saying that, the article does not balance it with Bede's view that Coenred "ruled the kingdom of Mercia with great renown for some while". Bede seems to contrast Coenred's reign with that of his successor Ceolred, when things indeed did go wrong. I wonder if we are falling into the trap of believing that Mercia was only at a high point of "fortunes" so long as it was conquering and controlling the territories around it. From the sparse evidence, it seems to me that Coenred was doing a good job. Not only was he praised by his contemporary Bede but he seems to have exercised a peaceful overlordship over the East Saxons, London, and parts of Kent. That's pretty impressive. And he got on so well with one of his underkings that they went to Rome together. As far as I can tell, he didn't suffer any defeats, though clearly there were security problems on the Welsh frontiers (well, even mighty Offa had that trouble). Of course, we can guess that Bede liked Coenred because he was a good Christian. That's as good a criterion as any, though, I would say, particularly in an age when religion was so important. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wormald (the cited source) is fairly clear about the difference between Coenred/Ceolred and the kings that came before and after them, but my summary of that as a "low point" might be improved. Here's what he says, slightly snipped: "Cenred and Ceolred were effective overlords between the Humber and the Thames, but were challenged and even rivalled in the south by Wihtred of Kent, Caedwalla of Wessex and Ine. Aethelbald's power thus seems to represent a return to the clearer political pattern of the seventh century, after a period of some confusion." I agree that Bede's opinion is not to be sniffed at, but since it's a primary source, and Bede does have his biases, I don't feel comfortable citing him to balance Wormald. Wormald is echoing the Stenton quote in the article when he says "confusion"; Stenton's comment could be held to support the "low point" comment too. However, perhaps the problem is that "low point" is too simplistic -- I think it does represent what Wormald said, but is there a better way to paraphrase Wormald's point? Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Stenton is talking about confused issues of overlordship in parts of the south. What both he and, it seems, Wormald suggest is that the extent of Mercian overlordship was less under Coenred and Ceolred than under Penda/Wulfhere or Aethelbald/Offa. "Low point" to me suggests defeat, or succumbing to the overlordship of Northumbria or Wessex, and that was far from the case. In exercising authority over large parts of the south east, Coenred was still the most powerful king in Anglo-Saxon England. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm finding this difficult to rephrase concisely, and have just cut it instead. I did have "relatively low point" at one time, to indicate that this was only a minor decline in power, but I cut that in response to a comment of Tony's, and that was not precise enough anyway. Expanding your statement into "The extent of Mercian overlordship was less under Coenred and Ceolred than it had been under Wulfher or would be again under Æthelbald" makes it slighty unwieldy. I think the quote from Stenton does convey the "confusion" issue, and the extent of their overlordship is stated in the article as well as it is known, so I think cutting this from both the lead and the body is OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- has survived, as have forged charters of Coenred's. I presume someone else was forging the charters, but it might need clarifying. A date would be helpful, as forgeries become less interesting the later they are.
- The source (Kelly's article in the ODNB) provides no date, unfortunately. I've rephrased to clarify. Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the copyedit, and of course for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a fascinating read about the king of my neck of the woods in the 7th century. The prose flows well. One quibble, I don't like the genealogy chart—it looks a bit untidy. Graham Colm Talk 13:46, 7 January 2009 (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 04:27, 6 January 2009 [5].
Nominating this for FA because, naturally enough, I think it mets the criteria. However, for those who prefer something beyond the usual dry nomination spiel... From its inception in 1921 until the end of World War II, the history of the RAAF was often the story of two great rivalries at its highest echelons, between Richard Williams and Stanley Goble from 1921 to 1939, and between George Jones and William Bostock from 1942 to 1945. The "winners" in those two conflicts, Williams and Jones, are already the subjects of FAs; I’d like now to get the "runners-up" to the same level, starting off with this FAC for Stanley Goble, which is currently GA, and A-Class on the MILHIST project. Since passing ACR I’ve added further material and addressed one or two points raised in that review re. victories scored in World War I and sourcing for same. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Don't see any big problems. Tezkag72 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, couldn't check links as the toolserver's down. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Went back and checked links and http://www.airforce.gov.au/leaders/formerchiefs.htm deadlinks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Yeah, they love changing that site - should work again now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I reviewed this article for GA, and since then it's quality has improved even further. I can see no areas of concern and am satisified that it safely meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a great article which meets all the criteria. As a suggestion for further development, it may be worth expanding upon the factors which caused Goble to resign in 1940 - as it's fairly extraordinary that a senior officer would resign his command at the start of what was obviously going to be a long war, it would be interesting to flesh out his views on the EATS and his conflict with his deputy. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Was the Caudron a Caudron G.4? ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, annoyingly the source doesn't say - I reckon it had to be a G.4 because I believe that's the only twin-engined model that would've been around at the time but without anything definite I've had to leave it as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought it might be something like that. If someone else has a source it would be nice to fix that, but probably not essential for the FA. ϢereSpielChequers 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, annoyingly the source doesn't say - I reckon it had to be a G.4 because I believe that's the only twin-engined model that would've been around at the time but without anything definite I've had to leave it as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: An excellent, well-written and well-constructed article. I have a few small prose quibbles:-
- "as had been his father", though grammatically correct, reads rather quaintly. Perhaps consider rephrasing
- Came up with something different
- Reference to the "new Royal Ar Force" (in the WW1 section) should be to the "newly-formed Royal Air Force".
- Done
- "Whilst" (in the Chief of Air Staff subsection) is, for reasons that escape me, a disapproved wikipedia word and should be replaced by "while".
- Done
- In the Circumnavigation section, "they encountered storms and disease". Storms I can understand, on a long flight, but disease? Does this simply mean that one or both were ill during the flight? Some brief clarification would help.
- Modified
- Quotations: the wiki line on quotes is that direct quotations within quote marks should be used for "unique phrases" or for comments of a controversial nature. By this standard I don't think that "conspicuous bravery and skill" or "curb Williams's independence" qualify as unique or controversial phrases, and since both are cited, the quote marks could go.
- I would've thought that if we don't rephrase something we need to use quotes even if it isn't controversial, and I'd prefer to keep "conspicuous bravery and skill" since it's straight from the DSO citation. Re. "curb Williams's independence", in my own words it'd be keep Williams in check or limit Williams' automony, either of which I'd be happy to substitute.
- "as had been his father", though grammatically correct, reads rather quaintly. Perhaps consider rephrasing
- High-quality stuff, well done. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Brian. Will see about those in the next day or so (just back home after New Year's Eve revels so not in quite the right state to reword things at the moment)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See above, tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few comments.
- 'Goble came to national attention in 1924 when he and fellow RAAF pilot Ivor McIntyre became the first men to circumnavigate Australia by air, journeying some 13,500 km in a single-engined floatplane. - Is it possible to get a conversion to miles?
- Done
- Goble died in 1948, at the age of fifty-six, two years after his retirement from the military. - Remove the comma after "1948".
- Done
- Although himself forced down on two occasions, he had avoided any injury during his active service. - This sentence is slightly confusing.
- Modified
- Prime Minister Stanley Bruce called the expedition "one of the most wonderful accomplishments in the history of aviation", his government presenting Goble with a gift of ₤500, and ₤250 to McIntyre. - The comma after "aviation" should be a semicolon.
- I'd agree with a semi-colon if it read "his government presented" but with "presenting" I think the comma is correct. Happy to change to "his government presented" with a semi-colon if you'd prefer.
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many tks for your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comment.
- Goble's wife and children are first mentioned in "Retirement and Legacy" section. I think this is OK but it would be better if that info was also found in the Lead and Reader was made aware of when he got married, maybe somewhere in the body of the article. A man's personal life is an important part of who he is and I don't think it is OK to leave that to a sentence in the last section. NancyHeise talk 03:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Nancy. Actually, "He married Kathleen Wodehouse in London on Anzac Day, 1922" is already mentioned in the Chief of the Air Staff section, which I think should suffice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's OK there, I just think there should be something in the lead about the man's personal life but since this is a matter of personal taste, not an FA criteria, I still support the article for FA. It is very well done. NancyHeise talk 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: All images are taken from the Australian War Memorial and are in the public domain due to their creation more than 50 years ago as government owned photographs. All information has been properly filled and page links have been provided. Jappalang (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts tidying up some of those image files, Jappalong. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also checked the images at the request of one user, they are all correct. On the source pages, the images copyright holder and copyright term is the following: "Copyright: Copyright expired - public domain, Copyright holder: Copyright Expired." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts tidying up some of those image files, Jappalong. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2009 (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 04:27, 6 January 2009 [6].
I believe that this article about a tragic accident aboard a United States Navy battleship is ready for consideration for FA. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination but several other editors provided significant and much appreciated help including Allanon (a.k.a. the_ed17), Joe N, Otto4711, Cool Hand Luke, Dual Freq, MBK004, and TomStar81. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; I commented during the A-class review, and I believe that the article fulfills every requirement to become a featured article. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a great article and meets all the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I'm not keen on the link to "doctorate" near the name of Dr. Richard Schwoebel. The foreword to his book on this subject describes him as a physicist with "technical expertise in studies of surface physics, material properties and safety issues". Would this be better than a link to doctorate? Still looking at the article.
- I'm also not keen on left-aligned images at the bottom of a section. They jam the section headings over to the right; sometimes in a distracting manner. Still looking. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 118 (IMDB..) needs a publisher and last access date outside the link title.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I formatted the two references in question [8]. Cla68 (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Is it possible to re-arrange the images so that Master Chief Stephen Skelley (center, facing camera) is not looking off the page, per WP:MOS#Images? (I realize it's not always possible to comply.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupport I think this article is well done and meets FA criteria. However, it could be improved if some information were included about Moosally's retirement comments about the investigation. There are articles in both Washington Post and Boston Globe linked here [11]. NancyHeise talk 20:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched under "Moosally" in the Post's website and nothing came up. The Globe requires a member ship fee to view the article. What further information about Moosally's comments do feel is needed? Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I just clicked on the link I provided you and it did not go where I intended it to go. [12] this link has the names and dates of the Post and Globe articles that covered that notable event. I think Moosally's comments could be summed up in a single sentence. I also found this [13] book that could also be used as a source for his comments. I hope that helps. NancyHeise talk 05:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles are still behind pay-per-view sites. Could you be more specific on what you think the article should say about Moosally's comments? I may be able to answer your concern with the sources I have if I ensure that I understand what is you're looking for. Cla68 (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cla68, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. This book [14] is fully available for use as a source of Moosally's comments. I think a sentence could be added to let Reader know Moosally's feelings about the investigation since he was intimately involved with the entire affair. I think that adding a quote would be fine too. Just let Reader know that at his retirement he felt this way about the investigation. NancyHeise talk 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking "Conditional" I see that Moosally's retirement quote is included now in Aftermath. Looks great! NancyHeise talk 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cla68, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. This book [14] is fully available for use as a source of Moosally's comments. I think a sentence could be added to let Reader know Moosally's feelings about the investigation since he was intimately involved with the entire affair. I think that adding a quote would be fine too. Just let Reader know that at his retirement he felt this way about the investigation. NancyHeise talk 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles are still behind pay-per-view sites. Could you be more specific on what you think the article should say about Moosally's comments? I may be able to answer your concern with the sources I have if I ensure that I understand what is you're looking for. Cla68 (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Although a bit on the long side, the information present here is extremely well backed-up. Definitely FA-Quality, well done! Cam (Chat) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support so far. I haven't read all of it, and probably won't, but I've seen only good things. Thanks, Cla68 - it's interesting, and I wasn't aware of the incident until now.
- A suggestion: On plutonium I saw content footnotes (as opposed to citation sources) listed in a separate section and demarcated by <ref group=note>foo</ref>. It may be more trouble than it's worth to change it, but you should be aware of the option. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I've considered using a separate footnotes section but haven't decided yet on it. I might try it out on the next article I work on. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now on criterion 3
File:16in Gun Turret.jpg - We need to know where this diagram was originally published to know whether or not it is a Navy publication and therefore in the PD. Please add the original publication information.
- Removed. Replacement image is fine. Awadewit (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Master Chief Stephen Skelley USS Iowa (BB-61).jpg - The source link on this image is broken, so the license cannot be verified. Please fix the link.
- I still cannot access the link for this image. I receive the message "An unexpected application error has occurred and has been logged." Awadewit (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. finally, I can access this page. Awadewit (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:USS Iowa (BB-61) projectile hoisted to spanning tray.jpg - There is no source link for this image that allows us to verify the license. Please add a link for the source.
- Is there any way to link to the image description page, that has the information about the photo on it? Note that at WP:IUP, it suggests linking to the HTML page that contains the image, not the image itself. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking, since there is no way to link directly. Awadewit (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:USS Iowa (BB-61) placing powder bags.jpg - There is no source link for this image that allows us to verify the license. Please add a link for the source.
- Again, can we link to the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking, since there is no way to link directly. Awadewit (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Number 2 turret center gun fires Iowas 1000th round since recommissioning.jpg - There is no source link for this image that allows us to verify the license. Please add a link for the source.
- Again, can we link to the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking, since there is no way to link directly. Awadewit (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Clayton Hartwig and Fred Moosally.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the USS Iowa turret explosion article. Please add one or remove the image.
- Each article must have a separate fair use rationale that meets WP:NFCC (NFCC #10). Right now, I don't think that this image meets those criteria, specifically #8. I don't think that having this image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". If you believe the opposite to be the case, the fair use rationale has to make that case for this particular article. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose for including this fair use image says that "Clayton Hartwig is central to the controversy described in the article "USS Iowa turret explosion," therefore it is believed that a image of Hartwig is of educational benefit to readers." Could you please explain in the fair use rationale how Hartwig was central to the controversy? (After I read the lead of the article, I understood how he was central, but as a legal justification for the image this fair use rationale is extremely vague. It needs to be much more specific.) Awadewit (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:16inchload.jpg - Why do you believe that Charles Thompson II wrote this book as part of his naval duties? Currently the source information contradicts the author information a bit.
File:IowaVictimsDover1.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
- I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Moosally and Bush.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
- I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Richard Milligan.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
- I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:IowaBlackenedTurret.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
- I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Milligan and Edney.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
- I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:IowaTurretExplosion1.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
- I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:KelsoIowaBrief.JPEG - The source link is broken for this image, so we cannot verify the license. Please fix the link.
- Must have been a random thing - works for me today. Awadewit (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will strike this objection once these issues have been resolved and I look forward to doing so soon. Awadewit (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link for File:KelsoIowaBrief.JPEG (http://www.defenseimagery.mil/assetDetails.action?guid=9bfa09bbe91efa8a3314997300785bf4a6420408) works for me. BuddingJournalist 15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not exchange the image of the gun turret with File:Iowa 16 inch Gun-EN.svg? JonCatalán(Talk) 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded in detail:
- File:16in Gun Turret.jpg was replaced by Catalan (thank you!) for one with better licensing, and it's a featured image [15].
- File:Master Chief Stephen Skelley USS Iowa (BB-61).jpg. I could not replicate your problem with this link, the link worked for me.
- The link is still working for me. Cla68 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:USS Iowa (BB-61) projectile hoisted to spanning tray.jpg- Fixed [16].
- File:USS Iowa (BB-61) placing powder bags.jpg- Fixed [17].
- File:Number 2 turret center gun fires Iowas 1000th round since recommissioning.jpg- Fixed [18].
- File:Clayton Hartwig and Fred Moosally.jpg- I don't really understand your objection here as it gives the name of the article in the fair use license template as mandated [19]. In any case, I added the article name to the justification heading [20].
- Clayton Hartwig is a key figure in the controversy surrounding the Navy's investigation into the explosion. Thus, I felt it of educational benefit [21] to include an image of him in the article. If you don't agree then I may need to reevaluate that. Cla68 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added more rationale for why the image is included in the article [22]. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:16inchload.jpg- Clarified that the source states that the image is from the US Navy [23].
- File:Richard Milligan.jpg - Fixed [24].
- File:KelsoIowaBrief.JPEG- Fixed [25].
- The images File:IowaVictimsDover1.jpg, File:Moosally and Bush.jpg, File:IowaBlackenedTurret.jpg, File:Milligan and Edney.jpg, and File:IowaTurretExplosion1.jpg appear to have disappeared from http://www.defenselink.mil/multimedia/ since I started writing the article. This isn't the first time that DoD images have suddenly disappeared from DoD websites after I started writing a related article in Wikipedia and I kind of expected it after this edit [26]. I believe, however, that those images are still ok to use because I identified where they originally came from and detailed the dates and photographers (with their military titles) who took them. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, there is no way to directly link to the information page for the DefenseLink Multimedia images. The way they are presented is from a search results page that does not contain a unique location html. The only way to find them is to conduct a search under the image name, number, or subject. For the "disappeared" images I added access dates [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Cla68 (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All image issues have been resolved. I have struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
File:Iowa 16 inch Gun-EN.svg is based off File:16in Gun Turret.jpg (same website as source), and thus suffers the same source issues as the scan from the book, featured picture or not.- File:Clayton Hartwig and Fred Moosally.jpg — I believe Awadewit is asking for the rationale to include this non-free picture. What purpose is it serving in the article, other than "here's a picture of Moosally and Hartwig together". Does it add to the significance of the article? Is it illustrating or conveying something that cannot be completely (accurately) expressed in words? If that is the case, then the rationale should be stated on the image page (the {{Non-free use rationale}} template has a "Purpose of use" field for this).
- Personally, I think there is an overload of images in this article. In resolutions wider than 1024, the sequence of images that depicts the loading and firing of Iowa's guns is displaced one thumbnail image width to the left, creating an unsightly whitespace on the right. Are four pictures necessary for this? In terms of purpose, is File:IowaTurretExplosion1.jpg not similar to File:USS Iowa BB61 Iowa Explosion 1989.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source problem for the self-made diagram of the turret is different than if we wanted to use the original diagram itself. If we wanted to use the original diagram, it would have to be in the PD. If we want to use the diagram as a source, we only have to establish that it is a reliable source, not that it is in the PD. I agree that the source is hard to pin down and looks a bit sketchy. How reliable is this website? Awadewit (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - assuming that the image problems are worked out. IMHO, this is an excellent article, and I am proud to be mentioned at the top of this page even though I really didn't do much. Good luck, and (as I said in the A-class review) very good work Cla. On a side note, sorry for never getting to that references check that I said I was going to do during the A-class review... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per Ed, assuming image issues are resolved. I read most of this during ACR but didn't get round to commenting/supporting, so pleased to do so now. An amazing amount of work has gone into this, and it succeeds in covering the nuances of a very tangled web. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I read roughly half of the article (I'll hopefully review the rest eventually) and the prose is generally excellent. This is a very comprehensive, engaging, and well-written article. I have one comment, however. The Background contains a block of images that should alternate alignments per WP:ACCESS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I kept those images together because the sequence illustrates steps in quick succession in a process, much like these two images that are together in this article to illustrate two steps in a single event at the bottom of this section. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - a little long, but very thorough and focused yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written, well researched, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:04, 6 January 2009 (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 21:51, 3 January 2009 [32].
- Nominator(s): Coemgenus
This article was promoted to GA a few months back, thanks to the work of editor Charles Edward, among others. Since then, I've added some more information and believe it to be of FA-quality. Coemgenus 23:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment John Sherman, Pan-American Congress, and University Club should be dabbed. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Coemgenus 03:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support After a few reads and the below comments I can't find any more issues. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Coemgenus 03:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is very good. I found one statement which needs a citation: For the third vacancy, which arose in 1892, Harrison nominated George Shiras. Shiras's appointment was controversial because his age — sixty — was considered advanced at the time. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The cite is to the same pages as the previous cite, so I added it again. I changed the wording a bit -- the issue apparently wasn't that they thought he would die soon, something to do with his pension. Coemgenus 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done. Question: would the "legacy" section benefit by adding a brief assessment of the effectiveness of his presidency and public attitude toward Harrison? Majoreditor (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure there is any public perception of him nowadays. I'll look in the sources. Coemgenus 16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done. Question: would the "legacy" section benefit by adding a brief assessment of the effectiveness of his presidency and public attitude toward Harrison? Majoreditor (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Weak SupportI read the article with great interest. I found no major problems (except one, see below) that can prevent it from becoming featured. I only want to say that according to MOS you should use either spaced ndash or unspaced mdash (and this should be consistent throughout the article). Spaced mdash should not be used. I fixed spaced mdashes myself, but you should check, because I might have missed something.
- The only problem that I found is the 'Legacy' section. It actually says nothing about legacy, but contains mainly trivia. I think the section should be disbanded and the information should be distributed among other sections. Ruslik (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I integrated it; see my comment below. Coemgenus 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Query
In the tariff section the phrase "was had the" is ambiguous and the whole section is unclear as to whether the measure was passed. Either the measure went through in which case it "was the" or it failed to be enacted and "would have been"ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed that one. Coemgenus 17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Also you have a map for the Presidential election he lost, (though I think the Upper Peninsula is coloured incorrectly on it) but why no map for the election he won? ϢereSpielChequers 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the 1888 map. The 1892 map is colored as it is to represent the Michigan divided its votes between the two candidates. Coemgenus 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all that. ϢereSpielChequers 18:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The dispute with Chile has a different explanation for the riot than the article linked. Accepting refugees in one and intervention in the other. Worth checking that out and bringing the articles into line with each other (I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't multiple views as to the cause of the tension).
- The post Presidential section leaves me with some questions:
- Apart from the boycot of their father's wedding to their cousin there is no further mention of the rift with his elder children, were matters subsequently resolved?
- If his time in California was brief, in which year did it end?
- Why in an otherwise chronological section was the book publication out of sequence, was that when it was written?
- Why was his book not published for nearly two decades after his death? ϢereSpellCheckers 00:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the 1888 map. The 1892 map is colored as it is to represent the Michigan divided its votes between the two candidates. Coemgenus 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of course I have spent considerable time working on this article myself, so I am a bit biased :). The legacy section is the only area I am still concerned about as is noted above. It was in fact a trivia section at one point, which I significantly pared downed, put into prose, and labeled legacy hoping to at some point get more information on his legacy (which I have yet to find much). We should probably remove that section and try to integrate into the rest of the article before we grant FA status. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be glad to remove it and integrate the relevant parts. Coemgenus 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I moved some of it to a section called "technology," since it didn't seem to fit anywhere else. The list of stuff named after him I deleted -- I've never liked those lists in a biogrpahy article, since for more popular presidents they can go on forever. Coemgenus 17:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be glad to remove it and integrate the relevant parts. Coemgenus 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- In the Early legal career section, specify "In the same year".
- At the end of the section, there's a man named Fishbank but the firm was called Fishback; which is right?
- There's a redlink for the Regiment in the Civil War section; link can be removed if no article exists.
- In the next paragraph, "the 70th Indiana" sounds weird.
- Should the image of the house in the Early legal career section go under Indiana politics by "to build a grand new home in Indianapolis."?
- "losing by 5,084 votes": How few is that; out of how many?
- Under United States Senator, do we know which cabinet position he was offered?
- Election over Cleveland: "90,000 fewer popular votes" How much is that in proportion to the total number cast?
- The post-presidency section, especially the Venezuela attorney part, could be lengthened a little, especially since it's mentioned in the lead.
- I did some copyediting throughout the article, mostly punctuation and minor phrasing, but these are what I wasn't sure about. Overall it is an excellent and very informative article. I had read it in a very short state last year, and you have done an excellent job improving it! Reywas92Talk 18:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added total vote numbers for the two instances you noted. In regards to the cabinet position, my sources do not indicate which position, but only states "a position in the Garfield cabinet". I also expanded the post presidency section a bit with another source. I also corrected the name of the Indiana regiment and changed the link to point to the Indiana regiments page. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing them. The sources I have also don't specify which cabinet job. "70th Indiana" is the form of name I've heard for other Civil War regiments, too, so I'd suggest we leave that as is. Christmas Eve probably wasn't the best time for me to nominate this for FA, but I'll try to keep up! Coemgenus 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Comprehensiveness worries. I only read the "Family and education" section, but I feel like it could be beefed up a bit to better describe his background. It does an adequate job giving a timeline of what happened in his early life, but I think an FA biography should go a bit deeper.
- He was seven when his grandfather was sworn in as President. What kind of impact did this have on his childhood?
- "He maintained a membership in the Sons of the American Revolution." Who's "he"?
- "In 1845...In 1847...In 1850" The repetition makes for some dull reading here.
- "he was provided with a tutor " Was he struggling with his studies? He had tutors before this though, according to Calhoun and Moore. The quotation from his first tutor Harriet Root about him being "the brightest of the family" might do well integrated here.
- What kind of childhood did he have? Was his family well-off? Middle class? What did his father do at the time?
- "In 1847 he
wasenrolled in Farmer's College" Might want to make it clear whether this was for preparatory or undergraduate work. - No mention of the deaths of his mother/siblings and how it affected him?
- No mention of the influence of Robert Hamilton Bishop?
- Why did he want to transfer?
- How did he do at Miami University? How did his activities/performance there shape him?
- Might want to devote some words to his decision to pursue law instead of the ministry after graduation.
- No description of how he met/fell in love with Caroline Lavinia Scott? BuddingJournalist 22:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some details of his early life. I don't want to add too much, partly because it will be of less interest to most readers than his adult life, and partly because there isn't much about it in the sources I have. Do you think Bishop influenced him that much? Calhoun devotes two paragraphs to Bishop, but never mentions him again. If you have access to the Sievers books, there may be more in there (almost certainly; they are lengthy) but I don't, so I can add no more than I have. Coemgenus 00:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, one certainly needs to strike a balance. I just feel that more discussion would be worthwhile on how his childhood and early life shaped him and his future, rather than listing what happened (in this year, Harrison did such-and-such). For example, see the early life section of Ronald Reagan, which discusses his faith. Both Calhoun and Moore say that he was heavily influenced by Bishop, and Calhoun spends time talking about his political writings/speeches he made while at Miami University. I think it'd be interesting to note that at Miami, he was already distinguishing himself as a leader and public speaker. The full text of Sievers is available online for free courtesy of the great folks of archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/benjaminharrison007546mbp. BuddingJournalist 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing me to that website for the Sievers -- I'll look it over and see if he has anything to add, and I'll see if I can summarize some pertinent info from the other sources, too. Coemgenus 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bit from Sievers to the Early Life section. Only the first volume is online, so I won't be able to do the same for later parts of his life. Coemgenus 15:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, one certainly needs to strike a balance. I just feel that more discussion would be worthwhile on how his childhood and early life shaped him and his future, rather than listing what happened (in this year, Harrison did such-and-such). For example, see the early life section of Ronald Reagan, which discusses his faith. Both Calhoun and Moore say that he was heavily influenced by Bishop, and Calhoun spends time talking about his political writings/speeches he made while at Miami University. I think it'd be interesting to note that at Miami, he was already distinguishing himself as a leader and public speaker. The full text of Sievers is available online for free courtesy of the great folks of archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/benjaminharrison007546mbp. BuddingJournalist 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some details of his early life. I don't want to add too much, partly because it will be of less interest to most readers than his adult life, and partly because there isn't much about it in the sources I have. Do you think Bishop influenced him that much? Calhoun devotes two paragraphs to Bishop, but never mentions him again. If you have access to the Sievers books, there may be more in there (almost certainly; they are lengthy) but I don't, so I can add no more than I have. Coemgenus 00:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 100 (Leip, David...) what makes http://uselectionatlas.org/ a reliable source?- It's a fairly well-known site that's been used as a source in other FAs (see, e.g., Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Winfield Scott Hancock. Do you think there might be a problem with it? Coemgenus 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got it (apparantly) double cited here in this article, but it certainly looks like a self published website to me, meaning it needs to satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Archives site gives the information well enough, so is there any harm in leaving the Leip site also, which presents the same information in a more eye-pleasing way? I'll take it out, if you want, but I don't see the harm in having two sources there.
- You're welcome to leave it in, but its use here won't help prove its reliablity. Probably a good compromise would be to put it in the external links section. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I moved them there. Coemgenus 18:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to leave it in, but its use here won't help prove its reliablity. Probably a good compromise would be to put it in the external links section. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Archives site gives the information well enough, so is there any harm in leaving the Leip site also, which presents the same information in a more eye-pleasing way? I'll take it out, if you want, but I don't see the harm in having two sources there.
- You've got it (apparantly) double cited here in this article, but it certainly looks like a self published website to me, meaning it needs to satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fairly well-known site that's been used as a source in other FAs (see, e.g., Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Winfield Scott Hancock. Do you think there might be a problem with it? Coemgenus 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the Benjamin Harrison book in the footnotes, you need to list it in the references, not the further reading.The Adelson book is a juvenile per Amazon, might it not be better to use a better source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many image layout issues (see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images). Official White House portrait of Benjamin Harrison is looking off the page, and several images are above sections rather than within them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've corrected the issues you've mentioned. Please let me know if there are further inconsistencies with the MOS. Coemgenus 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments that weren't addressed
- End of Early legal career section: The man's name is listed as Fishbank but the firm's is listed as Fishback. What's right?
- It's Fishback. I fixed it. Coemgenus 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the image of his home in the Early legal career section go under Indiana politics by "to build a grand new home in Indianapolis."?
- Moved it. Coemgenus 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, should it be noted in the States admitted section that Harrison admitted the most states after GW?
I'd rather not. I'm not sure this is really Harrison's achievement, or that the admission of the first 15 was really Washington's. Coemgenus 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)I changed my mind and added it. Coemgenus 15:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- All other comments of mine were taken care of already. Good work. Reywas92Talk 03:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent! Reywas92Talk 19:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- End of Early legal career section: The man's name is listed as Fishbank but the firm's is listed as Fishback. What's right?
- Support. Meets FA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question about research - The first thing I did when I came to this article was look at the list of references consulted. I was shocked that there were so few and shocked that the article relies almost exclusively on one biography. However, I know nothing about Harrison scholarship, so, I trotted over to JSTOR and looked up a review of the Calhoun biography. Unfortunately there was only one (not a good sign). It was generally positive, but it mentioned that the biography is part of a TIME series that "clearly hopes to appeal to a wide audience". I'm concerned that the scholarly biographies on Harrison have not been used to write this article. Unfortunately, I do not know what those are. Have the editors endeavored to find and use all of the biographies of Harrison while researching and writing this article? For most of the major biographical articles I've written (such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Joseph Priestley, and Mary Shelley), I've had to read seven or eight biographies and I haven't written on a figure as well-known as a US president. Awadewit (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All biographies I know of were used, with the exception of the second and third volume of Sievers. If you discover any others, and if I am able to procure them, I will be glad to see if they have any new information worth adding. Coemgenus 15:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! This is like Harriet Tubman! How strange that there are only a handful of biographies. What is in the second and third volumes of Sievers? Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unfortunate; even though the TIME series isn't perfect, for many of the lesser-known Presidents, it's their first biography in decades. Sievers volume one stops at 1865. Vol. 2 is up to 1885, and vol. 3 is from then until his death. Coemgenus 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you not have access to those volumes or something? Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not in any library near me, and I'm not buying them. Volume 1 is on-line, for some reason, but the site does not have the other two volumes. Coemgenus 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But when there are so few biographies, it seems like we should use all of them don't you think? Did you try interlibrary loan? I'll try to go to the library and see what kinds of differences there are between the article and the second and third volumes (hopefully there won't be any). Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not in any library near me, and I'm not buying them. Volume 1 is on-line, for some reason, but the site does not have the other two volumes. Coemgenus 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you not have access to those volumes or something? Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unfortunate; even though the TIME series isn't perfect, for many of the lesser-known Presidents, it's their first biography in decades. Sievers volume one stops at 1865. Vol. 2 is up to 1885, and vol. 3 is from then until his death. Coemgenus 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! This is like Harriet Tubman! How strange that there are only a handful of biographies. What is in the second and third volumes of Sievers? Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All biographies I know of were used, with the exception of the second and third volume of Sievers. If you discover any others, and if I am able to procure them, I will be glad to see if they have any new information worth adding. Coemgenus 15:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3File:GenBenHarrison.jpg - Without an author for this image, we cannot assert that 100 years plus the life of the author has passed. Do any of the Harrison books give more information on this photo, such as its publication date or its photographer?- I changed it to {{PD-1923}}, which is more accurate. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added "nineteenth century" to the "date" field and "unknown" to the "author" field. We can be reasonably sure this photograph was published then, since Harrison died in 1901. It would, of course, be nicer to know that. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to {{PD-1923}}, which is more accurate. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:ElectoralCollege1888.svg - This image needs to include a source for the electoral distribution. Please also add a description of the map to the description field, including the year of the election, the candidates, etc.- I added a source for the data. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources for images need to be reliable. This is a website run by an independent, though conscientious citizen, making it self-published. We need something that meets WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the info on the U.S. archives website, and added it. Why is everyone suddenly down on Leip's site? I've used it as a source in three previous FAs without objection, and I've yet to find an error. I also added a caption.Coemgenus 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources for images need to be reliable. This is a website run by an independent, though conscientious citizen, making it self-published. We need something that meets WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a source for the data. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Harrison Football Political Cartoon.jpg - This image is missing source, date, and author.- This one's hard to find, but in this book it gives the source for it and many others. A useful volume for Gilded Age political cartoons. Coemgenus 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Billion dollar Congress.jpg - Do you have the issue and volume number for the magazine this was published in? Note that WP:IUP says "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information) and not just title and author." This is true for magazines as well.- No, I don't. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Uss baltimore c-3.jpg - We need a link to the source at the navy site for this image. If there is more information regarding it at the navy site, that would be good to include.- Added it. Coemgenus 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:DJBrewer.jpg - The LOC page says "copyright Clinedust, Washington, DC" but it also says "created/published c.1907". Now, if it was published in 1907, it is in the PD because it was published before 1923. However, it was only created in 1907, that is not the case. Do you know anything else about this photo?- The LOC says it was published in 1907. That's good enough for me. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The LOC says that is was "created/published in 1907", as I stated above. There is a difference between being created in 1907 or published in 1907 (the LOC unfortunately is not drawing the distinction here for whatever reason). Since, the LOC is claiming that Clinedust owns the copyright, we need to be sure that this image was published before 1923. That is why I am asking, do you have any further information regarding the publication of this image? Awadewit (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't upload it; all I know is what is contained on the source page on the LOC website. I doubt they're violating the copyright any more than we are, but I can't substantiate it from the info there. Coemgenus 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The LOC leaves it up to users to determine copyright - see their extensive tutorial here. Not everything in the LOC is PD and not everything has enough information allowing us to use it on Wikipedia (the LOC's rules are different from our rules). The way around the problem with this image would be to demonstrate that the author has been dead for over 70 years (but we don't know the author), 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since the creation of the work. That is why it is important to know when the image was published versus when it was created. You can see why the publish/creation distinction is important. We can only use the image if it was published over 95 years ago. I was hoping one of the Harrison books might mention it. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I swapped it for a different pic. On the new picture's page at LOC, it says there are no known restrictions on reproduction. Coemgenus 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "No known restrictions" actually doesn't mean PD. We have to establish PD. It looks like this passes the "pre-1923" test, since no one else is claiming the copyright and we have a reason to believe it was published before 1923. Lucky, since the photographer died in 1952! Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I swapped it for a different pic. On the new picture's page at LOC, it says there are no known restrictions on reproduction. Coemgenus 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The LOC leaves it up to users to determine copyright - see their extensive tutorial here. Not everything in the LOC is PD and not everything has enough information allowing us to use it on Wikipedia (the LOC's rules are different from our rules). The way around the problem with this image would be to demonstrate that the author has been dead for over 70 years (but we don't know the author), 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since the creation of the work. That is why it is important to know when the image was published versus when it was created. You can see why the publish/creation distinction is important. We can only use the image if it was published over 95 years ago. I was hoping one of the Harrison books might mention it. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't upload it; all I know is what is contained on the source page on the LOC website. I doubt they're violating the copyright any more than we are, but I can't substantiate it from the info there. Coemgenus 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The LOC says that is was "created/published in 1907", as I stated above. There is a difference between being created in 1907 or published in 1907 (the LOC unfortunately is not drawing the distinction here for whatever reason). Since, the LOC is claiming that Clinedust owns the copyright, we need to be sure that this image was published before 1923. That is why I am asking, do you have any further information regarding the publication of this image? Awadewit (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The LOC says it was published in 1907. That's good enough for me. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bharrison.gif - This image is missing date and author.- I added them. Coemgenus 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:1892 Electoral Map.png - This map needs to include a description of what is represented as well as the source from which the information was obtained.- I added the source info. Coemgenus 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See above comment on this source. Also, please add a brief description of the information contained in the map. Note that the candidates' full names are not contained in the map. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the source. I also added a caption. Coemgenus 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image description page needs a description of the image - there is no entry in the "description" field. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. I added one. Coemgenus 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the first names of the candidates. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. I added one. Coemgenus 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image description page needs a description of the image - there is no entry in the "description" field. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the source. I also added a caption. Coemgenus 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above comment on this source. Also, please add a brief description of the information contained in the map. Note that the candidates' full names are not contained in the map. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the source info. Coemgenus 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Benjamin Harrison, head and shoulders bw photo, 1896.jpg - This needs to link to the image description page, not to the image itself, as outlined at WP:IUP.- I fixed it. Coemgenus 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These issues should not be difficult to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (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 21:51, 3 January 2009 [33].
I'm nominating this article for featured article becauseI believe it meets all of the standards required for a Featured Article. Interestingly, if passed this would be the first British tank to become a Featured Article! Skinny87 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support & comments
- Tetrach should be disambiguated (see the dabs finder to the right of this page).
- Sources look good; all published sources.
- Images all have public domain tags, but someone more experienced should take a look at them.
JonCatalán(Talk) 20:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Catalan. I realize the dab should be resolved, but I can't because I have no idea what the tank is named after - the system of government, the emperor, or who knows what else. None of my sources state why it was named that, which is odd. I suppose the only way to find out would be some original research at the Imperial War Museum or Bovington Tank Museum. Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with you about the standards, and there is always a time for the first British tank nominated! Hope it passes!Dcollins52Give me a yell 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review — as follows:
- File:Tetrarch - Light Tank Mark VII.jpg — likely to be true, but would need a date to confirm that it is a photo dated before 1957. I have sourced a photo on IWM that is likely the basis for this scan (the tank is the same designation and angle, but the background seems to have been removed in the scan), but would like a second opinion. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tetrarch tank.jpg — a colorised photo is more than a simple colour job, espcially in view of the camouflage scheme (was it really those colours then?). As such, one has to confirm that the British Government was the one who comissioned the colourising (especially since the source a "everyone upload your images" site), and that copyright has been given. I have tagged the image at Commons with regards to this. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- File:Mark VIII Tetrarch Light Tank 1941.jpg, File:IWM-KID-4781-Tetrarch-with-Littlejohn-adaptor.jpg, File:IWM - B 5198.jpg, File:IWM-MH-9324-Harry-Hopkins.jpg,
andFile:IWM-STT-7163-Alecto-SPG.jpg, and File:KID 001325 A.jpg (update) check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Jappalang. I have to admit I don't know anything about the images in question, as they were both there when I started working on the article. The first one might just be an edited version of the photo you found, but for the colour one I have no idea. What happens now in that respect? Skinny87 (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted the user who uploaded it to see if he can help. But if it can't be resolved, there are some nice black and white PD photos on the IWM site I can replace it with, so it's no hassle if it has to be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a colourised image might be copyrighted, the image could be deleted from Commons. If the uploader is unable to help, removing the image from this article would be fine and would not hurt the article. After all, like you say, there are other images of the Tetrarch. Jappalang (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall I replace the image now to make things easier? And what about the first image? Skinny87 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that would be best. As for the first image, I think it is fine since the original image has been found (and removing trees is unlikely to be such an effort that it becomes copyrightable), thus the validity of the PD claim should hold. Personally, I would leave it in unless someone comes up with a valid argument for non-PD. Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll replace it now - I've found a nice image of the side of a Tetrarch that has nice ev - should've thought of it earlier. Thanks for the help!
- Yes, I think that would be best. As for the first image, I think it is fine since the original image has been found (and removing trees is unlikely to be such an effort that it becomes copyrightable), thus the validity of the PD claim should hold. Personally, I would leave it in unless someone comes up with a valid argument for non-PD. Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall I replace the image now to make things easier? And what about the first image? Skinny87 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a colourised image might be copyrighted, the image could be deleted from Commons. If the uploader is unable to help, removing the image from this article would be fine and would not hurt the article. After all, like you say, there are other images of the Tetrarch. Jappalang (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted the user who uploaded it to see if he can help. But if it can't be resolved, there are some nice black and white PD photos on the IWM site I can replace it with, so it's no hassle if it has to be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Colourised image replaced with [34], which is hopefully labelled correctly and such. Skinny87 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — I think a further copyedit (maybe by an editor divorced from the article, so he or she can edit from a different angle) could be in order. There are redundancies (such as the sentence "The Mk VII was designed to be the latest design in a series of ..." can be reduced to "The Mk VII was the latest design in a series of ...") and repetitiveness (such as the two "designed"s in "First, the tank was designed to solve the problems found in previous light tanks designed by the company ..."). Some ideas could be rearranged to yield more compact paragraphs (presentation), such as mentioning the "two-man turret" with the armaments instead of dumping it in a sentence bordered by engine specifications and transmission system. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I'll get going with a copy-edit as soon as I get back from visiting London today! Skinny87 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am such a wikiholic, I swear. I've given the article an initial copy-edit, dealt with your suggestions and got a few repetitive words, Jappalang. Would you mind looking again and seeing if it's up to standards yet? Skinny87 (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Skinny87, I still think it could do with a fresh pair of eyes. For example,
- in the lede, "The Tank, Light, Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch, was a British light tank, produced by Vickers-Armstrong in the late 1930s, which saw service during World War II. The Tetrarch was originally designed to be the latest in the line of light tanks they had built for the British Army, and also to improve upon its predecessor, the Mk VIB Light Tank, by introducing thicker armour and extra fire-power in the form of a 2 pounder gun." presents a few issues.
- "Tank, Light, Mk VII"? Bishop names it the "Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch", while Tucker calls it the "Mk VII Tetrarch Light Tank (A17)".
- Gasp* Here we go. Right, changed it to 'Light Tank Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch'. I was basing it off of other wiki articles, shouldn't have done that, my bad.
- The primary subject (and hence the focus of the readers) of the first sentence is the tank. The second sentence has "they" as a pronoun, which I understand is supposed to refer to the manufacturers; however, the primary subject remains on the tank, and the sentence structure is not conducive to help readers flip back to recall Vickers-Armstrong as "they".
- Right, changed as well to 'the company'
- From what I read in Chris Bishop's The Encyclopedia of World War II, the later models of the Tetrarch's predecessors had equivalent armour (thus making the claim of "introducing thicker armour" questionable). Tucker's Tanks even stated the Mk VIB was protected by 14 mm of steel.
- Got to look into this, will come back to it.
- I must've got that wrong, but I've altered the lead and development section to reflect that the armour was not increased. Maybe I got it confused with the Mk VIII; I did work on them both at the same time.
- the copyedited phrase "The Mk VII possessed a machine-gun, but also mounted a 2 pounder 40-millimetre (1.6 in) main gun, the first Vickers-Armstrong light tank to do so, both of which were in a two-man turret;" tries to squeeze too many ideas, and ends up awkward. It could be broken up into something like "First, to address the lack of heavy weaponry in its previous light tanks, Vickers-Armstrong installed a 2 pounder 40-millimetre (1.6 in) main gun on the Mk VII. The cannon was paired with a 7.92 mm Besa machine gun, and the two guns were mounted in a two-man turret.", although this suggestion would also require the rework of the preceding sentence ("First, the tank was designed ... and were insufficiently armoured.").
- Righto, thats changed, as is the preceding sentence.
- the description of the "unusual steering and mechanical system" is quite confusing to a general reader and at odds with a source. Tucker explains it as a "modified Christie suspension" that steers the front wheels, thus bending the tracks for gentle turns, and follows the old ways for sharp turns. The current article text talks about "lateral movement" of the wheels, tilting and turning them to change the direction of the tank (underlined for emphasis). The text, as it is structured, also seems to hint that all turns are made in this manner (instead of the hybridised manner as described by Tucker). Was Tucker wrong, or was the concept just awkwardly worded for the article?
- Mutters* That was a source of...disagreement a few weeks ago between myself and another editor. I've rewritten it now as it was awkwardly worded. It got a bit confusing, but hopefully it makes sense now.
- I am pretty sure that most information about the Tetrarch is in this article, thus satisfying comprehensiveness. Prose, however, still needs work in my opinion. I believe help may be requested at the Guild of Copy Editors and peer review volunteers. Jappalang (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments; I have requested an editor to do a copy-edit, but I don't know how long it will take; I'm worried it will fail the Candidacy if I can't get it copy-edited soon enough.
- I've given it another copy-edit; maybe that'll help in the mean-time, got a few things in the Ironclad and Tonga sections anyhow. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Skinny87, I am going into further details on the talk page of this FAC. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given it another copy-edit; maybe that'll help in the mean-time, got a few things in the Ironclad and Tonga sections anyhow. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments; I have requested an editor to do a copy-edit, but I don't know how long it will take; I'm worried it will fail the Candidacy if I can't get it copy-edited soon enough.
- Sorry, Skinny87, I still think it could do with a fresh pair of eyes. For example,
- I am such a wikiholic, I swear. I've given the article an initial copy-edit, dealt with your suggestions and got a few repetitive words, Jappalang. Would you mind looking again and seeing if it's up to standards yet? Skinny87 (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I'll get going with a copy-edit as soon as I get back from visiting London today! Skinny87 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(od) I think this has been resolved. Skinny87 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query Tetrarch (tank)#Variants refers to a 12 hp engine, is this 12 cylinder? ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I'm honestly not sure. I'm completely clueless about mechanical things - are the two things a major difference? Does something need to be changed or clarified? Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, my bad. Looking the two things up, I've changed it to cylinder; 12 hp probably wouldn't even get the Tetrarch moving! Thanks for catching that, I've corrected the Mk VIIIs article as well. Skinny87 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense! ϢereSpielChequers 00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, my bad. Looking the two things up, I've changed it to cylinder; 12 hp probably wouldn't even get the Tetrarch moving! Thanks for catching that, I've corrected the Mk VIIIs article as well. Skinny87 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I'm honestly not sure. I'm completely clueless about mechanical things - are the two things a major difference? Does something need to be changed or clarified? Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from the lead:The Tank, Light, Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch, was a British light tank, produced by Vickers-Armstrong in the late 1930s, which saw service during World War II. - Too many commas.
- Commas de-comma'd!
The War Office ordered 70 of the tanks, an order which was eventually increased to 220; however, production was delayed by a number of factors. - This sentence would be better as "The War Office ordered 70 of the tanks, which was eventually increased to 220; however, production was delayed by a several factors."
- Changed!
As a consequence, only 100 to 177 of the tanks were ever produced. - Remove "ever".
- Changed!
As a consequence, the majority of the Tetrarchs produced remained in Britain, although twenty were sent to the USSR as part of the Lend-Lease program. - Change "As a consequence" to "as a result" to avoid repetition with a similar phrase in the lead. Also, why is "twenty" spelled out?
- Changed again!
A lack of gliders meant that they did not participate in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943; instead they were attached to the new 6th Airborne Division, becoming part of the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment. - "A lack of gliders meant that they did not participate in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943" → "A lack of gliders prevented them from participating in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943".
- Thanks for that, altered
Is it possible to remove some instances of the word "saw" in the lead? It seems kind of odd, seeing that tanks can't see.
Nice work overall. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 04:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're gone, and thanks for the comments and the compliment! Skinny87 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent article. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've spent 10 minutes trying to find flaws in this article, either in what I there or isn't, and find it to be a great article. The closest I could get to criticism now would be the reliant on Flint, though he is the authoritative voice on Tetrarchs as I understand it, so, difficult to see that as an avoidable thing. (ec: Damn you Ironholds!) --Narson ~ Talk • 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In my opinion the article should pass. I can't see what needs copy-editing.
Glubbdrubb (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Spent some time copy editing it, hopefully O.K. I fount the article very interesting and clearly presented. The only issue is that, perhaps, some more of the military terms could be wikilinked or explained. I found a link for pillbox. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - should "75 mm artillery pieces" be wikilinked to Ordnance QF 75 mm or Canon de 75 modèle 1897? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the copy-editing, much appreciated; after double-checking Flint, the latter link to the French 75 is correct. Skinny87 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2009 (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 21:51, 3 January 2009 [35].
- Nominator(s): User:Wrestlinglover
- previous FAC (00:39, 20 October 2008)
I am nominating this article for FA status because, well I want it to be an FA. I have no good reason to nominate it. Since its last FAC, I believe all of the problems have been taken care of. The sourcing problems has been resolved. WrestleView was a big problem in the last review. All the sources from WrestleView have been removed besides two. They only source minor things that need a source. It has had a copyedit by someone who has nothing to do with the Professional wrestling project and has never read the article before. It has been cut down a great deal. Going from 44 kilobytes to 39 kilobytes. The prose issue, I believe, has also been taken care of, but I'll let you, the reviewers, decide that. If there is any problems with the article I will take care of them immediately. Just name them and I'll get right on them.--WillC 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I originally supported this nomination after a lengthy review of the prose to comply with WP:MOS, WP:IN-U, WP:JARGON, and WP:PLOT. I would still like to see, however, the women's cage match cut out because IMO it did nothing to promote the event by itself.--SRX 15:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Moved long discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)
Comments - Overall, it's in much better shape than at the start of the first FAC. In a full reading, I still found a few nagging prose concerns, though. Not too much, and it shouldn't take long to resolve them.
Confusing sentence in Background: "On the same episode, Joe declared that he would quit TNA forever if he did not win at Lockdown in the script."- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typo with the fix: "declar".Giants2008 (17-14) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I hope I fixed it.--WillC 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"with their teams being referred to as Team Cage and Team Tomko." This is a "noun-plus-ing" structure, a hard-to-spot prose error. Try a semi-colon, then "their teams were referred to as Team Cage and Team Tomko."- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-colon done, but the rest of it is unchanged. The quoted part was my primary concern and is still unfixed.Giants2008 (17-14) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I believe I got it this time.--WillC 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After their match at Destination X, Sharmell returned an assaulted Roode and Banks with a leather strap." Typo.- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comma after "Sharmell kicked Rhode in the groin and jumped out of the way."- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reception: "During the week of July 19, it fell from position number five to position number twelve, though remaining on the chart for the second week in a row." How about "though it remained on the chart for the second consecutive week."?- Changed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is at least my fourth review of the article, so I'm familiar with the writing by now. Giants2008 (17-14) 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Left a couple notes under responses above. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I got them. I must have not been paying attention.--WillC 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Use {{cite episode}} to add references to the specific episodes of Impact in the background section. ayematthew ✡ 16:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask why? What is wrong with Cite web?
- And remove the women's cage match. ayematthew ✡ 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, see the talk page of this nomination for Will's reasoning.--SRX 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's not notable, I'm still neutral the article has some problems that because of WP:ILIKEIT, are not being fixed. ayematthew ✡ 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it not notable?--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sections is too long, and it's the least notable section. ayematthew ✡ 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see how it is not notable. The match happened at the event and got almost three months of build to create a feud between the two teams.--WillC 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the match.--WillC 01:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see how it is not notable. The match happened at the event and got almost three months of build to create a feud between the two teams.--WillC 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sections is too long, and it's the least notable section. ayematthew ✡ 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, see the talk page of this nomination for Will's reasoning.--SRX 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I know you don't agree with the removal of that match, but I do feel that the article is better for it. With my concerns about summary style and prose alleviated, my primary remaining issue is the two questionable sources (Pro Wrestling History.com and Wrestling Observer.com). If these can be resolved, I'll be ready to support. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Wrestling Observer should only have one reference in there and it is a review of the event. I mention in the only version why the Observer is reliable. Pro Wrestling History is only maginable reliable. Though it only sources attendance and match times. Maybe this helps.--WillC 04:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this will help, Wrestling Observer is operated by Dave Meltzer, a prominent professional wrestling reviewer and reporter, in this case, his website is being referenced for a critical reception versus sourcing important information. Pro Wrestling History is not reliable as a whole, in this case, its not referencing anything major or important like results, but instead the attendance and match times, which can be seen and heard on videos of the event (which is where this source gets its information). If PWH is still sketchy, {{cite episode}} might work better here then.--SRX 17:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, all of the facts cited by the two questionable websites could be provided from the broadcast. That's probably the best option. Primary sources should be kept to a minimum if possible, but I don't see any problem with using them in this case. The facts aren't controversial, and a broadcast or DVD reference would be more reliable than what is currently used. At this point, why leave any doubts? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I'm not all here today, exactly what are you asking me to do? TNA never announces how many people they have in atttendance, nor during the live event or on the DVD. I can remove the Wrestling Observer ref if you want.--WillC 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is saying that you should remove the PWH references and cite the content with {{cite episode}}, thus citing the broadcast. The WO can stay since its used for reception and criticism purposes.--SRX 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- But the times nor attendance is ever stated. TNA has no mention of time length in the DVD or anywhere. What is the point of citing something that does not have that information? The Wrestling Observer ref has nothing to do with reception.--WillC 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either do more research or remove it from the infobox or wherever is is mentioned.--SRX 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- WO cites were replaced. Do WrestleView or PWTorch have the match times or attendance? I'll probably end up supporting it anyway since the facts aren't controversial, but I want to ensure that the use of PWH is needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PWTorch has the times but tend to roundoff. They don't give the attendance though. WrestleView does not give the times.--WillC 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either do more research or remove it from the infobox or wherever is is mentioned.--SRX 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- But the times nor attendance is ever stated. TNA has no mention of time length in the DVD or anywhere. What is the point of citing something that does not have that information? The Wrestling Observer ref has nothing to do with reception.--WillC 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is saying that you should remove the PWH references and cite the content with {{cite episode}}, thus citing the broadcast. The WO can stay since its used for reception and criticism purposes.--SRX 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe this will help, Wrestling Observer is operated by Dave Meltzer, a prominent professional wrestling reviewer and reporter, in this case, his website is being referenced for a critical reception versus sourcing important information. Pro Wrestling History is not reliable as a whole, in this case, its not referencing anything major or important like results, but instead the attendance and match times, which can be seen and heard on videos of the event (which is where this source gets its information). If PWH is still sketchy, {{cite episode}} might work better here then.--SRX 17:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Support - The questioned references aren't citing anything contentious, so I'm willing to accept them as is. Finally, I think that it's good enough to meet the standards, though I admit to reading this too much recently to have much distance from it. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per prior support before restart.[36] The article has even improved since then. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image rereview - Everything still looks good. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 31 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 21:51, 3 January 2009 [37].
Before working on this article with User:Theleftorium, it looked like this. It has come a long way from that, and we now believe that it is ready for FA. Gary King (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Please spell out lesser known abbreviations, such as BBFC, in the references.Current ref 27 (Hopper, Steven..) is lacking a publisher.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done Gary King (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should this be here? "Users should not add a second nomination until the first has gained support..." etc etc. Scene7 was only nominated a couple of days ago & has no support yet. And FAC is pretty crowded at the moment. Would there be any harm if this waited a while? Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) Oh, I see it's a co-nom. I suppose that's within the rules? Brianboulton (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could switch the nominations, if that makes a difference? Gary King (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If its within the rules, no problem as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what decides which reviews are included in the reception box at the bottom of the page? Is there a reason why say scores of the Wii or PSP version from GameSpot and IGN aren't included when they are available? The first sentence of the Reception section reads "The game received generally positive reviews, receiving an aggregated score of 71% on Metacritic for the Xbox 360 version of the game." - the link provided describes a score of 71% as "mixed or average reviews", not "generally positive". Guest9999 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the overall reaction wording. Also, the Infobox now includes scores for every console—scores are only included in the Infobox if their references are also used somewhere else in the article. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense, thanks for the information. Guest9999 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the overall reaction wording. Also, the Infobox now includes scores for every console—scores are only included in the Infobox if their references are also used somewhere else in the article. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Are all those release dates needed in the infobox? They make the infobox very long, and I can't imagine how the info could be useful to the general reader. As a counterexample, album/single infoboxes are recommended to only display the earliest date.
- The fake-games links to their original ones (eg: Medal of Homer to Medal of Honor) are confusing. I thought for a minute there that Medal of Homer had its own article. Either delink them or mention clearly "(a parody of Medal of Honor) indopug (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give me a recently promoted FA as an example that I can use for the infobox? For the moment, I want to keep the dates there as I'd rather have them in the article than not, and I'd rather have them in the infobox than in prose. I've unlinked those links. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really work with video game articles so I don't know about that, but you can see this at Thriller (album) (which has been rereleased many many times). indopug (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The date given in that infobox is probably the first worldwide release date of the album. It's different from the release dates of this game. Plus, it wouldn't change much, anyways, since at least one release date should be given for each console. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Myst IV: Revelation uses a show/hide function for the multiple release dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The date given in that infobox is probably the first worldwide release date of the album. It's different from the release dates of this game. Plus, it wouldn't change much, anyways, since at least one release date should be given for each console. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really work with video game articles so I don't know about that, but you can see this at Thriller (album) (which has been rereleased many many times). indopug (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give me a recently promoted FA as an example that I can use for the infobox? For the moment, I want to keep the dates there as I'd rather have them in the article than not, and I'd rather have them in the infobox than in prose. I've unlinked those links. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with two comments.
- Do you think the image in "gameplay" should be a bit smaller? The text between the image and the bottom of the infobox seems a bit squished together.
- I think the dates should be listed how they are. Otherwise they make the infobox too big.
- Otherwise, great job. Tezkag72 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the image; it wasn't even at the correct paragraph before, but it is now, and it also doesn't squish the text between the infobox anymore. As for the release dates, it was placed into a collapsed box after the discussion right above yours, and I think that it does indeed help to make the infobox smaller nicely. I don't quite understand what you mean, also, because you want the collapsed box removed but say that it would otherwise make the infobox long, but if I removed the collapsed box and didn't hide the release dates by default then the infobox would be longer initially. Gary King (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I originally thought there shouldn't be a "show" function, but I changed my mind, went back, crossed it out, and put my other opinion, which is what I think now. I guess I'll just remove the crossed-out phrase. Tezkag72 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the image; it wasn't even at the correct paragraph before, but it is now, and it also doesn't squish the text between the infobox anymore. As for the release dates, it was placed into a collapsed box after the discussion right above yours, and I think that it does indeed help to make the infobox smaller nicely. I don't quite understand what you mean, also, because you want the collapsed box removed but say that it would otherwise make the infobox long, but if I removed the collapsed box and didn't hide the release dates by default then the infobox would be longer initially. Gary King (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Gary, the writing in the lead doesn't fill me with confidence.
- Packing too much into the second sentence—and and and: "The game was developed, published, and distributed by Electronic Arts and released in North America in October 2007 and worldwide in November 2007." Try this: "The game was developed, published, and distributed by Electronic Arts; it was released in North America in October 2007 and worldwide in November 2007."
- "As" is a bug-bear in English, especially for non-native readers. Does it mean "because" or "while"? "The game follows the five Simpson family members—Homer, Marge (with Maggie), Bart, and Lisa—as they learn that they are part of a video game and are given superpowers to resolve several situations." Try "...—who learn they are ...". You could lose the "that".
- "The Simpson family travels to four scenarios in parodies of other games to collect key cards used to infiltrate their creator's mansion and ultimately save their predecessors from destruction." So they save their predecessors by travelling to those scenarios or not? If so, add "to" before "save". There's a lot of this type of meaning-altering ellipsis of "to" and "will" I'm seeing in FACs.
Maybe it improves later in the article. Tony (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "would not always"? Either "did" or "does" not. Tony (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I believe User:Theleftorium has got them. Gary King (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - We need to hash out the fair use images! Cage match!
File:The Simpsons Game XBOX 360 Cover.jpg - This fair use rationale needs to list who the copyright owner is.
File:The Simpsons Game - screenshot.png - I question the need for this fair use image. It is very hard to see the HUD elements in the image, which is the ostensible reason for its inclusion. You really have to peer at the screen to see them and they are very unclear even when you do manage to peer in.
File:Groening at comiccon.jpg - Is there a way to fix the flickr review tag? It says the licenses don't match, but they do. :)
Looking forward to quickly resolving these issues. Awadewit (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the first. The second is the best screenshot we've got. Other screenshots would show the HUD that small, too, but at least this one is bright and also shows both Bart and Lisa, two of the four main characters. Fixed the Groening. Gary King (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the reason for the screenshot is to show the HUD elements (as is outlined on the fair use rationale). If those elements are really too small to be seen, there is no reason to have the image. I would suggest removing this image. Awadewit (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've tweaked the rationale and the image caption. The screenshot also shows Lisa using her saxophone special power to stun enemies. She's playing her saxophone and the wavy lines coming from her indicates the stun power, which is affecting the wood logger enemies. Gary King (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not discuss the visual aspects of the saxophone's power, however. Remember, that there has to be critical commentary associated with the image. Right now, the article states that Lisa uses her saxophone to stun enemies. Can you add a bit more to the article that would justify having an image of that happening? Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the image. Gary King (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the image. Gary King (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not discuss the visual aspects of the saxophone's power, however. Remember, that there has to be critical commentary associated with the image. Right now, the article states that Lisa uses her saxophone to stun enemies. Can you add a bit more to the article that would justify having an image of that happening? Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with quick comment (haven't looked above at all). Any more recent estimates for sales total? Otherwise, I can't find anything seriously wrong about it. I'm a tad concerned the writing might not be the most encyclopediac (like in the plot section), but I realize that might be difficult given the content. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the most recent we could find, but we'll keep looking. Gary King (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with small comment. The External links section looks rather small compared to other Featured Video Game Articles. Are there any other sites which would be appropriate for that section? Paper Luigi (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added links to GameTrailers and MobyGames. —TheLeftorium 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
- They praised its visuals and writing, which included many parodies of other video games, while they criticized its short length and poor camera system, which does not always function properly. - the lead is in a past tense, so the does should be a did
- She can use it to flick, smash, freeze, or send lightning bolts to enemies as well as lift certain items. - comma before as well
- The Simpsons Game, which parodies video games from 30 years ago to the present, was forced to have some of its content removed after several video game companies complained about it. Rizzer, however, was still pleased with the amount of parody in the game and considered The Simpsons the "perfect vehicle to poke fun at the games industry". At the 2007 Games Convention in Leipzig, Germany, a poster for "Grand Theft Scratchy", one of the levels in The Simpsons Game and a parody of Grand Theft Auto, was asked to be taken down by an employee of Rockstar Games, the company that develops the Grand Theft Auto series of video games. - is this verified by ref #18? --Truco 15:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.