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 Super Mario Bros.}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George H. D. Gossip}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orval Grove}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scene7}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 311}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 311}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Insight Bowl}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Insight Bowl}} |
Revision as of 00:19, 14 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 00:19, 14 January 2009 [1].
Did you know that New Super Mario Bros....
- ... is the first original side-scrolling platform game starring Mario since Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins in 1992?
- ... is the first game to be a part of the main Mario series of video games since Super Mario Sunshine in 2002?
Gary King (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images: User:ESkog has checked the images, below. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References: All of the references should be standard video game ones, except for this (Nintendo World Report), which I'm using after this conversation. Gary King (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gary, you are the nominator or co-nominator of three other FACS at a time when this page is backlogged. Just the other day, Acdixon withdrew a nomination to help with the backlog. Please consider doing the same; reviewers are lacking at the moment. P.S. I will re-review Scene7 when I am back from my travels. BuddingJournalist 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Budding; I can help out with the reviewing, no problem. But, I nominated this article because of "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.", which is the case for my FACs. This includes my previous one, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons Hit & Run, which has three supports and zero opposes. I think that clause exists to only allow new nominations when there are enough reviewers; also, I think that this current FAC meets the criteria, which is why I nominated it. I've got a few more articles ready for FAC, which is another reason why I'd like to get a few through when I can. Gary King (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked to see which FACs need more comments; they all would benefit from more comments, of course, but the only one that I see which definitely needs more is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore, which I'll review right now. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of the FACs need more comments and review; while the page is backlogged, lacking reviews, and Ealdgyth, Moni3 and Awadewit are having to check sources and images on every candidate, pls remember not to overload the page until previous nominations are successful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked to see which FACs need more comments; they all would benefit from more comments, of course, but the only one that I see which definitely needs more is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore, which I'll review right now. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from a video game fan.
- The Australian date in the Infobox should have a source, since the others do. I'm also a little concerned where ref 1 (link) mentions the release date.
- The game's story is similar to those of other side-scrolling Mario games, drawing inspiration from Super Mario Bros. in particular.
- I have a bit of a problem with this sentence. While it might seem harmless enough, there is no source that says it drew "inspiration from Super Mario Bros. in particular." The source provided (ref 4) doesn't say that at all.
- Speaking of "ref 4", I'm slightly concerned whether it's reliable enough, but I'm more concerned in its usage as a source in the article. No offense, but it seems like a lot of the content was in place in the article (like in this revision before you started working on the article), and then you used that link as an easy reference. If that is the case, then I would oppose. If that is not the case, then I'll look closely to see if all of that information is indeed from that reference.
- For the image in the plot section, I'm a little concerned if it qualifies for fair use. The image isn't that helpful for what the text is talking about; it seems like decoration.
- Is there an estimated for games sold, more recent than September 2008?
- I have a quick question, which I think should be mentioned in the article. How come the game was released 10 days later in Japan than in the US? I thought Japan always got Nintendo games first. I just checked, and every other Mario game (including SMB2) was released in Japan prior to North America.
- I haven't gotten too much further in the article, but these are significant enough that I wish to wait for them to be resolved. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Regarding references in the infobox, I moved them to the first sentence of the Reception section (all the dates are referenced now, also). I removed the "inspired by" bit, considering none of the references specifies this directly. I'm keeping the game guide reference as it is indeed reliable, but I also added a few other references to specific parts of Gameplay and Plot to back it up. I removed the image in the Plot section; it is indeed unnecessary. I can't find a more recent estimate than September 2008, which frankly is actually pretty recent, considering the game was released in May 2006 (most of the sales usually happen closer to the release date and wane later down the road). Good question on releasing later in Japan; I've added a sentence about that to the Reception section, after the article mentions the release dates (I also added Korea's release date, which was missed earlier). Gary King (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the Korean release date be in the Infobox? That's fine about the sales estimate; I always just like a double-checking, but yes, Sept. 2008 is nice how recent it is. That works about the delayed release date. So just a question about the reference for "Nintendo EAD. New Super Mario Bros." I assume that's the player's guide? If so, that should be specified. But my question: is all of the info in the plot section definitely in the player's guide? I reiterate my earlier concern, because you only switched references. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the Korea release date; it was actually already in the infobox but was done incorrectly. I've specified that the manual is the reference. Gary King (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but with the player's guide, are you positive all of the info sourced to it appears there? None of the content was changed when you changed references, and some of the content existed before you even started working on the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. As I said, I added other references for the stuff that couldn't be referenced to the game or the manual. Gary King (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but with the player's guide, are you positive all of the info sourced to it appears there? None of the content was changed when you changed references, and some of the content existed before you even started working on the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the Korea release date; it was actually already in the infobox but was done incorrectly. I've specified that the manual is the reference. Gary King (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the Korean release date be in the Infobox? That's fine about the sales estimate; I always just like a double-checking, but yes, Sept. 2008 is nice how recent it is. That works about the delayed release date. So just a question about the reference for "Nintendo EAD. New Super Mario Bros." I assume that's the player's guide? If so, that should be specified. But my question: is all of the info in the plot section definitely in the player's guide? I reiterate my earlier concern, because you only switched references. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposebased on criterion 3 and the usage of File:New-super-mario-bros-worldmap.jpg. I agree with the above commenter that this is not accompanied by the requisite critical commentary in the text of the article, and the image description page's "Purpose of Use" actually seems to be more a detailed description of what's going on in the game rather than an explanation of how the image is allowable under our non-free content criteria. One image to show the unique aspects of gameplay is typically sufficient unless there's something truly groundbreaking or hard to describe using text alone. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Okay fair enough; I have removed the image. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, from an image perspective (which is all I really feel qualified to talk about) I'd say everything's in order. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, from an image perspective (which is all I really feel qualified to talk about) I'd say everything's in order. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay fair enough; I have removed the image. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- Hyphenate single-player in the infobox and gameplay section.
- Nintendo is linked twice in the body, is that really necessary?
- Other than that, nice work. —TheLeftorium 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added the hyphen in the infobox, for "Single-player, multiplayer". I don't think it's needed in the Gameplay section because it's "single players [...] multiple players" not "single-players [...] multiplayers", which would be grammatically incorrect. I'm going to leave the Nintendo link, because I think it's useful in the Development section where it's more likely to be clicked on. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think it is necessary in the development section, but what about the reception section, is it necessary there? —TheLeftorium 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah okay, removed. Gary King (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, I'll support the article. —TheLeftorium 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah okay, removed. Gary King (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think it is necessary in the development section, but what about the reception section, is it necessary there? —TheLeftorium 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added the hyphen in the infobox, for "Single-player, multiplayer". I don't think it's needed in the Gameplay section because it's "single players [...] multiple players" not "single-players [...] multiplayers", which would be grammatically incorrect. I'm going to leave the Nintendo link, because I think it's useful in the Development section where it's more likely to be clicked on. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. But one comment I have is that in the plot section where it says Bowser falls into the lava, killing him, it should be noted that this happened exactly the same way in the Old Super Mario Bros. Other than that, great work. Tezkag72 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Article appears to be complete, well-written and referenced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:13, 10 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 00:19, 14 January 2009 [2].
The article has successfully passed A-Class and GA review. The GA reviewer, Crystal whacker, wrote, "I would support this article at Featured nominations if it came that way." Commenter Caissanist wrote, "This article is a model for how biographies of chess players should be written in Wikipedia, if not for all biographies." Krakatoa (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm stopping by here to stand by that comment. Support. Crystal whacker (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Gossip Chess-Player's Manual (2).jpg - Could you please include the complete publication information for this book? Note that WP:IUP states "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."File:Gossip's Vest-Pocket Chess Manual 2.jpg - Could you please include the complete publication information for this book? Awadewit (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE for both. Krakatoa (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. (These are awesome pictures, by the way - I love book covers like that!) All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE for both. Krakatoa (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
-
- ChessGames.com is the leading site on the Internet for chess games. It is cited in practically every chess article. The reliability of this site was raised and established in the FA review of First-move advantage in chess. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To concur, here is a link to the mentioned FA review. Here are a few of the reasons stated then:
- This website is used in about all chess-related articles managed by the WP:WikiProject Chess, as this is the only one that is notable, reliable and "linkable".
- It is used extensively in the articles Chess, The Turk and First-move advantage in chess, that are all featured articles.
- An interview (in page 2) of the site manager by the online magazine "Chess Today". The interviewer introduces the site as "one of the most impressive and unusual chess web projects around".
- A rating of various chess websites. Note that www.chessgames.com is one of the very few to get a "A" rating.
- SyG (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Use by other FAs doesn't make it necessarily reliable. I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider ChessGames.com a reliable source, apart from comments on games made by users. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that links to games from ChessGames.com are a good idea (the reader can replay the game easily), but it is always better to add a citation of the same game from a printed source. Because the games on ChessGames.com are added by anonymous users of the site - it works on a similar principle like Wikipedia.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider ChessGames.com a reliable source, apart from comments on games made by users. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Use by other FAs doesn't make it necessarily reliable. I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To concur, here is a link to the mentioned FA review. Here are a few of the reasons stated then:
- ChessGames.com is the leading site on the Internet for chess games. It is cited in practically every chess article. The reliability of this site was raised and established in the FA review of First-move advantage in chess. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- The article cited is an article about Ellen Gilbert, written by Neil Brennen. This article won an Honorable Mention in the category "Best Historical Article" from the Chess Journalists of America in 2006 - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2006.htm
- Its author, Neil Brennen, is a chess historian. Here is a biographical note about him from 2003:
Neil Brennen is Historian for the Pennsylvania State Chess Federation, and is editor of the PSCF's award winning magazine The Pennswoodpusher. He is a columnist for Correspondence Chess News. Aside from CCN, his articles on chess history have been published at The Chess Cafe, and in Quarterly for Chess History, California Chess Journal, Illinois Chess Bulletin, and other publications. Neil's first book, a biography of American master Sydney T. Sharp (1885-1953), will be published later this year by Moravian Chess.
– http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm
- In 2004, Brennen won the award for "Best Historical Article" from the Chess Journalists of America - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2004.htm In 2005, he won an Honorable Mention in the same category - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2005.htm In 2006, he won the award for "Best Web-Based Review" and the aforementioned Honorable Mention for the Ellen Gilbert article - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2006.htm In 2007, he again won an Honorable Mention in the category "Best Historical Article" - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2007.htm Krakatoa (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the article is acceptable as a source here - not because of the site, but because of the author and the award.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Excalibur Electronics runs the
U.S.World Chess Hall of Fame, which is also sponsored by the United States Chess Federation (USCF) and its members. See US Chess Hall of Fame News and World Chess Hall of Fame and Sidney Samole Chess Museum. The article from that site that I cite (http://web.archive.org/web/20071013075435/http://excaliburelectronics.com/history0499.html) is one of a series of historical articles commissioned by the U.S. Chess Trust, a non-profit charitable organization affiliated with the USCF - see About the U.S. Chess Trust; the identical articles are published in print form as "The Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, Part I", which I also cite. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In case my previous comment did not make it clear, the cited article is a verbatim reproduction of the chapter "Chess in the Old West" on pages 50-52 of this book: McCrary, Robert John, The Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, Number 1, U.S. Chess Trust. Given that the article cites the book as a reference, no one contends that the book is not a reliable source, and the website cited in the article simply reproduces a chapter from the book verbatim, it should be just as reliable a source as the book it reproduces. The book is referred to here: "In addition, these donors, upon request, will receive a numbered copy of the limited edition Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, the most unique history of American chess ever written!" Since only 250 copies of the book were produced (mine is number 158), the website is a far more accessible way for readers to view the material. Krakatoa (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is solved. It is possible to cite a book from a reliable web site.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In case my previous comment did not make it clear, the cited article is a verbatim reproduction of the chapter "Chess in the Old West" on pages 50-52 of this book: McCrary, Robert John, The Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, Number 1, U.S. Chess Trust. Given that the article cites the book as a reference, no one contends that the book is not a reliable source, and the website cited in the article simply reproduces a chapter from the book verbatim, it should be just as reliable a source as the book it reproduces. The book is referred to here: "In addition, these donors, upon request, will receive a numbered copy of the limited edition Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, the most unique history of American chess ever written!" Since only 250 copies of the book were produced (mine is number 158), the website is a far more accessible way for readers to view the material. Krakatoa (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excalibur Electronics runs the
-
- This site is run by Edward Winter (chess historian), probably the most respected chess historian in the world, who has published Chess Notes for many years. The back cover of his book A Chess Omnibus quotes Yasser Seirawan and Jan Timman, two of the world's strongest grandmasters, as well as CHESS magazine, regarding Winter's stature as a chess historian. Seirawan: "Edward Winter is the chess world's foremost authority on its rich history. ..." Timman: "Writers on chess history and the games of yesteryear are not normally pathfinders or perfectionists, but Edward Winter is an exception, taking great pains not only to tackle difficult research tasks but also to present the facts precisely. ..." Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CHESS magazine wrote of Winter (from the back cover of A Chess Omnibus), "Over the years he has not only amassed a vast amount of knowledge on chess lore - much of which had been lost or forgotten in the passage of time - but he has shown great skill in evaluating, correcting, utilizing and publishing this information. A perfectionist through and through, his energy and enthusiasm are fuelled by a commitment to presenting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." That would seem to be the epitome of a "reliable source". Krakatoa (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Winter has also written six books on chess history. Four of them are largely collections of his Chess Note columns; one is a collection of material on José Raúl Capablanca, the world chess champion from 1921-27; and the last is World Chess Champions. Winter has also written over
2050 articles for ChessBase, which you have accepted as a reliable source: http://www.chessbase.com/columns/winter01.asp (note "Next Page" key at bottom, and use repeatedly). Krakatoa (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I consider Winter to be a reliable source. One thing though (and this is my opinion and I don't know if it matters) is that Winter seems to like to criticize other writers for minor errors. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt anyone would argue with the proposition that Winter sets high standards, both for himself and others. That is completely consistent with being a reliable source, of course. Incidentally, in December 2008, in Chess Note No. 5919, he specifically praised the article now under review:
5919. Wikipedia
It is impossible not to have misgivings, both general and particular, about Wikipedia, but we have recently noticed a great improvement in some of the chess articles in the site’s English-language version. There is, for instance, excellent treatment of G.H.D. Gossip, and it is also good to see a fine article on Hugh Myers.
- Krakatoa (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, a non-anonymous blog/private website of a noted expert in the field can be cited if no better (printed) sources are available.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt anyone would argue with the proposition that Winter sets high standards, both for himself and others. That is completely consistent with being a reliable source, of course. Incidentally, in December 2008, in Chess Note No. 5919, he specifically praised the article now under review:
- I consider Winter to be a reliable source. One thing though (and this is my opinion and I don't know if it matters) is that Winter seems to like to criticize other writers for minor errors. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This site is run by Edward Winter (chess historian), probably the most respected chess historian in the world, who has published Chess Notes for many years. The back cover of his book A Chess Omnibus quotes Yasser Seirawan and Jan Timman, two of the world's strongest grandmasters, as well as CHESS magazine, regarding Winter's stature as a chess historian. Seirawan: "Edward Winter is the chess world's foremost authority on its rich history. ..." Timman: "Writers on chess history and the games of yesteryear are not normally pathfinders or perfectionists, but Edward Winter is an exception, taking great pains not only to tackle difficult research tasks but also to present the facts precisely. ..." Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- This is the site for Chessmetrics, a well-respected site that publishes current and historical rankings of leading chess players. See the "Popularity" section of the Chessmetrics article, which says the following (with sources cited):
The original article on Chessmetrics was published in Chessbase in October 2002.[3]. Since then, Chessmetrics has become reasonably well known, due to numerous articles in Chessbase and The Week in Chess.[5] Respected chess author John L. Watson has referred to Chessmetrics numbers.[6], and Chessmetrics has been cited in at least two academic papers.[2] [7]
- Krakatoa (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider ChessMetrics a reliable source. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- This is the very-high-quality newsletter of the Mechanics Institute Chess Club in San Francisco, one of the oldest chess clubs in the United States. I believe it is written by International Master John Donaldson, who has written high-quality historical books such as Alekhine in the Americas. I cite this site just for its verbatim reproduction of an article by Gossip in Steinitz's International Chess Magazine. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- This is the "New General Catalog of Old Books and Authors". It is listed as an online copyright resource by the Association of American University Presses - which writes in its "Copyright Resources Online" (http://www.aaupnet.org/aboutup/copyresources.html):
Kingkong also offers the"New General Catalog of Old Books and Authors" a growing database of the dates of book publication and authors' deaths (as many non-US copyrights are based on life+x years).
- The "New General Catalog of Old Books and Authors" site explains that "The aim of this site is to catalog all deceased authors, and all authors of books published before 1964, including their full name(s), date of death, date of birth, pseudonyms, sex & nationality (for non-EU citizens who died after 1920), and their books published before 1964." Krakatoa (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a WorldCat search that shows that all of these books are owned by various libraries in the world. That resource also indicated an additional book not listed by the "New General Catalog of Old Books and Authors", an 1882 collection of Gossip's games. I amended the article to list this source, as well. http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AGeorge+Gossip&qt=advanced Krakatoa (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have eliminated use of this source, and substituted WorldCat instead. Krakatoa (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ChessBase.com is one of the leading chess websites on the Internet, and publishes high-quality chess articles. It is one of just four sites listed under "Useful links" by The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/chess). Krakatoa (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 90 (Showalter-Gossip...) is lacking a publisher.
- I have added it. SyG (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 100 (Mason-Gunsberg..) is lacking a publisher
- I have added it. SyG (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 103 (Chigorin-Gossip) is lacking a publisher
- I have added it. SyG (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Books on Google books should give their original publisher, not list Google Books. The links to Google books are just convience links, and the works should be treated in every way as a printed work (i. e. use {{cite book}})
- I have changed the publishers, and changed the template "cite web" by "cite book" for Google Books used in the "References" section. SyG (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport: My numerous concerns, itemised below, have been resolved, and I am satisfied with the responses to other reviewers. This is now a quality article, well worthy of promotion to FA. The featured games are terrific, though I doubt I will have the chance to exploit these strategies in real play. Well done, Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The unexplained title "Master" in the infobox looks odd. Where did the title come from, who awarded it, was it an official chess ranking of his day? The infobox needs to be more forthcoming, especially as not all readers will be chess-wise.
- "Master" at that time was a loosely used term. (Today, organizations like FIDE and the United States Chess Federation award titles like FIDE Master and National Master.) As stated in the "Chess career" section, Gossip played in the "Master sections" of a number of tournaments. He thus must have been considered a "master". Chess tournaments at that time (and often today) often had multiple tournaments of different strength levels played at the same time and place. (For example, London 1883, referred to in the "Chess career" section, had the major tournament in which the "masters" played, and the minor tournament in which lesser lights (including Gossip at that time) played. I have added a parenthetical "(unofficial)" after "Master" to make clear that no body formally awarded him that title. Krakatoa (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Call me nuts, but I have removed the mention from the Infobox. I find it too unofficial to be of any value. SyG (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Master" at that time was a loosely used term. (Today, organizations like FIDE and the United States Chess Federation award titles like FIDE Master and National Master.) As stated in the "Chess career" section, Gossip played in the "Master sections" of a number of tournaments. He thus must have been considered a "master". Chess tournaments at that time (and often today) often had multiple tournaments of different strength levels played at the same time and place. (For example, London 1883, referred to in the "Chess career" section, had the major tournament in which the "masters" played, and the minor tournament in which lesser lights (including Gossip at that time) played. I have added a parenthetical "(unofficial)" after "Master" to make clear that no body formally awarded him that title. Krakatoa (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "Non-chess career" section has too many details, some barely relevant. The organisation of the section into eight short paragraphs creates a choppy feel which disturbs the narrative pace. I believe the paragraph could be considerably condensed by removing marginal matters, e.g his wife being a year older, the places of each of his children's birth, his children's marriages, etc. I would also expect to see his last years and death at the end rather than the beginning of the article, in a section which discusses his posthumous reputation and legacy (broadly in the manner of the last pararaphs of the present Manner and Reputation section).
- I have shortened the section as you suggested, removing the bit about his wife being a year older and the children's birthplaces. I retained mention of the children's marriages in Australia, because those facts support the sentence about his wife and children apparently staying in Australia while he moved to the U.S. I did shorten the mentions of the children's marriages, omitting their spouses' names. As for why the information about his last years and death being in the "Non-chess career" rather than elsewhere, they are here because, as far as we know, he played no chess in his last years. All the other sections pertain to chess, so this information would be out of place in them. Krakatoa (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have regrouped paragraphs, now down to 5. Although I do not know what to do with the last one, two lines about his grandson. It cannot really go in the other paragraphs as it has nothing to do with Gossip's life, but it would be a shame to remove it as it may be of interest for some readers. SyG (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edits look fine to me. I have tried an alternative approach, putting all the information about his family's further life in Australia (wife's death, kids' marriages, WWI flying ace grandson) in one paragraph. I deleted the sentence about the grandson's 1922 death and burial in Istanbul - adds a little color, but I'm not sure how many readers would be interested in that. Krakatoa (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have regrouped paragraphs, now down to 5. Although I do not know what to do with the last one, two lines about his grandson. It cannot really go in the other paragraphs as it has nothing to do with Gossip's life, but it would be a shame to remove it as it may be of interest for some readers. SyG (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have shortened the section as you suggested, removing the bit about his wife being a year older and the children's birthplaces. I retained mention of the children's marriages in Australia, because those facts support the sentence about his wife and children apparently staying in Australia while he moved to the U.S. I did shorten the mentions of the children's marriages, omitting their spouses' names. As for why the information about his last years and death being in the "Non-chess career" rather than elsewhere, they are here because, as far as we know, he played no chess in his last years. All the other sections pertain to chess, so this information would be out of place in them. Krakatoa (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mrs Gilbert famously announced..." Why was this announcement "famous"? – victory in a minor correspondence tournament.
- Chess historian Neil Brennen wrote in http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm:
The results of the games, as well as the announced mates, caused a sensation in the chess world. Her townsman and friend John Belden declared the games against Gossip "stamp Mrs. Gilbert with the impress of genius." Steinitz annotated two of Mrs. Gilbert's games for The Field; poetry, good and bad, was written to the new "Queen of Chess", and at least one chess problem composed in her honor.
- These were probably the longest announced mates in history. Announced mates in three or five are normal. For examples, see http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Achesshistory.com%2Fwinter&q=Announced+mate&btnG=Chess+Notes+search One does not normally, even in postal chess, calculate 35 moves deep; given how many moves are possible on each turn, it is impossible. See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4904 regarding unusual examples of over-the-board calculation (as much as 15 moves deep). The fact that Mrs. Gilbert was a woman no doubt added to the "famousness" of the achievement. It was extremely unusual for women to play chess with men in the 19th century, and doing so extraordinarily well was even more unusual. (See the discussion in http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm ) Mrs. Gilbert's feat was sufficiently remarkable that World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz commented on it, verifying the accuracy of her analyses. Irving Chernev, Wonders and Curiosities of Chess, Dover, 1974, p. 132. Krakatoa (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to say "famously" in the source, so I don't think it should in the article. It does say "sensation" in the source, so you could alter "famously" to "sensationally". This is my only outstanding point; otherwise I am ready to support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to the quotation "caused a sensation in the chess world" - as in the cited Brennen article. Krakatoa (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to say "famously" in the source, so I don't think it should in the article. It does say "sensation" in the source, so you could alter "famously" to "sensationally". This is my only outstanding point; otherwise I am ready to support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gossip was unable to repeat this comparative success...". Hmmm, tied 17th out of 20 a success? I think it might be fairer to say "even this modest level of success"
- I have revised it as you suggested. Krakatoa (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The single sentence paragraph towards the end of the Chess career section should be merged into the final paragraph, which needs a bit of rephrasing to avoid repetition of "in the world bt Chessmetrics"
- I merged the single-sentence paragraph into the paragraph about Gossip's last tournaments. I edited the last paragraph to avoid the repetitious "number x in the world according to Chessmetrics". Krakatoa (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The games themselves were most interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in a request to User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix the faulty endashes in the page ranges on citations. I noticed a good deal of WP:OVERLINKing; words and countries commonly known to English speakers need not be linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the hint. It seems this has now been cared for my Dabomb87. SyG (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Here are some initial thoughts. I'll give it a closer read in the future, as I too am interested in this one.
- Do all of the world's best players of Gossip's time need to be listed in the lead? I would expect a handful of examples to illustrate, not eleven.
- I have shorten to 3 of them. SyG (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the lead further to just "playing against most of the world's leading players", not listing any here. Krakatoa (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have shorten to 3 of them. SyG (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand on Sandy's point, journalist and translator don't need to be linked. Those are in the lead.
- I have dewikified them. SyG (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More examples from Non-chess life: newpapers, magazines, continents and a bunch of others.
- They've been dewikified. Krakatoa (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Place The Times in italics, since it's a printed publication.
- Done. SyG (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chess career: "finished 5th–6th out of 7 players." As someone without much knowledge of chess, this confused me somewhat. Does "5th–6th" mean that he finished in a tie with another player? If this is official chess terminology, don't worry about it. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard chess terminology, used in e.g. the books of Alexander Alekhine's and Jose Capablanca's best games (full biblio details are in these articles). Similiarly e.g. "3rd-6th" would indicate a 4-way tie. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is the first time a tie is encountered in the article, I have clarified it. SyG (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm back (finally) to offer more comments.
- Chess career: Chop the second of two World Chess Championship links in the section.
- Done. Krakatoa (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "finishing in a tie for third-fifth of seven players." Should an en dash be used here?
- I've now used an en dash here, and in all similar situations in the "Chess career" section. In addition, I have now changed the text to consistently use numbers throughout (for example, "3rd–5th of 7 players") in order to comply with WP:MOSNUM, rather than mixing numbers and words (e.g. "third–fifth of seven players" and "17th–18th of 20 players"), as had previously been the case. Krakatoa (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chess books and articles: Watch for POV here; a couple of problems spots are "the critics who had savaged his earlier treatice" and "Unfortunately".
- I've changed the "Unfortunately, Gossip 'was the victim of an act of gross privacy' ..." bit to "Unfortunately for Gossip, he 'was the victim of an act of gross privacy' ..." As for the "critics who had savaged his earlier treatise", it is not POV, but a fair summary of the cited source (Diggle in the British Chess Magazine). Diggle wrote regarding the reviews of the earlier treatise, "The book was greeted by a roar of condemnation", referred to "its ferocious mangling by the reviewers", and also characterized the reviews as "contemptuous" and "venomous". Diggle, p. 1. Unless I'm to repeat all that, "savaged" seems an appropriate summary. Krakatoa (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "An anonymous reviewer in the New York Times...". Capitalize "the", and put in in the italicized link. Do the same in Manner and reputation. Back in the books section, there's another World Championship link nearby.
- I've changed all instances of "the New York Times" and "New York Times" to "The New York Times". I also deleted the redundant link. Krakatoa (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable games: Can the inline links be turned into regular references? Also, watch the order of the references in this section. Usually, references are given in numerical order.
- Done - I turned the inline links into regular references, and put the references in numerical order. Krakatoa (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 71 (New York Times book review) doesn't have a page number, but it may not need one. The paper's archives make freely accessible everything published before 1923; a link to the review would be a nice touch.
- The link I had before went to the abstract of the review; I have substituted a link that goes directly to the review. It just displays on my computer as one big document, with no page numbers. Krakatoa (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, it was an interesting read and I enjoyed it. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now addressed all your points as best I can. See what you think. Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm back (finally) to offer more comments.
- As this is the first time a tie is encountered in the article, I have clarified it. SyG (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard chess terminology, used in e.g. the books of Alexander Alekhine's and Jose Capablanca's best games (full biblio details are in these articles). Similiarly e.g. "3rd-6th" would indicate a 4-way tie. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only word the tool identifies as needing disambiguation is the place name Hatfield. I have now disambiguated that. Krakatoa (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Shouldn't this article be moved to George H. D. Gossip? I vaguely recall the MoS mentioning something about a space between initials. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I searched for "initials" in WP:MOS, but found nothing relevant. My understanding has been that in British English, the space is invariably used (the British writers A. A. Milne and G. H. Diggle, for example), but that in American English the space was commonly not used. For example, the name of the late American actor E.G. Marshall is often seen with no space between the initials. But Wikipedia's practice, whether written or not, seems to be to use the space, even for Americans: E. G. Marshall, E. B. White. L.L.Bean has no spaces at all, but that refers to the name of a company that uses no spaces, not the person for whom it was named. I looked in the Modern Language Association's MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, Sixth Edition, p. 262, expecting it to support the "no space" practice. Alas, it does not: it says that for the initials used for personal names "a period and a space ordinarily follow each initial" (citing J. R. R. Tolkien as the example). So I'm reluctantly going to move the article to George H. D. Gossip. Krakatoa (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have accordingly tried to move the present page to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George H. D. Gossip, but without success. Could someone please help with that? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to warn I was somehow involved in the article, as I performed first a B-class review and then an A-class review on the article. That being said, I think the article upholds the FA-criteria, with solid sources, appropriate length and structure, and good style (for what is possible with this type of article). I also think the significant concerns of other editors above have been cared for. SyG (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - I was also involved in the A-class review, and a couple of what I think are minor blemishes have crept in since:
- Done In "Chess career", the phrase "X of Y possible points" is repeated a lot. After the first instance (4th para, "Gossip finished 3rd with 6½ of 9 possible points"), I'd abbreviate it to "X out of Y". --Philcha (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Krakatoa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- I think "Diggle writes that Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the observation of the 1889 BCM commentator that Gossip was more at home in a match than a tournament" could be slimmed a bit. How about e.g. "In Diggle's opinion, Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the BCM's observation in 1889 that Gossip was more at home in a match than a tournament"? --Philcha (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I shortened it to "In Diggle's opinion, Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the BCM's 1889 observation that Gossip would be more at home in a match than a tournament." Krakatoa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion, the main issues are solved, the article fulfills FA criteria.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:39, 13 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 00:19, 14 January 2009 [3].
- Nominator(s): Wizardman
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that after writing it, it meets the appropriate criteria. I modeled this after my other FA, Art Houtteman, and everything appears to be in order. Wizardman 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Somewhat short, and straight to the point. We need more FAs like this. —Ceran [ Falalalala... ] 23:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Maralia Yay baseball! A few quick comments:
- The black border (background?) around the lead image is uneven, wider on the left than on the right. Could the black be cropped out?
- Unfortunately, I cannot, as it is an unfree image, and as such I cannot mess with it since I'm not the copyright holder. If it was free I would gladly do it. I'll handle the other two issues shortly. Wizardman 01:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard that we can't crop a nonfree image. Seems nonsensical; aren't we in fact encouraged to use the smallest portion of a nonfree image necessary? Maralia (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I did some sleuthing, and according to my findings, the photograph is actually PD. Ergo, I'll crop it shortly. To answer your question, I assumed it was a derivative work. I'm sure I could ask 10 fair use people and they'd be split on the matter. Wizardman 03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard that we can't crop a nonfree image. Seems nonsensical; aren't we in fact encouraged to use the smallest portion of a nonfree image necessary? Maralia (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I cannot, as it is an unfree image, and as such I cannot mess with it since I'm not the copyright holder. If it was free I would gladly do it. I'll handle the other two issues shortly. Wizardman 01:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The periodical names (The Sporting News, The New York Times) in your citations aren't getting italicized. My guess is that you have them in the publisher= field instead of work=.- Done.
Also in the references, almost all of the dates are nicely formatted, but there are a handful of ISO-formatted dates (refs 14, 16, 18, 22, 38, 42).- Done. I didn't realize that the iso-formatted dates didn't work anymore until just now. Now I know :)
I'll be back shortly to do a more thorough review (must get my son off to bed first). Maralia (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments through 'Transition to the majors' section:
- "He had a career year in 1943" - 'career year' probably warrants explanation
- "As a freshman, he was a member of the varsity team, the first freshman in school history to do so." - He became the first freshman member of the varsity team in school history.
- "until management began to replace youth with veterans" - replace youths with veterans
- "At the 1940 Chicago White Sox season began, Grove became" - As the 1940
- "Although Grove was an official part of the team as the 1940 season began." - this is a sentence fragment
- "The Sox did plan to use three rookie pitchers during the final week of May, including Grove, as the result of having three doubleheaders that week." - The Sox did plan to use three rookie pitchers, including Grove, during
- "he spent most of the nest season in Oklahoma City." - next season
- "He finished the season at Oklahoma City with 17 wins and seven losses" - here we break the <10 rule for consistency within the sentence: 17 wins and 7 losses
- Done with above points. Wizardman 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More as I get more time. Maralia (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Can we get the newspaper/journal/magazine titles into italics?- Done.
- What makes http://oaklandoaks.tripod.com/solons/rosters.html a reliable source?
- The author of the site, William B. Shubb, is recognized as a baseball historian here. If it's not acceptable as reliable I can try to find elsewhere where the statistics may be located (though it would take a little while, sporting news had nothing).
- Ideally, we'd have several nationally known media vouching for his credentials. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look deeper. There's just a lot of sources on his judiciary career that I need to wade through to get to anything, most likely. (He's probably worthy of an article on here, but that's a different point altogether) Wizardman 17:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the note above, I can't access the Sporting News archives for about a week or so, and as such can't fix the sourcing issues until then. (Google News search didn't really give me anything to help) Wizardman 16:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about looking in the libraries for this book, Sacramento Senators and Solons by John E. Spalding, which is the book this site gets its rosters from ("following rosters, courtesy of John Spalding, from his book Sacramento Senators and Solons,")? Jappalang (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a good idea should I want to re-add in some more info. closest library that has it is the one in Cooperstown, so we'll see if i can get it in the future. Wizardman 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about looking in the libraries for this book, Sacramento Senators and Solons by John E. Spalding, which is the book this site gets its rosters from ("following rosters, courtesy of John Spalding, from his book Sacramento Senators and Solons,")? Jappalang (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the note above, I can't access the Sporting News archives for about a week or so, and as such can't fix the sourcing issues until then. (Google News search didn't really give me anything to help) Wizardman 16:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look deeper. There's just a lot of sources on his judiciary career that I need to wade through to get to anything, most likely. (He's probably worthy of an article on here, but that's a different point altogether) Wizardman 17:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally, we'd have several nationally known media vouching for his credentials. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The author of the site, William B. Shubb, is recognized as a baseball historian here. If it's not acceptable as reliable I can try to find elsewhere where the statistics may be located (though it would take a little while, sporting news had nothing).
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Upon signing with the team should be followed by the year.Link Minor League Baseball, Doubleheader (baseball)I think mentioning Hall of Fame votes in the lead of this article is misleading. Leave that fact for the main body.Explain why his high school career was only three years if he eventually graduated, but began as a Freshman.- First three are done. For the fourth, I mention in the article that he went for three years, then later came back and finished his senior year of high school. I'll make it more clear in the article. Wizardman 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
great deal of possibility s/b much potentialofficial part of the team? Do you mean 25-man roster or 40 man roster?typo - nest seasonShreveport Sports of what league?Don't need to link Texas League again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he was back on par with the other White Sox pitchers s/b his playing ability was back on par with that of the other White Sox pitchersGrammatically it has to be that of the other players or specifically the playing ability of other players.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]Almost there. We need a plural. Abilities or ability levels for the players.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue came up for Grove in 1943, the issue being World War II. Say something like In 1943, Grove also had to deal with issues related to World War II.Grove took advantage of now being in Chicago's starting rotation, winning nine consecutive decisions to start his season, and not losing a game until a match against the Yankees which he lost as the result of a balk. s/b Grove took advantage of now being in Chicago's starting rotation by winning nine consecutive decisions to start his season and by not losing a game until a match against the Yankees, which he lost as the result of a balk.At the time, Orval Grove became the second member of the White Sox to win nine consecutive decisions to start the season and the third in White Sox history, the first being Lefty Williams in 1917 and the most recent being LaMarr Hoyt in 1982. is confusingthird in White Sox history still makes no sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change career-highs to career-bestsA best ERA is a low!!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grove started the 1944 Chicago White Sox season was an interesting honor s/b Grove started the 1944 Chicago White Sox season with an interesting honor- No comma after season.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mention the accident and its remifications in the 1941 sectionNow it sounds redundant the way you mention it in the second part. It wasn't an accident it was the accident. You should have mentioned the deferral in 1941. The reader already knows so don't repeat that "His knee was injured in the accident"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
instead of Closing pitcher say closertop outing s/b best outing.
- That is all for now. I will finish the article later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing
- Why only 19 starts in 1947. Was he injured, benched, sent to the minors?
See below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1948 Chicago White Sox season saw a difficult decision for the Sox in who their pitchers would be, as well as who would be in the starting rotation." is ungrammatical and garbled. Try "The 1948 Chicago White Sox faced difficult decisions regarding determining their pitching staff and starting rotation."- "started 11 games out of 32" Sounds wrong. Weren't they using 4-man rotations and a 154-game season. 38 sound more like it.
see below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tigers would agree s/b Tigers agreedDo you have a citation for the final sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article copyedited. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 15:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewers are suppose to strike their own comments, unless maybe Sandy strikes stuff. I will check back in a few hours to do my own striking. If you want to show you have responded to a comment, add a line below it saying what you have done. See my Four Freedoms candidate below as an example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted, I won't strike anything else. Wizardman 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewers are suppose to strike their own comments, unless maybe Sandy strikes stuff. I will check back in a few hours to do my own striking. If you want to show you have responded to a comment, add a line below it saying what you have done. See my Four Freedoms candidate below as an example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with the exception of the 19 starts in 1947. I cannot seem to find anything sourced about it. No mention of an injury or minor league stint, so my guess is he simply didn't start every game and became a spot starter (the Sox used 11 starting pitchers in 1947 four or more times, so it could've been that the squad was just bad).
I think you should mention the number of appearances for seaons in the late career section. He was not exclusively a starter and in order to give a complete biographical description of this part of his career just talaking about games started is leaving a lot of information out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with the new fixes, still nothing on 1947. Wizardman 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think I finally got everything :) Wizardman 17:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I should oppose on principle for writing a quality article about the wrong Grove, but I'm in a good mood because of the holidays, so I'll spare you. :-) Seriously, it is a good article. I saw a few things that need tweaking as I read it, but overall I'm quite impressed.
"After retirement, he worked with his uncle in a trucking business in Chicago while continuing to pitch baseball at the semi-pro level." I think the word baseball can be removed, or it can be changed to "play baseball". Either of those would be a slight improvement on the current wording.Minor league career: There are two "in order to" uses in the first paragraph. The word-smiths of FAC consider this wordy, and prefer just "to".St. Paul Saints links to the modern-day team, not whatever club existed back then.The article did cover the old team after all. I re-added a link to it while I was copy-editing.
Transition to the majors: "he pitched a complete game that lasted twelve innings, winning the game 1–0 against hall of famer Dizzy Dean." Capitalize Hall of Fame?Texas League link is repeating one from the minor league section."In October, Grove was hurt in an auto accident in Missouri, and injured his other knee as a result.." Double periods.Career years: "At the time, Grove became the second member of the White Sox to win nine consecutive decisions to start the (change to "a") season at the time and the third in White Sox history." I'm confused by the sentence, as it seems to contradict itself. Just guessing from what the next sentence says, but is it supposed to be "and one of three in White Sox history."?Remove comma after 1944 Chicago White Sox season?In the same paragraph as the last comment, there's some en dash code that needs fixing."Grove also managed to shut out the Yankees on May 18, the first time the Yankees had done so in 1944." I'm not sure that the flow is as good as can be. A small adjustment to the end will probably be good enough to work.One thing that's bothering me as I read this is the unpiped links to xxxx Chicago White Sox season throughout. I can see having one link like that to avoid confusion, but most of them can just be xxxx season without losing anything. That would make it a little smoother for readers.
It's difficult for me to keep up with the reviews I currently have, but I'll come back to read the rest ASAP. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I just delinked the Saints as I don't have enough info on them to create another article. Wizardman 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For someone with my review backlog, ASAP means about six days. :-) Anyway, I'm back to finish my review. There's quite a bit left to do, but I want to get it all out there at once due to the amount of active reviews I have.
The auto accident referred to in 1945 was already mentioned in 1941. I think a change from "an auto accident" to "the auto accident" would help tie those sections together."after becoming the only player who remained holding out." Needs fixing.Link Ed Lopat"and as a result the coaching planned..." Also needs fixing.Later career: "The 1948 season faced difficult decisions...""the White Sox beat the Chicago Cubs 1–0, giving Grove a complete game shutout." The second clause doesn't come as a result of the first; just because the Sox won in a shutout doesn't mean that it was a complete game."which prompted concern for Indians...""which was declared by some as 'the best any Coast League club ever had'." Who is some? An attribution would be nice here."en route to a 17 win, 20 loss season." Hyphens?
I also want to see the Tripod source removed or proved acceptable. If it stays, it needs a publisher added to the citation.Giants2008 (17-14) 01:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Will do. Sorry if I seem like I'm rushing, just trying to get done what I can before the first, since arbcom will then take up all my time. The Tripod thing's troubling me since I'm struggling to find a source for that info but can't really remove it since it a nice detailed chunk of minor league info. The rest I will handle within a couple days. Wizardman 03:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with the exception of the tripod source issue. I will definitely work my ass off on this particular one tomorrow, I think it's bugging me more than the reviewers :) Wizardman 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Sorry if I seem like I'm rushing, just trying to get done what I can before the first, since arbcom will then take up all my time. The Tripod thing's troubling me since I'm struggling to find a source for that info but can't really remove it since it a nice detailed chunk of minor league info. The rest I will handle within a couple days. Wizardman 03:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. That Will Farrell messing me up... :P Wizardman 04:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support following my own copyedit and the resolution of comments by other editors. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 04:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
"Before graduating from high school during autumn 1937, Grove was signed" is awkward. It is unclear if he was signed during autumn 1937, if he would have graduated then or both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- "He played with the Steers until management began to replace youths with veterans due to their struggles". Is their referring to youths, veterans, management or the Steers?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watch the WP:PUNCT with "They'll never drive that sinker very far". the period goes inside the quotes for full sentences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]What is the full Tulsa team name (link it).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]After establishing the team name, I think convention is to refer to teams by nickname and not city. Thus, later when you say Tulsa, you should say Oilers. Feel free to convince me otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the other baseball FAs. I think you will find more extensive year linkages to Year in baseball, Major League baseball season articles. Follow the convention. Especially in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]I believe the semi colon should be conjoining independent phrases, but "he did not think much of at the time" seems to need an object. Maybe add it after of.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It looks like you fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sox is too slangy. Change to White Sox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- change it was discovered from passive to active.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rm now from of now being.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]becoming the only player who remained holding out should be becoming the last remaining hold out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]due to eagerness seems POV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]That statement comes directly from the source cited. I can tweak it if needed though. Wizardman
go the distance is slang that will be lost on many readers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]link first instance of opposing teams such as New York Yankees.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Most are done now. Wizardman
- Support After several rounds of comments, my concerns are now satisfied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) — Fixed a few formatting issues using Advisor.js. I recommend it before running for GA or FA just to make sure the article is in top form. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <Off topic moved to talk.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose—Reluctant withdrawal of oppose. See my comments below. Tony (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)I found plenty of minor glitches at the opening. It needs someone new to it to run through the prose carefully. These are random examples only:[reply]
- "He had a career year in 1943, finishing the season with career bests in ERA, wins, and complete games, and in 1944 he made his only All-Star appearance." Last "he" could be removed (ellipsis); there's lots of "he" in the vicinity.
- I did something altogether different: "Grove had a career year in 1943, finishing the season with career bests in ERA, wins, and complete games; in 1944, he made his only All-Star appearance." The proposed fix didn't do anything to combat the "he" overload, and the two seasons felt forced together. I think the semi-colon improves it further.
- "By eighth grade, Grove developed a fondness for baseball, and began pitching for the Proviso East High School baseball team." Remove the comma?
- Yes.
- "Grove lost only two games, pitched a no-hitter, and pitched a couple of one-hitters." You couldn't make it: "Grove lost only two games, and pitched a no-hitter and a couple of one-hitters."? But it's still a little stumpy—the "lost only two games" is more comfortably embedded in the longer period, but the pitching references look like single incidents within games. Perhaps I'm too much the non-expert here.
- A no-hitter happens when a pitcher doesn't allow a hit during a game; it's a rare feat. The one thing I would change is to say how many one-hitters he had; I'd guess two, but can't do anything without having access to the source. Fixed it as suggested otherwise.
- Pity there's no sense of the magnitude of a $2,500 contract in 1937. Sounds like the cost of one electronics item for the sitting room.
- I'll look for it later, but this sounds like it will be hard to find. Wizardman would probably have better luck finding 1937 salaries than me.
- Note:Lou Gehrig had the highest salary in 1937, at $36,000.[4] so 2500's nice, but maybe it's not as huge as I thought. Wizardman
- I'll look for it later, but this sounds like it will be hard to find. Wizardman would probably have better luck finding 1937 salaries than me.
- Can you check for "he" throughout? "He played with the Steers until management began to replace youths with veterans due to the team's struggles, and as a result
hewas moved to the Longview Cannibals." Or "... struggles; as a result, he was ...".- Chose the latter option. And yes, I will be searching for "he" later.
- Can one purchase a contract?
- Actually, baseball teams do. This is correct.
- "in order to"—spot the two redundant words. But there's another problem: four "to"s. And the last phrase is unnecessary: "As his first minor league season drew to a close, Grove planned to return to Proviso High School to complete his education when the season ended." Try: "As his first minor league season drew to a close, Grove planned his return to Proviso High School to complete his education." Tony (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did "Grove planned on returning to Proviso High School to complete his education." Didn't like the double "his" in the proposed fix, especially considering the large number of "he"s scattered throughout. Didn't find the "in order to", but I'll get it later during my full run-through, assuming that it's still there. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Your hope that a reader might realise that the blue "1940" and "1949" are in fact links to years in baseball is a long-shot; they look like those silly solitary year links that go nowhere relevant. Why not arrange one reference to Years-in-baseball in the main text instead, where it's a proper service to readers, not a guessing game (see MOSLINK). Please see my comments below in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Sunderland_A.F.C.. Tony (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got rid of the infobox links and will look for a spot to park a year-in-baseball link in the body. A full cleanup job is coming from me later. I did review this earlier, but I saw some good copy-editing opportunities while searching for these fixes. For now, I have a bunch of reviews to do and football on TV, so I'm stopping here. Thanks for this review and all the others you do. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup complete. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Soooo. I suppose the only way for someone to verify all of these wild speculations about File:Orval Grove.jpg being in the PD is to actually go to the George Burke Archives (wherever those might be)? :) Is there any citation we could provide readers for any of this information? Pretty please? Awadewit (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain that the license for this picture is correct. According to Wikipedia:Public domain#Published works, "Even if a work was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, there would need to be proof to that effect. The proof must contain a valid resource justifying the claim in order for the U.S. copyright office to accept it." Where is the proof that this picture was published? Note that George Burke takes pictures of baseball players, but supposedly never sold them to the public. He kept them in his collection, selling copies to the players themselves;[5] hence, his photos were accorded as collectibles.[6][7] George Brace, who was mentored by Burke, similarly practiced the same thing (personal collection).[8] Some of Burke's work could be considered "published"; he sold stamps to players who used them to post replies to fans.[9] However, the key here is to prove that the photo of Orval Grove was published in the media or sold as baseball cards to the public, and that no copyright was registered for that photo. Jappalang (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tricky. I have asked a Commons admin for advice on this one. Awadewit (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asserted the image was PD upon asking User:Zscout370 about it, which was confirmed by another user whose name escapes me. If it's determined to actually not be PD, i'll just rv and put the fair use tag and rationale back in. Wizardman 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Elcobbola has offered to help track down this image. Could you leave the details on the talk page? Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that the image be reverted back for "Fair use" at this moment, and only declared as PD when proof is found. For fair use, the single image has a case for identification of a deceased person. Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point that's probably best. I may be able to assert that it's PD later, but no sense guessing right now. Wizardman 12:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been working on the FUR: A couple of things: 1) We need more information on the source, that would allow readers to track down the image, if they so desired. 2) WP:NFC requires that non-free images have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. We need some evidence of that. Awadewit (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I cannot believe I missed that clause in NFC... Anyway, if File:Orval Grove.jpg is invalid due to lack of proof of publishing, would Grove's baseball card (at "Virtual Card Collection") be appropriate for fair use here? Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Belay that suggestion. Check out p. 84 of Nov 1973 Baseball Digest.[10] The image in the Digest can qualify as a fair-use image, agreed? Jappalang (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think so. Write it up and let's see. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That works :) I have a thing against using baseball cards in articles, I find it to be a can of worms issue. That pic works though. Wizardman 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) New image uploaded. Wizardman 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image issues are now resolved. Yeah! Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: An interesting, well-researched and mostly well-written article. In addition to Tony's comments could you check all the occurrences of "also", especially the very tired "not only...but also" construct. Often "also" is redundant and worse, for me at least, slows down the reading because it refers back to previous lines. Also, "nixed" is not in my Oxford English Dictionary—the nearest are "nix" and "nixie", male and female water elves :-) Graham Colm Talk 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to TonyTheTiger and Giants: You both appear to disagree with each other on the linking issue regarding x in baseball and the like. Can't really compromise on this one, seeing as either it is or isn't in. Wizardman 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really care either way, though I personally prefer the MLB links. Year in baseball links would be fine as well. While I'm here, I left an inline message regarding the "it was discovered" that he had an injury. If this can't be found due to your computer, don't worry about it too much. I'm also leaving responses above to the other Tony. Have to cut a new ArbCom member with a busted computer a break once in a while, right? :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, is this referring to the infobox? If so, leave them out and just put them in the text. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really care either way, though I personally prefer the MLB links. Year in baseball links would be fine as well. While I'm here, I left an inline message regarding the "it was discovered" that he had an injury. If this can't be found due to your computer, don't worry about it too much. I'm also leaving responses above to the other Tony. Have to cut a new ArbCom member with a busted computer a break once in a while, right? :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished a full copy-edit. Please check my work, as I don't usually copy-edit articles I review. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, article reads a lot better now. I'll go through tonight and hopefully satisfy the two tony's final issues. (except for the discovery issue, which will have to wait until I can access pdf files again.) Wizardman 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the "not only...but" sentence. While I was copy-editing this, I found a few more things, which I want to bring to your attention.
The last sentence in Later career, on the end of his career, feels like a run-on. Perhaps breaking it up before "as he said" would solve the problem.The given publishers for notes 11 and 14 are Section Two and Sports, respectively. Are these the names of newspapers, or are they sections of unnamed newspapers?Do a "he" check before pinging Tony1, since that was his major concern. I changed a few of them, but there are still quite a few.Giants2008 (17-14) 04:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got your points done, now to tackle Tony1's (and the image and the one source, heh) Wizardman 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the "not only...but" sentence. While I was copy-editing this, I found a few more things, which I want to bring to your attention.
ConditionalSupport as of this version
Comments as follows:
- Early life
"West Mineral, Kansas on August 29, 1919"
- Should there not be a comma after "Kansas"?
- Minor league career
"due to the team's struggles"
- Would "due to the team's struggling form" be better?
"After the 1939 season began"
- Should this not be "After the 1939 season had begun"?
"Grove walked three men in a row—which allowed a run to score—and received credit for the loss, despite that fact that he did not allow a hit during his time on the mound."
- Not being a fan of baseball, but having an crude understanding of the basics of the game, I am puzzled by this sentence. Basically Grove foul-balled 12 times to let 3 men onto the bases, thus earning the Oilers one run, but why "credit for the loss"? Should it not be "blame for the loss", and should he not be blamed if he foul-balled that many times (despite that no opponent had hit any of his pitches)? Or is my interpretation totally wrong?
- Reworded, hopefully this is better.
- Career years
- Would classification as 3A mean that he was an only son?
- I'm not sure, actually. 3A means "Whose deferment is advisable because his child(ren), parent(s), grandparent(s), brother(s), or sister(s) is dependent upon him for support." (he was not married yet). This implies that he was taking care of his parents and/or grandparents with the money he made as a ballplayer, which would be my best guess. I don't have a source to prove that though. He had at least one brother (per having a nephew), so he's not an only child.
- Okay, not an actionable issue—nicely fulfilled my curiosity though. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"On July 8, 1943, Grove almost made baseball history."
- Would that have been the first time a Major League no-hitter was achievied if Jordan did not hit the ball? If so, that should be noted. Otherwise, I do not see how that was baseball history unless it was the first White Sox no-hitter or a no-hitter was so rare no one did it until many years later.
- No-hitters are rare, and it does give a baseball pitcher a certain kind of greatness if they are able to throw one. "History" is probably too strong of a word, I'll try and reword it.
"$310 in damages from the auto accident"
- Is it "from the" or "for the"?
- I think it's from the. Maybe I should change it to "$310 in damages stemming from the auto accident"?
- I think it should be "for" since he was "awarded"; it would be "from" if he "received", right? Perhaps, someone else can weigh in on this? Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's from the. Maybe I should change it to "$310 in damages stemming from the auto accident"?
- Later career
"and refused to report, instead pitching at the semi-pro level."
- Is it supposed to be "and refused to report, choosing instead to pitch at the semi-pro level."
"narrowly missed a perfect game when a runner got on base with, coincidentally, two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning."
- Again, as one not in full tune with baseball, why is this "coincidentally"?
- Coincidental because that is the same thing that happened to Orval (that sentence discusses his nephew, Wayne Grove)
- Do you meant that Wayne did not get a no-hitter? That is, he was pitching what would have been a no-hitter until the last batsman hit (like what happened in Grove-Jordan)? The current sentence reads to me as if no one hit Wayne's pitches, and a runner (due to foul balls) stole the base during Wayne's pitches. That does not seem to mirror Grove-Jordan, or is the coincidence supposed to be Wayne's missing a perfect game at the same instance in the match as Grove's miss of a no-hitter? Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter. The O. Grove-Gordon situation mirrored the W. Grove situation. Only difference was it was a perfect game for Wayne. I'll take it out though since coincidence is probably a judgment call for the reader.
- Do you meant that Wayne did not get a no-hitter? That is, he was pitching what would have been a no-hitter until the last batsman hit (like what happened in Grove-Jordan)? The current sentence reads to me as if no one hit Wayne's pitches, and a runner (due to foul balls) stole the base during Wayne's pitches. That does not seem to mirror Grove-Jordan, or is the coincidence supposed to be Wayne's missing a perfect game at the same instance in the match as Grove's miss of a no-hitter? Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coincidental because that is the same thing that happened to Orval (that sentence discusses his nephew, Wayne Grove)
- Later life
"receiving five votes ... and seven votes in ..."
- I think the words "votes" here are redundant, considering that the preceding clause has established that he got a few votes.
- Miscellanous
Why are all (or most of) the pronouns currently converted to "Grove"? The mentions of his name constantly seems repetitive.Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was what I thought, but Tony1 above disagrees. Maybe I'm overdoing it though. (other issues are now done) Wizardman 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony1 saw a lot of "he"s, but I believe he was not asking all of them to be converted to "Grove"s. Personally, it has been overdone to resolve his concern (Giants2008's and Henry8787's copyedits have removed much of the excessive pronouns; in my opinion, only a few more needed to be tweaked after their work). I think a good approximate guide for when to remind the reader of the subject is about every third mention of the subject, or when it is possible to mix up who the pronoun is referring to (such as cases when another man is mentioned just after Grove) on reading the sentence. Jappalang (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A splendid read on the whole for a baseball-ignorant me. Just some niggles above (most are likely not issues on explanation). Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished your concerns, except for those where I left comments. Wizardman
- This article qualifies for FA
, once the sourcing for Sacremento Salons is settled. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article qualifies for FA
- (To do: finish Tony1's remaining issues (double-check "he" usage and the $250 salary) and the source issue on the Sacramento Solons) Wizardman
- SOURCE HAS BEEN REPLACED (yes, :) I think it deserves all caps) Wizardman 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you pinged Tony to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that now. If he does have any outstanding issues they should be minor ones to fix. Wizardman 04:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you pinged Tony to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SOURCE HAS BEEN REPLACED (yes, :) I think it deserves all caps) Wizardman 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A lot of work was needed here, but the article has risen to FA standards as a result of that work. Well-researched and well-written. Disclaimer: I copy-edited this, as I stated above. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some confusing patches of prose: please doublecheck my edits and inline queries.[11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yours are good; I dealt with the concerns and knocked out a couple other "as a result"s (there are now only two in the article). I have no idea if Tony's coming back to look at this or not yet; I pinged him but nothing came of it yet. Wizardman 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have withdrawn my tentative oppose above, but reluctantly. This nomination was way premature, and the FAC page far too long. Please do not submit another nomination in such a bad state. Why do I still see things like "Additionally,"? Just remove it. It's OK overall. Tony (talk) 03:10, 13 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 00:19, 14 January 2009 [12].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because there wasn't that much activity in the last FAC, so a consensus could not be formed. Hopefully the second time around is a bit better. Gary King (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is quite short; have all the available reliable sources been exhausted? The article seems to only cover corporate history and affiliated companies – for a comprehensive article on a company, one would hope for a section devoted to the company's products, comments on its management style and labour relations, as well as critical commentary on its actions and the quality of its services. To nitpick, is it possible to add URLs and bylines for those references that lack them? Thanks for writing the article, Skomorokh 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I've exhausted all references that I could find on the company. Most of what I haven't used are just press releases, primarily relating to business deals that the company has made with other companies (I've only mentioned a few in the article; we don't need them all). Also, references without URLs and/or bylines are because they don't have them, sometimes because they are press releases. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see, thanks. I'm concerned that the lack of comprehensiveness precludes this from being some of Wikipedia's best work, but that is no fault of yours. Skomorokh 03:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I've exhausted all references that I could find on the company. Most of what I haven't used are just press releases, primarily relating to business deals that the company has made with other companies (I've only mentioned a few in the article; we don't need them all). Also, references without URLs and/or bylines are because they don't have them, sometimes because they are press releases. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Scene7 products rely on several Adobe Systems products, including Adobe PhotoShop, Adobe InDesign, Adobe Flash, Adobe Illustrator, and Adobe Flex; this relationship existed even before Adobe purchased the company. - Remove "even".
- Rather than maintain their own servers, since August 4, 2008, Scene7 rents storage space, allowing them to pay for only the resources that are used. - This sentence needs to be reworded, as I got stuck upon reading it.
- National Business Furniture, a furniture retailer based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, implemented Scene7's technology on November 3, 2008, to allow visitors to the company's website to dynamically change the colors of product images. - Could this be reworded to avoid repetition of "to"?
- The program was used to virtually preview room decoration projects before working on them, and allowed users to create virtual rooms, change walls, and arrange furniture, and render photo-realistic renderings of the completed designs. - "Render renderings"?
- Adobe plans to integrate Scene7's products into Adobe LiveCycle, the company's suite of server software products. - When?
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catches. All done. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Leaning opposeComprehensiveness, among other issues.- "The company, founded as a division of Autodesk, created a desktop CD-ROM program called Picture This Home in the mid-1990s." What is a "desktop CD-ROM program"? I've never heard that phrase before, and Google seems mystified as well. Why would a simple "program" not suffice? Also, this sentence only leaves readers wondering what Picture This Home is. At least give a few adjectives describing what this software does.
- What was the company known as from the beginning (with Autodesk/Broderbund)?
- "subsidiary of Adobe Systems,[1] which provides" Ambiguous which...seems to be referring to Adobe Systems instead of Scene7.
- "to allow it to pay for only the resources that it uses." I don't understand this (rather unwieldy) add-on. Wouldn't maintaining one's own servers also mean paying for only the resources it uses? Presumably, the company wouldn't buy servers that it wouldn't use, right? "To allow it" is odd here.
- "to combine their sales and marketing activities" A bit too generic business-speak. What does this mean?
- "Fathead, a company that builds and sells wall graphics, used Scene7's services " Past tense, so they don't use it anymore? Might want to then give the time period in which they used it then.
- "The company was founded as a division of Autodesk in San Rafael, California," Date?
- The History section does not seem comprehensive to me. Among the many questions left unanswered: Why was it founded? What was Autodesk's vision for it? How successful was Picture This Home and the division in general at Autodesk? Why was it sold to Broderbund? Why did Broderbund want to buy it? What was its role at Broderbund? Why was it spun off into its own company? Besides the quotation from the CEO, there's no discussion of the company's role in the marketplace. The New York Times article ("Fast access brings virtual catalogs back") offers some good discussion about the growth potential of companies such as Scene7, and why high-speed Internet has led to the comeback of online catalogs, which were all the rage in the late-90s but never got anywhere because of slow connections.
- "whole B2C market" Explanatory info in parens or brackets please.
- "approach us to license the technology" What technology?
- The first three paragraphs of History mostly deal with financing. There's no discussion on the company's health or growth. How was it doing in the advertising business? When did it start focusing on developing online stores/catalogs for clients?
- "to help boost Adobe's overall services strategy,[2] especially its software as a service efforts." Good, but anything more specific on why Adobe wanted Scene7.
- Are you sure there aren't more sources out there? My LexisNexis search yielded 410 hits. One of them was a substantive interview with Doug Mack discussing the problems of GoodHome.com in the online furniture market. BuddingJournalist 13:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've got all of these points. I've expanded the article further. I got a few dozen hits, not 400+, but I used what I could find. I couldn't find that interview, but I think I did find a few useful statements and quotes from him, among other people related to the company. The server renting is a "pay as you grow" program that only requires Scene7 to pay for the resources that it uses. If the company rented a server, let's say it had to pay $1,000/month. On "pay as you grow", though, it would only pay for the storage space it uses, so if that's 10 GB, even though the computer can hold 100 GB, then it would pay $100 (10% of $1,000 for the entire server). I tried to explain that a bit better in the article. Gary King (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The history section is a much more fulfilling reading now.
- "Mack later noted that while at Broderbund, there was a "big culture clash" between Broderbund, an established company, and GoodHome.com, a new media division." No need for "later". More importantly, this seems to contradict the previous sentence, which stated that Broderbund spun it off into a separate company, not an internal division.
- "When asked how GoodHome.com managed to launch so quickly, Mack half-jokingly said, "We don't sleep," further noting that customers were the most important part of their business." Don't think this adds anything substantive (aren't customers the most important part of any business?).
- "The phenomenon was dubbed" What phenomenon? Be more specific.
- Several quotations are not immediately followed by a citation. Usually, "covering" citations are perfectly fine, but when dealing with exact quotations, it's best to cite them immediately at the end of the sentence (or quotation), so there's no ambiguity. Otherwise, later on, someone might add a sentence with a new source between the quotation and the "covering" citation, leading to trouble.
- Discussion of Scene7 between its GoodHome.com phase and acquisition by Adobe is a bit scant. There's only information on deals and financing at the moment. What was its growth like? Was it profitable? What were its main products/services? BuddingJournalist 02:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we not know a more specific date for Picture This Home or the dev team's founding? BuddingJournalist 02:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. I couldn't find much more information on what you wanted. There is at least double the amount of information available for GoodHome.com as there was for Scene7, perhaps partly because as Scene7, there were so many other companies like it that it was given less attention, and partly because they were more cautious this time around compared to as GoodHome.com, so there were less major announcements to make. Also, I think that the company probably never managed to pass its peak revenues of $1 million, which it reached while as GoodHome.com. I did find one article that talked about Mack's business plans while the company was Scene7, which I have added to the end of the first paragraph of "Reorganization". Gary King (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gary, I was wondering if you had access to ProQuest. I do, and if you need anything, I can provide text of articles for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I don't have ProQuest; is there anything interesting on there about Scene7 that isn't already in the article? Gary King (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Dabomb87/Misc, may or may not help; if you find this stuff helpful I can give you more. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like mostly press releases to me; I've come across a lot of those, and I think the article already includes enough about the company's business deals. Gary King (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I was just checking because I noticed the concerns above; most of the hits do seem to be press releases. The only things I see that you don't have are a couple marginally relevant quotes that wouldn't add much anyway, they would be better served on Mack's article anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like mostly press releases to me; I've come across a lot of those, and I think the article already includes enough about the company's business deals. Gary King (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Dabomb87/Misc, may or may not help; if you find this stuff helpful I can give you more. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the record, I made some copy-edits to the article but had no further role in its development. I am satisfied about the article's comprehensiveness, no outstanding prose and MOS issues remain, I trust that all images check out fine according to Moni3, and Ealdgyth said that sources looked OK at the previous FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tony (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)—1a. My impression that it's a workaday topic wouldn't matter so much if it were better-written. Here are examples from a few random windows of the text. They indicate that a thorough massage is required by someone completely new to the article.[reply]
- "Several companies, mostly retailers, use the company's services to showcase products on their websites and allow customers to interact with the products." I think "to" is needed before "allow" (changes the meaning subtlely).
- Apart from an initial phrase and the refs, this text string starts both the lead and the first section: "Scene7 is an American on-demand rich media software company[1] that provides document hosting and interactive publishing services such as online catalogs, targeted email, video, and image management.[2]" The readers will switch off.
- You don't need "US" for dollars in a US-related article.
- "this relationship had already existed before Adobe purchased the company"—Spot the two redundant words.
- "similar to the way that they would inspect merchandise in retail stores"—lose one word.
- Was it the CEO who received the $30M, or the company?
- Clunky: The decision to spin the company off as a separate entity was praised by Mack, who claimed, "We would have never been able to build our Web business if we were not in a separate building with separate funding." Unnecessary passive; Mack is in the background, so does not need another mention. "who" is laboured. Try this—He praised the decision to spin the company off as a separate entity: "We would have never been able to build our Web business if we were not in a separate building with separate funding." Remove "also" from the subsequent clause.
- "spending $20 million on advertisements in its first year"—you're sure it was specific "ads", and not an overall promotional effort involving sponsorships and other strategies? "Advertising" might be safer, but check.
- Too much of the quoted material is simply plucked out and shoved in here without proper scrutiny. Take this, for example: Mack decided that the company should target women in their 30s,[18] since "women make 80 percent of decorating decisions". The quoted causality explains only gender, not age group. Tony (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have copyedited the entire article. I think it's a lot better now. Gary King (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The article meets FA criteria, it is comprehensive and well referenced to the extent this subject can be referenced. More expansion would make the article too long and boring so I am against the addition of more info, it is fine right now. NancyHeise talk 03:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support prose wise, if Tony removed his oppose, then I believe the article is up to par with the standards. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Tony's minor concerns seem to have been addressed, and I can't see any reason why this isn't of FA standard now jimfbleak (talk) 18:59, 12 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 22:28, 10 January 2009 [13].
- Nominator(s): User:Juliancolton
- previous FAC (02:29, 2 October 2008)
A tad on the short side, but it is comprehensive. The article was upgraded to A-Class a couple months ago. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article did not go through the A-class review of USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True; I reassessed it as GA-Class. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did it go through the A-Class review of WikiProject Hudson Valley?--SRX 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, but HVNY doesn't have an organized A-Class assessment system yet. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So how does it have an A-Class assessment in the banner on the talk page for that project?--SRX 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) assessed it as A-Class, in a manner similar to that of Start-, C-, or B-Class assessment. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So how does it have an A-Class assessment in the banner on the talk page for that project?--SRX 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, but HVNY doesn't have an organized A-Class assessment system yet. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did it go through the A-Class review of WikiProject Hudson Valley?--SRX 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Lead Comments
- It crosses NY 164 and NY 292 as it heads into the northwestern part of the county, finally bending east to reach its northern terminus at NY 22 just south of the Dutchess County line. - bending sounds awkward, how about curving?
- Part of modern-day Route 311 was originally the Philipstown Turnpike, a road built in 1815 to overcome a lack of transportation means when the Hudson River froze over during the winter months. - is over needed? Seems repetitive with during
- The turnpike was a large business center for the county, though was abandoned due to insufficient tolls to maintain it. - it would help if it was added between though and was
- Another section was constructed in the early 1900s from the Patterson Baptist Church near the modern-day intersection of Route 311 and Route 164 to the Village of Patterson, by a group of Italian immigrants. - I think if a comma was added before from, it would help the flow of the sentence--SRX 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nice catches, done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Route description comments
- Carmel Lake has a surface area of about 200 acres (81 ha), and is sits at 618 ft (188 m) in elevation. - is? You mean it? =)
- The road crosses into the town of Patterson and interchanges with Interstate 84. - how about adding then before crosses, since in the previous sentence it spoke about the river
- NY 311 curves gradually northeast before turning almost due north to an intersection with NY 292 in the community of West Patterson. - is the due suppose to be there?
- In the hamlet of Patterson, an historic district exists along the route. - wouldn't it be a and not an?--SRX 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- This has been a longstanding issue within the 'grammar community', and despite the general rules of English, both "a history" and "an historic" are correct, if I recall correctly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmed –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
- In November 1901, when the Putnam County's Board of Supervisors hired an engineer to create plans for a new road that would run from the Westchester–Putnam County border into Dutchess County. - the when makes this an incomplete statement, remove
- After the Lloyd Lumber Company moved to a larger building along NY 311, the post office occupied the smaller structure. Both were situated on the east side of the New York Central tracks. - IMO, I think this would work better as a semi-colon.--SRX 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- All done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - based on my review of the article, it meets WP:WIAFA. Its also an interesting read, despite its size.--SRX 02:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This is an interesting, well-researched article but I have a few nit-picks:
- It should say in the Lead that this route is in the United States.
- Here, Along the way, the route passes a number of historical sites I think "along the way" is redundant since we have "passes".
- I'm not sure about "transportation means" - but a the moment I can't think of any alternative accept "access".
- Instead of "Prior to" - can we have "before"?
- Here, where does the quotation end: One of the intentions of the turnpike was to "greatly promote the public good, as well contribute to their individual interest. However, the turnpike was eventually abandoned, because the tolls received were not sufficient to defray the expense of maintaining the road and associated bridges.
- Here, shouldn't the "while" be "and": Children were asked to participate in the filming by dressing in western or American Indian apparel, while girls were asked to dress as frontier women.
- Who is drafting whom here: By 1966, Putnam County's men began drafting for the Vietnam War. Should it be "began to be drafted into the armed forces to fight in the Vietnam War"?
- The sources look fine except number 11. It says "Journal", but should it be Journal of the Assembly of the State of New York? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the helpful comments and support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- As in the previous FAC, http://www.historicpatterson.org/index.php remains a concern, as it's a local historical society, and thus might be an unreliable source. I'm merely pointing it out for other reviewers to be aware of, and to make sure that nothing controversial is being sourced to it.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain that source is reliable, as it's run by the Town of Patterson. Also, that site lists its acknowledgments and resources, which includes the Putnam County Historian's Office, the Patterson Town Board, the Patterson Town Historian, etc. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor comments
It passes by a Christian youth camp, and intersects with NY 164. - no commaLink to Phillipstown Turnpike?- Other than that, I'm pretty impressed. The prose is really good and the article is broad. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the support and comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3
File:New York Route 311 map.png - This map needs a reliable source with which to verify its information per WP:IUP. All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed for now until I figure out how to fix it... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing the map doesn't really solve the problem, as you really need that map for the article. don't you?. Just keep it until you have the information. Surely you have a source that could work for this? You're writing an article on this road! Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the map isn't particularly crucial to the article, and I didn't want it to hold up the FAC. Would Google Maps suffice as a reliable source for it? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not crucial? Um, this is an article about a road. The map seems central to me. Another NY State FA used this source. Would that source your map? Awadewit (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, Awadewit. Julian, that ref that I added is the official reference.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the oppose. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; looking at the above comments and reading the article, it seems it's ready. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:31, 10 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 22:28, 10 January 2009 [14].
- Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)
Hello, everyone. This is another American college football article in a series, and it comes on the heels of a successful FAC for 2006 Gator Bowl. Thank you to everyone who commented on that one, and I hope you will provide feedback on this article as well. It's somewhat older than it's predecessors, 2000 Sugar Bowl and the aforementioned Gator Bowl article. As is the case with most of these articles, the lack of pictures is the most lacking element. The prose also reads somewhat differently from those other two articles, something I attribute to it being written before the other two. I've checked it with the dead links and DAB checkers, and appreciate any and all comments, positive or negative. Thanks for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Most of your authors are listed after the titles, but there is one that is listed first. Consistency?Make sure all your newspaper/book titles are in italics (I noted current ref 32 (Tedford Has...) but There are many others.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I've made those fixes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit I got all gooey and warm inside when I saw one of my photos had made its way into this article. I'll try to come back to is with a more neutral mind (before I go on a 2 week vacation). --Bobak (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I figured that I should comment early, because someone's going to be busy next week. There are a few more problems than the last one, and I've detailed some of them below.
Photos: Aaron Rodgers has a great photo on his page, though he is wearing a Packer jersey.
- Thanks for pointing that out for me.
"Virginia Tech accumulated an 8–4 regular-season record that saw the Hokies lose four of their last six regular-season games." The "that saw" part isn't working for me.
- Fixed.
Pacific 10 needs a hyphen.
- Fixed.
Team selection: Semi-colon after "but after that game was required to invite Virginia due to its contract with the Atlantic Coast Conference". Also, required and chose clash in this sentence.
- Fixed.
"behind previous year's champion Miami and Pittsburgh." Put "the" after behind.
- Fixed.
"brother of star former Hokie Michael Vick." Change it to something like "brother of former Hokie star Michael Vick." Sounds like he's still a star; um, not so much.
- Fixed.
Contraction that needs to be removed: "Things seemingly wouldn't be much easier for the Hokies the next week".
- Reworded.
Needs a source: "the biggest win in school history" against Miami. It wasn't their largest margin of victory, and I question whether it was their most important win; didn't Michael Vick's teams have some big wins? Is this the highest-ranked team they've ever beaten? If so, it would be better to just say that. And add a hyphen for "39 game" winning streak.
- I've added two citations to justify that remark. They're not specifically about that statement, but they do address it.
What makes Techsideline.com a reliable source? Is it a printed publication? It says that it has no affiliation with the university. I also question how much it backs up the claim that some fans were disappointed with Virginia Tech's berth in this game. I'm sure it's true, but it reads to me like one fan's opinion.
- That particular entry was more in line with a blog post, but I've backed up the information with other cites. TechSideline is the oldest and best-established independent site covering Virginia Tech sports. It started as a fan-run operation, but transitioned into a business about a decade ago. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back when I can, but it may be a while due to a large review backlog. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for what you've been able to provide so far. I can't wait to see what else you can find! JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It was California's first winning season in several years". How many? Is "several" used because they were 6–6 after a bowl game one year?
- Replaced with "since 1993". I also added wikilinks to the appropriate seasons.
Pregame buildup: "and had higher expectations in the Insight Bowl." Replace "in" with "than". The next sentence copies the last sentence in the previous section.
- Fixed and removed.
"McArthur fractured a bone in his wrist and was unable to play." Which wrist?Game summary: "Bank One Ballpark hosted the Insight Bowl from 2000-2005 with seating reconfigured from the standard used during baseball games." Change the date range to "from 2000 to 2005"; en dashes aren't even recommended.
- Fixed.
"making it the 13th most-viewed bowl game and the fourth-highest rating of the 20 bowl games broadcast on ESPN that season." Check to see if "rating" should be "rated"; I'm not 100% either way.
- Fixed. It should be fourth highest-rated, I think.
Can the post-quarter recaps be merged into the preceding paragraphs in each case? I don't think having a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs is optimal, especially because they can be combined so easily.
- Fixed.
"Tech faced a second down and needed just two yards for a first down, but could not gain the required two yards on two attempts." To avoid a redundancy, change the second "two yards" to "yardage" or similar.
- Fixed.
"As time expired in the first half, Warley's kick sailed wide." Left or right?Giants2008 (17-14) 02:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed the reference, since I wasn't sure.
- Thank you so much for being such a reliable reviewer for these. You're quite proficient at nailing down things I missed, and it's really appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third quarter: In a similar vein as the review below, I'm not sure "California seized the moment" is encyclopedic prose.
- Removed. There also was another of those "unfortunately for"s nearby.
"Following the touchdown, Virginia Tech received the ball and performed its first three and out of the game." I think "performed" looks odd here.
- Fixed.
Fourth quarter: "Rodgers recovered by the fumble by...". Try replacing the first "by" with "from".
- Fixed.
I'm done here after these. The reviews below really helped, at least in the later sections. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for the detailed review. One of those last suggestions reminded me to go through and clear out the past perfect verbs in a lot of places, and I think that has helped. :P JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNot too impressed with the prose. Consider getting a copy-editor to run through this. Some random samples:- "ended in a 52–49 victory for California. Cal and Virginia Tech combined for 101 points; only one bowl game in history, the 2001 GMAC Bowl, saw more points scored by the two teams in regulation." I think we can assume readers can do the math themselves. "Regulation" should probably be linked somewhere. Redundancies: "only one bowl game, the 2001 GMAC Bowl, saw more points scored in regulation".
- I'd agree that most readers can do the math, but it's not really convenient if you're trying to get at the information quickly ... I do agree with you on the redundancy, however, and have removed it.
- " partially recovered from its 14-point first-quarter deficit by scoring two touchdowns" I'm not getting the use of "partially" here.
- Fixed. The partially doesn't make sense unless you know that Virginia Tech also scored a touchdown, thus keeping a lead. But that isn't revealed until the next sentence.
- "With time running out, Cal began to drive for a game-winning score. The post-score Tech kickoff went out of bounds, giving the Bears possession at their 35-yard line." Seems like these two sentences ought to be switched.
- Agreed. Fixed. Also removed a "game-winning" redundancy.
- "after that game was required to invite Virginia due to its contract with the Atlantic Coast Conference; it chose " Wrong use of the semicolon. Not sure how a game can be "required to invite" nor how it can have a contract. "it chose" meaning the game chose?
- Fixed. It's somewhat awkward to talk about the bowls' organizing committees without repeatedly using the full names of the bowls, but I think I've managed it. If you could double-check to make sure it's not too confusing, I'd appreciate it.
- "The other option for the Hokies " I don't understand how this could be another option if they weren't invited.
- Fixed. "Possibility" is a better word there, I think.
- "third-place Oregon received a bid to the Sun Bowl instead of California, which was tied with Oregon for third place in the conference." Again, redundancies ("third place", "instead of California") can be eliminated: "Oregon, tied for third-place with California, received a bid to the Sun Bowl"
- Fixed.
- "Things seemingly wouldn't be much easier for Tech the next week" Encyclopedic, not journalistic, prose please. And what does "seemingly" mean here?
- Heh. That's my job intruding on Wikipedia again. Fixed.
- "biggest win in school history" What does "biggest" mean?
- "Highest-profile", perhaps?
- "including three losses in their last four games" Weren't we just told this?
- Removed. I typically prefer to explicitly state things for the reader (as if you couldn't tell), but I'd agree with you that's a little too much.
- " season that had begun with hopes of participation in " Bit awkward, especially with those three rapid-fire prepositions.
- Changed to simple past tense.
- "began the 2003 season after going 7–5 the previous season, culminating in a 30–7 victory" "began the 2003 season" adds nothing here (and only leads to awkward sentence structure) since the rest of the sentence is about the previous one, and in fact, the rest of the paragraph does not broach the 2003 season.
- Fixed.
- " in
what wasthe season opener for both teams."- Fixed.
- "game, which was played at home. The Bears outscored the visiting Southern Miss Golden" More redundancies. One will suffice: "which was played at home" or "visiting".
- Fixed.
- "but hadn't been able to earn the win" More contractions! BuddingJournalist 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- "ended in a 52–49 victory for California. Cal and Virginia Tech combined for 101 points; only one bowl game in history, the 2001 GMAC Bowl, saw more points scored by the two teams in regulation." I think we can assume readers can do the math themselves. "Regulation" should probably be linked somewhere. Redundancies: "only one bowl game, the 2001 GMAC Bowl, saw more points scored in regulation".
Thanks very much for taking the time to take a Weed Whacker to some of this prose. It definitely can be quite dense at times, but I really appreciate it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't had time to re-read the article yet, but I'm striking my oppose for now since I will be traveling for the next few days. BuddingJournalist 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 File:InsightBowlLogo.png - The fair use rationale for "2003 Insight Bowl" is missing a specific "purpose of use". It simply says "For use on the Insight Bowl article and related articles". See this dispatch on non-free images for help writing purposes of use, particularly the section at the end. The fair use rationale also needs to indicate who owns the logo. Awadewit (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads up on this one. I've removed two other uses for that logo (they should've been using a different one) and replaced the boilerplate with the newer version that has been provided. I've also expressed that this is a historical logo no longer in active use by the Fiesta Bowl, which is the parent company/organization (as far as I can tell) of the Insight Bowl. Feel free to take a look and let me know if I'm missing anything else with that. I'm definitely not an expert on the intricacies of copyright law. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! Thank you! Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "
But in that quarter, the Hokies clawed back into competition."
- Removed.
"The Hokiesthenevened the score at 49–49 "
- Removed.
"Big East champion Miami was awarded an automatic Bowl Championship Series game spot" "game spot"-->berth.
- Fixed.
"while second-place Pittsburgh accepted a bid to the Continental Tire Bowl in Charlotte, North Carolina." "while"-->and, this is additive info.
- Fixed.
"In its seventh game, however, Tech suffered its first loss. " False contrast, with "however", sounds like Tech lost in spite of its six previous wins, which in all likelihood had little tangible effect on its loss.
- Fixed.
"third-ranked Tech lost 28–7 to the No. 23 Mountaineers" Add "the" before "third-ranked".
- Fixed. I also changed Tech to "Hokies" in order to have agreement with the "the".
"Virginia Tech running back Kevin Jones drew media attention one day after Virginia Tech's selection for the Insight Bowl" Comma after this phrase.
- Rewritten.
"The only first-team All-America player for the Hokies," That season, or all-time (although I have no doubt that it is the former).
- Rewritten.
"successfully completed just 14 field goals in 29 attempts"-->converted just 14 field goals in 29 attempts
- Rewritten.
- Audit throughout the article for cases in which comparative quantities are not written out the same way as dictated by MOSNUM (all numerals or all words). Some examples:
"Hall finished the regular season with 54 tackles and one interception.""he returned 30 punts for 434 yards and two touchdowns.""who accumulated 99 tackles—the most on the team—and two interceptions"
"despite only playing three games for the Bears"-->despite playing only three games for the Bears
Will return for the rest of the article tomorrow Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- Thanks. Can't wait to see what you turn up for the rest! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"On December 24, two days prior to the game" "prior to"-->before.
- Fixed.
"making it the 13th most-viewed bowl game that season and the fourth highest-rated of the 20 bowl games broadcast on ESPN that season." Despite being a follower of college football, I don't quite understand what "fourth highest-rated" means. Was it the fourth game to be the highest-rated? I think the hyphen use is wrong here.
- Fixed. I was referring to the television rating, and I've rewritten that sentence.
"After the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, California received the ball to begin the game."-->After the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, California chose to receive the ball to begin the game.
- Fixed.
"Running back Adimchinobe Echemandu ran the ball twice for short gains each time, but Rodgers continued making long passes" Change "but" to "and", and "continued making"-->continued to make.
- Fixed.
"During the post-touchdown kickoff, Virginia Tech's Mike Imoh fielded the ball and returned the kick 52 yards"-->Virginia Tech's Mike Imoh fielded the post-touchdown kickoff, returning the kick 52 yards.
- Fixed.
"Though Tech quarterback" "Though"-->Although, we want a slightly more formal register here.
- Fixed.
"capitalized on a two-yard touchdown run" "capitalized"-->scored, as I don't understand what there was to capitalize on.
- Fixed.
- "
Unfortunately for the Bears" Your journalistic elements are showing through...
- Fixed.
"California began its next drive at its 29-yard line following a short kickoff return" "following"-->after, this avoids the clumsy noun + -ing construction
- Fixed.
"Owing to the limited time available, it seemed as if Tech would simply run out the clock and head into halftime with the lead. " Original research?
- Removed. That was based on a series of comments the TV announcers made during the game. Since there's no cite, it's best to simply remove that sentence.
"It took California just 2:44 in game time to advance 88 yards for a touchdown" Let the stats speak for themselves.
- Fixed.
"It took California just three plays to earn a touchdown from its 34-yard line."
- Fixed.
"Tech was forced to punt after just three plays and four yards"-->Tech was forced to punt after running three plays for four yards
- Fixed.
- "
In total, California ran 7:09 off the clock before Vincent Strang broke free for a 13-yard rush that resulted in a touchdown."
- Fixed.
"kicking the ball four times for 159 total punting yards" Another one of those comparative quantities instances.
- Fixed. I really don't like that rule.
"Echemandu had one rushing touchdown, while Rodgers earned two." "while"-->and.
- Fixed.
- "
In total, Virginia Tech's offense broke or tied 14 school bowl records, either individually or as a team."
- Fixed.
"He led all defensive players with 12 total tackles in the game."
- Fixed.
"California's win brought it to a final record of 8–6,[31] while Virginia Tech's loss took it to a final record of 8–5." Don't like the use of "brought it" and "took it".
- Fixed.
"Virginia Tech had five players selected: DeAngelo Hall and Kevin Jones were both taken in the first round, while Jake Grove was selected in the second, Ernest Wilford in the fourth, and Nathaniel Adibi in the fifth." "while"-->and.
- Fixed.
The formatting of ref 73 is different from the rest.Dabomb87 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That ref is the only book ref and it uses an automatic citation template. I believe someone else added it.
- Thanks for all the suggestions! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After the many revisions detailed above, it meets the standards set by other bowl game featured articles. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another well written bowl article. All major issues have been addressed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see the author first in the citations, but since author is consistently placed after the title, I'll pass this anyway (although it greatly pains me to pass an article in which Cal Berkeley won the Big Game). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally write it that way Sandy, but this is an older article from before I settled on that style. Rather than trying to switch everything around, I just tried to make it internally consistent. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:31, 10 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 [15].
- 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 [16].
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 [17].
"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 [18].
- 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 [19].
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 [20].
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 [22]. 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 [25]. 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. [26] 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 [27] 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 [28] 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 [28] 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 [29].
- 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 [30].
- File:USS Iowa (BB-61) placing powder bags.jpg- Fixed [31].
- File:Number 2 turret center gun fires Iowas 1000th round since recommissioning.jpg- Fixed [32].
- 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 [33]. In any case, I added the article name to the justification heading [34].
- Clayton Hartwig is a key figure in the controversy surrounding the Navy's investigation into the explosion. Thus, I felt it of educational benefit [35] 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 [36]. 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 [37].
- File:Richard Milligan.jpg - Fixed [38].
- File:KelsoIowaBrief.JPEG- Fixed [39].
- 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 [40]. 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 [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. 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 [46].
- 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 [47].
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 [48], 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 [49].
- 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.[50] 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 [51].
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.